Do you think LIFE proves that GOD Exists>>>?

Question

All languages, alphabets, and codes that we know of, as well as the information spoken or written in them, originated in minds. The blind faith of the atheist that the first life was an exception is contrary to all known evidence. --Professor Werner Gitt

Information never happens apart from intelligence, yet cells contain huge amounts of information.I believe this is the most important single evidence that life came from the mind of an intelligent Creator rather than from dumb chemicals.
---De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning scientist

Answer 1

then explain to me how a hurricane forms without any supernatural expertise...it also contains data...

Answer 2

"Information never happens apart from intelligence, yet cells contain huge amounts of information.I believe this is the most important single evidence that life came from the mind of an intelligent Creator rather than from dumb chemicals.
---De Duve, a Nobel Prize winning scientist"

Why did you mention he's a Nobel Prize winning scientist?

Well, since you like Nobel laureates so much, here's a link about ten of them speaking for evolution and against the ability to prove intelligent design: http://www.livescience.com/othernews/_ap_050916_id_opponents.html

Answer 3

Do you think THINGS FALLING proves GRAVITY exists?

For the longest time, nobody understood gravity. The best theory anyone came up with was that objects' "natural place" was as close to the center of the Earth as possible. Then, scientists made some observations and did some experiements and discovered that the best way to EXPLAIN gravity is to say that objects (matter) are attracted to each other, and there's a mathematical formula that describes the strength of attraction based on amount of matter.

Now, you don't seem to understand the word "PROVE." These scientists do not look at the way things fall and seek to say that it PROVES gravity. No- they look at the way things fall and seek ways to DESCRIBE how things fall.

Unfortunately, most people look at the scientists' post proven DESCRIPTION and mistake it for PROOF ITSELF. It's just not. Scientists don't do anything but describe what they see. "Proof" is just the things they've seen that are consistent with their conclusion. You will often see scientists using different sets of "proof" to support different descriptions of how things work, because Humankind simply hasn't figured out how to perfectly describe everything yet.

Incidentally, even though scientists can DESCRIBE how gravity works, they don't actually know WHAT gravity IS.

Now, we see a thing called LIFE. Scientists have a lot of ways of DESCRIBING life- the way DNA replicates itself; the way cells work; the process of conception birth, growth, and death; the way lifeforms develop and change- and they have "proof" for each DESCRIPTION. I can describe to you that DNA exists and how it works, and my "proof" will be all the things I've observed that led me to this conclusion.

Note that none of these "proofs" actually "proves" anything about where life came from. It just describes what we can see. We'll tell you where DNA came from- but really, deep down, where does life come from? Where does gravity come from? What are quarks made of? Where did the Universe come from? Scientists do not have comprehensive enough observations to describe these things.

Now, you need to plug "LIFE" and "GOD" into this formula. Surely you have observations and descriptions that those observations prove. However, does this give the whole picture? Just because YOU think that "God" is the best explanation does not mean it is the only explanation, or the right one. After all, people for the longest time were content to say that things move towards the centre of the Earth and heavier things fall faster than lighter things, all based on observations that proved their descriptions. However, they were discovered to be wrong when humankind became advanced enough to make more accurate observations.

Answer 4

The quotes you used use a fallacy known as a non-seqiutur in which two or more unrelated or independent concepts are linked to one another and used as proof of one another or a bigger point.

You can't jump from language to supposed proof of intelligent design without any sort of transition. It's akin to saying that just because you exist, it means that there is a God. Atheists don't believe that life is an exception, but rather the rule across the entire universe so your first quote not only makes an unfounded assertion, but it seriously misunderstands atheist beliefs.

How does the mere presence of information dictate God? Also, let's note that the kind of information that is used to prove or disprove God is contradicted. There's a huge leap between DNA in cells and human language. Which one is used as the proof is not made clear.

Finally, why does the fact that we can write or that we have DNA prove that there is only one, single creator God? There are many holy texts and plenty of them speak of many Gods. Only three holy texts talk about one God. The mere fact that those books were written doesn't prove monotheism. Books about polytheism have been written too. How come they're not proof of an entire pantheon of Gods? According to the logic of your quotes, the fact that humans with the power of language wrote about many Gods must mean that there are indeed many Gods.

There's a reason why Ockham's Razor works so well in science and research. It prevents leaps from an oddly shaped speck of dust to alien astronauts interbreeding with Earthlings to begin a sentient race on Earth, a leap very similar to the one your quotes are making.

I know I was as brief as a lawyer, but the point is that the question of God is so complex and esoteric that we struggle on how to define God, his properties, attributes and actions in the first place, much less know how to prove him or understand him.

Answer 5

No, I think that LIFE proves that LIFE exists. There is no "proof" of any kind that any kind of god had anything to do with life.

