How Does Nature Help To Prove God's Existance? | Teen Ink

How Does Nature Help To Prove God's Existance?

October 1, 2008
By Anonymous

How Nature Helps to Prove God’s Existence

Nature looks up to God, the trees, mountains, the sun shines down on us, the world is full of amazing miracles; The creatures are complex in how they are

made and look, each one being different from the other. How you can tell how old a tree is by counting the rings, is that not amazing? Each human body, though

some may look alike, they are all different, think differently, talk differently, and their lives are different.


The sun shines down on us through the days, its energetic heat warming the earth at exactly the right temperature. If the Earth were any closer or

farther from the sun, we would all either burn to death, or freeze to death. My point... If the earth were not perfectly stable where it is, we would all die.

This cannot be a mistake.


If you don’t believe that God made the universe explain this to me! Our earth is the only planet that rotates on an axis, at around 23.5 degrees; and has a

livable atmosphere, gravity, and life. Why are not any of the other planets livable? Or have life on them?


God supplies our needs in nature; the fruit and vegetable trees and plants supply an abundance of our food; Also for the animals, creatures, rodents, and

bugs does He also supply food and shelter for.


Grass, plants, trees, bushes and other living plant-like things are able to grow; But how? They don’t have blood and bones. They have water green stems,

and trees have trunks. How can all of these things be so perfected and be an accident or a mistake? It really shows how they have to have a maker or creator.

There are no other gods such as ‘sun gods’ that only create certain things. There is only ONE True God who created ALL OF IT and is the God of ALL OF IT.


He (God) created everything, - people- plant life-organisms- atoms, and everything else; If parts of the Bible is true than isn’t all of it? God must be

true. If a normal person was ‘god’… well they wouldn’t be. Man cannot even make a single living thread of grass, and defiantly cannot make a person, animal, or

plant. They can only mix, change, destruct or destroy what is already there. There is a God and He did come down to earth in the form of a man, to his creations

but He was not a normal person, He was without sin, and yet He died for our sins. He Was and Is the only TRUE God.

God is not in everything though his artistic work may be;


Rain, clouds, sleet, hail and snow all show amazing features; Water re-cycles itself; and falls as rain, if there is a storm or very cold

weather the water vapor gets so cold that it becomes sleet, hail and snow. Snowflakes consist of six edges of flakes on each flake of snow. Every single piece is

different than the other. There are no two of the same things. That is too complex for it to be any mistake. And it isn’t a mistake, there has to be a God soooo big

that He could and can create a Universe, even if everyone living in it doesn’t acknowledge Him and His work. Who are we to say that it was a mistake?

Also have you ever heard of something good or pleasant coming from an explosion? Look around, when you blow something up (such as a bomb, firework or

other explosive) does it end up as a human being, a house, store, or animal? No! That just doesn’t happen. So the theory that we came from something that

BLEW UP is absurd.


If the world was a mistake then wouldn’t there be mistakes in it? Would there not be more days to take to make a full circle of the earth? (Or year) Would

not the earth be tilted or slanted more or less as different years come and go? Would our atmosphere be losing a lot of its control, and gravity? No it’s not because

the world isn’t a mistake, it is a creation.



Similar Articles

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 208 comments.


on Apr. 20 2011 at 10:02 am
1ClassicLady1 SILVER, Mona, Utah
6 articles 0 photos 37 comments

Favorite Quote:
Success is not final and failure is not fatal. The courage to continue is all that matters in the end.
~Winston Churchill

You know what, your style of thinking isn't going to help you with anything. I believe in God and I believe that he did make this world, but your attitude against others can't make you a very happy person.

I think that if you really believe in God, you would believe in considering another's thoughts as well. He did say "If you love me, then feed my sheep" to Peter, didn't he? Unless you don't think every man is His sheep.


on Apr. 15 2011 at 6:40 pm
teacat749 BRONZE, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin
4 articles 0 photos 151 comments

Favorite Quote:
We do not quit playing because we grow old. We grow old because we quit playing.
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

I find this incredibly offensive. Completely disregarding my beliefs.

on Apr. 13 2011 at 9:09 pm
Neon_Gypsy_Blood BRONZE, Idaho Falls, Idaho
3 articles 0 photos 48 comments

Favorite Quote:
Do or do not, there is no try.
~Master Yoda~

sooo srry i meant 'us' not 'up'.. :)

on Apr. 13 2011 at 9:08 pm
Neon_Gypsy_Blood BRONZE, Idaho Falls, Idaho
3 articles 0 photos 48 comments

Favorite Quote:
Do or do not, there is no try.
~Master Yoda~

This is by far one of my favorite articles on God... I love it soooo dang much its great and you put it in such away that it makes God easier to understand and not that terribly hard to understand being.. although he is hard to understand its cuz He's just that much bigger than up and He's perfect!! :)

Lilliterra said...
on Mar. 13 2011 at 5:16 pm

"There have been various entities and events that have been presented by both science and other religions as more complex than the present universe."

