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 William C. Walker on -
Obviously we need a larger sign :DON"T FEED THE TROLLS.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Alex on -
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.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Pahu on -
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.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Alex on
-
Pahu: There are many unproven ideas and explanations.
There are many proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) ideas and explanations.
Pahu: But where is the evidence anything evolved?
Please watch the video, there are many examples of evolution in it that can be observed in any history book. You already know about the evolution of life (though you don't believe the theory is true) and probably know about cosmological evolution. I suggest looking in a peer-reviewed, scholarly book or journal for evidence, not answers in genesis.
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.
This is a cop out. You try to explain the complexity of the universe with god, but when someone questions you about god, you say he is off limits. The god in the bible is a malevolent, genocidal, petty, unjust, sexist bully. There are two versions of creation right on the first page, god tells Noah to gather 2 animals of each species and tells him to gather 7 of each clean species and 2 of each unclean species, just to name a few problems. Even if I believed that the Christian god exists, I wouldn't worship this evil being.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Alex on
-
For some reason I couldn't reply to your post above Pahu.
Pahu: I've seen many examples of different life forms that are claimed to be examples of evolution, but never any actual evidence anything evolved from one to the other.
I think Archaeopteryx is a good example of a transitional species. There have been observed instances of speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). We also observe viruses evolving all the time.
Pahu: When did I say that? I said: "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."
How do you know that this creator is in a whole different category and we couldn't possibly understand him/her/it/them? Answering something we don't understand (but in fact we do) with sometime else we don't understand gets us nowhere. You don't know how the creator of the universe couldn't be complex when the universe is so complex, so you just say he is beyond or understanding. I call that a cop out.
Pahu: I don't recall God saying that about Himself in His Holy Bible. Perhaps you are getting the Word of God confused with the word of Dawkins.
No god didn't say that about himself, but nobody says that about themselves even if they are. Some examples are him blaming all of mankind for the sins of two people who didn't even know the concept of right and wrong, hardening the heart of the pharaoh, Deuteronomy 22:13-30, and sending people to hell for all of eternity.
Pahu: What is the problem with that? God instructs Noah to gather 2 of each species except for the clean animals, of which he is to gather seven.
No, in one place he instructs him to get 2 of each animal, in another he instructs him to get 7 of the clean animals and 2 of the unclean. You didn't address the two versions of creation.
Pahu: You have (willingly?) accepted a distortion. If you want to know the real nature of God, study what He reveals about Himself.
The Bible? I've read much of it, and am working on finishing it. I've studied it and came to the opposite conclusion as of now.
-
-
Permalink Reply by matt.clerke on -
I read this and decided not to read the rest:
"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."
You clearly have no understanding of evolution. It is not asser
EDIT: seems my reply got eaten by the editor again...
It is not asserting that there is a will causing the mutations we observe. It is saying that random mutations are propagated from parent to offspring and that natural selection then kills out the non-beneficial mutations and allows the beneficial mutations to thrive. There is NO WILL INVOLVED in this process.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Carlos A. Pérez on
-
Brad,
I'm so sorry I have taken so long to answer. I was planning to do so earlier, but lack of time and the inability of putting my thoughts in a way others would understand has taken a bit more time that I would have wagered.
Anyways...
The reason why science works so well, in so far I can say, is because what it studies -nature- carries an order. Complex, yes, but it carries an order of which repeated testing and a systematic approach can allow oneself to reach possible and correct conclusions -- for so long they are related to unchanging and testable scientific laws.
Nevertheless, I find that this method would fail if what is being studied does not necessarily carry an unchanging order - for example, a God or a will (be it human or divine).
For example, of a person trying to decipher whether someone is saying the truth without actually being able to confirm the person's statements.
With a bit of a change of topic, so that I can then further go to my conclusion, God cannot be entirely disproved by science. In my opinion, and one that might be ignorant, since I have not been an atheist -- or at least, not for any considerable amount of time -- being an atheist is a leap of "faith", for lack of a better turn.
Nevertheless, one of the "sins" of scientific research is the "premature closure of inquiry". If something cannot be entirely disproved and, over more, one should not close oneself off of inquiry -- science, at most, when taken to it's literal sense, could breed agnostics relating to the supernatural - not atheist...
Of course, unless they might believe that science disproves Him, which I think it does not -- it merely proves that nature has a sense or rhythm and perfection, it does not say it is impossible that the cause of such is a Creator.
Lastly, I'll speak of what I consider the error of rationalizing things. Here, that term is VERY misleading. There is nothing wrong with reason and using reason to understand things in a better context.
In some religious terms, it is used to describe the action of denying the intervention of the supernatural and giving half-baked scientific answers or claiming something "inconclusive" while refraining to acknowledge the supernatural when it is, though arbitrarily, obvious that there was such a thing as a miracle.
An example would be... someone seeing an amputee grow a leg whilst a person is praying in front of it asking God for healing.
This is a very extraordinary example, but if the person were to claim that "all the laws of the world are not yet known" or such, then he would be "rationalizing".
It is one of the things I think can be found in atheism and such. It is not to say that there are faulty miracles and that a healthy degree of skepticism should be worn as a shield against such imprudent faith; but to deny such a thing was supernatural in the example above does not so much prove that religious have a dogma that makes them believe in miracles, but that naturalists and atheists have a dogma against them (I partly used the words of G.K. Chesterton, in here)
What I am trying to get to with this seemingly pointless philosophizing is that... the world, in it's entirety, might not consist only of the natural and that what one considers true should not always be based on the fact that it rests on completely irrefutable proof.
