jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (124 posts)

I can prove God exists...

  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago

    To start off we need to understand the terms, the meanings of the words.

    The definitions:

    Supreme- Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant. 2. Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement.

    God- The best, the greatest form of life in existence, The Supreme Being.

    Life Form- an entity or being that is living or alive.

    Existence- is the world we are aware of through our senses, and that persists independently without them.

    The Proof:

    If there are more than one forms of life and they are not identical, then one must be the lesser. If there is a lowest form of life, then there must be a highest form of life.

    The highest form of life (whatever that is) is the Supreme Being... humanity has come to call that form of life, God.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This describes humans on Earth. wink
      Unproven to exist. wink
      Description for Human Species. wink
      Again, this is the precise definition for reality. wink
      Untrue- Simply because "highest" is human ego on steroids. wink
      Individual's call "god" without proof only faith. wink

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        roll Thanks for playing.

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I figured that would be the best response you could come up with. Nothing new from you. wink

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Deleted

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              My mommy? WOW! Is that your best? You need some new stuff. lol

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Deleted

                1. Cagsil profile image60
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Again, nothing new. Nice. Back to playing games. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

    2. SeanAH profile image61
      SeanAHposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Your proof does very little to prove the existence of God for more than one reason. Your definition of the supreme being categorizes a supreme being as a life form which is the 'best' 'greatest'. This isn't necessarily true. Of course we can say that one specific species is supreme in certain respects to another but to label it the supreme being it has to have more than just superiority over another lifeform or existence. A supreme being is defined as omnipotent which includes concepts such as being ever present, all knowing, etc etc, essentially a perfection of which we cannot really comprehend, as part of what it is.

      Secondaly, why should existence be the world perceived through out senses? If God did exist do we need to have the capacity to perceive him through sensory perception in order to ratify his existence? There may be situations where our senses mislead us which rises to a skepticism about the external world but this skeptcism does not neccesarily rule out the existence of god, likewise an acceptance of your definition of existence does not lead towards the existence of a supreme being.

      Perhaps you should read Descartes meditations which seems to be an advancement in thought on your own argument.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, that is the accepted definition of the term and the reason I posted the definition first. It isn't my definition it is websters.

          If it is "supreme" it is the "best" those are the meanings of the words.



        No, omnipotent means all powerful, supreme is best or greatest, they have different words because they have different meanings. The Supreme Being does not necessarily have to be omnipotent, even though many do classify the concept of God that way. But of God's omnipotence or lack there of we have no proof, only opinion. I'm not trying to define "what" characteristics God has only that A Supreme Being existing is provable, possible, and highly probable.



        Again this is not my definition of the word it is websters, and you left off the other half of the definition which addresses your next statement.

         

        I have actually written a hub about Descartes, maybe you'd like to take a look at it sometime.

        1. SeanAH profile image61
          SeanAHposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps i will.

          I understood your definition to be that of supreme rather than supreme being, aren't these two seperate ideas?

          Anyway, i take your point. Would you agree though that your proof is based on your personal (or websters) definition of what a Supreme Being is? How can you hope to provide a proof for something without first explaining exactly what it is?

          I accept my use of omnipotent may have glossed over what i meant by a Supreme Being but doesn't your proof only really say that the different lifeforms are superior/inferior to each other and that which is the greatest is the suprem being?

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That is exactly what it says, and humanity has come to name the "supreme being" (whatever that life form is) God.

            All the rest is people arguing about what God looks like what God smells like how God thinks what God thinks, if God...

            but all that is unprovable and unknowable to us, and not a part of this proof.

            1. simeonvisser profile image87
              simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              In that case your 'proof' already assumes the existence of God before it even begins (because you consider God to be part of all the life forms). You're just looking at all life forms on Earth plus God and then you surprisingly conclude that God must be the highest life form. That's not a proof.

              Look, here's the basics: if you want to prove the existence of God, you can't already assume that God exists. You must provide evidence from which the existence of God follows.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You really need to read the proof, I haven't assumed anything.
                Here:

                1) If there are more than one forms of life and they are not identical, then one must be the lesser.

                2) If there is a lowest form of life, then there must be a highest form of life.

                3)The highest form of life (whatever that is) is the Supreme Being...

                4)humanity has come to call that form of life, God.

                You're assuming that I am only looking at life on Earth, I have considered aliens of all types and life forms as varying as my imagination will allow, and the proof stands. Because I am not trying to classify every life form in existence into the ranks you are so desperately trying to get me to assign to them. I am merely stating the obvious, if they are not identical then they are one lesser and one greater. The "Best" has to be the supreme being, by the defintions of the words.

                1. simeonvisser profile image87
                  simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Your proof goes more like this:

                  1) Let's consider all life forms: all life on Earth, all aliens, God, and everything else that we consider life.

