Scientific proof that God exists?

[(oYo)]

[1713972173]

1713972173

[1713972173]

1713972173

[1713972173]

1713972173

[1713972173]

1713972173

[1713972173]

1713972173

[1713972173]

1713972173

[BADecker]

...

In Genesis, it never says that God created the universe after the "universal war" between the angels and satan/followers. Correct. But the bible is a lot larger than only Genesis. Jesus, Himself, says, "I saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightening." Also, it's clear you've never taken theology(Which all priests are required to do). To be honest, you should just stop talking BADecker. Even the priest at my local church would frown/laugh at what you've written. The Genesis portion of the bible is considered by most biblical historians to be Symbolic, and not literal, especially since back when these chapters were supposedly written, there Were No 24 hour Day Calendars aka The gregorian calendar did not exist yet, which is why "God creating the universe is 6 days" is regarded as Symbolic. "The evening and the morning were the first day." Nothing hard to understand about this except why people want to corrupt the simple understanding of what the Bible says. You and whoever else believes that God created the world in 6 days is an idiot, and truly needs to go back to school. From that you can also see just how much the bible has been edited over the centuries(Genesis was edited), and why most of the things in there are symbolic or simply false. Anyone who limits the ability of God to create a universe in even 1 minute, needs to have his head examined, because he hasn't even started to consider the greatness of God.

Literally every sentence you write makes me feel like you dropped out of school in 3rd grade BADecker. At least research before you come up with bullshit that not even fellow christians would accept. Past Bible scholars didn't have the scientific thinking that we have now. Also, there are many ways to combine the various parts of the Bible to come up with all kinds of ideas. If you would take the time to study the Bible, you would find that I have only scratched the surface of the great amount of knowledge that exists therein.

----------

Take a look at the sequence of creation in Genesis.

1. God creates the Heavens and the Earth - space and material. God was hovering over the waters of the earth (material).

2. God crates light - makes the electromagnetic spectrum along with some of the dimensions that separate the electromagnetic qualities of material from the electromagnetic qualities of energy.

3. God separated the waters on earth. He separated them by making an expanse between them. The expanse He called "sky." - In other words, God separated the materials from which He would make our actual earth, from the materials out of which he would later make the stars.

4. God separated the waters on our Earth (under the expanse of the sky) from the ground (solid material), thereby making dry ground appear. - The waters were a form of thin mud-like substance before God separated the land materials from the water.

5. God made the plants. - Plants were here before the materials (water) He had moved into the sky (expanse) had been turned into the stars. Did the plants need the sun to live? No. The light that God made the first day would be enough to keep them for the short time that it took to make the sun.

6. God made the sun, moon and stars. - In the Revelation, the tail of the dragon (Satan) swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The stars are equated with angels. The Bible scholars mostly agree with this. When did this happen?

7. God made sea creatures and birds.

8. God made land creatures and man.

----------

When man sinned, Satan was already in the earth. He took the form of the serpent.

Jesus saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightening.

The Revelation talks about the war in Heaven between Satan and the archangel, Michael. Satan lost, and was cast to the earth.

In the beginning of the creation story, before the light was created, before the energies were settled in their cosmic and physics form, God says in Genesis chapter 1, verse 2: "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." The word "was" is the same word that means "became."

In other words, there was Heaven and Earth that had been created in the beginning. It was our universe, but in a different "way." It may have had stars and planets. Nobody knows. It DID have the angels. There was a war among the angels in Heaven. Satan and his gang lost the war, the whole creation changed, and God started over rebuilding it in verse 3 with His newly formed light, since even the physics of the previous existence had been turned into mush.

Think about it. See the many things we are missing by not applying the whole Bible to the things that exist and how they came into being.

God is positive. God is against destruction. God renews things. And the next time He will renew "stuff" by making a whole new universe and destroying this one.

Anybody who reads this post, will probably want to say all kinds of things about my comments here. I don't have all the answers. And nobody else does either. There is a lot of "stuff" that is unclear to everyone, but mostly to the people who remain in ignorance intentionally, by not accepting the evidence for God all around them in the universe and nature.

