I will prove god's existence if....

I'm back. Sorry I was away for so long. I was on assignment all day yesterday and up until almost midnight last night, and then was doing the "wife and kids" thing all this morning.

Ok - back to my proof. ...

As to logical proofs,

If you give an airtight logical proof of something, it leaves us with two options.

1) the proof is also true in the real world
2) the proof is not true in the real world

And the logical proof unto itself isn't what provides evidence of that -- it's corroborative evidence that does.

This is important because a million people have tried to prove God logically. But logical proofs ALWAYS fail because of embedded assumptions that are not necessarily true, and they nearly always fail because of twisting language around like a toy (in this case scientific language).

When you're doing this with science, the only people who will be fooled by this are nonscientists. And I can pick out a bunch of examples of yours that are assumptions you make using scientific language that have absolutely no necessary basis in truth just because logic dictates so.

I mean you talk all about left and right handed DNA. But you do not know if the opposite conformation is physically possible in this universe, you do not know if it would be compatible with life, you do not know if it would abrogate all of DNA's other functions, you do not know if it would be possible to evolve from single stranded RNA unless the molecules in RNA had the opposite chirality.

So your entire logical basis for this is NOT something that science can assume. And science would NEVER make those assumptions.

Do you understand? I mean in this argument you actually have the hubris to tell us what nature would be like if it were actually natural. How do you know? Why do you think you can look at our world and call it wrong just because it conflicts with your idealism of it?

This is the most anti-scientific posture I've ever read, and no one should be fooled that your logical meditations on this matter somehow make you qualified to overrule scientific evidence.

For clarification, the proof I am presenting will conclude demonstrating the requirement of a "Divine Intervention" for the existence of our world as we define it. The presentation format I will use throughout my proof and the terminology will be at a "layman's" level of scientific understanding. This is done because it is personal belief that I subscribe to - I believe that proofs should be understandable by the general public as well as the scientific community. This is only a personal preference of mine, and I fully understand that others don't subscribe to such.

Again, even if it's logically irrefutable, that doesn't make it true.

In one dialogue Plato proves in a logically irrefutable way that your dog is your father.

I find this stuff fascinating guys, so please don't stop, but I would like to say that I don't see how "life didn't evolve on Earth" translates to "God exists"...

Earlier, we confirmed that through mathematical probability, there should be the existence of Left Handed life forms. The lack of their presence leads to many possible conclusions, the ones discussed thus far:
I. That Life could not have originated on earth

1. Life originated from Divine intervention
   
2. Life originated on another planet or solar object, and overtook life evolving on earth or was the initial factor to seed earth, with only its evolvement and not Left handed life forms as may exist at its origin
   

II. That it is not possible for Left Handed life forms to exist, something inherent to their design doesn't allow for such
III. That, although it is in defiance of the initial presumption (which uses mathematical probability) and hence is highly improbable, it is a possibility that Right Handed life forms "won" over Left Handed in the expanse of evolution

Further discussed was the narrow range of conditions for which are required to allow life to exist relative to the conditions of our universe.

Additionally, the conditions to allow matter itself to exist, with the exact balance of the 4 forces, is extremely narrow. There exist very few permeations of the 4 forces which will result in matter staying together and not being crushed by gravity or collapsing into itself or any other number of results which are not amenable to the universe as we know it to exist, with matter and energy.

It's too bad that a newcomer to this thread would have to read through 18 pages of going in circles in order to get to the good stuff.

So, ... a question to ask is, "Why is our universe so specifically balanced to allow such a narrow range of possibility of occurrence to exist with matter and energy and to support life?" And, not only support the possibility of life, but for such possibility to exist in mass quantity throughout the universe. The answer becomes clear if you reverse the suppositions, and conclude that the universe exists for the very purpose of life. Life is the meaning and the cause for the existence of the universe as it is, and is not a coincidental outcome.

What is life? How does it relate to Divinity?

Are you referring to methylated, circular DNA? Are you referring to plasmids? Are you referring to DNA in mitochondria? DNA in apicoplasts? DNA in chloroplasts? Double stranded DNA in herpesviruses, adenoviruses, and hepadnaviruses? Or the chromosomal, linear DNA that happens to be found in our nuclear genetic material? Because these are all different things that evolutionarily diverged from one another.

Unfortunately for this theory, life on earth by your definition has been around for 6 to 8 times as long, i.e. more than 3 billion years.

Scientifically baseless. This is absolutely and completely untrue based on scientific evidence. Based on such diverse measures as 16S ribosomal polymorphisms, noncoding SNPs, and fossils, there have been many expansions and then contractions of biodiversity over hundreds of millions of years -- and that's just in the era of terrestrial life, which is a baby compared with the age of eukaryotic (let alone prokaryotic) life.


Take a look at some papers by Thomas Cavalier-Smith from Oxford, who is a tremendous authority on molecular phylogeny. Your statement of the origin and diversification of life simply is not supportable based on evidence.

