***[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: 5005

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Pahu: "When you say the universe could not have had a beginning, aren't you assuming it has always existed?Is that possible without violating known laws of physics?"

 

Brad: As has also been previously explained to you, you are attempting to apply the physical laws of this universe to whatever, if anything, came before the big bang.  You cannot do this.  For example, if our time-space continuum emerged from some other space-time continuum, we do not and most likely cannot know anything about the physical laws of that universe or its origins (if any). 

This is important and it can't be stressed too strongly: any statement you make about what came before the big bang is untestable speculation.  So, your argument claims knowledge that it cannot legitimately claim and, therefore, it is not a sound argument.

(I'm setting aside for the moment the fact that, from the perspective of our universe, the phrase "before the big bang" doesn't even make sense.)

You cannot go directly to the Big Bang or even shortly after it. The shortest unit of time that can measured is the Planck time. Which is about 5.39 * 10^-44 seconds, or the time it would take a photon to travel the Planck length. You can't measure, detect or even calculate things below that

Reply by Brad Reddekopp 15 minutes ago

 Pahu: "When you say the universe could not have had a beginning, aren't you assuming it has always existed? Is that possible without violating known laws of physics?"

 

Brad: As has also been previously explained to you, you are attempting to apply the physical laws of this universe to whatever, if anything, came before the big bang.  You cannot do this.  For example, if our time-space continuum emerged from some other space-time continuum, we do not and most likely cannot know anything about the physical laws of that universe or its origins (if any). 

This is important and it can't be stressed too strongly: any statement you make about what came before the big bang is untestable speculation.  So, your argument claims knowledge that it cannot legitimately claim and, therefore, it is not a sound argument.

(I'm setting aside for the moment the fact that, from the perspective of our universe, the phrase "before the big bang" doesn't even make sense.)

 

Pahu: Your explanation rules out the laws of physics as we know them and replaces them with speculation about the "possibility" there were a whole set of different laws of physics before the Big Bang. Did I summarize you accurately? If so, do you really believe that constitutes a rational explanation. Isn't your explanation simply speculation based on your attempt to rule out the obvious conclusion that the universe came from nothing?

As a matter of fact, you admit that "any statement you make about what came before the big bang is untestable speculation.  So, your argument claims knowledge that it cannot legitimately claim and, therefore, it is not a sound argument." Aren't you admitting your "explanation" is unsound?

 

Science traditionally uses known laws of physics to find explanations for phenomena. Your "explanation" is more like science fiction.

Your explanation rules out the laws of physics as we know them and replaces them with speculation about the "possibility" there were a whole set of different laws of physics before the Big Bang. Did I summarize you accurately?

 

That doesn't seem to be what he's saying at all.  The laws of physics as humans have defined them are not absolute decrees; they are our best descriptions of the universe as we have observed it.  Our powers of observation and reasoning have limits, and beyond those limits we cannot assert that our current observations hold true.

Instead of speculating, we say that we don't yet have enough data to make definitive statements.

Mr Pahu, let me warn you talking about God of any sort on this site causes frustration...beware the ids...

 

But no problem with me, so lets talk, your first remark about the universe...so we are going on the big bang theory, ok, not sure about your nothing claim, you must be suggesting the space between planets is nothing and whats is this cause and reaction thing you talk of...by your statement, the first domino falls and that is a cause then the second is an effect the third a cause the fourth an effect and so on...

 

Now again you enter into this no universe, so nothing, so please define space I am confused as even the big bang refers to a larger exploding so there was something with allot of space surrounding it...

 

Ok now second last paragraph you talk about the entity God as if it were a man...why...when in the last paragraph you state it is not...but I am getting ahead of my self...God is not the author of the bible and by that remark I know your a thumper...you might claim the words are inspired by the unknown but all inspirations are filtered through the male ignorance and manipulated to feed mans ego and perversions...hell even Jesus said don't ask me what God thinks ask it yourself, as he knew first hand that regardless of how close he was that the knowledge would still have to filter though him to whomever and going direct was the only way of truly knowing the answer...as Jesus said go to God, handlers of the bible say come to me and I will tell you about God...two totally different statements two totally different results, one self empowers the other dominates and controls...read my last blog and give me your feed back...

 

I'm starting to think that Pahu doesn't exist.

 

Poof! He's gone like a fart in the wind.

I don't find that to be an argument for God existing. Even if number 1-11 were true why would the supernatural force have to be this God. You make a huge leap from the universe not existing to it existing and it would have to be your supernatural God. For something so important as faith there should be more proof making a huge leap in assumptions. All the dots need to be connected, it can't be a guessing game.
He thinks the bible provides the link to God.

I am not sure if this has been mentioned, but the Miller-Urey experiment has shown the building blocks of life can form from a chemical reaction.

 

The experiment used what was probably known as the early earth's atmosphere and subjugated to "lightning" and after a week of experimentation, they found amino acids.

 

In 2007, the same sealed vial of original experimental water shown at least 20 different amino acids. 

 

After some rethinking of the early Earth's atmosphere, the experiment was done again. This time with more diverse molecules.

 

Now, I am not an expert in abiogenesis, so I do not theorems or other experiments, but this experiment is touched upon in high school biology right before you learn about cells and genetics.

I am not sure if this has been mentioned, but the Miller-Urey experiment has shown the building blocks of life can form from a chemical reaction.

 

The experiment used what was probably known as the early earth's atmosphere and subjugated to "lightning" and after a week of experimentation, they found amino acids.

 

In 2007, the same sealed vial of original experimental water shown at least 20 different amino acids. 

 

After some rethinking of the early Earth's atmosphere, the experiment was done again. This time with more diverse molecules.

 

Now, I am not an expert in abiogenesis, so I do not theorems or other experiments, but this experiment is touched upon in high school biology right before you learn about cells and genetics.

 

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.

 

 

So you're saying the intelligence and design are necessary, therefore: god.  Why not aliens?  We know different kinds of life exist right here on our own planet.  It stands to reason other intellegent creatures may have evolved elsewhere.  I suppose from there, one could speculate that they seeded a planet much less hospitable (ours) than the one where their own abiogenesis occurred.  We've not seen a god or gods anywhere, at any time.

 

One of the problems with the god of the gaps argument is that gaps keep shrinking.  Also, the Flying Spaghetti Monster fits in the same gap... while also explaining global warming.  You know, because of the pirates...

 

  We've not seen a god or gods anywhere, at any time.

 

Have you ever seen an atom, a neutron, an electron, etc.? Does that prove they don't exits?

RSS

Forum

Ear-piercing a baby

Started by Simon Mathews in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by Belle Rose 7 minutes ago. 16 Replies

Torture Report release today

Started by Unseen in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Virgil 1 hour ago. 130 Replies

My Grandpa died last week

Started by Physeter in Small Talk. Last reply by David Seidman 5 hours ago. 8 Replies

Why do we tolerate this?

Started by Belle Rose in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Pope Beanie 9 hours ago. 25 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Virgil 11 hours ago. 202 Replies

Blog Posts

How did that happen?

Posted by Belle Rose on December 19, 2014 at 4:36am 0 Comments

Pabst Blue Ribbon to the rescue!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 9:33pm 0 Comments

Atheist Sites

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service