[BADecker]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

The Math Induction Strategy

Mathematical Induction works like this: Suppose you want to prove a theorem in the form "For all integers n greater than equal to a, P(n) is true". P(n) must be an assertion that we wish to be true for all n = a, a+1, ...; like a formula. You first verify the initial step. That is, you must verify that P(a) is true. Next comes the inductive step. Here you must prove "If there is a k, greater than or equal to a, for which P(k) is true, then for this same k, P(k+1) is true."

Since you have verified P(a), it follows from the inductive step that P(a+1) is true, and hence, P(a+2) is true, and hence P(a+3) is true, and so on. In this way the theorem has been proved.

(Red colorization mine.)

“The problem with the idea of proof is” (BADecker) that infinite physical evidence cannot be considered, simultaneously, by a finite physical system.

Yet the qualities of the finite system can strongly suggest that there is an infinite system.

[XinXan]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

God, in the offer of freedom, has allowed people to do evil as well as good. - That means god is not good

God doesn't like the evil because it harms the people who do it. - He obviously does like evil(And he tolerates it, if he didn't there would be no evil), because he continues to let evil room. Did he save any of those 6 million+ jews from getting slaughtered like barn animals by Hitler? No. + many more examples.

God is doing away with the evil, and He is doing away with the ability to do evil any longer. - No he is not, hundreds of thousands of people are murdered yearly.

Because of the tremendous greatness with which He set this universe up, the way He is doing away with evil is to destroy this universe. - So he's going to "destroy" this universe to do away with evil, really, that's your answer?

God is offering the people who want to get out of the evil, the chance to join Him in the new universe He is setting up. - Makes no sense, see XinXan's post, and the very chapter of Revealations itself is regarded as Symolic, not to be taken literally, just like Genesis. I advise you to take theology...

God, in the offer of freedom, is allowing people the opportunity to remain in the evil, by not believing in and accepting Him, so they essentially are destroyed right along with the rest of the evil when He completely dissolves this universe. - Again, see XinXan's post, by God allowing evil, that means he himself is not good.

Where do you want to be? destroyed with the evil? or saved with the good? If you want to be saved with the good, you better start believing in God the right way. Otherwise you are being evil, and will be destroyed with the rest of the evil, as you have asked, by remaining in unbelief regarding God. - Again, see XinXan's post.

The purpose of XinXan's questions and the answers are there to illustrate that: God either doesn't exist, isn't "god"(Can't do all things), or he's not a good "god".

There's 3 answers and XinXan described it perfectly.

P.S. None of BADecker's statements made sense, at all.


And with that, so long. There's no further point in discussing this.

I couldnt really understand most of his arguments but here comes this: if heaven really exists and heaven is a place that allows no evil then there is no frewill there and since humans have the potential for evil it would mean that we would be robots in heaven since no human will ever be able to do evil things again and if that is possible why god couldnt do that since the begining?

You have some preconceived notions about God while at the same time you (and science) don't understand some of the basics of the laws of the universe.

My wording, above, isn't exactly individual arguments. They are a sequence. The whole point of it is, God ABSOLUTELY IS preventing the evil. This earth, this life, even this universe is being taken out of existence so that the evil will not only be prevented, but also destroyed. The New Universe that God is making is the place that won't have any evil. God is God. The New Universe will have universal physics laws that are different than these. There will be freedom as well as no ability to do evil. God can do it.

Why doesn't God simply do away with the evil here? Because He built a universe where people are so deeply embedded with part of His nature, at the same time that people themselves spiritually are integrally woven into the laws of the universe in ways way beyond understanding of science at present, that if He simply destroyed the evil, He would have to destroy the people. Rather, God is giving us this short life to allow us the time to decide if we want to continue to be evil, or if we would rather join Him with the good in the New Universe.

God's idea behind making a free universe, where people had the freedom to do evil, was not so that they would do the evil, but so that they would use their freedom to show greater love for Him by NOT doing the evil. If the ability to do evil was not present, there would not be the ability to show the greater love.