An unsupportable assumption in which you try to "trick" us with that concept of specificity, as if it's somehow intentional. Our universe also allows dead things, cold things, hot things, big things, small things, planets, suns, gravity, black holes, light, darkness, etc, etc. In other words, there is nothing specific about the universe that allows life, because the universe allows everything else as well.

Like where else? Has this been established such that it can become part of a proof? No. There is no evidence at all of any kind whatsoever that life exists elsewhere. I believe that it does in probabilistic terms, but I do not KNOW that it does. No one does.

Reversing the suppositions changes this from one based on empirical evidence united by theories to one based on no evidence at all. And there is absolutely no reason why the universe should be explained by a reverse supposition -- any open questions in what we observe would be better explained by more research, a greater understanding, and more nuanced theories. That way you don't have to go through the mental gymnastics of discarding everything that we observe.

This not only isn't proven, but it's not even apparent. The conclusion that life is the meaning and cause is not inevitable from any kind of inconsistencies or apparent coincidences in science. You're missing a million steps between one and the other. It would be just as logical for you to conclude that life is an illusion or that the universe is an illusion.

Before we discuss the definition of life (beyond the "standard" scientific definition), we need to establish an accepted understanding of what is matter and what is energy and what is the Universe.

The value of the universe has been reevaluated over recent years, and been determined to be far greater than merely the visible matter we can observe. These conclusions have been drawn based on observable gravitational effects. The net result of these observations is that the universe consists of only 2% (at absolute most) of visible matter, while the remaining balance is either "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy", with Dark Energy supposedly comprising upwards of 95% of its consistency (based on observable gravitational effects).

I really like how you put this, but I think that the lack of compelling evidence of extra-terrestial life casts a bit of a shadow over the general premise. If life on Earth is of extra-terrestial origin and the universe is primarily concerned with the creation of life, (prompting the notion that life should flourish on other planets in other solar systems,) why haven't we made some sort of alien contact yet? Of course, there may be people on a planet very far away asking the same question, but my point is we don't know.

Dark matter and dark energy are not the same thing!!!!!!!!!!!

Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Furthermore, dark energy is a mathematical fudge factor, and its physical reality is one of the greatest controversies in all of physics.

Principles of Human Evolution - Google Book Search

"Life first evolved on Earth almost 4 billion years ago, in the form of simple, single-celled organisms. Not until half a billion years ago did complex, multicellular organisms evolve, in an event biologists call the Cambrian explosioin. An estimated 100 phyla (body plans) arose in htat geological brief instant, with few, if any, new phyla arising later. ..."

Dark matter and dark energy are not the same thing!!!!!!!!!!!

Aedes, please ... I clearly separate the two by identifying Dark Energy as the suspect of 95%.

I really like how you put this, but I think that the lack of compelling evidence of extra-terrestrial life casts a bit of a shadow over the general premise. If life on Earth is of extra-terrestrial origin and the universe is primarily concerned with the creation of life, (prompting the notion that life should flourish on other planets in other solar systems,) why haven't we made some sort of alien contact yet? Of course, there may be people on a planet very far away asking the same question, but my point is we don't know.




This relates to another argument that I would love to indulge in. Short and skinny: We, as humans, have evolved to our current level of intellect as a separate and divisible intellect from other earth bound life forms, only recently in the past 280,000 years (barely more than 1/4th of a million) as best guess. What is our current level of intellect? My definition is:
"The ability to project into the distant future, and tailor actions to achieve a desired outcome by quantifying and qualifying how current actions effect it." This ability is not something that even our most intelligent earth-bound counterparts possess. The closest comparison may be if we accept a colony of certain insects to be a single life form as opposed to a conglomeration of distinct lives (an interesting theory and approach to evaluating the scientific definition of life - by definition an insect colony fits to be a life form as a whole).

However old we agree that life on earth is, earth as a whole is at least 8 billion years younger than the earliest objects formed. Using mathematical probability, the odds that life on other planets throughout the universe is within even one million years of our evolutionary level becomes extremely remote. The universe is at least 12 billion years in age, and if life has been existing and evolving throughout its existence, than life forms that evolved intelligence would be in various stages of evolution spanning BILLIONS of years (on a side note: there is no logical reason for intelligence to evolve, hence such may be a scarcity in the universe in spite of its plentifulness of life in general, which may even be silica based).

So, why hasn't life from other planets interacted with us? Why should they? We are at the beginning of intelligent evolution. We could be 3-5 billion years more evolved before our sun nears exhaustion. Think what a billion years of evolution would do to us. Think about what 1 MILLION years (1 /1000th) of evolution would do to us.

Correction to Post:

Not 280 "million" years. Wow, what a mistake! 280 THOUSAND years

If you define life based on DNA, as you have said, then you are citing the wrong book chapter.

The advent of DNA based univellular organisms predates the evolution of multicellilar life by BILLIONS of years.