Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes there is. Its in every flower, atom, and molecule. Its how the birds know how to fly south every winter and how the forests know how to pollinate. Its in every thought, every emotion, in everything around us. Life is perfect and it could of only have been designed because even though there is war and other atrocities life is still perfect in a scientific way when you look at how things work. Even when you break things down to the simple cell you see such an advanced structure that even humanities greatest factories cannot match what the simple cell does.

The world is perfect in the way everything flows and the same with the universe above. The biggest proof for God existing is right in front of you. With how perfect everything is there had to have been a designer.

Lets start a dream thread, shall we? How about in the Adult section in case it get silly.

Strangely enough, I never have those kinds of dreams. You know, 'adult' ones.

Are you really autistic?

In part, that is AUTISTIC thinking.

Yes, and in the criteria that does still exist for Asperger's syndrome, in the ICD 10, (International Classification for Disease, Volume 10) psychotic breaks from reality in young adulthood, are part of the more detailed diagnosis description, at least in some cases, for Asperger's Syndrome.

However, it is not schizophrenia, as schizophrenia causes lots more problems than just temporary so-called psychotic breaks from reality, through seeing and hearing stuff that is not truly there, per social-norm, anyway.

Yes, a beautiful statement of wisdom, this is.

they are not but they are the precursors to life


I'm not seeing any irony. Pretty much any action can be accelerated by intentional action of a live thing that would have happened by accident eventually from non-living forces. It's no more ironic than me throwing something in the air rather than waiting for a tornado. It doesn't mean that throwing something in the air requires intelligent intervention. It just means that tornados only come along once in a while so the time scale is slower than me throwing it. The timescale for the formation of life was a billion years.



It's a fact in short time scales. This time scale was a billion years.

One probably would say that if one was a Jesuit. Pope Francis practically did say that when he made his famous pro-evolution remarks. The Jesuits seem to be the Christians who have the easiest time finding a way to reconcile God and science. If I was Christian that is probably what I would gravitate to. Now I am a bit curious. Are you a Jesuit?

edited to add:

woops never mind that last question. Further googling tells me that Jesuits are just priests and the term does not apply to people not actually members of that priesthood. I thought it could apply to people choosing which church to attend too. So I guess if I was Christian and more specifically Catholic, I would find a church with a Jesuit priest.

Jesuits are members of the Society of Jesus. You have to be at least a Catholic priest to be a Jesuit

Science truly can be a 'beautiful' tool

to understand IS or the Force of IS aka GOD.

GOD works AS IS NOW.

Truly that's all that MATTERS NOW as THE FORCE OF IS.

AND yes, science agrees with this and even one of the most famous historical scientists, and philosophers of
SCIENCE
per Carl Sagan, when he states the beauty of nature is not the ATOMS IN it but THE WAY IT IS PUT TOGETHER



AND

THE WAY

WE ARE ALL CONNECTED.

PUT TOGETHER AND CONNECTED

IS A VERB AND NOT A NOUN.

ELEMENTS ARE NOUNS AND NOT VERBS.

SADLY, when people start to view the world as labels of nouns instead of verbs of action, one can get
anchored down in the details of the labels of nouns and never ever experience the verb of IS aka GOD

more fully AS simply ALIVE AS IS the VERB OF GOD AKA IS PER WHAT IS DOES NOW.

AND THEN some folks are worried about the past that is only an abstract concept or the future when the
actual innate instinctual intuitive experience of IS of NOW IS REAL.

AND HONESTLY, if a person spends most of their time stuck in their head with abstract CONCEPTS OF NOUNS OF
DETAILS TO LABEL AND DESCRIBE THE WORLD INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY INNATELY EXPERIENCING IT THROUGH INSTINCT
AND INTUITION FOR THEM THERE IS LESS TO NO EXPERIENCE OF THIS THING CALLED LIVING AS IS AKA BEING one with GOD AKA IS.

IT'S COMPLICATED FOR folks lost in a mechanized world of abstract details of labels to describe a life in details, RATHER than experiencing the big picture of what IS AS BLISS.

The best way to understand GOD per IS IS to escape thoughts through whatever works, whether that is YOGA, MUSIC, a frigging walk in NATURE, TRANCE DANCE LIKE ME, BALLET, MARTIAL ARTS;

YES, WHATEVER it takes to increase creative physical intelligence THEREBY better regulating emotions, integrating senses, AND ENHANCING COGNITIVE EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING BY REVVING UP FOCUS AND SHORT TERM WORKING MEMORY, TOO.

AND OH GOD THE LIST GOES ON when the mind becomes an interpreting, imagining, CREATING one of beauty and meaning INNATELY, INSTINCTUALLY, AND INTUITIVELY IN SO-CALLED 'RIGHT' BRAIN WAYS OF EXPERIENCING LIFE AS IS AKA FORCE OF GOD NOW AS IS

RATHER than a cold hard ZOMBIE-LIKE way, IN COMPARISON OF math or language equation WITH NEVER EVER TRULY fuller EXPERIENCING THE PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE OF BEAUTY, AND FEELINGS IN BOTH EMOTIONS AND SENSES OF ALL IS AKA GOD IS ALL PUT TOGETHER AS IS A BEAUTIFUL TAPESTRY NO MATTER WHY OR HOW IT COMES TO BE AS IS

SIMPLY


IS AKA

GOD.

THAT'S PROOF OF GOD.

TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT
OR SAND.

IT DOESN'T MATTER AND IT DOES MATTER
AS BOTH OF THOSE


ARE

GOD

TOO.....