The fact that God prepared the way out of the evil through faith in Him and in the salvation that His Son, Jesus, provides, shows that He is saving people from the evil. People, by not accepting the salvation that God provides, or by not accepting that God even exists right in the face of all the evidence to the opposite, show that they would rather remain in the evil.

Pretty cool stuff but where is exactly the proof of anything that you said? Oh i will tell you there is not

[Buffer Overflow]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Your not exempt from that as well you know.

[XinXan]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Your not exempt from that as well you know.

Exactly, like it happens with evolution?? Mr BAdecker?? There are thousands of proofs of evolution yet seems like you are so extremely stubborn to keep believing the contrary

[Buffer Overflow]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Your not exempt from that as well you know.

Exactly, like it happens with evolution?? Mr BAdecker?? There are thousands of proofs of evolution yet seems like you are so extremely stubborn to keep believing the contrary

It's quite puzzling why BADdecker gets all aerated about evolution. There's still room for his god.
God could of sparked life in the beginning, and evolution could of taken over from there.

[BADecker]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Your not exempt from that as well you know.

Exactly, like it happens with evolution?? Mr BAdecker?? There are thousands of proofs of evolution yet seems like you are so extremely stubborn to keep believing the contrary

Here is the evolutionist's deception.

The term or process called "evolution," includes inanimate materials becoming alive. There is absolutely no evidence for such.

If Evolution included only change, it bight be absolutely correct.

Many people include the idea of pure randomness in the idea of evolution. There is absolutely no evidence for pure randomness. All that we see operates by cause and effect, action and reaction.

As I have stated in other posts, consider billiards, the game of pool. If a good pool player hits a ball that hits another ball that hits a third ball that hits a fourth ball that hits a fifth ball that knocks a sixth ball into a predetermined pocket... such a thing might be unheard of. If it has been done, it is an extremely rare happening.

So, take a look at the Big Bang. The BB blast (if it existed) created cause and effect that was so extremely controlled that it produced all kinds of cause and effect actions over billions of years, and came up with the complexity of universal physics, life and and thought in humankind. It would be quadrillions of times easier for the inventor of billiards (whoever and whenever he might have lived) to have, with his first hit of a ball, knocked all the billiard balls that have ever existed in all the billiard games that have ever existed into predetermined pockets.

Evolution is an utter stupidity when you apply to the term everything that is being applied. If you are only talking about change, then call it change, not evolution. Or explain it as change, not as the impossible thing that it is being explained as.



EDIT: If the Big Bang and Evolution created something like human thought through its process of cause and effect, then call it what it is... God.

[XinXan]

Still waiting for the scientific proof. After all the thred is called that. Almost 200 pages with ribbish? Where is the proof?

The problem with the idea of proof is, people are built in ways that make them so extremely stubborn that millions of pieces of evidence could jump right up and bite them in the left eye, and that still wouldn't be proof for them.

Your not exempt from that as well you know.

Exactly, like it happens with evolution?? Mr BAdecker?? There are thousands of proofs of evolution yet seems like you are so extremely stubborn to keep believing the contrary

Here is the evolutionist's deception.

The term or process called "evolution," includes inanimate materials becoming alive. There is absolutely no evidence for such.

If Evolution included only change, it bight be absolutely correct.

Many people include the idea of pure randomness in the idea of evolution. There is absolutely no evidence for pure randomness. All that we see operates by cause and effect, action and reaction.

As I have stated in other posts, consider billiards, the game of pool. If a good pool player hits a ball that hits another ball that hits a third ball that hits a fourth ball that hits a fifth ball that knocks a sixth ball into a predetermined pocket... such a thing might be unheard of. If it has been done, it is an extremely rare happening.

So, take a look at the Big Bang. The BB blast (if it existed) created cause and effect that was so extremely controlled that it produced all kinds of cause and effect actions over billions of years, and came up with the complexity of universal physics, life and and thought in humankind. It would be quadrillions of times easier for the inventor of billiards (whoever and whenever he might have lived) to have, with his first hit of a ball, knocked all the billiard balls that have ever existed in all the billiard games that have ever existed into predetermined pockets.

