Proofs for existence of God

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by presser_kun

You have me there, and your words bring to mind an old joke:

Descartes was sitting in a coffee shop when a waitress approached him and asked if he'd like a refill. "I think not," he said, and promptly vanished.

peace,

press

Man mimics what he observes (he may not know he is observing, but over time it becomes self evident). Do you agree or not?

Man, knowing he can not dedicate his time, effort and focus on deciphering the wonders of the universe (read that as can't keep up with the math), builds a machine to assist him. In fact he builds three super machines capable of billions of calculations per second, for what? To decode human DNA. It takes three super computers 7 years to sequence human DNA.

The results show a formula so refined that one "switch" turned off or on in this sequence results in Man not existing at all. Another switch turned on or off, results in male becoming female. And another switch on or off results in teeth growing from the heel, or two heads from one body.

Now, lets take for example the chance that nature can present to the human ear a symphony of sounds, with beat, rhythm, cresendo, climax and cull, and compare it to a human who thinks of a song, then makes the song happen...

Which is more likely to occur first? Why?

My point is that the proof of God's existence is right in front of our noses.

The only life forms on this planet that question the existence of God is us. And we are the only life forms that force nature to bend to our will. We don't adapt, we force nature to adapt to us.

Were did we get these ideas from? Our fellow flora and fauna? I think not.

Rather that go with the flow, we are the only "beasts" here that fight the current. And we never give up fighting the way of things.

Individuality is so strong in man, that we will suffer heat and cold (at first), before we decide the wisdom in surviving is to huddle together. Where did that come from? We share what we have, though it means shortened life span...why? We aren't talking a progression of our progeny here. We do it for strangers! Why?

Man is counter revolutionary to nature, in almost everything he does (consciously). Where did that come from? How come no other animal does the same thing? We leave the very planet that sustains our existence! And we take our atmosphere with us. We don't adapt to space, we make space adapt to us...why?

In most courts, circumstantial evidence is enough to convict, especially if the evidence is overwhelming...why is the concept of God different?

Want proof that God exists? Have a look at the blue prints that made you. Put on paper, it would require a couple thousand square miles of trees to be cut down. And that is just one human's "blue prints". Each one of us is unique...where did that come from? Random factors? Natural selection? Why then do we struggle to support those of us we deem not fit for survival on their own? And we do fight to keep our "damaged goods" viable...because they have infinite value to us and our lives. They are us, just more physically handicapped than we show ourselves to be.

Where did that come from? No other animal on earth does that. God definitely exists, and the proof is self evident. Selective blindness is no excuse.

v/r

Q

"There is something out there Ray, and if I have the courage, I will find it..."

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

My point is that the proof of God's existence is right in front of our noses.

Which one? In what way is your evidence for your god not evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

More importantly, how does the discovery of DNA lend any credence to the existence of supernatural deities?

Originally Posted by Quahom

The only life forms on this planet that question the existence of God is us.

The other animals accept it happily I suppose.

Could you provide a reference backing this assertion?

Originally Posted by Quahom

And we are the only life forms that force nature to bend to our will.

False.

Originally Posted by Quahom

We don't adapt...

Undeniably false again.

Originally Posted by Quahom

Want proof that God exists?

Beyond reasonable doubt? Oh yes, indeed.

Originally Posted by Quahom

Have a look at the blue prints that made you. Put on paper, it would require a couple thousand square miles of trees to be cut down. And that is just one human's "blue prints".

So....?

Originally Posted by Quahom

Each one of us is unique...where did that come from? Random factors? Natural selection?

Now you're getting it.

Originally Posted by Quahom

Why then do we struggle to support those of us we deem not fit for survival on their own? And we do fight to keep our "damaged goods" viable...because they have infinite value to us and our lives. They are us, just more physically handicapped than we show ourselves to be.

Where did that come from? No other animal on earth does that.

I suppose they allow beneficiaries to die? I suspect you may be wrong again Q.

Originally Posted by Quahom

God definitely exists, and the proof is self evident. Selective blindness is no excuse.

To what evidence do you propose I have a degree of selective blindness?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Which one? In what way is your evidence for your god not evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

More importantly, how does the discovery of DNA lend any credence to the existence of supernatural deities?

The other animals accept it happily I suppose.

