***[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: 5666

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I have never heard of these miracle workers, I will research them.

ah , so you're saying 'immaterial' simply means an invisible entity that is still actually material?  


So , if matter can't come from non matter ... then where did this invisible mattered  A . K . A 'immaterial' being come into existence?  


Isn't it more rational to just say the Universe came from non matter instead of talking about something called God?  


And no offense , but your miracle claims are nonsense.  It's all based on eyewitness testimony , usually from people who already believe in such silly things.  It's simply bias confirmation.  


I'll give you the recovered eye ... hell , even a limb.  But who are you to be so arrogant to believe the imaginary friend that you pray too was the CAUSE of this?  Why couldn't it just be an undiscovered ability of the human body to spontaneously regenerate?  Or aliens that could have used stem cells and grown them back?  

Oh, he certainly can't have the limb, considering the complete lack of properly documented evidence for such claims.  Besides, it would wreck this guy's web site.  ;-)


The reason is that, considering that abiotic material, while through atheistic view is enough to produce life, it doesn't, to the best of my understanding, have the capacity of ordering itself towards a goal.

That is, unless abiotic factors have a will.

Considering the stupendous amount of order and complexity that exists in the world, an this arguing is defending not so much the Abrahamic God, but a theistic point of view, it would be nothing but a will behind matter which presupposes a Creator.

Think of it as a chi-square test. After plugging in all the possible options for all the matter in the world and considering that out of all the possible configurations, the result was a beautiful amount of complex order, the odds that that it would occur through "chance" are basically null.

The only response I've yet to receive from an atheist against that argument is that the universe is so great, full of countless of lifeless planets that the result could have been by chance.

What I find odd with that statement, however, is that it is among physicists themselves, who study at even greater detail the odds necessary to create the universe, are the very type of scientists that claim, at least, a theistic viewpoint.

To the point you said about the miracles, to be honest, I feel a little offended. If you are to say that these things were just eyewitness accounts and "usually from people who already believe in such silly things.", it is painfully obvious you have not even bothered to research all the miracles of Padre Pio or even the less impressive ones, in my opinion, of the Holy Eucharist.

To begin with, eyewitness accounts are not to be denied as evidence for so long as the reliability of such eyewitnesses remains solid.

Here comes your argument concerning people who "believe in such silly things". The reason why he was so famous was his thousand fold miracles that dumbfounded people from all philosophies. Pagans, skeptics, agnostics, and atheists.

When people all around the world saw this friar doing nothing but praying, eating less food necessary than what is needed to keep a baby alive, with stigmata, speaking languages he has never been exposed to, telling people their forgotten sins in a confessionary-even when he had never met them-, and healing people from so many diseases and anatomical atrophies... all from people who didn't even believe until seeing him...

Well, I will not even bother in making the claim that miracles exist, even though to me, it is enough. I will claim, however, that that is worth investigating further!

When you see a picture of him and his stigmata and know that people claimed that, an hour after his death, his stigmata disappeared with no sign of scarring, that is good evidence!

When they are preparing to canonize him and they remove him from his sepulcher so many years after his death only to find him perfectly preserved as if only recently dead and without his stigmata, I think that is even better evidence!

And lastly, for your claim on why I believe it is the God I pray to the cause of this, I'll be honest, it's too much of a lengthy conversation filled with possible comebacks that I can verily answer... but probably not anticipate.

It's like explaining in a detailed manner the history of how Plank's constant was found in a three letter sentence. It might be a bit of a stretch, that metaphor of mine, but you get the idea...

P.S. Brad: I laughed at the comment of the guy's web site when I first saw it! :-)
So, what you're telling us is that we can't expect from you a coherent response founded in reason and evidence.

Brad, I'm kind of lost by what you said there. As in, you believe I can't give a coherent response founded in reason and evidence in terms of why I believe it's the God I pray to?

Hm... well, it depends on what you consider evidence. I can verily give you my reasons in terms of what I consider historical, philosophical and, partly, through what I sent, evidence of miracles, among other things, I suppose...

But, and let me see if I can explain myself well... It's like trying to explain why your faith is correct. There are so many things, both big and small that need so much explanation that I cannot even fathom puting it in a single comment.

I could verily try to defend myself and say why I think Roman Catholicism is true in a particular argument, defending myself against a contrary... but I can't bring myself to answer every argument all the Churches, religions, and philosophies have against the Catholic Church in a single comment box. Too lengthy...

"well, it depends on what you consider evidence."