For even science, as a good share of scientists might say, more than anything, proves how little we actually do know of the world.
Thus, one's convictions should also be based on hints and the strength of those chances being actually true. That we should use science, but only insofar as it is prudent for one to do so.
Indeed, often, people might liken faith as believing the unbelievable. It is true that many terms in faith is the "evidence of things unseen" and such. However, they often forget that, at times, not even God expects you to be converted without having "hints" of Himself.
Similar to the Jews and how they had to endure the dessert for forty years, God verily showed them (and this is NOT trying to defend the veracity of the miracles of Egypt, but rather, a study of they psychology of God) many great miracles in Egypt, that they might take their strength from the wonders they have witnessed for the sore temptations of faith they would endure further on. (Not that faith should depend on evidence - just that even God, in mercy, shows us various reasons to believe)
And thus, I come to the miracles section. I could give many many miracles, but you asked one at a time. Here is my first link, and feel free to study other sites... or even go to the places where the bodies are kept themselves! :-)
http://www.overcomeproblems.com/incorruptables.htm
Brad, I am honestly sorry for taking so much space to answer simple questions. I suppose I like to be elaborate when I need to, as well as I couldn't put my thoughts into words.
I answered here because I couldn't find your last comment to reply in. (We might need to find other means of communication if you and I have more frequent rebuttals)
I promise I will admit when my reason can't be defended and such. I do have to say, however, that since I don't know EVERYTHING, while I promise to admit when I'm wrong, I won't even consider changing beliefs until I hear other people's more knowledgeable insight on troublesome questions and after I exhaust all other possibilities.
All in all, I like to have a conversation with someone, even if I were to lose, who can be in it if only for the intellectual exercise and the seeking of truth. -
-
Permalink Reply by Brad Reddekopp on -
"God cannot be entirely disproved by science."
That depends on what you mean by "God". For the most part, gods are untestable, and therefore, not a fit subject for scientific investigation. Some claims about God may be testable but the believer can always come up with some kind of ad hoc explanation that permits him to continue to believe. For those who hold a world view that permits such ad hoc explanations and which values faith as a virtue, no scientific or rational explanation will ever be sufficient.
I agree that, ideally, in science all conclusions are provisional. To claim knowledge on the basis of science is not to make a claim of absolute certainty. Rather, it is to come to the conclusion that a particular claim is most probably true.
"being an atheist is a leap of "faith", for lack of a better turn."
It is possible that some atheists have made some kind of leap of faith but atheism per se does not inherently require faith. Given the complete lack of testable evidence for the existence of God and the many logical arguments against the existence of God, I conclude that it is most probably true that God does not exist.
I notice that you mention agnosticism. People often make the mistake of seeing atheism and agnosticism as mutually incompatible. Atheism answers a question about belief while agnosticism answers a question about knowledge. Atheism, in its mildest form, is simply a lack of belief in gods. Agnosticism is the view that it is not possible to know whether or not gods exist, although these days it also commonly refers to one's personal indecision about whether or not gods exist. So, one will find agnostic theists (those who don't claim to know that God exists but who believe that he does) and agnostic atheists (those who don't claim to know that God doesn't exist but who do not believe that he does).
Miracles:
It would be very interesting if there were a properly documented case of an amputee regrowing a lost limb when prayed over. However, there seems to be nothing but hearsay regarding such "miracles".
"Similar to the Jews and how they had to endure the dessert for forty years"
You know, that whole story most probably did not happen. There is no evidence of it at all, which is astounding, considering the impact it would have had in Egypt, a society which kept meticulous records even in ancient times.
Ah, yes. The "incorruptibles'. As you might expect, skeptics have heard these claims before and have looked into them. For an overview of what skeptics think of such claims, see the relevant entry in the Skeptics Dictionary. Quite frankly, when believers claim that scientists are unable to provide naturalistic explanations for such things, I can't take them at their word. Now, if you can point me to a published paper in a reputable scientific journal, then we've got something to discuss. Otherwise, we merely have yet another unsupported claim which can be justifiably disregarded.
"I answered here because I couldn't find your last comment to reply in. (We might need to find other means of communication if you and I have more frequent rebuttals)"
I have a forum of my own, the Graveyard of the Gods, and if you'd prefer to continue the conversation there, that would be acceptable to me. It is perhaps more suited to extended conversations.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Pahu on
-
Reply by Brad Reddekopp
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.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Brad Reddekopp on
-
As has been explained to you repeatedly, your argument fails because we do not know and quite likely cannot know that the universe came from nothing. Because your argument is clearly shown to be fallacious early on, everything that follows from it can be legitimately disregarded.
Your error has been clearly explained to you before. Yet, you persist in that error. What do you suppose that says about your integrity?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Pahu on
-
As has been explained to you repeatedly, your argument fails because we do not know and quite likely cannot know that the universe came from nothing. Because your argument is clearly shown to be fallacious early on, everything that follows from it can be legitimately disregarded.
Your error has been clearly explained to you before. Yet, you persist in that error. What do you suppose that says about your integrity?
Pahu: I have answered those explanations. You must have missed them. 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?
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.
-
What's new today
Forum
Do Men have the right to a "financial abortion"
Started by Adam in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 27 minutes ago. 95 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Seen a FB about Tornados today in KS and OK.
Posted by Matthew on May 20, 2013 at 8:14pm 4 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.