Could you provide a reference backing this assertion?

False.

Undeniably false again.

Beyond reasonable doubt? Oh yes, indeed.

So....?

Now you're getting it.

I suppose they allow beneficiaries to die? I suspect you may be wrong again Q.

To what evidence do you propose I have a degree of selective blindness?

Fine, you present your evidence. "False, undeniably False, etc., means nothing"

Your turn.

Q

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Quahom, I sense that you and I are destined never to agree on anything at all.

Man's goodwill does seem to be evidence of some kind of spirituality, but not necassarily God.

You say Humans are the only creatures on earth who refuse to adapt to nature and make nature adapt instead, but all mamals build some sort of home, I cant think of a single one who just curls up under a bush at night. Beavers build damns which stem the flow of rivers, many primates use sticks and stones as simple tools. I would say that humans are simply better at bending nature than most creatures.

And as for your statement that we are the only beings on the planet who question the existence of God, I would say that we are the only animals who have any concept of God and as you say, even we question his existence.

Finally, your accusation of selective blindness seems baseless to me. I see all of the things you have pointed out, but all of them are explained by that fastest growing religion, science.

[Quahom1]

By the way. Arrogant superiority does not become you.

Q

[Bandit]

glad to know that science is a religion. i needed that confirmation.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I really am sorry if it comes across that way, this is just my point of view and not intended to be arrogant. If it was the destiny line that bothered you I meant that to be kind of playful.

I actually believe in and respect the Gods of all religions.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

Why not? Have I offended your sensibilities by stating that there is a God?

We learned from someone...

Sticks and stones...but man reaches for the stars...surely you jest in your apparent lowly opinion of the animal called man...?

Arrogant presumtion. To think that no creature but Man conceives of God is in itself arrogance in the extreme.

Science is not a religion. It is a tool. You see nothing I've pointed out. I made a mistake even venturing here. What's worse than an arrogant man? One who thinks he has all the answers. I presented a concept. I didn't claim I know everything or anything. You on the other hand are a different matter. I back out.

Q

[Proph 1]

One of the proof I have of God's existence is the conscience, and its conviction of morality. The book of Romans tells us that even if we do not know the Law, we will still instintively follow it, because God has written his Laws on our hearts. Also, he has given to us an inner light, a conscience, that will bare witness to his truth. Everytime we break a law, the conscience will convict us and give proof of God's law written on our heart. So, the next time you tell a lie, notice that little feeling of conviction, it is the inner light that God has given you to let you know that you need a Savior.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I have never claimed that I know everything, in fact I honestly believe that the only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing, all I have are beliefs. However, my spiritual journey is not to find any God who has the truth, but to find the ultimate truth for myself.

Also I must say I am a little bit shocked by the tone of your reply, I dont feel that I presented my arguments in any more arrogant a way than you presented yours. No, you did not offend my sensibilities by saying that there is a god, my entire family are christian, but you do seem to be very offended by my challenging just some of your assertions.

[Proph 1]

I like your signature Awaiting the Fifth!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

I have never claimed that I know everything, in fact I honestly believe that the only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing, all I have are beliefs. However, my spiritual journey is not to find any God who has the truth, but to find the ultimate truth for myself.

Also I must say I am a little bit shocked by the tone of your reply, I dont feel that I presented my arguments in any more arrogant a way than you presented yours. No, you did not offend my sensibilities by saying that there is a god, my entire family are christian, but you do seem to be very offended by my challenging just some of your assertions.

I was merely expressing my opinion. We share opinions right? That is what you said...

Probably childish, but I came over to your block to give you a bit of your own medicine.

It hurts doesn't it?

Christians are intelligent too. And at least they respect Buddha, for the wise sage he/they were/was.

You could learn from Buddha...

v/r

Q

[presser_kun]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Man mimics what he observes (he may not know he is observing, but over time it becomes self evident). Do you agree or not?

Partially. People do mimic what they observe, but it's not a given. People observe dogs licking the floor, but do not mimic it.

I don't understand how this relates to the proof of God's existence. Perhaps you're saying that humans create/design things because God does?

Man...builds three super machines capable of billions of calculations per second, for what? To decode human DNA.

DNA is complex. Granted.

