***[Moderator Note] Pahu is no longer a member of Think Atheist.  If you would like to add your thoughts to this thread, that is your prerogative; however, the original poster is not able to respond.[/Moderator Note]***

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

 

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

 

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

 

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

 

[color=blue][i]“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes”[/color][/i] [[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]

 

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

 

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

 

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

 

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, [i]“Evidence that Demands a Verdict”[/i] by Josh McDowell.

 

[[url=http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000005147#] From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” [/url]]

 

Views: 4774

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Your only rationalize deism you are far off from getting close to the conclusion of the Abrahamic god And who said before the big bang there was nothing creationists.. Before the big bang there was a tiny singularity called the primeval atom if you really want to get into the discussion.. If you want to call the primeval atom god go ahead it was a collection of all the forces energy and precursor building blocks that govern and exist in the universe today.. So your god came from nothing to create everything which cant happen (special pleading).. Or the primeval atom (that was everything wound tightly into a ball) Expanded quickly and became everything in the known universe.. Cant wait to see your reply..

The argument from creation leads exactly nowhere

 

So what do we know about the nature of this creator?

Why does that creator have any special interest in us when there are trillions of stars out there?

How do people know the wishes of this creator?
Why does the creator care what I do, what I eat, when I work and how I have sex?

I think the creation model for origins of the universe is very compelling. It is commonly accepted that the universe did in fact have a beginning, or at least there was an expanding agent at work, so how did it begin?

the argument from creation leads to this:

 

1. the agent transcends the creation (nothing can be self-created)

2. the agent has a will (else, no creation)

3. the agent is living (only the living can have will)

4. the agent is creative (hence creation)

5. the agent has a personality (only persons are creative)

 

however, the argument from atheism, natural causes leads to:

matter was... eternal?

expansion, or beginning had... no cause?

it seems it is this argument that leads exactly nowhere.

 

Which creation model? The christian one? Or maybe the hindu one.. Or maybe the ancient Greek one. There are so many theological creation models, and they are so detailed with so much information as to what happened & how it happened, but without a single shred of proof other that a rotting, dusty old book.

Of course you can say you prescribe to no particular religious model, but believe that the universe needed a creator. Well the problem with that is where did this creator of yours come from? Did s/he have another creator or did it just exist on its own, yada yada. Its absurd that you can argue that the universe couldn't have come into existence on its own so it needed a creator, but then when asked about the origin of this creator of yours you claim it to have come into existence on its own or having always existed. Its like you need a layer of abstraction -  a creator created the universe & there is nothing more to it.

Personally I think there is nothing, absolutely compelling about any model religion has thrown at us. A lot of the garbage that religion has had people believe in the past has been debunked by science, so why not the "creator who expects us to live in a certain way & do certain things & not do certain other things" nonsense? 

Well, i wasn't arguing for any particular creation model, however, the one I believe is the christian one, because it is as yet, compatible with scientific study. While other religious systems fall by the wayside, christianity and the bible continues to stand up under scientific scrutiny.

 

How is it absurd to say that a transcendent creator needn't a creator of it's own, and then to turn around and argue for the causeless generation of matter or the universe? It seems your argument refutes itself. The creator is thought to be self-existent, however, the universe is not. 

 

 

do you know islam? do you know hindu? do you know buddhism? even judaism? because i do, and i can tell you right now as a fact that hindu and buddhism match science way more than the christian bible. the bible says that heaven exists in the sky. it literally says it. Genesis Chapter 2 Verse 20.

 

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
~ Stephen Roberts

do you really want to get into an argument of biblical semantics? i think you probably don't care, but biblically, yes heaven refers to the sky, but the word is also used to refer to space, and the dwelling of God. I think the general sense conveyed is 'the space above', which describes all of these, physically or spiritually.

 

I think the bible matches science because for every scientific objection to biblical accounts i have ever seen, there has been at least one plausible harmonizing explanation. There are specifics in the bible that seem to account for many 'conflicts' between creation and science (the flood especially). The most compelling support to my mind is the testimony concerning Christ himself. I have been convinced by the evidence that he was who the bible claims he was, and it is therefore likely that the bible is true.