                  2) Non-identical means there is lower and higher.

                  3) If there is lowest then there must be highest.

                  (missing step: there can only be one highest life form)

                  4) The highest life form is the Supreme Being...

                  5) ... which we, by definition, call God.

                  How exactly is that a proof of God's existence? You're already considering God to be part of all the life forms. Your proof is already starting out by assuming God exists. Remember, in any proof of God's existence, you can't already assume God exists.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this



                    what you have posted here (saying something similar to what I stated) isn't the same thing that I stated, your subtle changes change the meaning and your changes make it flawed.

                    What I posted is not flawed, your great "missing step" does nothing to disprove my statements. If anything it merely points out that you are not accepting the term best and what it means.

                    Glossing over or ignoring the term Identical and pretending that my proof doesn't clearly state, at it's foundation, that the two life forms cannot be Identical for the proof to work does not disprove the proof.

                    If all life forms are equal, Identical, the same...then you are correct, there would be many Supreme Beings. But the fact remains that life forms are NOT Identical, and the differences make them superior/inferior by definition.

            2. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Again, you use the word "Humanity", as a collective, which actually over steps, because it's not a collective understanding of all of the human species. It's an individual calling something that they believe to exist, based on faith.

    3. thisisoli profile image61
      thisisoliposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How does that prove the existence of God?

      The big flaw in that is that you call the highest form of life god, however which god?

      I think you also really need to look at the terms which define 'life' before you say God could be the highest form of life, if we are going to pretend that the semantics of words can prove anything.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this



        The most commonly accepted term or definition is the one we must use.

        God as defined by most people is the definition listed in the beginging of the proof. By that definition my proof is accurate.

        1. SeanAH profile image61
          SeanAHposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Below is one of websters definitions of god:

          a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

          If this is the most commonly accepted definition we must use then should we include that the whatever lifeform is the most superior is also the creator and ruler of the universer? By websters definition at least.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            This is the most commonly accepted definition of the "Christian" God.

            Not God the concept that is also defined by the Jews the Muslims, The Hindu and countless others.

            In my Humble Opinion the entity christianity calls God does not exist. Their perception of God is nieve at best. But again that is not what this forum is about, I'm not hear to argue about what God looks likes, How God smells, What God thinks...because all of that is not provable nor relevant. We all have our different opinions and nothing short of evidence will change our minds on those points.

            For me God merely is.

            ...and here are more definitions for the term God (Wikipedia)-

            God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

            God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers.

            1. SeanAH profile image61
              SeanAHposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              If your own idea of God is simply the most superior of all lifeforms then can you explain how we can come to know which lifeforms are superior to others? If we can understand that then we should be able to apply your method to all known lifeforms and least conclude which one is the most supreme lifeform known to us.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this


                All of these questions are about the correlations between the various forms of life... not my thing...

                I don't care if a germ is a "higher" form of life than a Human, Ranks do not matter to me. I don't have a need to know which life form is better and which is worse, so for those answers you'll have to ask someone else.

                And I believe the supreme form of life that we know of is ourselves or bacteria, possibly a tie there(if they have a way to communicate and better themselves, which is entirely possible)... wink

                1. 0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Mickel, think smaller than a bacteria....smaller than a chemical....smaller than an atom....smaller than a proton of an atom...smaller than a sub atomic particle...

                  The highest form of life is the smallest unit of energy at its ad infinitum level.

                  "A single "grain" of energy is more power and understanding than the collective human population since its inception (by either equations 250k years or sensations 6k years).
                  That energy is sentient and since it is information itself, does not require dna/storage location nor human applied logic/reason gates, as mechanics do.".

                  PC et al are just upset because their 'logic' cannot comprehend this probability beyond a reasonable doubt; nor can they provide any actual proof -by scientific methods of testing, or even hypothesis. All they have is here say, like theology. No morals --none and no experience to prove their 'mighty' logic is at any level relevant.

                  James.

    4. cheaptrick profile image73
      cheaptrickposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But God is supposedly the Creator of life.If God created life God must have existed before life came to be and is,therefore,not subject to life.The moment we define the qualities of God we diminish God and reduce God to the level of human understanding...which is[I'm pretty sure]not capable of apprehending God.The"leap of faith"that Kierkegaard so eloquently described is either taken or not.That leaves believers with the conviction that...God Is...beyond that it's all human attempts at describing the ineffable.IMHO.

    5. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Deleted

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Again...

        This thread is not about the classification of what makes one life form better than another. It is not a proof providing the ranking system from (A) being the lowest form of life to (Z) being the highest form of life.

        This thread is also not about what constitutes a being as a lesser/inferior being or a greater/superior being.

        I will not provide a list of all life forms and where they fit into the pecking order.

