Is there a god?

[zimmah]

Abiogenesis doesn't posit that life was created "out of nothing". It's a reasonable explanation, just like the theory that explains how stars were born. Abiogenesis posits that there first were amino acids, which were formed the same way all the other matter at that point - shit just randomly collapses together. These amino acids formed proteins, which formed more complex proteins, and eventually these proteins would form the first, extremely simple forms of life. This may have happened millions of times until the lifeforms were feasible enough to support themselves. You have to understand this would all happen over a very long time, talking millions of years here. These lifeforms would then propagate and evolve, until we have more complex lifeforms, and these lifeforms would form even more complex lifeforms, and billions of years later we have a diverse set of organisms on the planet.

except for the fact that all lifeforms appeared suddenly. you're just cherrypicking scientific theories and words and researches and whatnot that in your eyes prove what you want to know as truth, but the FACT of the cambrian explosion proves that what you described here is not true.

if anything, science proves there is a god more then it proves there is not.

life did not evolve in a slow process at all, and either way the whole process must have been triggered by some intelligent lifeform.

funny how an old book, written by dozens of different writers in a timespan of hunderds of years, thousand of years before modern science, has never been disproven by any science, old documents or anything at all, and you still believe it's just a book written by random humans.

get real.

[zimmah]

Because what you say isn't true. Abiogenesis has never been disproved.

nor has t been proved, i asked for an answer, not for a theory. abiogenesis is not a scientific answer to the creation of life. and science can never prove the creation of life, by the very nature of how science works.

[Symmetry]

Abiogenesis doesn't posit that life was created "out of nothing". It's a reasonable explanation, just like the theory that explains how stars were born. Abiogenesis posits that there first were amino acids, which were formed the same way all the other matter at that point - shit just randomly collapses together. These amino acids formed proteins, which formed more complex proteins, and eventually these proteins would form the first, extremely simple forms of life. This may have happened millions of times until the lifeforms were feasible enough to support themselves. You have to understand this would all happen over a very long time, talking millions of years here. These lifeforms would then propagate and evolve, until we have more complex lifeforms, and these lifeforms would form even more complex lifeforms, and billions of years later we have a diverse set of organisms on the planet.

except for the fact that all lifeforms appeared suddenly. you're just cherrypicking scientific theories and words and researches and whatnot that in your eyes prove what you want to know as truth, but the FACT of the cambrian explosion proves that what you described here is not true.

if anything, science proves there is a god more then it proves there is not.

life did not evolve in a slow process at all, and either way the whole process must have been triggered by some intelligent lifeform.

funny how an old book, written by dozens of different writers in a timespan of hunderds of years, thousand of years before modern science, has never been disproven by any science, old documents or anything at all, and you still believe it's just a book written by random humans.

get real.

Weird post- I'm not sure what you're talking about on this one. "All lifeforms appeared suddenly"? What do you mean by lifeform? Are you a lifeform? How about a new strain of virus?

How about the intelligent lifeform that you mention triggered all intelligent lifeforms? Seems like you've got a circular argument going on here.

[zimmah]

Abiogenesis doesn't posit that life was created "out of nothing". It's a reasonable explanation, just like the theory that explains how stars were born. Abiogenesis posits that there first were amino acids, which were formed the same way all the other matter at that point - shit just randomly collapses together. These amino acids formed proteins, which formed more complex proteins, and eventually these proteins would form the first, extremely simple forms of life. This may have happened millions of times until the lifeforms were feasible enough to support themselves. You have to understand this would all happen over a very long time, talking millions of years here. These lifeforms would then propagate and evolve, until we have more complex lifeforms, and these lifeforms would form even more complex lifeforms, and billions of years later we have a diverse set of organisms on the planet.

except for the fact that all lifeforms appeared suddenly. you're just cherrypicking scientific theories and words and researches and whatnot that in your eyes prove what you want to know as truth, but the FACT of the cambrian explosion proves that what you described here is not true.

if anything, science proves there is a god more then it proves there is not.

life did not evolve in a slow process at all, and either way the whole process must have been triggered by some intelligent lifeform.

funny how an old book, written by dozens of different writers in a timespan of hunderds of years, thousand of years before modern science, has never been disproven by any science, old documents or anything at all, and you still believe it's just a book written by random humans.

get real.