Evolution is an utter stupidity when you apply to the term everything that is being applied. If you are only talking about change, then call it change, not evolution. Or explain it as change, not as the impossible thing that it is being explained as.

Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution is anything but random.

[BADecker]

Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution is anything but random.

From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml:

When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.

That sure sounds to me that life came from non-life. the word "inanimate" means not alive.

Now, I don't blame you evolutionists. If I believed that there wasn't any God, and if some joker called "BADecker" came along and proved to me that the very sequence of happenings that I had been using to suggest that there couldn't be any God, was the exact thing that was showing that God absolutely had to exist, I'd be upset, too, and would want to get off track of the idea.

[XinXan]

Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution is anything but random.

From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml:

When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.

That sure sounds to me that life came from non-life. the word "inanimate" means not alive.

Now, I don't blame you evolutionists. If I believed that there wasn't any God, and if some joker called "BADecker" came along and proved to me that the very sequence of happenings that I had been using to suggest that there couldn't be any God, was the exact thing that was showing that God absolutely had to exist, I'd be upset, too, and would want to get off track of the idea.

Didnt you just ask your own question? You ask how is it possible that life came from something not alive, well there is the explanation : This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure.

You really just asked your own question and you dont even notice haha

[BADecker]

Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution is anything but random.

From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml:

When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.

That sure sounds to me that life came from non-life. the word "inanimate" means not alive.

Now, I don't blame you evolutionists. If I believed that there wasn't any God, and if some joker called "BADecker" came along and proved to me that the very sequence of happenings that I had been using to suggest that there couldn't be any God, was the exact thing that was showing that God absolutely had to exist, I'd be upset, too, and would want to get off track of the idea.

Didnt you just ask your own question? You ask how is it possible that life came from something not alive, well there is the explanation : This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure.

You really just asked your own question and you dont even notice haha

Certainly, I don't believe in your God - the Big Bang/Evolution Process as it is explained. It is so full of holes that it couldn't hold any water at all.

In the first place, nobody has been able to take all of the observations about change, and put them together in a truly organized fashion that could be used to show that no-life-to-mankind is actually plausible. Some sections of it might be plausible. But we don't have a whole, even plausible set of examples where we can say, "It definitely could have happened this way." There are still too many holes, too many unknowns in the process.

However, if we had a plausible process, we still don't know if that is how it happened. There are too many variables of the suggested billions of years to say that we absolutely, irrefutably know that this is the way it actually did happen.

When you ad in cause and effect in all of it, there is no way that the idea of "God" can be left out.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not assigning any religious qualities to this God at this time, except that He (She/It) is very Great. I'm simply saying that cause and effect that can produce the elements of higher thinking in man, and that can produce what looks like design way greater than anything that man can almost dream of, certainly fits the term/word "God."

Once we accept the truth that there is God behind this thing, then we need to start examining to see if He is talking to us in some way. If we can find a way to communicate with the Great First Cause, why do all this crazy research? Let's ask God?



EDIT: If God explained His process for making the universe in all its complexity, do you think that we have enough brains to understand it? Perhaps we haven't been built into the Universe for understanding how it works. Maybe our purpose is something else.

[XinXan]

Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution is anything but random.

From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml:

When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.

That sure sounds to me that life came from non-life. the word "inanimate" means not alive.

Now, I don't blame you evolutionists. If I believed that there wasn't any God, and if some joker called "BADecker" came along and proved to me that the very sequence of happenings that I had been using to suggest that there couldn't be any God, was the exact thing that was showing that God absolutely had to exist, I'd be upset, too, and would want to get off track of the idea.

Didnt you just ask your own question? You ask how is it possible that life came from something not alive, well there is the explanation : This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure.

You really just asked your own question and you dont even notice haha

Certainly, I don't believe in your God - the Big Bang/Evolution Process as it is explained. It is so full of holes that it couldn't hold any water at all.

