Proving that God exists in 1 minute

[Papay]

Usually in the debate "God exists or not" you reach a point were the one side claims that God does not exist while the other side claims that God exist.The "God does not exist" side doesnt have to prove anything so the burden of proof falls to other side.

Everything in this Universe can be explained through natural laws.Everything.If you mix Hytrogen and Oxygen you will always get water.You will never get something else.The one side will claim that "God" did it while the other side will claim it is a natural law.But what exactly is a natural law?Does a natural law has his own will to say "oh i must create gravity?"Whats the point after a chaotic Bing Bang explosion, a universe to be created were all things can be explained through natural laws?If everything were created by a chaotic explosion then no law should exist today(but they exist).It is just that because we live in a Universe were everything can be explained through natural laws, we take them for granted(but they arent).This is a proof that Universe is a designed place

Regarding Life science is mistaken on one thing.We live on a planet were Life is everywhere.If you fill a bottle with water from a river you will find inside living organisms.So its tempting to claim that Life is a natural phenomenon.It isnt because it doesnt make sense.Ask a Biologist to define Life.He cant do it. And he cant do it because Life is something artificial like a photograph or a car.So you cannot define Life as a natural phenomenon.Life is a creation(and can only be defined as a creation).You want proof that Man was planned to appear on this planet?The proof exists inside you.You have 78 organs all of them placed in the correct place and in the correct way.You are a designed object.This is the exact opposite of the blind evolution that science claims that exist on this planet.Its a proof of creation

Therefore Universe is a designed place and we are a creation.

My English are not perfect so forgive me for some mistakes i might have done

[The Dude]

Everything in this Universe can be explained through natural laws. Everything.

Alright. So tell me what the content of a thought is.

[Papay]

Alright. So tell me what the content of a thought is.

You live in a universe were everything can be explained through natural laws.You take that for granted( but it isnt).The logical would be a world without natural laws.But if no natural laws existed then nothing could be controlled or be created(including Life).So we are a creation living on a world that it was created

[The Dude]

You live in a universe were everything can be explained through natural laws.You take that for granted( but it isnt).The logical would be a world without natural laws.But if no natural laws existed then nothing could be controlled or be created(including Life).So we are a creation living on a world that it was created

That's not what I meant.

I mean the following: if I think of a bowl of fruit, what natural laws are related to the forming of this thought? With neuroscience we can point out certain areas in the brain that are related to bodily functions, and now also phobias, but all that we have been able to define is that these things in their entirety relate to certain parts of the brain.

What we've not been able to explain, yet, is what the natural foundation for the components of a thought are. Take the bowl of fruit. You think of a bowl, you think of fruit, you think perhaps of specific fruits in the bowl. You think of the colours, you think of the shapes, you think of the material out of which the bowl is made, you think of a general context for this bowl. These are all components to the general idea of the bowl of fruit and we have absolutely no idea how this relates to our brains at all. The content of our mind and the way in which we arrange it is nigh endless, while the amount of neurons and neuron links in our brain is quite finite. So how do they relate?

[Papay]

That's not what I meant.

I mean the following: if I think of a bowl of fruit, what natural laws are related to the forming of this thought? With neuroscience we can point out certain areas in the brain that are related to bodily functions, and now also phobias, but all that we have been able to define is that these things in their entirety relate to certain parts of the brain.

What we've not been able to explain, yet, is what the natural foundation for the components of a thought are. Take the bowl of fruit. You think of a bowl, you think of fruit, you think perhaps of specific fruits in the bowl. You think of the colours, you think of the shapes, you think of the material out of which the bowl is made, you think of a general context for this bowl. These are all components to the general idea of the bowl of fruit and we have absolutely no idea how this relates to our brains at all. The content of our mind and the way in which we arrange it is nigh endless, while the amount of neurons and neuron links in our brain is quite finite. So how do they relate?