Weird post- I'm not sure what you're talking about on this one. "All lifeforms appeared suddenly"? What do you mean by lifeform? Are you a lifeform? How about a new strain of virus?

How about the intelligent lifeform that you mention triggered all intelligent lifeforms? Seems like you've got a circular argument going on here.

i mean all lifeforms found on earth appeared 'suddenly' and not over a span of millions of years like natty said. it's not like first it started with small single cells and then more complex life evolved out of it. complex and less complex lifeforms appeared at roughly the same time.

[Symmetry]

Abiogenesis doesn't posit that life was created "out of nothing". It's a reasonable explanation, just like the theory that explains how stars were born. Abiogenesis posits that there first were amino acids, which were formed the same way all the other matter at that point - shit just randomly collapses together. These amino acids formed proteins, which formed more complex proteins, and eventually these proteins would form the first, extremely simple forms of life. This may have happened millions of times until the lifeforms were feasible enough to support themselves. You have to understand this would all happen over a very long time, talking millions of years here. These lifeforms would then propagate and evolve, until we have more complex lifeforms, and these lifeforms would form even more complex lifeforms, and billions of years later we have a diverse set of organisms on the planet.

except for the fact that all lifeforms appeared suddenly. you're just cherrypicking scientific theories and words and researches and whatnot that in your eyes prove what you want to know as truth, but the FACT of the cambrian explosion proves that what you described here is not true.

if anything, science proves there is a god more then it proves there is not.

life did not evolve in a slow process at all, and either way the whole process must have been triggered by some intelligent lifeform.

funny how an old book, written by dozens of different writers in a timespan of hunderds of years, thousand of years before modern science, has never been disproven by any science, old documents or anything at all, and you still believe it's just a book written by random humans.

get real.

Weird post- I'm not sure what you're talking about on this one. "All lifeforms appeared suddenly"? What do you mean by lifeform? Are you a lifeform? How about a new strain of virus?

How about the intelligent lifeform that you mention triggered all intelligent lifeforms? Seems like you've got a circular argument going on here.

i mean all lifeforms found on earth appeared 'suddenly' and not over a span of millions of years like natty said. it's not like first it started with small single cells and then more complex life evolved out of it. complex and less complex lifeforms appeared at roughly the same time.

So where did the intelligent lifeform come from that you propose triggered it? Are you saying that the creator appeared at the moment of creation and didn't exist before?

[BigBallinStalin]

Zimmah, which religious group do you subscribe to?

[natty dread]

then, who ever observed abiogenesis? noone.

Who ever observed god?

Things can be observed by more than just eyes and ears. We can take the evidence and make conclusions. This also counts as observation.

so it's not even a theory then.

Yes it is. It's a rather well-supported theory.

except for the fact that all lifeforms appeared suddenly.

No, they didn't. Read less ID creationist propaganda, and more real science.

you're just cherrypicking scientific theories

No I'm not. That's in fact what you're doing.

and words and researches and whatnot that in your eyes prove what you want to know as truth, but the FACT of the cambrian explosion proves that what you described here is not true.

Cambrian explosion proves no such thing.

The cambrian explosions was sudden only in the framework of time that evolution takes. It's not like, one day there weren't many lifeforms, then the next day there suddenly was. What is referred to as "cambrian explosion" still took many millions of years. It's only considered "sudden" in comparison to the time it took for lifeforms to develop before that.

There are currently several plausible explanations for the cambrian explosion, and all of them are compatible with the theories of abiogenesis and evolution.

if anything, science proves there is a god more then it proves there is not.