        All of that information is irrelevant to the proof. All that is needed is the fact that they are not identical and therefore are inferior/superior.

        Please stay on topic.

    6. 2besure profile image82
      2besureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No disrespect, but God does not need anyone to prove that He exists!  Nowhere in scripture does God ask believers to prove to other that He exists.  The scripture does however, say to be prepared to tell others why we believe.  God does not need our help!

    7. Pandoras Box profile image82
      Pandoras Boxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So your position is that there is life, and there must therefore in your opinion be a highest form of life, therefore there must be a god.

      That is your position, in a nutshell?

      You are aware that life brings death, correct, and requires a nourished physical body. So you're saying god is a physical being, eating and pooping and scratching his ass like the rest of us, right?

      And of course, as a living being, he will have to one day die. Everything we know about life tells us this must be true. Even the stars die at some point.

      So basically you think god is an old fart who must be on the verge of croaking?

      Huh. It's a miracle. I pretty much agree!

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No.

        My position is merely that I have provided proof that God exists.

        I am not in anyway attempting to characterize, personify, or label God, or what God is/isn't...

        ... I am only stating that God exists and showing you why that is true.

        1. Pandoras Box profile image82
          Pandoras Boxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In that case you failed entirely. The existence of living beings does not prove the existence of any god.

          Were you to insist that a god must be at the top of the pinnacle of life, one would be left to wonder how he got there. If he is a supreme living being, he must die. He must have been born into life. He must poop and scratch his ass. Life must have evolved for a long time before he came into being in order to become so advanced as to be known as the supreme.

          Careful there now, you're sounding very heretical, calling god a pooping ass-scratching last-evolved bound for death life form.

          1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
            Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Got Proof?



            Got Proof?



            Got Proof?



            All of these statements are yours, not mine, I have stated no such thing. These assumptions that you are using to characterize "what" your Supreme Being "must be" in order to exist, are your assumptions.

            Immortality/Mortality does not define life.(in order to be alive one must be mortal is not an accepted definition of living, of being alive.)

            But this discourse is again off topic. This thread is NOT about the characteristics of God.

            Please stay on Topic.

            1. Pandoras Box profile image82
              Pandoras Boxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              But it is about god being a life form as you have posited. And not just any life form, but the supreme one.

              I didn't come offering 'proof,' you did. smile

              I only offer reasoning. Take it or leave it, and I bet I can guess which.

              Whatever man. Arguing with people who never will admit it when they've made a mistake is one of the reasons I don't bother anymore. It's just a waste of time trying to reason with people who will not be reasonable.

              So I'll just agree with you, and overlook the implications of pooping and eventually dying which your position of god as a life form brings, and that will make me a much more likable person, I am sure.



              Yes! Mikel you are soooooooo smart. Gosh I wish I could be as wise as you are. So what you're saying is that just as we can see there are many forms of life, we must then assume that there's a supreme example! It only makes sense! If you line up five of anything one of them must be the best, yes that does make sense! And if there is a supreme example of life, then - then, yikes , !!! , --- IT MUST BE GOD!!!!!

              Damn you're clever.

              Hallelulah, that is some good proof! Alert the press! Let congress know! Tell Bill O'Reilly he's right, the tides do come in and go out!   

              Let it be known throughout the world. Mikel G Roberts has just proven the existence of god!!!!!

              You're gonna win a nobel award for this one, Mikel.

              1. simeonvisser profile image87
                simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't see the point either. Every flaw in the proof has already been pointed out and I don't see what else we can discuss. Mikel continues to believe he has proven the existence of God yet fails to understand the basic structure of an existence proof.

                What else should we do with this thread? Praise Mikel for coming up with such smart proof that has eluded mankind for centuries? What a joke.

              2. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Thank You.


                Umm... I think I stepped in that big pile of sarcasm... sad

      2. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this



        My position "in a nutshell" is:

        If there are more than one forms of life and they are not identical, then one must be the lesser. If there is a lowest form of life, then there must be a highest form of life.

        The highest form of life (whatever that is) is the Supreme Being... humanity has come to call that form of life, God.

    8. Titen-Sxull profile image93
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But you'd need to  judge as far as "highest" and "lowest" form of life, I don't think there's an objective way to do that. There is no objectively high or low forms of life, there's just LIFE.

  2. 0
    just_curiousposted 5 years ago

    I have to say, this thread sounds more like proof then the one claiming it could prove the opposite. Very nice.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Respond to the OP next time please.  big_smile

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not a problem. Eat your own words. smile

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I will not. You can't make me. smile

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol lol Your post came at the same time I was addressing the OP. That's why I said it. tongue

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                lol

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks

  3. simeonvisser profile image87
    simeonvisserposted 5 years ago

    Is this a joke? That does not even come close to what scientists or mathematicians would call a proof. It's not a proof, it's just a bunch of statements. In the end you just assert that God exists, it does not follow from any previous statements nor do they support your assertion.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for playing

      1. simeonvisser profile image87
        simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You're not going to reply? I'm not joking, it fails the basic requirements of any proof. Please lookup what logicians consider to be a proof.