I recommend you read 1) Who Wrote the Bible (Friedman), 2) Jesus, Interrupted (Ehrman), and 3) The Rejection of Pascal's Wager (Tobin- website http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/central.html)

thanks for the suggestions. I will read them

 

I think the bible matches science because for every scientific objection to biblical accounts i have ever seen, there has been at least one plausible harmonizing explanation.

Care to give any examples? 

The most compelling support to my mind is the testimony concerning Christ himself. I have been convinced by the evidence that he was who the bible claims he was, and it is therefore likely that the bible is true.

Here is a list of religious idols, all born before christ, whose story seems eerily similar to christ.

  • Mithra of Persia Zoroaster/Zarathustra
  • Dionysus/Bacchus
  • Horus/Osiris of Egypt
  • Krishna of India
  • Mithra of Persia
  • Zoroaster/Zarathustra

Seems to me, your christ was a charlatan, or the people who wrote about him got their divine inspiration from someone/where else.

 

working on a longer reply to christ-clone suggestion

 

"Why does there have to be a creator? Why do you need that layer of abstraction? And what proof do you have of a creator, other than your dusty old book?"

 

Here's one that i have posted here somewhere already: Intelligent Design: the Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, from the proceedings of the biological society of washington. Give that one a read, and tell me what you think.

 

as for examples of scientific objections refuted, there are vast, maybe countless objections, that have been raised, so honestly i wouldn't know where to start. Anyway, it seems the burden should be on you to furnish objections, and then on me to adequately answer. So fire away, hit me with your best scientific shot, and we'll see. This is an honest and open challenge for you or anyone to convince me that i'm wrong, using scientific arguments, and we'll see if any really stand absolutely against my faith.

Give that one a read, and tell me what you think.

So you're asking me to read a whole paper instead of presenting your views. Nice.

Well, I googled that paper & guess that the first result was -  Sternberg peer review controversy

This is what the journal had to say about the paper after it was published - 

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

Not worth reading IMO.

Anyway, it seems the burden should be on you to furnish objections, and then on me to adequately answer.

Seeing that you are the one who believes in mumbo-jumbo, not me, the burden of proof validating your mumbo-jumbo should fall on you. Just like if someone said that pigs can fly, you would ask them to provide evidence proving that pigs can fly instead of providing evidence that pigs can't fly.

Anyways, I'll play along.

1 - Biblical cosmology - Can you explain why the cosmological model provided by the bible is so horribly wrong?

  • Flat, young Earth inside an Earth centric Universe.
  • Genesis 1 discusses a rigid firmament dividing the waters below on earth from the waters above in heaven. It further describes the earthen waters as being moved aside to expose the land.
  • Genesis 7 discusses the windows of heaven as being opened so that the water of the world-wide flood could be poured onto the earth.
  • Genesis 11 describes the efforts of humanity to build the Tower of Babel which would reach to the firmament and thus penetrate into heaven.
  • Exodus 20:4 describes the universe as consisting of three levels -- much like a hamburger. Above is heaven; the Earth is below; under the earth is a deep sea of water: It reads: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
  • Joshua 10 discusses how the sun, which was believed to move across the sky every day, stopped in its tracks.
  • Verses in the Psalms mention repeatedly that God is above the earth, looking down on humans.
  • Many passages in the Hebrew Scriptures deal with the ritual sacrifice of animals and describe how the sweet odor of cooking flesh can be smelled by God who is in Heaven above.
  • Venus and Saturn are the only planets expressly mentioned in the Old Testament. What about the other 5(or 6 counting Pluto)?

So pretty much everything the bible says about the Universe is wrong. Anyone who 12- year old school kid would know that the biblical cosmological model is wrong.

 

The Bible says you can manipulate the appearance of goats by managing the appearance of the mating environment.
Jacob did it in chapter thirty of Genesis. He worked out a deal with his father-in-law Laban to manage Laban’s flocks in exchange for the striped and spotted goats.
It seems that goats, like people, tend to mate when they go out and drink, so Jacob stripped the bark off some trees near the stream, and the goats would see the striped logs while they were doing it. They therefore produced striped and spotted offspring, and made Jacob wealthy.
It was known at the time that what the parents see during sex determines what the offspring will look like.

I don't know what to say except WTF! How the hell can this be right. You don't been to study genetics to know that this is complete & utter bullshit.

 

Your turn

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by James Cox 44 minutes ago. 122 Replies

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service