***[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: 5503

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Here is where you fail "Pahu: It is interesting that those whose presuppositions include the notion that God cannot exist, think that any other notion they imagine is far more likely."

Very few people here think "god can not exist" so maybe you should try to understand what people believe before you tell us what we believe.
Pahu: My apology. I thought most people here are atheists, which is the belief that God doesn't exist. My mistake.
Kristian David Gore: I have seen no evidence for a god or gods. Your evidence consists of I don't know something so god did it. There could be a god or gods but doubt it. If they do exist I doubt they exist as described by religious texts.

That's it so stop trying to tell people what they believe.
Pahu: The information I shared shows how the facts of science prove the existence of God. I also shared information proving He is the author of the Holy Bible. Perhaps it would help to review that information.

Kristian David Gore: Second the word evolutionist tells me you don't know what evolution is so before you dismiss it maybe you should find out what it is first. If you do know and were just trying to insult people by calling them evolutionists then that's fine, some people just like to annoy people.
Pahu: Why do you believe the term "evolutionist" is an insult? The word means those who believe in evolution. What's insulting about that? Unless you agree that to accuse someone of believing in evolution, which has no scientific evidence supporting it, is an insult. Perhaps you have a point there.

Kristian David Gore: If you want to dispute evolution then you need to come up with a theory that explains endogenous retroviruses in DNA, the fossil record, and ring species just to name a few things.
Pahu: There isn't room here to give those subjects justice. However, there is scientific evidence that they do not support evolution. Here are some examples;
Kristian David Gore: If you wish to discuss philosophy then that's fine but don't wrap philosophy in science it only makes you sound ridiculous.
Pahu: Good advice. The more you compare evolution with the facts of science, the more it becomes evident that evolution is philosophy based on wishful thinking. 
1, You really need to read about evolution because the more you talk the less you seem to know. Your links are pathetic and offer no alternative to explain how these things appear. and if you refuse to have any real knowledge of evolution then I wont discuss it.
2. Atheist is a lack of belief in god. This is not a belief or a dogma it is simply not seeing supporting evidence. After reading the bible I can say I know the god as described is man made. Was that based on something real? I doubt it but anything is possible.
3. Your points are ridiculously simplistic and only prove that you have not thought about it. You say things like nothing existed prior to the big bang but the big bang theory does not even say that. Time and space as we know it was different. How we don't know. We don't know does not mean god did it, it just means we don't know.
4. I'm done

Reply by Kristian David Gore 1 hour ago

1, You really need to read about evolution because the more you talk the less you seem to know. Your links are pathetic and offer no alternative to explain how these things appear. and if you refuse to have any real knowledge of evolution then I wont discuss it.

 

Pahu: Isn't evolution the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth?

 

Kristian David Gore

2. Atheist is a lack of belief in god. This is not a belief or a dogma it is simply not seeing supporting evidence. After reading the bible I can say I know the god as described is man made. Was that based on something real? I doubt it but anything is possible.

 

Pahu: Did you ever wonder how those human writers were able to accurately predict several hundred future events?

 

Kristian David Gore:

3. Your points are ridiculously simplistic and only prove that you have not thought about it. You say things like nothing existed prior to the big bang but the big bang theory does not even say that.

 

Pahu: I didn't say it did, but logically, all the matter in the universe had to have begun sometime and before it existed it didn't exist, did it? Therefore, there was a time when nothing physical existed. From that nothingness, the universe appeared. Since nothing never comes from nothing by any natural cause, the cause must have been supernatural. 

 

It is true there are many things we don't know, and there are some who don't want to believe God is possible, therefore they will invent any alternative, regardless of how unscientific it may be, in order to avoid the obvious logical conclusion.

 

Isn’t it absurd for evolutionists to ridicule creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while evolutionists maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything?