In the first place, nobody has been able to take all of the observations about change, and put them together in a truly organized fashion that could be used to show that no-life-to-mankind is actually plausible. Some sections of it might be plausible. But we don't have a whole, even plausible set of examples where we can say, "It definitely could have happened this way." There are still too many holes, too many unknowns in the process.

However, if we had a plausible process, we still don't know if that is how it happened. There are too many variables of the suggested billions of years to say that we absolutely, irrefutably know that this is the way it actually did happen.

When you ad in cause and effect in all of it, there is no way that the idea of "God" can be left out.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not assigning any religious qualities to this God at this time, except that He (She/It) is very Great. I'm simply saying that cause and effect that can produce the elements of higher thinking in man, and that can produce what looks like design way greater than anything that man can almost dream of, certainly fits the term/word "God."

Once we accept the truth that there is God behind this thing, then we need to start examining to see if He is talking to us in some way. If we can find a way to communicate with the Great First Cause, why do all this crazy research? Let's ask God?



EDIT: If God explained His process for making the universe in all its complexity, do you think that we have enough brains to understand it? Perhaps we haven't been built into the Universe for understanding how it works. Maybe our purpose is something else.

You are trying to prove that evolution and other theories are bad or they are a failure, even if that was the case that still doesnt prove in any way that God exists, you say there is no way the idea of God can be left out, why? You still didnt give any proof of God at all, you are just trying to prove wrong other theories but proving wrong other theories dont make God real.

[sitael]

Thank you all, great to see that some bitcoiners are philosophers too. What do you guys think about "universe as computer simulation" theory? http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-prove-that-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation this could mean that God is a programmer and the Universe as well as us are "just" complex programs.. Paper: https://www.fat.bme.hu/student/pub/Programozas3/SimulationArgument.pdf

I actually asked my computer science professor about this today (he is researching AIs/ fractals/ chaotic systems etc.) and he told me that it's pretty obvious that the universe is computing "something".. he is an atheist though.  

[XinXan]

Thank you all, great to see that some bitcoiners are philosophers too. What do you guys think about "universe as computer simulation" theory? http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-prove-that-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation this could mean that God is a programmer and the Universe as well as us are "just" complex programs.. Paper: https://www.fat.bme.hu/student/pub/Programozas3/SimulationArgument.pdf

I actually asked my computer science professor about this today and from his point of view (he is researching AIs/ fractals/ chaotic systems etc.) and he told me that it's pretty obvious that the universe is computing "something".. he is atheist though. 

If there is any God, like in God being a superior being it wont be the God from the bible or any other religion.

[sitael]

Thank you all, great to see that some bitcoiners are philosophers too. What do you guys think about "universe as computer simulation" theory? http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-prove-that-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation this could mean that God is a programmer and the Universe as well as us are "just" complex programs.. Paper: https://www.fat.bme.hu/student/pub/Programozas3/SimulationArgument.pdf

I actually asked my computer science professor about this today and from his point of view (he is researching AIs/ fractals/ chaotic systems etc.) and he told me that it's pretty obvious that the universe is computing "something".. he is atheist though. 

If there is any God, like in God being a superior being it wont be the God from the bible or any other religion.

Yeah, that's exactly what I think.

[BADecker]

Well i dont know what you mean that evolution includes inanimate materials becoming alive, evolution is not the theory of HOW LIFE WAS FORMED IN THE BEGINING, it is exactly what you said, evolution is change. I let you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution is anything but random.

From http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml:

When did life originate?
Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.

That sure sounds to me that life came from non-life. the word "inanimate" means not alive.

Now, I don't blame you evolutionists. If I believed that there wasn't any God, and if some joker called "BADecker" came along and proved to me that the very sequence of happenings that I had been using to suggest that there couldn't be any God, was the exact thing that was showing that God absolutely had to exist, I'd be upset, too, and would want to get off track of the idea.

Didnt you just ask your own question? You ask how is it possible that life came from something not alive, well there is the explanation : This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure.