SPINNING FAST AT CORE WITH ATOMS AT A DIFFERENT SPEED AS 'YOU OR I AND ME AND WE' WITH
THE BEAUTY OF THE WAY IT IS ALL PUT TOGETHER CONNECTING AS IS REGARDLESS OF HOW and WHY
IT HAPPENS PER LABELS

AND

NOUNS FOR THE SKELETON OF IS AKA SYSTEMIZING SCIENCE; A TOOL BUT NEVER EVER FULLER REALITY

AS

IS AKA GOD NOW AS VERB OF FORCE AND NEVER NOUN AS LABEL ALONE, AS A DETAIL DARK DEVIL RATHER THAN A FORCE


OF


LIGHT AND DARK


MIXED AS IS
AGAIN AKA
GOD IS NOW
AS
IS
IS.

GOD IS NOT SOME'THING' ONE READS ABOUT.
GOD IS 'SOME'THING ONE EXPERIENCES THROUGH
SENSES AND FEELINGS AS

FORCE.

AND OH MY GOD, every frigging awakened and enlightened person
back in the world of senses and feelings and out of the world of abstract
constructs of language and math equations

comes to the same basic understanding of FULLER LIFE WHEN WHEN
THEY ESCAPE THE CRAP OF ABSTRACT WRITTEN LANGUAGE,
PER LETTERS AND NUMBERS AND ALL THAT GOES WITH
THAT IN COMPLEX CULTURES

AND THEN

THEY ARE AT PEACE

NEEDING NOTHING MORE

OF WHAT CULTURE HAS TO OFFER.

I CAN'T IMAGINE A MORE BLISSFUL EXPERIENCE

OF THE FORCE OF GOD THAN WHAT THAT 'IS RIGHT NOW'

IS 'RIGHT' NOW AS

'IS'.

I mean DUH, JUST PUT A CLERICAL COLLAR ON CARL SAGAN

AND REPLACE THE LABEL OF NATURE WITH GOD

IN THE VIDEO ABOVE

AND

YA
GOT A CATHOLIC MASS PER UNIVERSAL UNDERSTANDING
OF WHAT IS PER LAWS OF NATURE AKA GOD AND THE WAY IT IS
ALL PUT TOGETHER
AS ONE

CONNECTING

FORCE!

AND MEANWHILE folks continue on with the DRIVEL OF THE DEVIL OF DETAILS......

BOTH IN CHURCH AND ANYWHERE ELSE WHERE LIMITED

FUNDAMENTALIST MATH AND OR WORD

MINDS CO-EXIST ALONE AND

RARELY TRULY TOGETHER

CONNECT

AS

IS

CAN BE NOW IS AS.

Any questions...

If not, great, as it is better
to experience GOD than TALK ABOUT GOD
IN DRIVELING devils of DETAIL LIKE THIS
TOO..

lol

It's an interesting thought.

No, I'm not a Jesuit. I'm not even Catholic. To put it in the simplest terms: What you believe or don't believe will be shaped by the assumptions you bring into it. Some people assume there is no God. I assume that there is. If you assume no God, it's easy to disprove God. If you assume there IS a God, it's easy to prove there is. I'm of the mindset that "-God" is an illogical position, and nothing makes sense apart from God existing and making it so. A question I have is "What good reason do I have to believe otherwise?" Evidence doesn't disprove God. Evidence doesn't even disprove the God of the Bible. If you are able to conclude "God," everything else falls right into place.

It's entirely philosophical. That's how the Jesuits were able to do it. If you think about it, reconciling God and science isn't all that earth-shattering.

What is difficult is getting others to understand it and accept it.

MUX was an elaborately contrived experiment that produced minute amounts of 2 very simple a.a.'s. Beef jerky or a dried date have much more (or all) of the chemical elements necessary for a live organism but they are not alive and cannot be brought to life.

That billions of years is the magic ingredient of your voodoo nonscience that can make the impossible into a "fact" should set off all the alarm bells in a functional mind.


Another example of the glib, gratuitous, mere assertions, of nonscience.


Yet another example of the glib, gratuitous, mere assertions, of nonscience.

That live organisms only ever descend from other live organisms is clearly demonstrable from any scientific experiment. Mere fanciful assertions/assumptions to the contrary should have no place in scientifically derived conclusions about the nature of reality.

Ok this one is a bafflement to me since I can't figure out if you are disagreeing with me by reflex or if you think amino acids aren't precursors to life.

You seem to be calling my assertion that amino acids are the precursors to life "another example of glib,gratuitous, mere assertions, of nonscience"

Did you just reflexively say that or do you really think that amino acids are not the precursors of life?

*Astonishment* This is way less than just silly.

Just because a.a.s are components in organic life processes doesn't mean that they can, or do, cause life. I meant it just as it is: glib, gratuitous, mere assertions, of nonscience.

That's quite a claim. I will admit that many natural processes can be accelerated by us, but we are talking about the complexity of life itself here which, by the way, has never actually been observed to arise spontaneously, ever, under any circumstances. Can that which has never, or can never (in the case of the 'multiverse hypothesis'), be observed actually be called 'science'?



Given a 'sufficient' amount of time (however long that may be), can an object with the complexity and function of, say, a table ever be transformed, over 'a billion years', into a car? Cells are FAR more complex than either tables or cars, and yes, I understand the role that energy and environment play when it comes to transforming matter. I also understand that those who support abiogenesis tell us that the (relatively simple) constituents of the cell arose independently and then, at some opportune time, came together (how?) to form the first living organism, but...

Well, the problem here is that many, if not most, of the cell's constituents actually require the existence of other simultaneous processes that are taking place within it. Take away, for example, DNA and one no longer has a functioning cell. How does the theory of abiogenesis account for this?