        Just some questions to consider. Your proof 'assumes' out of nowhere that
        - there is one highest form of life (why can't there be multiple?)
        - there is a ranking of lower and higher forms of life and what is that ranking?

        If you want to play the game seriously using arguments, proofs and logic, you must consider the above questions.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Since there can be only one best. Second best may be close but there can be only one best therefore the supreme being must be the highest form of life.



          I don't know the ranking of every life form in existence and that is imaterial, the first part of the proof states so long as there are two non-identical forms of life (which I think is commonly accepted as true) then one must be the lesser and one the greater.

           

          actually Simeonvisser, I have, and I have discarded them for the reasons I have posted here. This proof/thought process of mine is new to you, it isn't new to me... I have thought it through very carefully and I have considered all you have posted here and a whole lot of other stuff as well. None of your statements even remotely dis-prove the proof.

          1. simeonvisser profile image87
            simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Just as there can be two 'richest' people ( = same amount of money), there could also be two or more 'best' life forms ( = according to whatever definition of best / supreme ). There could potentially be multiple life forms with the same IQ, the same skill set, the same authority or whatever definition you have, unless something explicitly prevents it.

            Why can't there be multiple life forms that are equal in 'importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement'? That's your definition of 'Supreme'.



            Two elephants are not identical either, is one lesser than the other? Or if you're willing to group animals together, are elephants higher or lesser than monkeys? Using your definition of supreme, we'd need to evaluate them according to 'importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement.'?



            You're not replying to what I'm saying, you're just asserting that you are right and I am wrong. With all respect but I think my questions are valid and I know that your opening post can, by no means, be considered a proof. If you're not willing to study logic a bit more carefully, you'll keep getting the same response from anyone who does know more about logic and proofs.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Because if they are the same, equal, then they are Identical...as mentioned in the proof.

              In the proof I stated specifically if there are two forms of life and they are NOT identical...

              which means not the same...

              ...not equal...

              not of equal intelligence...


              not of the same magnitude...


              NOT IDENTICAL

              Thanks for playing.

              1. simeonvisser profile image87
                simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Your proof says that if life forms are not identical then one must be lesser. However, it says nothing about identical life forms of equal ranking - why can't there be multiple highest life forms? But perhaps this is getting too complex for you.

                To put it more clearly: why can't there be TWO highest life forms that are equal in 'importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement'?

                You also seem to be avoiding the flaw that I posted in an earlier post ( http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/67947?p … ost1486968 ), which is even a critical flaw in your proof. I don't see how the proof can be repaired or recover from that flaw without starting from scratch.

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You know what you're probably right, I'm probably just not smart enough to understand these complex concepts.

                  Have a great life.

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey. Don't give up. You're in the right.

        2. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this



          Because of the definition of the term Best . There can be only one Best , even if second best is only a split second behind the winner at the race, they are still only second best.

          But you miss the point to this thread, it isn't about what God is, what God looks like, how God acts or smells or thinks... It is a proof to the existence of a Supreme Being/God.

          It is also not about establishing what makes one life form better than another, or creating a list of species and their corresponding rank in that progression.

          1. simeonvisser profile image87
            simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Let me point out that you actually use 'Supreme' rather than 'best' in your proof, which is defined as: "Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant. 2. Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement."

            So my question still stands: why can't there be more equally Supreme life forms? This is just a related problem in the proof: you're attempting to rank life forms and then you suddenly conclude that there can only be one Supreme Being. Just as any match can be tied, there can also be multiple beings that are equal in importance or significance or achievement.

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this



              Then let me include some definitions of the term best which I believe you will find are very similar to the term Supreme. Again you are persisting in the arguement about what constitutes The Best or Supreme   and not that "a best or supreme being" exists, which one must IF two forms exist and they are not identical.

              Best - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary-
              most productive of good : offering or producing the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction <what is the best thing to do> ...

              www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/best - Cachedbest: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.comJun 30, 2005 ... best adj. Superlative of good . Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement , or quality; most excellent: the best performer; the best ...

              www.answers.com › Library › Literature & Language › Dictionary - CachedBest | Define Best at Dictionary.comBest definition-
              of the highest quality, excellence, or standing: See more. ... to defeat; subdue: His arthritis gets the best of him from time to time. ...

              dictionary.reference.com/browse/best - Cached - Similarbest - Definition of best at YourDictionary.combest definition Hear it! best (best). adjective.
              good; of the most excellent sort; surpassing all others; most suitable, most desirable, most favorable, ...

              www.yourdictionary.com › Dictionary Definitions - Cached - SimilarDefinition of Best - BrainyQuote
              Having good qualities in the highest degree; most good, kind, desirable, suitable, etc.; most excellent; as, the best man; the best road; the best cloth

          2. Pcunix profile image89
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Again, all you have said is that if we have x, there can be a y that is in some way "better" than x.