You really just asked your own question and you dont even notice haha

Certainly, I don't believe in your God - the Big Bang/Evolution Process as it is explained. It is so full of holes that it couldn't hold any water at all.

In the first place, nobody has been able to take all of the observations about change, and put them together in a truly organized fashion that could be used to show that no-life-to-mankind is actually plausible. Some sections of it might be plausible. But we don't have a whole, even plausible set of examples where we can say, "It definitely could have happened this way." There are still too many holes, too many unknowns in the process.

However, if we had a plausible process, we still don't know if that is how it happened. There are too many variables of the suggested billions of years to say that we absolutely, irrefutably know that this is the way it actually did happen.

When you ad in cause and effect in all of it, there is no way that the idea of "God" can be left out.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not assigning any religious qualities to this God at this time, except that He (She/It) is very Great. I'm simply saying that cause and effect that can produce the elements of higher thinking in man, and that can produce what looks like design way greater than anything that man can almost dream of, certainly fits the term/word "God."

Once we accept the truth that there is God behind this thing, then we need to start examining to see if He is talking to us in some way. If we can find a way to communicate with the Great First Cause, why do all this crazy research? Let's ask God?



EDIT: If God explained His process for making the universe in all its complexity, do you think that we have enough brains to understand it? Perhaps we haven't been built into the Universe for understanding how it works. Maybe our purpose is something else.

You are trying to prove that evolution and other theories are bad or they are a failure, even if that was the case that still doesnt prove in any way that God exists, you say there is no way the idea of God can be left out, why? You still didnt give any proof of God at all, you are just trying to prove wrong other theories but proving wrong other theories dont make God real.

You are trying to tell me what I am trying to do? Evolution and similar ideas are NOT a failure. Scientists are a failure at using them to prove much of anything.

Like I said earlier, you are powerful enough that if you want to deny the multitudes of evidence for the existence of God, you can do it, even if it jumps up and bites you in the left eye.

Nothing makes God real or not real. However, if God doesn't exist, then nothing exists, because the highly complex universe operations - including the complex thinking that man has - just don't happen by accident because they "feel" like it today. Science shows that there are causes for everything that exists, and that the causes have to be at least as great as the things that they cause.

You are simply trying to deny yourself right out of existence. And that will happen when you die.

[XinXan]

But yet again you still didnt provide any proof at all, you are just saying that god has to exist, there must be a god. Well why dont you tell us why there ''must'' be a god? Because scientists proved that everything has a cause? So what? In what way does that prove that God exist?

Then again, proofs, show me the proofs.

[BADecker]

But yet again you still didnt provide any proof at all, you are just saying that god has to exist, there must be a god. Well why dont you tell us why there ''must'' be a god? Because scientists proved that everything has a cause? So what? In what way does that prove that God exist?

Then again, proofs, show me the proofs.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof?s=t:

proof
[proof]

noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.
9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.
10. Distilling.
    the arbitrary standard strength, as of an alcoholic liquor.
    strength with reference to this standard: “100 proof” signifies a proof spirit, usually 50% alcohol.

11. Photography. a trial print from a negative.
12. Printing.
    a trial impression, as of composed type, taken to correct errors and make alterations.
    one of a number of early and superior impressions taken before the printing of the ordinary issue:
    to pull a proof.

13. (in printmaking) an impression taken from a plate or the like to show the quality or condition of work during the process of execution; a print pulled for examination while working on a plate, block, stone, etc.
14. Numismatics. one of a limited number of coins of a new issue struck from polished dies on a blank having a polished or matte surface.
15. the state of having been tested and approved.
16. proved strength, as of armor.
17. Scots Law. the trial of a case by a judge alone, without a jury.

adjective
18. able to withstand; successful in not being overcome: proof against temptation.
19. impenetrable, impervious, or invulnerable: proof against outside temperature changes.
20. used for testing or proving; serving as proof.
21. of standard strength, as an alcoholic liquor.
22. of tested or proven strength or quality: proof armor.
23. noting pieces of pure gold and silver that the U.S. assay and mint offices use as standards.

verb (used with object)
24. to test; examine for flaws, errors, etc.; check against a standard or standards.
25. Printing. prove (def 7).
26. to proofread.
27. to treat or coat for the purpose of rendering resistant to deterioration, damage, etc. (often used in combination): to proof a house against termites; to shrink-proof a shirt.
28. Cookery.
    to test the effectiveness of (yeast), as by combining with warm water so that a bubbling action occurs.
    to cause (especially bread dough) to rise due to the addition of baker's yeast or other leavening.