Science does no such thing. You can twist the evidence and interpret it creatively, and come to your own conclusions because it's what you want to believe in the first place. But what the actual evidence says is something very different.

funny how an old book, written by dozens of different writers in a timespan of hunderds of years, thousand of years before modern science, has never been disproven by any science, old documents or anything at all, and you still believe it's just a book written by random humans.

This is untrue. There are lots of things in the bible which have been completely disproven.

get real.

How about you open your eyes, and look at the evidence with an open mind, without religious presuppositions. You might be surprised.

i asked for an answer, not for a theory.

There is no difference with the two. Theories are the best answers you are going to get.

abiogenesis is not a scientific answer to the creation of life.

Yes it is.

and science can never prove the creation of life, by the very nature of how science works.

Sure it can, why couldn't it? There's no limits to what science can potentially prove.

[Woodruff]

whenever i tell unusual truths that i have personally deduced, but leave out my reasoning and post them in a declarative manner, an almost universal response by others is immediate dismissal without consideration. i don't understand this.

Unusual truths? Well...it was unusual, I'll give you that much.

if my statements are so ridiculous, shouldn't they be easy to disprove?

That particular statement was so ridiculous as to be laughable. Easy to disprove? Just looking at mere definitions disproves it, so it shouldn't be necessary for anyone to bother to do so. For heavens sake, if you believe that religion falls under the umbrella of science, I don't even know where to begin showing you where you're wrong because you're just SO UTTERLY WRONG.

i suppose the cognitive dissonance between reading an idea you've never considered and not being able to figure out why that idea is wrong leads to a shutdown of one's critical faculties in a weak attempt to preserve their egotistical illusion that "nobody else knows something important that i don't know". honestly, you people are pathetic. once you can broaden your peabrained, preconceived notions of what science is, or defend those notions with an actual argument, then we can have a discussion.

Yes, it MUST be that everyone else is wrong in thinking your statements were illogical. It couldn't possibly be that your statements were illogical.

[Woodruff]

funny how an old book, written by dozens of different writers in a timespan of hunderds of years, thousand of years before modern science, has never been disproven by any science, old documents or anything at all, and you still believe it's just a book written by random humans.

Do you believe that the universe is only approximately 6,000 years old?

get real.

Indeed.

i mean all lifeforms found on earth appeared 'suddenly' and not over a span of millions of years like natty said. it's not like first it started with small single cells and then more complex life evolved out of it. complex and less complex lifeforms appeared at roughly the same time.

Um...no. This is really very basic stuff that you're missing here.

if there is a god, wouldn't you want to know him?

If there is a god that refuses to show me his physical presence, why would I want to bother knowing him? If he's not demonstrably interested, why should I be?

2) you believe in god, and there is no god -> you're still happy with your life, so noone gets hurt. you may only be disappointed that there is no god, but at least you have a good life in your way.

I am living my life in a good way, regardless of whether a god exists or not. The presence/absence of religion has no affect on how I conduct myself.

3) there is a god, but you don't believe there is -> may bea very bad thing, you hurt god's feelings

Worshipping someone out of fear isn't worship. It's just fear.

so wouldn't it be at the very least be a good thing to really investigate if there is a god that cares? (if there is a god, but he doesn't care, then you shouldn't have to care either).

Investigate? If it were possible to investigate it, then I would absolutely be interested. Of course, investigation requires evidence...

Science is VERY CLOSE to creating life, you realize...right?

that would only prove that life could not have been created without outside help, unless the scientist do absolutely nothing to help create life. otherwise they would only proof that some kind of (possibly human-like) deity would have need to existed before life, in order to start the chain of events that created life. i mean, if a scientist is needed to create life out of nothing, then the scientist HAS A ROLE in the experiment. the only thing they can prove with their experiments, is that intelligent life is required to create life. (thus, that there MUST BE a god).