Can be explained if you study "the natural laws" of the brain that makes that thought although i dont understand exactly what you claim here

[Vagn]

Usually in the debate "God exists or not" you reach a point were the one side claims that God does not exist while the other side claims that God exist.The "God does not exist" side doesnt have to prove anything so the burden of proof falls to other side.

Not this again...

Everything in this Universe can be explained through natural laws.Everything.If you mix Hytrogen and Oxygen you will always get water.You will never get something else.The one side will claim that "God" did it while the other side will claim it is a natural law.But what exactly is a natural law?Does a natural law has his own will to say "oh i must create gravity?"Whats the point after a chaotic Bing Bang explosion, a universe to be created were all things can be explained through natural laws?If everything were created by a chaotic explosion then no law should exist today(but they exist).It is just that because we live in a Universe were everything can be explained through natural laws, we take them for granted(but they arent).This is a proof that Universe is a designed place

To be pedantic the Big Bang was neither an explosion and nor was it chaotic, chaotic, in science has a very specific definition. Explain to me why natural laws cannot occur naturally, there is no reason to suggest they can't, laws of nature aren't comparable to those of mankind. They don't need a creator by definition. Do not forget that cosmology and the beginning of the universe is still being studied to this day and it is entirely possible that our set of laws is one of an infinitely large number of sets.

Regarding Life science is mistaken on one thing.We live on a planet were Life is everywhere.If you fill a bottle with water from a river you will find inside living organisms.So its tempting to claim that Life is a natural phenomenon.It isnt because it doesnt make sense.Ask a Biologist to define Life.He cant do it. And he cant do it because Life is something artificial like a photograph or a car.So you cannot define Life as a natural phenomenon.Life is a creation(and can only be defined as a creation).You want proof that Man was planned to appear on this planet?The proof exists inside you.You have 78 organs all of them placed in the correct place and in the correct way.You are a designed object.This is the exact opposite of the blind evolution that science claims that exist on this planet.Its a proof of creation

Therefore Universe is a designed place and we are a creation.

Evolution is not random, mutations are random, but evolution selects those individuals that are best adapted to the environment they are in, and they reproduce henceforth passing their genes onto the next generation. The definition of life is controversial, because each time we define it, something new comes along which requires us to rethink what life is.

[Meneth]

@OP:
What does it matter that life is hard to define? Being hard to define does not make anything more or less natural. For example one can easily define what a photograph is.
The positions of organs within a body is controlled by the genes. Gene-sequences that give positions that don't work disappear due to natural selection.
Complexity is not proof of design.

[Meneth]

Why would a world without natural laws and constants be the most logical?

[Papay]

Why would a world without natural laws and constants be the most logical?

Well perhaps we cannot imagine this world.But why a force like gravity should form anyway.By luck?What lucky event is that decided such a thing?And how this lucky event influenced all matter at once?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Well perhaps we cannot imagine this world.But why a force like gravity should form anyway.By luck?What lucky event is that decided such a thing?And how this lucky event influenced all matter at once?

this is your argument:

• We don't have the answer to questions X, Y or Z
• God did it!

[Jack04]

Regarding Life science is mistaken on one thing.We live on a planet were Life is everywhere.If you fill a bottle with water from a river you will find inside living organisms.So its tempting to claim that Life is a natural phenomenon.It isnt because it doesnt make sense.Ask a Biologist to define Life.He cant do it. And he cant do it because Life is something artificial like a photograph or a car.So you cannot define Life as a natural phenomenon.Life is a creation(and can only be defined as a creation).You want proof that Man was planned to appear on this planet?The proof exists inside you.You have 78 organs all of them placed in the correct place and in the correct way.You are a designed object.This is the exact opposite of the blind evolution that science claims that exist on this planet.Its a proof of creation

"Life cannot be defined" is a very different statement to "life has not yet been explicitly defined", which is what your argument implies I'm afraid. The second half of the paragraph has been explained at great length by evolution.