Definition #1 above will suit our purposes quite well.


Machine-like nature of the universe.
     All around us, in nature and the universe we see machine-like operations. These operations are extremely complex inside life and the cells. Machines have makers.
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMn319zkZ2s
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao9cVhwPg84


Machine usage is in progression.
     Animals use simple machines. Some primates (apes, chimps, monkeys) use rocks and sticks to work their food. The leverage they provide with the rocks and sticks is machine use.
     People use simple machines. People make and use complex machines. All machines that people and animals make and use come from examples of machine operations in the universe.
     The progression is that, as the machines that people make and use are far more advanced than the ones that animals make and use, so are the machines that exist in nature far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.


Cause and effect, action and reaction.
     Perhaps there is quantum math that proves that pure randomness can exist. (Pure randomness is happenstance that is entirely spontaneous, without a cause.) Quantum math is such that, whatever can be proven by using it, the opposite can also be proven by using it. The reason for this is that quantum mechanics is merely probability, no matter how complex it may be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo
     Thus far in nature, we haven't been able to find any pure randomness. All actions in nature - even our thought processes - are produced by causes, whatever the causes may be. This means that the machinery of the universe, including mankind and his thinking, was designed by a Great First Cause, Which set everything in motion.
     A simple example of this is billiards, the game of pool. A master pool shark hits a ball that strikes a second ball that strikes a third ball that strikes a fourth ball that strikes a fifth ball that knocks a sixth ball into a predetermined pocket.
     In an almost infinitely more complex and complicated way, whatever the Great First Cause that started the actions and reactions of the universe going is, He (She/It) built people and their complex thinking by innumerable cause and effect operations down through the ages. We see nothing else, no other methodology in the universe.
     The older the age of the universe, the more complex and far greater the Great First Cause must be. Why? He had to set up a much more complex chain reaction of causes and effects that lasted over a longer period of time to get the complex results we see today in nature and the universe.


The nations look for God.
     The vast majority of people recognize the greatness of the universe, naturally. They recognize that Something very great must have caused the universe and nature to come into existence. They know it is not themselves, because try as they might, they can't affect nature except in extremely limited ways. They can't stop themselves from aging and dying.
     People recognize that as they can think, there must be Something that can think far beyond what they can. This is instinctive, natural knowledge. That is part of the reason that people throughout the world look for God. That's part of the reason that there are religions. People know in their hearts, inner minds, and spirits that God must exist.
      Usually it is the frustration of certain people in being unable to determine much of anything about God, that they simply throw in the towel, so to speak, and give up on the idea of God. Way down deep in their hearts they know that God exists. But because of circumstances and their inability to find Him, they attempt to entirely push Him out of their lives. And many of them succeed to a great extent.

----------

There you have it. The evidences for God are in the machine-like qualities of the universe (machines have makers), the fact of cause and effect as the example of design, the evidences of the majorities of people being at least religious, and the fact of the strength of frustrated people who embrace the religion of atheism.

Such strength of faith you have! You are willing and able to push the untold quadrillions of pieces of evidence for the existence of God out of your life, and embrace the extremely fewer pieces of evidence that suggest that God doesn't exist. God would like to have people of your strength of faith in His Kingdom.

God is our friend. Come and join us in seeking Him, so that we can find a clarification of the reasons He has caused us to exist.



EDIT: By the way, thank you for prompting me to write this so that our readers will have a clearer picture of the fact that God exists.

[Decksperiment]

Prove it.. Show us this picture you speak of, since you seem to have a grasp of a truth you cant prove..