Wow...you put a lot of effort into that excuse.

it would amaze me more if they found life suddenly appearing somewhere in the universe, without human interference. (good luck with that)

That shouldn't amaze you, for several reasons. For one, it's almost a certainty that there IS life elsewhere in the universe. Secondly, are you saying that a god would be limited to only working on Earth?

[Woodruff]

if anything, science proves there is a god more then it proves there is not.

Science does no such thing. You can twist the evidence and interpret it creatively, and come to your own conclusions because it's what you want to believe in the first place. But what the actual evidence says is something very different.

In the absolutely best-case scenario (for zimmah), the evidence says that God used abiogenesis and evolution to do what the Bible says he did, wherein the timeframes in the Bible are allegorical.

[macbone]

Hey, on the whole God killing himself thing, it happened before.

He got better, though.

[Symmetry]

Hey, on the whole God killing himself thing, it happened before.

He got better, though.

He wasn't perfect before?

[john9blue]

if my statements are so ridiculous, shouldn't they be easy to disprove?

That particular statement was so ridiculous as to be laughable. Easy to disprove? Just looking at mere definitions disproves it, so it shouldn't be necessary for anyone to bother to do so. For heavens sake, if you believe that religion falls under the umbrella of science, I don't even know where to begin showing you where you're wrong because you're just SO UTTERLY WRONG.

k then post the definitions and show me where they contradict each other.

your reluctance to make any effort at disproving my statement shows that you don't really know what you're talking about.

[natty dread]

your reluctance to make any effort at disproving my statement shows that you don't really know what you're talking about.

TROLL!

[zimmah]

Abiogenesis doesn't posit that life was created "out of nothing". It's a reasonable explanation, just like the theory that explains how stars were born. Abiogenesis posits that there first were amino acids, which were formed the same way all the other matter at that point - shit just randomly collapses together. These amino acids formed proteins, which formed more complex proteins, and eventually these proteins would form the first, extremely simple forms of life. This may have happened millions of times until the lifeforms were feasible enough to support themselves. You have to understand this would all happen over a very long time, talking millions of years here. These lifeforms would then propagate and evolve, until we have more complex lifeforms, and these lifeforms would form even more complex lifeforms, and billions of years later we have a diverse set of organisms on the planet.

except for the fact that all lifeforms appeared suddenly. you're just cherrypicking scientific theories and words and researches and whatnot that in your eyes prove what you want to know as truth, but the FACT of the cambrian explosion proves that what you described here is not true.

if anything, science proves there is a god more then it proves there is not.

life did not evolve in a slow process at all, and either way the whole process must have been triggered by some intelligent lifeform.

funny how an old book, written by dozens of different writers in a timespan of hunderds of years, thousand of years before modern science, has never been disproven by any science, old documents or anything at all, and you still believe it's just a book written by random humans.

get real.

Weird post- I'm not sure what you're talking about on this one. "All lifeforms appeared suddenly"? What do you mean by lifeform? Are you a lifeform? How about a new strain of virus?

How about the intelligent lifeform that you mention triggered all intelligent lifeforms? Seems like you've got a circular argument going on here.

i mean all lifeforms found on earth appeared 'suddenly' and not over a span of millions of years like natty said. it's not like first it started with small single cells and then more complex life evolved out of it. complex and less complex lifeforms appeared at roughly the same time.

So where did the intelligent lifeform come from that you propose triggered it? Are you saying that the creator appeared at the moment of creation and didn't exist before?

god has no beginning and no end. he always was and always will be.

[zimmah]

then, who ever observed abiogenesis? noone.

Who ever observed god?

Things can be observed by more than just eyes and ears. We can take the evidence and make conclusions. This also counts as observation.

so it's not even a theory then.

Yes it is. It's a rather well-supported theory.

except for the fact that all lifeforms appeared suddenly.

No, they didn't. Read less ID creationist propaganda, and more real science.

you're just cherrypicking scientific theories

No I'm not. That's in fact what you're doing.

and words and researches and whatnot that in your eyes prove what you want to know as truth, but the FACT of the cambrian explosion proves that what you described here is not true.