Yes, but how did THEY come about? from something more complex than them? And then how did that something before them come about? The universe needs a FINAL cause.


Lilliterra said...
on Mar. 13 2011 at 5:12 pm

Let's start from the top. Do you not beleive that laws of nature can exist? I know that Evolutionists, when told that "Evolution is only a theory" will often say that a theory is the highest possible designation in science, and point to the theory of relativity (proven) and the theory of gravity (proven also). Not that some theories aren't complete bogus. But I'm sure that these particular theories (biogenesis and Cause and Effect(or causality)) are some of the closest out there to being actual laws.

"Abiogenesis is the modern model for life. There is no viable scientific source that disputes this".

In science, hearing something like "No dispute" should be a red flag. Science is ABOUT dispute. It is about critical thinking. If there's no dispute (especially on something with implications as profound as those of abiogenesis) that should let you know that there's something other than science at work here.

Before you state that there are no viable scientific sources offering dispute, though, maybe you should try looking for one.

As far as causes being more complicated than their effects, I still think I'm right. I couldn't invent a computer more intellegent than myself, now, could I?

Although I'm sorry to say I don't know a whole lot about atoms. Can you try a different example?


Persona BRONZE said...
on Mar. 11 2011 at 12:38 am
Persona BRONZE, Hanford, California
4 articles 0 photos 60 comments

To begin with, you need to check your sources of information:

To begin with, there is no "Law" of Biogenesis. This is a simple misnomer. There is a theory of biogenesis, and this was conducted to chip away and refute the absurd notion of spontaneous generation. The experiments Louis Pasteur performed don't even touch on the idea of abiogenesis, much less refute them. The closest thing in modern science to this is Cell Theory, which states that all cells arise from pre-existing cells. This, in and of itself, was brought upon by inductive conclusion:  Every cell we've seen comes from other cells, so it is inductively agreed upon that this is the attribute of all cells. However, there is no logical requirement for this.  Similar theories of inductive reasoning has been proven wrong before, which is only natural, because they are largely placed as a matter of practicality in a world where new facts become apparent every day. This can easily demonstrated in the same manner that atomic theory has shifted from the Rutherford model to the Bohr model, to the Electron cloud model.

Abiogenesis is the modern model for life. The is no viable scientific source that disputes this.

Moving on. Again. There is no "Law of cause and effect" there is Causality, and various theories surrounding this concept, but there is no law or even a theory concerning causality itself, instead of something causality relates to. Among those theories, there are none that claims a cause is more complex than the effect. The closest thing to what you're suggesting is the logic necessary and sufficient conditions. Which, as the name of this branch of logic suggests, only states that a cause must be both necessary and efficient to bring about the effect.

But that's besides the point to begin with. Say that weren't true. Say the above paragraph I wrote is utter and unfounded nonsense. "God is the only thing that could have made it" STILL doesn't follow from the premise that that every cause is of equal to greater complexity than its effect. This would make God a possibly cause or even a probable cause. But the only cause? Hardly. There have been various entities and events that have been presented by both science and other religions as more complex than the present universe.

And no. That is NOT radioactive decay. Atoms naturally lose protons and electrons when forming covalent and ionic bonds and forming chemical compounds.  This is because the atom is sharing said protons and electrons with another atom. Radioactive decay is when an atom loses these particals by emmiting them, not sharing them. By sharing them, the atom creates structure. Do you not comprehend that a coherent structure of two combined atoms is more complex than an isolated atom that isn't sharing it's particals?


Lilliterra said...
on Mar. 7 2011 at 12:33 am

Do you beleive in Scientific laws? Because I know a few scientific laws. The law of biogenesis says that life comes from life. Not non-life.

And the law of cause and effect says that every cause is of equal to greater complexity than its effect.