            There is no proof that y actually exists and nothing about any imaginary y indicates any god.

            You have only babbled nonsense.

  4. simeonvisser profile image87
    simeonvisserposted 5 years ago

    Also, you failed to define 'highest form of life' or whatever the ranking from lower to higher life forms is.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I thought the word "supreme" would be enough for people to understand the scale values of the post...

      Are you really asking me to supply you with a list of every life form in existence with their corrosponding ranking in order for you to be able to understand the concept of "best" and "supreme"?

      1. simeonvisser profile image87
        simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not a list but a definition of what is 'best' would suffice. For example, for humans we can easily determine who is the 'richest' by looking at all their bank accounts and whatever they own.

        But what does it mean for a life form to be higher than the other? Is it more intelligent? Does it have more skills? Why does God come out on top and why can there, as your proof implicitly concludes, be only one highest ranked life form?

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Did you not see the definition of the term supreme in the first section of the post?

  5. Pcunix profile image89
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    If there is a highest form, it could very well be us.

    But even if not, a higher form is only that: a higher form. 

    I'm a higher form of human: smarter, taller, better looking. Does that make me a "god"?

    This OP is nothing.

    1. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Pcunix. Can you ever take anything seriously?

      1. Pcunix profile image89
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am taking it seriously. It is not my fault that someone posts something that leads to ridiculous conclusions.

        You all need to believe so badly that you discard all logic and sense.

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Then please point out where my logic is flawed, because I don't see it.

          1. simeonvisser profile image87
            simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I just did, you're assuming God exists and then you start with your reasoning. See my previous post.

            1. Pcunix profile image89
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Theists have no concept of logic.  That's why they believe: they cannot comprehend the obvious impossibly of their fantasies.

              1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                how about we stick to the forum topic??

                we are not here to call theists names. Or to list their shortcomings.

                1. Pcunix profile image89
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It's on topic because your "proof" is no such thing. It simply says that there might be a higher life form.  There is no reason to assume that, but even if we do, there is no reason to call something "higher"  a "god".

                  This is typical bad theist reasoning. It is completely devoid of logic - you are way, way out of your depth.

                  1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                    Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    hmmm... I really hoped for more from you.

                    ... Oh well.

            2. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              again...I'm not assuming anything, I have read your previous post and responded to it pointing out where it is flawed. Restating your flawed post proves something without correcting it's flaws is simply a fallacy.

              1. simeonvisser profile image87
                simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You have not responded to my previous post. This is the post I am referring to: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/67947?p … ost1486968

            3. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
              Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this



              I am not assuming God exists, if there is an assumption it is the assumption that we exist. But the If-Then statements clearly set the boundaries for the proof. Since the proof starts out with IF there are more than one non-identical forms of life, and the process culminates with the proven fact that there must be a best.

              (not liking the truth does not dis-prove the truth.)

              1. simeonvisser profile image87
                simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It's not about that part of the proof, it's about the fact that you already take God to be part of all the forms of life that you are considering. After that you start explaining that there are lower and higher forms of life and that one of them must be the best. That's all fine but that means you're starting out by assuming God is one of the life forms out there. And that means you're already assuming God exists in your proposed 'proof'.

                Not understanding what I'm saying does not make your non-proof a proof. This is just pointless, I've clearly shown the flaw in your logic and if you don't see that your 'proof' starts by assuming that God exists (among all other life forms) then there's really no hope for further discussion.

                I like the truth, that's why I'm pointing out that you haven't provided any proof at all. I'm not concerned about whether God exists or not, I'm trying to explain that you are venturing in an area (logic and proofs) that you know too little about. Your proof contains flawed logic and as such, it's not a proof at all.

                1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
                  Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So your saying that the supreme being cannot exist because we can't see it and touch it and disect it? Correct?

                  1,000 years ago we could not see atoms, we could not touch them and we could not dissect/split them. Does that mean they did not exist until we could? Obviously the answer is no. They existed even when we could not see them.

                  Our inability to touch the supreme being, our inability to label and dissect, classify, probe and quantify the supreme being does not dis-prove the existence of that supreme being. It just points out the limits we have. The things we cannot do.

                  It is not an assumption to state there must be a top when all we can see is the bottom and half way up a mountain. Which is what I am stating:

                  If there is a lower(form of life), and I can see, probe, dissect, label and classify this life form... AND I can see, probe, label and classify another non-identical superior life form... THEN it is safe to conclude that a best/top/supreme exists.

