***[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: 5383

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

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

One thing that's worth noticing about this troll is that he is typical of creationists who venture onto atheist web sites in that he is simply parroting (or even copy-&-pasting) stuff he got from somewhere else.  There is absolutely no original thought and even very little original wording in what he is posting.  He is simply shoveling at us the bullshit he got from some dishonest professional creationist (I think I smell Kent Hovind's foul odor in some of it) and he probably expects us to be astounded at his "wisdom".

In my misguided youth, I was a creationist.  I was also the president of my high school Christian club but that's another story.  After class one day, I challenged my biology teacher with some of my creationist learning.  The fact that he was able to rationally counter each of those claims didn't change my mind at that moment but it planted some seeds of doubt that helped me grow out of creationism later in life.

So, who knows.  Maybe Pahu will grow out of it, too, eventually -- if he truly cares more about reality than he does about religious doctrine.

Is he a pretzel twister?

If not, then how does he go from:

'Science' proves 'God'


'Facts' prove 'made up-bullshit.'


Science proves God like medicine proves homeopathy.




At this point in time, the ONLY honest response to questions about abiogenesis or the origins of the universe is "we don't know." If you believe God came from nothing, a universe could have come from nothing. If you believe God is eternal, a multiverse could be eternal. Your metaphysical argument is not based on facts or evidence and is very flawed.


We have learned much about the universe through science, and nothing through ancient religious texts. There is no scientific proof of God because God is just an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

The Christian god is unfalsifiable and as such is not subject to critical thinking.

This threat is in fact a waste of time from that perspective. Yet it is interesting to hear everyones viewpoints. 


Faith is about putting principles into practice in your life and seeing for yourself in your own life experience, if indeed His counsel is immutable and your life and health does benefit as promised.

Also whether or not a hedge of protection surrounds you to protect you from sudden disaster as promised, if you live a godly life free of hypocrisies that are practiced in most churches. 

I think the Christian god is falsifiable in the context of the bible. If you read the bible or talk to a Christian you will find that they make claims about what the god of Abraham is supposed to be and when you take those traits they don't mesh with what you would describe as a perfect being. 


A god in the abstract is unresolvable but when you start assigning it specific traits like "god is perfect" and "god requires worship" then we can dismiss that god as not real because a perfect being would have no use for worship. 

Valid points. but what is important to me is whether or not he protects me and my children as promised. If not then atheism has credibility.
That has nothing to do with Christianity, since the Christian god is refutable you are then referring to an unknown god concept. How does a god protect a persons family? Why does it protect some and not others without regard to religion. If you refer to the Christian god then I would not trust it to protect children since the book describing it does have a lot of children killed in the name of god or by god personally. Not to mention demanding or condoning human sacrifice of adult children as a test of faith (Abraham) or as compensation for victory in battle (Jephthah).
Anything looks evil when isolated out of context. Abraham did not actually kill Isaac. But it was a strong sign of faith in the invisible and Abraham had righteousness imputed into him. That is all that I seek. to have righteousness imputed into me by having the faith of Abraham. Israel did later sacrifice it's children to Molech, but look at the severity of the punishment. The land that was once flowing with milk and honey became a barron wasteland. Also the children of Israel went into captivity to the extent that we are hard press to identify the 10 lost tribes.
It looks evil in context. Abraham in my mind failed the test by being willing to kill his son. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to reward god for victory in battle. In Exodus god kills the first born sons of all of Egypt after he hardened the heart of the Pharaoh. There is no context that makes that right.

Also in the Abraham story if the god portrayed as omnipotent did not already know Abraham would kill his child if asked then he is not Omnipotent. If he did then he is cruel and malevolent. The story of Job also makes god look like a psychopath willing to torture people for his own amusement. How else can you read these stories? God makes a wager with the devil that he created to prove a point that a "perfect" being would have no need to prove.

Job thought that he was  treated unfairly. Every human upon the planet will have the same sentiment. Job having his prosperity restored ten fold more than the former and having additional children seems small consolation for the children that he lost during the fiery trial. But Job did believe in the resurrection of all flesh as do I. He probably rested assured that the children will have noble positions in the kingdom of God in the future for all eternity.


Moreover, the Son of God's time on earth was not much more. Yet he sits at the right hand of his Father and shall return to judge the living and the dead.

You see Job is a Christ type. A shadow of what was the come. "God requires that which has passed"


© 2016   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service