Look at the argument from another angle. Were the universe not to exist, why not? There is nothing to indicate that nothingness is a more natural state than something(ness?). In fact, "pure" nothingness appears (according to quantum mechanics) to be just about the most inherantly unstable state possible, infinitely more unstable than a state in which the existence of matter and energy is possible.

[Col. Tartleton]

I think you're looking at this completely wrong.

1 Oxygen and 2 Hydrogen form Water because 8+1+1=10.

8+1+1 will never be 9.
8+1+1 will never be 11.

Carbon Dioxide will always be 1 Carbon and 2 Oxygen because that's what it is.
But Oxygen and Carbon don't only form Carbon Dioxide. It will form Carbon Monoxide or Carbon Trioxide. Oxygen normally forms Dioxides but it can form a Trioxide (Ozone.) Oxygen is just a label for a group of configuration of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons.

Those are inherent qualities. The only difference between something being Chaotic or Ordered is the human element. If we understand the patterns that have formed we assume it was ordered into a pattern. If we don't see a pattern it's chaos. But Chaos forms patterns. If it didn't it wouldn't truly be Chaos. For all we know space is currently "Ordered" and was "Chaotic" before and will be "Chaotic" later. It might even be Chaotic now. There's no way to tell. If something is random it could happen to fall into patterns based on the odds involved.

I could use a random number generator and eventually it would form the sequence one to a million. That would be a pattern. It would not really be Order, but Chaos.

[justicar5]

Well perhaps we cannot imagine this world.But why a force like gravity should form anyway.By luck?What lucky event is that decided such a thing?And how this lucky event influenced all matter at once?

there was no 'event'. Matter has gravity, it's one of the things that define matter, everything has gravity.

[Meneth]

Just because we do not know why the fundamental forces formed we shouldn't posit a god instead. Instead, we should try to find the answer. This applies to all phenomena that have been previously been "explained" with "God did it", and all phenomena that some still "explain" with "God did it"

[Helm]

Ask a Biologist to define Life.He cant do it.

As far as I know they can, if something is alive it can consume, excrete, move and reproduce itself.

[Lordinquisitor]

So because something is complex it needs an creator?

Well.. Whence did god come from then?

[Meneth]

He is somehow exempt from that "rule", apparently.

[black-dragon]

If you mix Hytrogen and Oxygen you will always get water.You will never get something else

What about this?

[Randarkmaan]

Many people like state that you can't disprove that God exists.
And they are right, there is no way to actually disprove (or attempt to disprove) God.
However they have fallen into the trap that science so cleverly has laid for them, it is more important for a hypothesis to be confirmed that you fail to disprove it, than actually proving it, everything else is pseudo-science, which is hogwash. Hence God is hogwash.

Regarding Life science is mistaken on one thing.We live on a planet were Life is everywhere.If you fill a bottle with water from a river you will find inside living organisms.So its tempting to claim that Life is a natural phenomenon.It isnt because it doesnt make sense.Ask a Biologist to define Life.He cant do it. And he cant do it because Life is something artificial like a photograph or a car.So you cannot define Life as a natural phenomenon.Life is a creation(and can only be defined as a creation).You want proof that Man was planned to appear on this planet?The proof exists inside you.You have 78 organs all of them placed in the correct place and in the correct way.You are a designed object.This is the exact opposite of the blind evolution that science claims that exist on this planet.Its a proof of creation

I'll recommend a good book for you and strongly suggest that you read it to cure you of your disbelief. The book is Mendel's Demon, the book is mostly concerned with how and why complex life evolved, which is exactly what you seem to have trouble grasping. Seriously, buy it, it's not expensive.

[Helm]

I like to think that most people who beleve in God have some subjective evidence to back themselves up with, even if they may not agree with al th specifics of what God is and what he does. Subjective evidence basically boils down to what you feel is true. It doesn't mean you start seeing things and hearing voices.