                  What makes one life form greater than another is not what this thread about and frankly I don't care what you or anyone classifies as better or worse, superior/inferior. The fact that they are not identical makes them inferior/superior.



                  Again "assuming", as you use the term, that the top of the mountain exists because I can see the bottom and the middle is logical and rational, even if I cannot see or touch the top. Stating it does not exist unless I can see it and touch it is a fallacy on your part. Again I site the existence of atoms 1,000 years ago.



                  Actually, No you haven't. You have merely shown that you are incapable of seeing the flaw in your own logic and reasoning.

                  Thanks for playing.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image60
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That is a strawman fallacy. However, it is still an answerable question. While it is true that atoms were not known and understood as they are today, that doesn't mean we don't interact with atoms every day. Yes, we can touch atoms, in everything around us.

                    And, the fact that human intelligence evolved enough for us to eventually discover atoms, and leptons, quarks, fermions, bosons, etc. would show significantly that the mountains of evidence to support these findings does not compare with the time spent looking for evidence of gods and coming up with nothing as yet.



                    I would agree with this statement as it can be equated with the concept of String and Brane Theory, in which other dimensions, 'closed' to our universe, exist all around us, but we are unable to access for testing and experimentation as the only 'open' dimensions to us are the four in which we currently exist.

                    If a Supreme being existed within those 'closed' dimensions and had access to our 'open' dimensions, there should be some sort of effect. For example, some theoretical physicists have put forth mathematical examples of how gravity could be an effect of those other dimensions affecting ours.

                    I would submit that Mikel has an argument if he can show and effect a supreme being would have on our universe if it did in fact exist in other dimensions... without too much scifi to back it up, of course.



                    Actually, it does matter considering that the use of the terms superior and inferior are general terms and are not specific to any particular properties or characteristics that are being compared.

                    You could probably cover more ground by stating some specifics, such as intelligence, physical attributes, moral and ethical, etc. as these are more specific concepts to compare and understand.
                    smile

        2. 0
          just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Read twenty one days's post. He's one of the few on this site I would concede is smarter than most of the the rest of us. He said it all.

          1. Pcunix profile image89
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, he is so smart he thinks rocks are sentient.

            1. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I think he's right. Call me crazy.

          2. simeonvisser profile image87
            simeonvisserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Bringing a lot of additional stuff into the discussion is not really helpful. If someone claims to have a proof, we have already entered the realm of logic. So far, the opening post contains ramblings and the flaw that I have exposed in the proposed proof has not been replied to.

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Then why are you here?

      And yes if there is no life form greater than us, then we are God. But I personally don't believe that.

      I believe in God... and have proven God can and does exist.

      Thanks for playing Pcunix.

  6. Pcunix profile image89
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    The really amusing thing about this is that your 'god" is not any such thing - it is just the "highest" (what that means is not provide) form of life. 

    No "god" has ever been described as anything other than supernatural.   

    Yes, by some undefined measure, there would be a "higher" form of life. It could be us, or some creatures from another galaxy. Not gods, just life forms.

  7. skyfire profile image71
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Since when you provided proof to begin with ? Stating there is likely to be higher form of life doesn't mean that life form is going to be universal creator. Same word salad in posts 'thanks for playing' and typical sarcasm that don't get you close to the proof. Oh let me guess your proof for god from your previous posts in the forum. **Mikel - oh god where are you ? Mikel sees bird nearby. Mikel says- oh thank god, that was a true sign. **Eh ? This type of reasoning which you made in forums is your proof then your attempt of creating this thread after long time is nothing but rant/bait posting.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      True, but I do not state that this proof proves God is a universal creator, only that God must exist.



      I'm sorry that my personality is offensive to you Skyfire, and I know I am human and flawed and sometimes I do get angry and lash out. I'm working on that.

      But your post in no way dis-proves the proof.

  8. simeonvisser profile image87
    simeonvisserposted 5 years ago

    Mikel, at what point are you going to realize or consider that you made a mistake in your proof? Isn't this what we always see with religious people? They have beliefs and they claim to have proofs but they are unwilling to change their viewpoint, even when evidence to the contrary is presented.

    You are avoiding all my posts that expose flaws in your proof and in your logic and you keep saying you have a 'proof'.

    You have not provided any proof Mikel:

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/67947?p … ost1486968
    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/67947?p … ost1487754

  9. 0
    lcecil0582posted 5 years ago

    It is written, thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God.  It is a faith journey; the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not see.  To see God's work you must be born again.  Focus on the world and you will only see the world.  It seems that not having the ability to see and understand God is his way of guarding the gates of heaven.  It is written that man cannot understand God with the carnal mind, you must be born again, thus the salvation.  Understand, that millions will be lost and never find the salvation God has provided, but all are invited.  Jesus is the bridge by which we come to know God. . . .there is not other way.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      roll

  10. writeprofessional profile image61
    writeprofessionalposted 5 years ago

    If the purpose of this hub was to garner attention to the God possibility, you succeeded. That is what grabbed my attention; someone is saying they can show proof of God? Let's see what this one is going on about.