I can draw a picture. I caused the picture. I am more complicated than the picture.  A tree can produce another tree. The two are of equal complexity. (and back on the topic of explosions) a firecracker can cause an explosion. The firecracker is more complicated than the debris.

God made the universe. God is more complicated than the universe and is the only thing that could have made it.

As for your example with atoms losing protons and electrons, is that not radioactive decay? And that is an example of things losing energy, not gaining it.


Lilliterra said...
on Mar. 7 2011 at 12:19 am
But WHY would we want to if we are nothing but atoms floating around, if we are only rearranged pond scum? Why is it that man looks for a God?

Lilliterra said...
on Mar. 7 2011 at 12:16 am
"Inbreeding" wouldn't have been destructive or dangerous back then, because the gene pool was completely clean. This was the first man and woman, the original creation, there weren't all these mutations that we see today. It wouldn't be dangerous for brother and sister to marry each other.

on Jan. 25 2011 at 10:15 am
People, stop believing in evolution! It is down right sick how you believe in the lying essesnce of that "Darwin" created. Are you willing to listen to man or our Creator? If you listen to man, you're being decieved. But listen to God, you get truth for He is Truth and Love. The person doesn't say this world is a mistake, but rather the person says that this world has purpose. We have purpose. Just because this person and I believe in God, doesn't give you a right to bash our beliefs.

on Jan. 25 2011 at 10:10 am
Just reading his again for the second time, I'm agreeing with you. There is only one God. He made all.

on Jan. 25 2011 at 10:08 am
I believe there is one God only, every other "god" is false. I am Chris.tian, a servant of Jehovah.  

on Jan. 23 2011 at 2:41 pm
jaani-androphile BRONZE, San Diego, California
3 articles 0 photos 15 comments

Favorite Quote:
oompa loompa doopity doo jeffrey's stirring up some chocolate for you- macabre

are you saying that everyone else is wrong to believe in what they want

and it is foolish of you to believe in an ancient novel written by devil knows who

how  do you know that those were gods words and not the words of some attention seeking monk

you believe that onlychristianity is right so i will do what you just did

it is foolish of you to believe in the bible. you cannot tell me that i am being rude because you did that first


on Jan. 23 2011 at 1:48 pm

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God hath shewd it unto them." Romans 1:19

Nature is God's way of saying he created everything on this earth. He created animals, trees, grass, sky, clouds and, humans.


on Dec. 27 2010 at 3:56 pm
maggierebekah BRONZE, Woodstock, Illinois
3 articles 1 photo 21 comments

Favorite Quote:
"i think there is no world without theatre."

It might. I suppose since God made Adam and Eve, it's possible that He could have made husbands and wives for their kids, but it seems more likely that we're inbred.

Of course, that would have happened again during Noah's Ark. Cousins would have had to marry each other.


on Dec. 26 2010 at 12:30 am
jaani-androphile BRONZE, San Diego, California
3 articles 0 photos 15 comments

Favorite Quote:
oompa loompa doopity doo jeffrey's stirring up some chocolate for you- macabre

But if they had lots of kids, does that mean that we are inbred? Either way I believe in a God just not the bible...

on Dec. 25 2010 at 11:23 pm
maggierebekah BRONZE, Woodstock, Illinois
3 articles 1 photo 21 comments

Favorite Quote:
"i think there is no world without theatre."

Adam and Eve were probably not white and blond. There has been evidence suggesting that the Garden of Eden was most likely around the Fertile Crescent, so they probably had dark, thick hair and olive skin. They were also able to start the population of the world because they most likely had A LOT of kids (not just Cain, Abel, and Seth.) The Bible says "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters."

But, yeah, you're arguments are very weak OP.


on Dec. 9 2010 at 1:28 pm
horatio13 BRONZE, Ellis, Kansas
1 article 0 photos 3 comments
They both contain water, yes, but the cactus is the only living thing.  This is the weakest argument i've heard against evolution.  By the way, it is an observable fact.

on Dec. 9 2010 at 1:19 am
jaani-androphile BRONZE, San Diego, California
3 articles 0 photos 15 comments

Favorite Quote:
oompa loompa doopity doo jeffrey's stirring up some chocolate for you- macabre

Your arguments are very weak :/ I believe in God I just don't believe that two, white blonde people (Adam and Eve and at least that is how they are depicted) can make the human population. Evolution, and evolution again. :) It was at least proven... God was not