Cambrian explosion proves no such thing.

The cambrian explosions was sudden only in the framework of time that evolution takes. It's not like, one day there weren't many lifeforms, then the next day there suddenly was. What is referred to as "cambrian explosion" still took many millions of years. It's only considered "sudden" in comparison to the time it took for lifeforms to develop before that.

There are currently several plausible explanations for the cambrian explosion, and all of them are compatible with the theories of abiogenesis and evolution.

if anything, science proves there is a god more then it proves there is not.

Science does no such thing. You can twist the evidence and interpret it creatively, and come to your own conclusions because it's what you want to believe in the first place. But what the actual evidence says is something very different.

funny how an old book, written by dozens of different writers in a timespan of hunderds of years, thousand of years before modern science, has never been disproven by any science, old documents or anything at all, and you still believe it's just a book written by random humans.

This is untrue. There are lots of things in the bible which have been completely disproven.

get real.

How about you open your eyes, and look at the evidence with an open mind, without religious presuppositions. You might be surprised.

i asked for an answer, not for a theory.

There is no difference with the two. Theories are the best answers you are going to get.

abiogenesis is not a scientific answer to the creation of life.

Yes it is.

and science can never prove the creation of life, by the very nature of how science works.

Sure it can, why couldn't it? There's no limits to what science can potentially prove.

in that case, life is evidence of god.

[Haggis_McMutton]

you could call me irrational but i could call you irrational for the same reasons.

this whole discussion is pointless though so i don't even know why i should even try to answer, you're all ignorant anyway.

might as well rename the tread "bash on religious people #45"

I provided reasoning for why I believe you're being irrational, you didn't.

Why is it that engaging in debate is "bashing on religious people"?
Are their beliefs so fragile that we need to tiptoe around them?

If you can't justify or explain one of your beliefs, maybe it's time to re-examine it.

the difference between discussing and bashing is because you're not asking questions to hear an answer, you're asking questions just for the sake of asking them. no matter what i answer, you'll laugh at my answer and ask a new question that again you will laugh at my answer.

and also calling me irrational because i think for myself instead of just accepting the opinion of the masses. now how is thinking for myself irrational?

I'm calling your belief in god irrational. It's irrelevant how you reached the conclusion. If, by thinking for myself, I reach the conclusion that the moon landing was faked, I'm still being irrational.

As for the "laughing", I'm just pointing out the flaws I see in your answers, that's what debate is.

I personally think this whole "what has/hasn't science proved yet" discussion goes nowhere (I can almost feel the 10 pages on quantum mechanics coming up). I also think it's pointless.
When science didn't yet know where lightning came from, it didn't mean that it was any more rational for people to believe it was Zeus being pissed.

Just because we don't know the answer to something, we don't need to invent magical being in order to pretend we know the answer.

whenever i tell unusual truths that i have personally deduced, but leave out my reasoning and post them in a declarative manner, an almost universal response by others is immediate dismissal without consideration. i don't understand this. if my statements are so ridiculous, shouldn't they be easy to disprove? i suppose the cognitive dissonance between reading an idea you've never considered and not being able to figure out why that idea is wrong leads to a shutdown of one's critical faculties in a weak attempt to preserve their egotistical illusion that "nobody else knows something important that i don't know". honestly, you people are pathetic. once you can broaden your peabrained, preconceived notions of what science is, or defend those notions with an actual argument, then we can have a discussion.

Apparently my last post wasn't clear enough.

A has property P
B has property P
=> B is included in A

See any problems at all there?

[john9blue]

your reluctance to make any effort at disproving my statement shows that you don't really know what you're talking about.

TROLL!

IN THE DUNGEON!

[Symmetry]

Weird post- I'm not sure what you're talking about on this one. "All lifeforms appeared suddenly"? What do you mean by lifeform? Are you a lifeform? How about a new strain of virus?