    Well you didn't convince me, although I already know God... and He exist! Contrary to popular belief these days.

    Someone above found the dictionaries definition: "...the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe."

    He is all that and more. Look out your window and see the wonder of nature which is so mathematically laid and arranged so perfectly a computer could not do better with cgi!

    God is so wonderfully interwoven is the fabric of the universe that every morning you rise and think it's just the natural occurance of things, you must conncede, somehow "something" put this all in order; someone placed life on this planet because try as scientist do, they have yet to create life out of "nothing."

    Molds and fungus grow, but there must first be "something" to form their growth. A catalytic even started by something to initiate the metamorphasis.

    We humans pride ourselves on our intelligence and in the 21st century we have become too smart for God. Our intelligence says God is not feasible in this age, because we have no proof.

    Just as in the days when Man/Woman believed wholeharetedly in a God being because he "showed" Himself to His people, but His people became so self centered and disinchanted with a God that had so many rules.

    Humans are easy to choose the easiest common denominator, they wanted their own pleasure and devices and a God, got in way of that with rules, no gays, no sex outside of marraige, a whole lot of no's.

    Today, that is people's biggest detractor  they don't want to have a God being; too many rules. They cannot do the nefarious little deeds they would like to do if there is someone out there to chastise and correct them, when they are morally wrong.

    How do you prove God is real? Look around you. Look in the face of someone you love and think about how much that person means to you.

    Then think about your children, if you have any, and think about killng one of them or letting one of them die to make a point.

    That is proof for me. God actually let his own son die to save your miserable lives! He cared so much that although he told man he would never show Himself again throughout this last generation, He did give everyone a way to survive what must come.

    I wonder why people don't get it. Whomeever created this world and planet did it with the caring hands of a Father building something for His children, and even that we have spoiled, just because we could. It is only now that we are feeling remorseful about the destruction we've brought onto this planet.

    GOD EXISTS. And it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe in Him... He believes in you!

    ...and every , day when I wake up and see the sunshine, rain bad or good weather, I just thank Him for waking me up and for the beautiful Earth we still have, and I believe a little bit more!

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You don't have an illuminated cross on your front lawn by chance?

      wink

    2. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, the popular belief is in gods, the question everyone is asking though, which god are you talking about? Obviously, there are many popular gods and they are all known to exist, according to their followers.



      And yet, there are many flaws in nature, in humans as well. When we closely examine nature looking for gods, we find evidence to suggest nature came about entirely on its own, devoid of gods.



      That might be something more to what you want to believe as opposed to what nature shows us every day. There is nothing of the sort to concede from nature.



      You mean how believers will allow their children to die because they would rather pray to their god than see a doctor? Or, to make a point that prayers get answered for some but not for others?



      So, if a god has a son, the son is a god, too. How can a god die? Please explain.



      Does he also believe in the tens of thousands of children who die of starvation daily? Apparently, many of those children believe in him, too.



      Good for you! Now, go tell that to the starving children. smile

  11. Rishy Rich profile image80
    Rishy Richposted 5 years ago

    So does this Supreme life form also susceptible to Death like the rest of the life forms?

    Does it has a beginning/ birth point like other life forms? Does it evolve over time too?

    What physical evidence of this Superior life form do you have to prove its existence other than the statements?

    1. writeprofessional profile image61
      writeprofessionalposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mike, In my neighborhood? I'm black in a redneck world... a cross on my lawn would call anything but Jesus! lol

      And the chaplin up there said it,

      "It is a faith journey; the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."

      The proof is, you either know it or you don't... it is something YOU CAN FEEL, really an empherical irrational emotition communion with a spirit!"

      Tell  me Mike, others; Do you believe in Ghost?

      1. Rishy Rich profile image80
        Rishy Richposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        NO. I believe in Wonder Women. I think she is the real savior . Your point?

      2. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Please stay on topic.


        ...(chuckling, in a sad kinda way, about the cross...)

      3. writeprofessional profile image61
        writeprofessionalposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, okay, I didn't come here for this, but Mike piqued my interest and I got lost, forgetting what happens when the convo turns to religeon or politics... every time, ignorance rears its silly head.

        Okay, and probably for the first time in your online life (and I hope I don't have to go through this again), Nature shows no discrepancy in its perfectness. What you call flaws are what HELLO, WHAT MAN HAS IN HIS HUMAN ESTIMATION, thought should have "evolved," some other way.

