Science Proves God
***[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]]
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Scotty Mack on -
I guess the Endosymbiotic Theory should all be disregarded as well, again it is a theory, a well documented theory that has been accepted, oh except for those who think religion is a theory! Like I said no Logic and no Reason! Humans have a Primal need to believe god exists? Must be some new unproven theory that religion has concocted? Again with zero empirical data to back that statement up!
I want to know why one would want to accept the god of the old testament he is the most unpleasant character in all fiction, jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiven, control freak, a vindictive, blood thirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously manevolent bully but yet you believe and have faith in this, and think that he actually wrote this mythological book of fables? Seriously your pineal gland is releasing dimethyltryptamine because these are some serious delusions!
dimethyl
-
-
Permalink Reply by james d on -
well put scotty!! and jesus claimed that he and the father were one, so he must be as miserable as the old testament god... now about this ghost figure...
-
-
Permalink Reply by William C. Walker on -
Jesus loves you, Pahu. ***moderator's edit***
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dale Headley on
-
Sorry, science does NOT prove God. In fact, scientists are making great headway in proving the non-necessity of any kind of supernatural intervention to explain the universe and life. Most of your postulates can be shown to be faulty; but let me address just one: the so-called "Law of Biogenesis." Most biologists no longer regard that as an inviolate law, just because Louis Pasteur used it to support his germ theory. They are increasingly focused these days on "abiogenesis."
My guess, since you clearly have no background in science, is that you don't know what abiogeneisis is. It is the rapidly developing concept that life CAN and probably DID arise from non-life. Have you heard of "probionts"? I doubt it. They are chemical entities that are showing promise as precursors of prokaryotes, which were probably the first forms of life. Beginning with the groundbreaking Urey-Miller experiment a half century ago, scientists have been producing a variety of prebiotics that may very well be similar to those that were stewed in the early organic soup on earth.
One example: crystals, such as snowflakes, have the remarkable ability to self-organize in a manner that is little different from what we identify as the life process. They don't organize into six-pointed crystals by chance; something basic is driving them. We don't yet know that that force is, but no serious scientist thinks it's the work of a Supreme Deity. Numerous experiments are going on right now in which the chemical consituents of life are synthesized to the point of self-replicating. So far, none of them have persisted for long, which is probably what happened in Earth's early existence, as well, until evolution took over by applying its amazing tool: DNA. One of the many hypotheses being explored is that life originated from clay crystals, of all things. It is true that, so far, no unambiguous life form has been produced. However, thousands of scientists are working on it because they believe in the possibility - the probability - that life began as a result of sophisticated self-organization among certain complex molecules.
The point I'm making is not that life definitely did arise from non-life, as I believe, but that your assertion that science has proved otherwise is, at best, premature. Real scientists are working hard on it for the simple reason that they have NOT proved God. And YOU certainly haven't! You accept some amorphous, indescribable, unlocatable, magical god as an explanation for everything simply because you can't imagine anything else; but scientists can, and do. Incidentally, your God, you say, is both omniscient and omnipotent. Then He must NOT be omnibenevolent, since he KNOWS, a priori, about all the disasters that befall human beings, and chooses not to prevent them. And don't give me that "free will" crap. Children don't choose to die horrible deaths. Your God chooses to make them suffer for reasons of His own.
One more thing: any pretense to be appealing on scientific grounds to the existence of God is totally discredited when you cite the Bible as an authority rather than any scientific texts. And the idea that the Bible prophecies have come true is preposterous. I've read the Bible, cover-to-cover, and haven't come across any prediction of future events that ever came true except in some highly tortuous and imaginative rationalizations by science-deniers like yourself. By the way, the earth is not flat, despite what your Bible says.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Pahu on -
My guess, since you clearly have no background in science, is that you don't know what abiogeneisis is. It is the rapidly developing concept that life CAN and probably DID arise from non-life. Have you heard of "probionts"? I doubt it. They are chemical entities that are showing promise as precursors of prokaryotes, which were probably the first forms of life. Beginning with the groundbreaking Urey-Miller experiment a half century ago, scientists have been producing a variety of prebiotics that may very well be similar to those that were stewed in the early organic soup on earth.
Pahu: The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted in 1953, are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life” can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:
1) These “building blocks” are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory.
2) Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.
3) Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.
4) Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.
5) Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)
In fact, most of what was produced in the Miller-Urey experiments was a sludge of simple organic chemicals that are not found in living organisms. Only about 2% was amino acids. Of this 2%, 95% was the simplest amino acid of all, glycine.
Chemist Robert Shapiro describes the widespread current acceptance of the results of Miller and Urey's experiments as “mythology rather than science.”
Oxygen is deadly to the Miller-Urey experiments: the 'building blocks of life' simply would not have formed in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Oxygen reacts with methane to form carbon dioxide and water, and with ammonia to form nitrogen oxides and water. If you introduce oxygen into the apparatus, along with methane and hydrogen, and then put a spark through it, you do not get amino acids: you get an explosion.
But scientists still often claim that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain oxygen. When asked why, they reply that oxygen-less conditions are needed for life to develop. Now, call me naive, but in any other circumstances I think we would say this was arguing in a circle.
“All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.” Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.
“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.” Kenyon, p. A-23.
All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.