Your two quotes are both logical nonsense. A quick commentary:

(Prof. Gitt's quote): Atheists do not belief that "the first life" was an exception to anything. Yes, all the things he mentions are products of human minds. All that proves is that the things he mentions are the products of human minds -- it doesn't provide any evidence that any other information is the product of anybody else's mind, and does absolutely nothing to show that information cannot exist without a mind.

"De Duve" quote: Information most certainly DOES happen apart from intelligence, and the evidence of this is all around you. Take any plant: it uses the same DNA structure as you do, which encodes information about the plant's biological systems, yet it has no intelligence.

No analysis of information supplies any evidence that it came from a creator of any kind. Evidence that it came from a creator must be explicit, not a default case in the lack of any other evidence. His claim of evidence is logically indefensible.

Now, as to the failings and unreliability of the people you have quoted, I refer you to these web pages:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html

Christian De Duve:
(this is an article in which he clearly and succintly explains how he believes in the evolutionary origin of life on earth -- I could not find a single reference in ANY of De Duve's articles or published papers, nor from any speech he made, to the quote you posted...do you have a reference? Because if not, it appears the quote has been manufactured and is not genuine):
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438?fulltext=true

De Duve is a confirmed evolutionary biologist, and repeatedly confirms that all of the facts point to a strictly chemical origin for life, no creator or designer needed or implied. Here is a REAL quote from him (from the article above:

"All of which leads me to conclude that life is an obligatory manifestation of matter, bound to arise where conditions are appropriate. Unfortunately, available technology does not allow us to find out how many sites offer appropriate conditions in our galaxy, let alone in the universe. According to most experts who have considered the problem—notably, in relation with the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence project—there should be plenty of such sites, perhaps as many as one million per galaxy. If these experts are right, and if I am correct, there must be about as many foci of life in the universe. Life is a cosmic imperative. The universe is awash with life. "

It's clear he considers life an "obligatory manifestation of matter," not a directive from god. You have posted a made-up quote from a true scientist in order to falsely bolster your argument -- shame on you. Do you really need to lie in order to try and prove the point that god exists?

Answer 6

I think plenty of people would be content with that argument. However, these people would be the ones who already believe in God. God is a nice, simple solution to all of this, but this doesn't imply correctness. Also, I object to the use of the word information in these quotes. Information implies interpretation which is language already suggesting a desired conclusion. In this way, it's not entirely inaccurate to say that information never happens apart from intelligence. Data would be the more correct, neutral term.

It's also important to note that these 'dumb chemicals' have certain innate properties such as melting/boiling points, specific heats, reactivity, etc. There is data in chemicals and there is data in cells.

Answer 7

Equally, you can look at the other side of the equation.

Quantum Physics amply demonstrates that human consciousness not only exists in the mind but exists and operates on the cellular level. We are the ultimate sensory machines, taking in billions of bits of information at any given moment. We process that information, "choose" how we will react then act. It is in the choosing that we exercise our creativity and impact our reality. This is the fundamental essence of our ability to create our reality. We are, without any doubt, creators. That being the case...

Did god create us or did we create god based on the stimulus processed then acted upon? Did Vishnu sleep and dream the world (the basis of the Vedic idea that this is all an illusion) or are we all Vishnus dreaming our reality?

Answer 8

Life proves that I exist. Questioning life proves that I think.

I dont know that either of those things proves that God exists.

Gods existense is not in need of proof.

There is neither empirical proof for or against Gods existence.

Gods existense is self sustaining and not in need of evidence. Evidence of Gods existense is only useful in the propogation of a specific belief system....not in the disproving of atheism.

Even atheists who suddenly believe that a creator exists are no closer to being believers in Jesus or a specific set of beliefs.

I would be more interested in hearing about how you can introduce people to the God that you believe in - more than an existential argument that God exists in the abstract.

Answer 9

Heck a simple protein string proves God's existence. Since all the building blocks of life are coded with chirality. That makes spontaneous generation IMPOSSIBLE To bad the Atheist mind here won't except PROVEN scientific fact and see what God did...

Answer 10

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak. True by definition) that God is a being that which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined.

2. The Question now is this: Does God exist only in the mind (i.e., a figment of our imagination) or does God exist in reality? Let us assume that god exists only as an idea in the mind (and not in reality).

3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind an in reality, other things being equal,is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind (which makes actual existence a perfection). Thus,

4. If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist in reality as well).

5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined). Therefore,

6. God exists in reality.

Answer 11

No, Life does not prove that God Exists. That's not even an argument.

If it is though, and in response to your second quote, if "information never happens apart from intelligence" why can you not explain the intelligence of god?

Because you "can't" --you have "faith" and god is the Alpha. You can't speak of "proving" anything if, in the end, your argument is going to recede into a blanketed "just because"