 

Instead of endless philosophical discussions to prove a point, doesn’t observation and experiment become the final arbitrator of truth? The issue becomes a bit sticky when discussing origins. How do we test the hypothesis of evolution? We don't have the luxury of having a miniature universe with eons of time in the corner of a laboratory. So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in the same boat: no absolute way to objectivily test their assertions. There are no eyewitnesses. Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with the facts of science for consistency. Notice too, that good hypotheses are falsifiable. Now consider the theory of evolution; how can it be proved false? What fraction of the theory of evolution is open to invalidation, some small detail, or the entire principle? The approach seems to be, "look, you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!" Is this science or something else? 

 

Kristian David Gore: Time and space as we know it was different. How we don't know. We don't know does not mean god did it, it just means we don't know.

 

Pahu: Are saying that in the beginning there were different laws of physics than the ones we now know? Why do you believe that? Could it be that you refuse to accept facts that disprove what you want to believe?

Which God? Why one God? Why not  a galactic unicorn? What is your evidence and why does your conclusion not follow from your premise?
Which God?
Pahu: The one and only true, living, creator God of everything including you and  me, and the Sabbath.
Miguelito Del Fénix: Why one God? Why not  a galactic unicorn? What is your evidence and why does your conclusion not follow from your premise?
Pahu: I presented my evidence at the end of my post. Why do you believe my conclusion doesn't follow my premise?

you are basing your entire theory about your sky god on a book that has been proven many times over to be of human origin and having very little true knowledge in it. that, sir, is a very scary place to be. You have yet to address why your sky god is supreme over all of the other mythological gods, which, by the way you don't believe in either making you almost as atheistic as the rest of us, you just have one sky god you still acknowledge which we don't...

 

can you prove your sky god exists outside of the biblical record? can you show any proof he is real and actually gives a rat's ass about you and the rest of humanity? i am sure we would love to see that!

you are basing your entire theory about your sky god on a book that has been proven many times over to be of human origin and having very little true knowledge in it. that, sir, is a very scary place to be. You have yet to address why your sky god is supreme over all of the other mythological gods, which, by the way you don't believe in either making you almost as atheistic as the rest of us, you just have one sky god you still acknowledge which we don't...

 

can you prove your sky god exists outside of the biblical record? can you show any proof he is real and actually gives a rat's ass about you and the rest of humanity? i am sure we would love to see that!

 

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.

 

“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. [From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

 

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, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

 

 

nice restatement of your original idea, but you still are starting with your sky god.. where is the proof that he exists? as has been pointed out many times on this 'discussion', your logic is flawed and thus is not a proof that your sky god exists; therefore, you using it as the basis of your non-biblical proof that he exists is very bad cyclical reasoning. when you start using the bible as your source, you are arguing from a position of weakness as it has been shown time and time again to be a very bad reference material.

 

so, i will ask you again, please show us your god! if you can't show us REAL evidence that demands a verdict, please go to the next forum, maybe someone there will buy your snake oil!

 

cheers

Vishnu, Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl, Viracocha, Bayu, Indra, Odin, Eurynome, An, Enlil, Enki, Ninhursanga, Marduk, Baal, El, yahweh, Mars, ect, ect, ect...

All these were "true" once to the people who had just as much reason to believe in them as you do for believing in your god.

I've read your book and I found nothing in it that was at all convincing. I found very little worth following and I found plenty that was immoral to me.

Why do you believe my conclusion doesn't follow my premise?

Your premises are flawed. Therefore your conclusion is invalid.

Saying there is proof for God is completely ignorant. You say that if God created everything, who created him? If he was always there, then why can't everything else always have been there? While we know that the Universe is 14 billion years old, it came from a Big Bang. Science is starting to question what black holes are, and there is a wonderfully interesting theory that perhaps there is no "Universe" but rather "Multiverses" and that every black hole is actually a Big Bang in itself. So if God "was always there" you can easily argue that matter was always there. We know in physics that matter and energy is never created or destroyed, just changed from one form to another. If it is never created or destroyed, it's always been there and always will be.

 

Your points 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 aren't facts. I don't know where you learned that from, probably some other religious goon, but I've never read a Science textbook that said such things.

There are a lot of assumptions in that line of logic. Just sayin'.

RSS

© 2016   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service