        Scientist have indeed "gone there" trying to prove "mistakes" in nature with genome tech http://genengnews.com/gen-articles/re-e … ture/3405/ but no where can you find incident of "nuture's" mistake which are in actuality mistakes MAN HAS CAUSED TO OCCUR in nature tampering with nucleat structures and genetic restructuring - most nothing in nature is natural in the 21st century.

        From the time you wake up you are injesting chemically altered food, genetically grown meat product all the way to that tap water you think so pure and full of iodine mercury and chemical and human waste!

        Come on, if you are under twenty five even thirty, you have been indoctrinated to not to believe in God. From your birth in the 80's life was being systematically taken over by the elite( big money).

        Belief in God is being taken away because believe it or not, it is not profitable to believe in God, and there is a spirit called the Devil, let's just say A BAD GHOST that wants everything His way and he has been given a time limit on what bad he can do and how many people he can decieve... but His time is running out, and you are helping him by spreading the lie that He and His rival God don't exist.

        It just is crazy to me how people can be so quick to believe in Ghosts, but they don't want to accept a God!

        Wow people! If you can believe something as silly as Ghosts existing, (which really isn't silly because) know that they are spirits, duh, doesn't it correlate?

        That's even more illiogical. Believing in demons and ghosts, but you can't rap your minds around God!

        Sheesh...

        1. 61
          park1013posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          i don't understand why you are even replying to this post... what's your point? you are not even remotely replying to the OP.

          and..I don't know where you're from but I don't know any people who believe in ghosts.. (lol at "BAD GHOST")
          of course i have no proof, but most likely # of people who believe in god >>>>> # of people who believe in ghosts. Most people reach a certain age (e.g. age 10) they stop believing in ghosts.

          I normally don't reply to nonsense posts... but i can't stand them when they get preachy.

    2. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      again...

      This thread is not about what God looks like, smells like, how God thinks, what God thinks, Where God comes from...

      It is about the proof that A Supreme Being is possible, provable and highly probable.

      Please stay on topic.

      1. Rishy Rich profile image80
        Rishy Richposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Would u care to clarify the parameters of this wonderfully hypocrite topic?

        1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
          Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nope.

          1. Rishy Rich profile image80
            Rishy Richposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Clap Clap Clap.

  12. Rishy Rich profile image80
    Rishy Richposted 5 years ago

    You are such a genius in your own mind...And a dickhead to others

  13. 61
    park1013posted 5 years ago

    hey interesting post. but would you mind clarifying your definitions a bit and addressing some issues?

    -do you disagree with the statement that all living things come to an end (die)? it is my understanding that gods a different entity from living beings. Did you purposely use the word life or do you mean it akin to 'existing'? because the highest form of 'life,' if and when it is ranked, is commonly accepted to be man.

    -why does it lead from 'no identical life forms' to 'one must be the lesser'? does difference necessitate a ranking system? Many religions espouse equality amongst living things. You are going against what religion teaches to prove that god exists.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image89
      Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I diagree with this statement. Mortality does not define living. An Immortal being does not die, but is by definition alive.



      Definition of EXIST
      intransitive verb
      1a : to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist>
      b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions <strange ideas existed in his mind>
      2: to continue to be <racism still exists in society>

      3a : to have life or the functions of vitality <we cannot exist without oxygen>
      b : to live at an inferior level or under adverse circumstances <the hungry existing from day to day>

      Definition of LIFE
      1a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
      b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
      c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
      2a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
      b : one or more aspects of the process of living <sex life of the frog>
      3: spiritual existence transcending physical death
      4: the period from birth to death



      I disagree. Do you offer any proof to support this statement. I believe humanity may be the highest form of life on Earth.



      Yes.

        and?

      Again... these questions are leading us off topic, please stay on topic.

      This thread is not about what God is, what God looks like, what God thinks, represents, smells like.

      It is about the proof that God exists.

      1. 61
        park1013posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        my questions and that of others are not off topic, but are merely questioning the premises your conclusion is based on. by and large your premise of God existing follows your premises. however the premises you base it upon seem problematic.

        btw i only stated that humanity is commonly accepted to be the highest form of life IF life=mortality (the normal usage of the word life). also just for the purpose of future clarity, please do not provide the whole list of definitions, but rather choose one that encompasses your intent. the only reason i assumed you believed mortality = living is because you used it in that context: you grouped god with all other living things that have a finite lifespan so it is not unlikely for that to lead to confusion.


        anyways, thanks for clearing up the the first half of my questions. can you now address the second part:
        -why does it lead from 'no identical life forms' to 'one must be the lesser'? does difference necessitate a ranking system? Many religions espouse equality amongst living things. You are going against what religion teaches to prove that god exists.

Closed to reply
 
working