How about the intelligent lifeform that you mention triggered all intelligent lifeforms? Seems like you've got a circular argument going on here.

i mean all lifeforms found on earth appeared 'suddenly' and not over a span of millions of years like natty said. it's not like first it started with small single cells and then more complex life evolved out of it. complex and less complex lifeforms appeared at roughly the same time.

So where did the intelligent lifeform come from that you propose triggered it? Are you saying that the creator appeared at the moment of creation and didn't exist before?

god has no beginning and no end. he always was and always will be.

life did not evolve in a slow process at all, and either way the whole process must have been triggered by some intelligent lifeform.

You seem to be a bit flexible on what you mean by lifeform. I'm guessing that by intelligent lifeform you sometimes mean a god, or God, and at other times humans and other forms of life, but you seem to use the term pretty interchangeably.

If you say that intelligent lifeforms require a creator, and that creator must be an intelligent lifeform, you're using circular logic. It makes little sense.

[zimmah]

funny how an old book, written by dozens of different writers in a timespan of hunderds of years, thousand of years before modern science, has never been disproven by any science, old documents or anything at all, and you still believe it's just a book written by random humans.

Do you believe that the universe is only approximately 6,000 years old?

get real.

Indeed.

i mean all lifeforms found on earth appeared 'suddenly' and not over a span of millions of years like natty said. it's not like first it started with small single cells and then more complex life evolved out of it. complex and less complex lifeforms appeared at roughly the same time.

Um...no. This is really very basic stuff that you're missing here.

if there is a god, wouldn't you want to know him?

If there is a god that refuses to show me his physical presence, why would I want to bother knowing him? If he's not demonstrably interested, why should I be?

2) you believe in god, and there is no god -> you're still happy with your life, so noone gets hurt. you may only be disappointed that there is no god, but at least you have a good life in your way.

I am living my life in a good way, regardless of whether a god exists or not. The presence/absence of religion has no affect on how I conduct myself.

3) there is a god, but you don't believe there is -> may bea very bad thing, you hurt god's feelings

Worshipping someone out of fear isn't worship. It's just fear.

so wouldn't it be at the very least be a good thing to really investigate if there is a god that cares? (if there is a god, but he doesn't care, then you shouldn't have to care either).

Investigate? If it were possible to investigate it, then I would absolutely be interested. Of course, investigation requires evidence...

Science is VERY CLOSE to creating life, you realize...right?

that would only prove that life could not have been created without outside help, unless the scientist do absolutely nothing to help create life. otherwise they would only proof that some kind of (possibly human-like) deity would have need to existed before life, in order to start the chain of events that created life. i mean, if a scientist is needed to create life out of nothing, then the scientist HAS A ROLE in the experiment. the only thing they can prove with their experiments, is that intelligent life is required to create life. (thus, that there MUST BE a god).

Wow...you put a lot of effort into that excuse.

it would amaze me more if they found life suddenly appearing somewhere in the universe, without human interference. (good luck with that)

That shouldn't amaze you, for several reasons. For one, it's almost a certainty that there IS life elsewhere in the universe. Secondly, are you saying that a god would be limited to only working on Earth?

no, i don't believe the universe is approximately 6000 years old, that would be stupid to believe. i also don't believe god created the earth in 6 real days, the 6 days in the bible are symbolic, in fact, there wasn't even a solar system, so there couldn't have been days until the solar system was created. so those days are nothing more then symbolic.

god does not refuse to show his physical presence, god isn't a physical being in the first place, he's a spirit, a being of dynamic energy. also, we humans are probably not even capable of seeing god without dying, he's far to divine for us mere humans. but isn't being created by him reason enough to at least listen to him? your parents earn your respect too just for the fact they are your parents, don't you agree? yet god did far more then that, he basically gave us everything we have. and he s in fact interested, why else would he sacrifice his first born to die as a human on earth, murdered as a criminal, with a corrupted lawsuit against him, if he wouldn't care for us? also, we humans are nothing compared to the entire universe, and yet god himself, and all angels, including the bad ones and the devil, care for us humans. in fact, there's a war in heavens going on, just because of humans, and you think god doesn't care? you're just closing your eyes to the truth, god does care.