Further Reading: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp
Dale Headley: ...crystals, such as snowflakes, have the remarkable ability to self-organize in a manner that is little different from what we identify as the life process. They don't organize into six-pointed crystals by chance; something basic is driving them. We don't yet know that that force is, but no serious scientist thinks it's the work of a Supreme Deity. Numerous experiments are going on right now in which the chemical consituents of life are synthesized to the point of self-replicating. So far, none of them have persisted for long, which is probably what happened in Earth's early existence, as well, until evolution took over by applying its amazing tool: DNA. One of the many hypotheses being explored is that life originated from clay crystals, of all things. It is true that, so far, no unambiguous life form has been produced. However, thousands of scientists are working on it because they believe in the possibility - the probability - that life began as a result of sophisticated self-organization among certain complex molecules.
Pahu:
The “order” found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy). The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of simple patterns.
For more information go here.
Dale Headley: The point I'm making is not that life definitely did arise from non-life, as I believe, but that your assertion that science has proved otherwise is, at best, premature. Real scientists are working hard on it for the simple reason that they have NOT proved God. And YOU certainly haven't! You accept some amorphous, indescribable, unlocatable, magical god as an explanation for everything simply because you can't imagine anything else; but scientists can, and do. Incidentally, your God, you say, is both omniscient and omnipotent. Then He must NOT be omnibenevolent, since he KNOWS, a priori, about all the disasters that befall human beings, and chooses not to prevent them. And don't give me that "free will" crap. Children don't choose to die horrible deaths. Your God chooses to make them suffer for reasons of His own.
One more thing: any pretense to be appealing on scientific grounds to the existence of God is totally discredited when you cite the Bible as an authority rather than any scientific texts. And the idea that the Bible prophecies have come true is preposterous. I've read the Bible, cover-to-cover, and haven't come across any prediction of future events that ever came true except in some highly tortuous and imaginative rationalizations by science-deniers like yourself. By the way, the earth is not flat, despite what your Bible says.
Pahu: Your understanding of the Holy Bible is pathetically erroneous. For a more accurate understanding, go here:
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
Why does God have to be magical. A magical God is never the ascertain of Christianity.
But rather an all powerful God that does things with his wisdom and understanding.
Read the book of Job and get the truth along with it's pageantry. God is non baryonic and fills the universe with his presence. But that does not make him magical. In fact the universe is not big enough to fully contain him. He is" the awe and mystery that reaches from the inner mind to the Outer Limits"
-
-
Permalink Reply by Kristian David Gore on -
People wonder why Atheists are so sick of dealing with the religious nuts who have an irrational need to tell us about their god and rationalize every bit of stupidity they find in the bible. Not content to waste their own time they have to waste mine as well. The above makes no sense to a thinking person who can only shake his head and ask "Does the phrase I don't know scare you so much that you have to make up gods to keep the phrase at bay? What is so bad about not knowing everything?"
When I say I don't know then it is a start of a quest for knowledge. When you say god did it you only give up on looking and not content to live in ignorance alone you simply have to convince others to fear "I don't know". I don't fear it because when I can't say I don't know then there is nothing left to learn and that would be a sad day for me.
I feel very sorry for you Pahu, because you have traded a search for knowledge for the spreading of ignorance. You came here and proudly stated "I know so you fools can stop looking" in the hope that you could convince others to stop thinking. -
-
Permalink Reply by Philip Jackson Armstrong on -
The rapture happened back June. Both of the actual Christians are gone. Doesn't that make this discussion kind of a waste of time.
-
-
Permalink Reply by MikeLong on -
I'm so disappointed.
I've been to lots of atheist sites. They're all crowded with nut jobs like Pahu trying to save souls. I don't why I thought this doesn't happen at TA. All I know (knew) is that it just doesn't (didn't). My first discussion, "Why Argue", was basically a reaction to this kind of nonsense. You can't actually reason with people like this. However almost every response from TA members was so entirely reasonable. I thought, "this is the place for me - a refuge from idiots". I guess I figured that, if some thumper post like this turned up, it would be summarily ignored. Instead it gets most active discussion status.
Perhaps people simply want to hone their debating skills. Silly. Anything that actually makes sense will not be debated - it will simply be ignored.
<sobbing head/keyboard>
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jewelz on -
I agree most people debate as if it were a sport. Neither side is interested in learning anything - they just want to win. However, although there may not be the slightest chance of opening the brainwashed indoctrinated mind of an someone who is completely trapped in metaphysical arguments and will probably never find their way to reality, there is a chance someone else seeking answers may stumble across this thread and learn something from logical rational responses based on facts and evidence to poorly formed arguments based on faith.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Akshay Bist on -
In short you are saying - "There are many things I don't understand, hence they were created by something supernatural."
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
Any proof? We could be part of a multiverse, maybe the universe is inside something much bigger.
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.
And how did this supernatural force/being of yours come to be? Did it come out of nothing? Did some other supernatural force/entity create it? If so, then what created that entity/force? Maybe your supernatural entity always existed. So your supernatural entity either came out of nothing or always existed. Why can't the same be true of the universe? Isn't much more plausible than some supernatural entity that came into existence or always existed, decided to create this universe. Do you realize how complex that entity would have to be to create this universe? So your assertion that something very very complex either came into existence on its own or had always existed created the universe, because the universe couldn't have come into existence on its own is kinda stupid.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
Go read up on Abiogenesis.
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
Again, Abiogenesis. Go read up on it.
So your argument has been found wanting, in fact it has been busted. Come back again when you have something with a little more thought, more than it would take someone to make a sandwich, put into it.
-
What's new today
Forum
Is Atheism a Religion?
Started by Holo Gram in Advice. Last reply by KimAnne 1 minute ago. 6 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken
Posted by Cathy Cooper on May 17, 2013 at 10:00am 3 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