Now, lets take for example the chance that nature can present to the human ear a symphony of sounds, with beat, rhythm, cresendo, climax and cull, and compare it to a human who thinks of a song, then makes the song happen...

Which is more likely to occur first? Why?

A song is more likely to occur because a human creates it. The sounds of nature are random.

Your point is, I think, that structure is evidence of a creator. This is the argument from design, usually stated by way of this analogy:

Watches have structure. Watches are designed. Therefore all things with structure must be designed. The universe has structure, so it must have been designed.

Snowflakes show structure, too, but they are not designed. Snowflake structure is explained by the natural laws that govern the crystallization of water as it freezes.

You'll say that the natural causes were designed, so the snowflake is God's handiwork.

Why?

It's self-evident, you say. But it's not self-evident to me.

When you say it's self-evident you mean that it makes sense to you. But you haven't given me a reason why it makes sense to you, other than "it's self-evident."

The proof that the watch is designed is the watchmaker. I can see watchmakers, and others have seen them.

No one has seen God.

My point is that the proof of God's existence is right in front of our noses.

What's right in front of our noses is structure. But the universe is so hugely different from the most complex things which we know have been designed that no comparison I know of is adequate. An amoeba to Albert Einstein, perhaps.

Yet that's not a big enough difference to show how far apart the universe and our most complex human-designed thing. We know next to nothing, really next to almost nothing about the universe.

I need a reason to accept the design argument. I don't think you've provided one; you've simply used it as proof of God's existence.

Thanks for your comments, btw. They've given me the opportunity to examine what I believe to be true.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by presser_kun

Partially. People do mimic what they observe, but it's not a given. People observe dogs licking the floor, but do not mimic it.

I don't understand how this relates to the proof of God's existence. Perhaps you're saying that humans create/design things because God does?


DNA is complex. Granted.


A song is more likely to occur because a human creates it. The sounds of nature are random.

Your point is, I think, that structure is evidence of a creator. This is the argument from design, usually stated by way of this analogy:

Watches have structure. Watches are designed. Therefore all things with structure must be designed. The universe has structure, so it must have been designed.

Snowflakes show structure, too, but they are not designed. Snowflake structure is explained by the natural laws that govern the crystallization of water as it freezes.

You'll say that the natural causes were designed, so the snowflake is God's handiwork.

Why?

It's self-evident, you say. But it's not self-evident to me.

When you say it's self-evident you mean that it makes sense to you. But you haven't given me a reason why it makes sense to you, other than "it's self-evident."

The proof that the watch is designed is the watchmaker. I can see watchmakers, and others have seen them.

No one has seen God.


What's right in front of our noses is structure. But the universe is so hugely different from the most complex things which we know have been designed that no comparison I know of is adequate. An amoeba to Albert Einstein, perhaps.

Yet that's not a big enough difference to show how far apart the universe and our most complex human-designed thing. We know next to nothing, really next to almost nothing about the universe.

I need a reason to accept the design argument. I don't think you've provided one; you've simply used it as proof of God's existence.

Thanks for your comments, btw. They've given me the opportunity to examine what I believe to be true.

You are quite welcome.

v/r

Q

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Fine, you present your evidence. "False, undeniably False, etc., means nothing"

I apologise. I have asked that you back your assertions while failing to do so myself. Sorry about that.

For your information:

Castor canadensis

Beavers live in lodges, of which there are three types: those built on islands, those built on the banks of ponds, and those built on the shores of lakes. The island lodge consists of a central chamber, with its floor slightly above the water level, and with two entrances. One entrance opens up into the center of the hut floor, while the other is a more abrupt descent into the water.

I'm sure if you looked around (encyclopedias, zoology journals etc) you would find many examples of animals "bend[ing]" nature (construction, tool use etc).

Re human adaptation:

RUFF, C.B. (1993) Climatic Adaptation and Hominid Evolution: the Thermoregulatory Imperative, Evolutionary Anthropology, vol. 2, no. 2, 1993.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/termo.html

A classic textbook example of human adaptation is the sickle-cell trait in many regions of Africa. Where malaria is prevalent, the defective haemoglobin gene (of sickle cell anaemia) is found at a much higher frequency. Why? Because it confers immunity to malaria.

I hope this is satisfactory. Will you now respond to my previous post?