living your life in a good way is always good, i don't doubt that you do, but with all due respect, if you don't understand the higher meaning of life, no matter how much good you do, you're basically nothing more then an animal, you eat, sleep, reproduce and seek shelter, just like all other species on earth. i don't mean that in an offensive way, but we humans are designed to 'need' god, unlike animals. spirituality is a concept only humans can understand, we should be grateful of that.

i don't worship out of fear either, i worship because i love god and what he done for us, and because i want to chose his side in this divine war. there's no in between, it's either you're on gods side or on the devils side. i know what side i want to be on.

the bible doesn't speak about the existence or non-existence of extraterritorial life because it doesn't matter for us at this moment of time, the earth has enough problems already anyways. and the war that is going on in heavens is about humankind, maybe god planned to make more lifeforms in the universe, but wanted to get this battle over with before continuing his work, or maybe there are lifeforms created so far away we can't get near them with our current technology, or maybe they're in another dimension we can't (yet) reach or even notice. it doesn't matter though.

also i'd like to see what science ever proved the bible wrong, as you said it did multiple times. i'm quite curious what you mean by that.

and god isn't 'just' a lifeform, he's a being of dynamic energy.

[BigBallinStalin]

If god is a lifeform of dynamic energy, is it measurable in spiritual Joules?

[MeDeFe]

abiogenesis is just a theory, and it makes just about as much sense as believing in a god. or probably even less. i mean, life created out of nothing? really?

Genesis in a nutshell.

[zimmah]

If god is a lifeform of dynamic energy, is it measurable in spiritual Joules?

since he is unlimited in his energy, i'd assume not. unless the scale goes all the way to infinity.

[Symmetry]

If god is a lifeform of dynamic energy, is it measurable in spiritual Joules?

since he is unlimited in his energy, i'd assume not. unless the scale goes all the way to infinity.

So it's impossible for him to create something he could not move?

Sorry to use one of the oldies.

[natty dread]

god has no beginning and no end. he always was and always will be.

What does this mean in practice?

Also, how do you know this to be true? What observations can you make that support this statement?

in that case, life is evidence of god.

This is a very vague statement. What exactly leads you to be certain that life can not exist without the existence of a god?

god isn't a physical being in the first place, he's a spirit, a being of dynamic energy.

How does this energy manifest itself? Can it be measured or observed in any way?

also, we humans are probably not even capable of seeing god without dying, he's far to divine for us mere humans.

Oh. Well, isn't that convenient.

but isn't being created by him reason enough to at least listen to him?

1. God created us, and we believe this because we believe in god
2. Therefore, since god created us, we should all believe in god

That's circular logic.

yet god did far more then that, he basically gave us everything we have. and he s in fact interested, why else would he sacrifice his first born to die as a human on earth, murdered as a criminal, with a corrupted lawsuit against him, if he wouldn't care for us? also, we humans are nothing compared to the entire universe, and yet god himself, and all angels, including the bad ones and the devil, care for us humans. in fact, there's a war in heavens going on, just because of humans, and you think god doesn't care? you're just closing your eyes to the truth, god does care.

Which god is the real one? Is it the Christian god, or Hindu god, or Allah?

How do I know which god to follow, which religious doctrine I should organize my life around?

i don't mean that in an offensive way, but we humans are designed to 'need' god,

What do you base this claim on?

spirituality is a concept only humans can understand, we should be grateful of that.

Fist fucking is also a concept only humans can understand.

also i'd like to see what science ever proved the bible wrong, as you said it did multiple times. i'm quite curious what you mean by that.

Exodus never happened as described in the bible. The Israeli were never enslaved as a nation by the Egyptians. There has never been a global flood. Rabbits are not ruminants.