Evidence can be tested repeatedly and the conclusion that one might reasonably be expected to arrive at after such testing is independent of one's beliefs or lack thereof.

Hearsay isn't evidence.  Eyewitness testimony is one of the least reliable forms of evidence and, when it's the only evidence available, shouldn't be considered to be conclusive.

You don't have to defend everything at once.  In fact, it's nearly impossible to do so.  Neither of us has the space here nor, I expect, the time to write the several thick volumes that would be required to defend or oppose everything.

In fact, one of my chief complaints against certain defenders of religion is that they tend to take "the shotgun approach".  That is, in one message they will briefly touch on so many supposed supports for their faith that it is impossible to respond adequately to each point without writing a book or two.

No.  All I want you to do is to provide what you consider to be the one, single best piece of evidence in favour of the existence of God.  Just one.  And then we'll have something to talk about.

Brad, to be honest, my best reason is a combination of arguments - which puts me in quite the pickle, because every time I get to this part of a conversation with an agnostic or such, it get's out control...

I don't have much time, so please excuse me if I just give my arguments without much defense of such. I'm kind of with a lot of assignments lately and don't have much time. Promise I'll elaborate later on.

Here they are:

1. The already theory of the need of a creator already given above.
2. My conviction that science, while a source of knowledge, is not necessarily the only form of acquiring knowledge or, in my religious "lingo", wisdom.
3. The various oddities and peculiarities found in the Traditional Roman Church, it's miracles, and it's history.
 -----(This needs a LOT of more defense, I know, but I'm pretty sure where I might get to. If you've a question, just ask it)

There might be other reasons that I need to add to this, but that's a rough framework.

I know thi willl probably take a couple of rebuttals. I'll answer them more in depth next time...

Oh, and by the way, this is actually rather nice. Seems more like a discussion than the common overpowering one's opponent that is so common.

P.S. William... lol.
What? :DON"T FEED THE TROLLS.? Sounds funny, but I have no idea what you mean with it.

Hmm.  There was no "Reply" link on your most recent message so I'll put my reply to that one here instead. 

I'm willing to focus on any one of your three points, provided that you are willing to participate openly and honestly, with a strong commitment to following where evidence and reason may lead, even if it contradicts your beliefs.  If you can't do that, then we really have nothing to talk about.  You might ask if I'm ready to do that.  Yes, I am.  I have done it many times.  That's why I am no longer a Christian.

1. Your argument from order/complexity is easily refuted.  Since you place it first, that might be the best place to start, if you're game.

2. Science is not the only source of knowledge and understanding.  However, I would argue that its track record strongly indicates that it is the most effect method yet devised for distinguishing between fact and non-fact.  Human beings are easily fooled and we frequently fool ourselves.  Science is a method of investigation that is intentionally designed to compensate for those and other human weaknesses.

3. Any miracle I've ever heard of has turned out to be nothing of the sort when subjected to proper skeptical investigation and analysis.  I would be willing to try to look at some of these with you, but only one at a time.

So, if you are interested in the exercise, I am willing to discuss with you any one of those points.


"Oh, and by the way, this is actually rather nice. Seems more like a discussion than the common overpowering one's opponent that is so common."

Well, so far, it seems fairly likely to me that you have honest and sincere intentions so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for now.  I've been discussing these issues with religious believers for many years now and I find that very few are well informed about their own religion and fewer still are open to open, honest discussion about their beliefs and rational criticism of their dogmas.  Are you one of the exceptions?

Obviously we need a larger sign  :DON"T FEED THE TROLLS.

The complexity in the universe has been largely explained through science. To me, it doesn't look like the universe was the result of creation, but evolution. Creation means that everything popped into being fully formed and complex. It doesn't look that way to me, it looks like almost everything in the universe is the result of evolution, whether it be star, galaxy, or planet formation, or life. Also, if the universe is so complex, it leads me to question how complex the creator must be.


The complexity in the universe has been largely explained through science.


Pahu: There are many unproven ideas and explanations.


Alex: To me, it doesn't look like the universe was the result of creation, but evolution. Creation means that everything popped into being fully formed and complex. It doesn't look that way to me, it looks like almost everything in the universe is the result of evolution, whether it be star, galaxy, or planet formation, or life.


Pahu: But where is the evidence anything evolved?


Alex: Also, if the universe is so complex, it leads me to question how complex the creator must be.


Pahu: Our Creator is in whole different category than the universe and life. To try to understand Him, beyond what He has revealed in His Holy Bible, is similar to a dog trying to understand the information on these pages.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service