***[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, There is littler point in simply restating an opinion that has bee n rebutted thoroughly by others on this site. It's a waste of your time & ours. Continue with your unfounded beliefs, whatever they are.  Have a good life, elsewhere.

"Science proves God" is a giant leap but this is expected. You have made a decision to avoid learning true science. If a friend came to you and said "Padhu, I would like to learn more about the bible". Would you then respond by saying, "I have an Atheist friend who knows a lot about the bible. You should learn from him.". I doubt it... However, this is the stance you have obviously taken when it comes to science judging from the copy & paste comments I have seen.

 

This however is not what I have an issue with. I believe your claims about the bible are the largest failures in logic. There are many, many reasons for this and I have spent a few years now learning all of them so I can't list them. That being said, here are some good examples. 

 

1.) Moses was the adopted son of a pharaohs daughter in Egypt. The Genesis creation myth, taken right out of the Egyptian creation myth. This has been VERY well documented.

 

2.) Old testament "prophesies" have all failed or have been shown by many independent sources to have been added after the fact. You might want to look into the failed prophecies. They far outnumber even the subjective prophecies you claim.

 

3.) The Old Testament has shown to have many authors that were then modified over time. There are countless contradictions. The Document Hypothesis shows that you can remove these other authors and all of the sudden the old testament reads smoothly with fewer contradictions. Proving that, whether the bible is inspired or not, we wouldn't know because we have NO IDEA what the bible actually said when the original authors wrote them.

 

4.) New testament is just as bad. Paul has no knowledge of Jesus' life on earth at all. No virgin birth, no direct quotes, no communion in all of his church rules, no anything accounting for any knowledge of the life of Jesus. Only that he died for our sins. Then DECADES later, we get a very detailed account of his life that incrementally grew with each new gospel written. BS....

 

5.) New Testament shows repeatedly that they wrote the new testament to make sure Jesus matched earlier prophecies of "The Messiah". Virgin birth is the best example. Gospel of Matthew is 1st gospel written that mentions the virgin birth and references a story from Isiah that prophecies the virgin birth. Look it up in your bible, read the entire chapter he is referring to, and tell me if you think it was talking about the Messiah. If God inspired the bible, he actually misinterpreted his own inspired word.

 

I could literally go on and on. I'll leave you with just these.

2.) Old testament "prophesies" have all failed or have been shown by many independent sources to have been added after the fact. You might want to look into the failed prophecies. They far outnumber even the subjective prophecies you claim.

 

I consider myself strong on prophecies having spent 30 years verifying there authenticity and accuracy. You have made a very substantial claim. What are your sources?

 

I consider myself a little bit of an expert as well. I am also married to an agnostic who received her Ph.D from Princeton Theological Seminary.

 

How about you give me your best example and I will shoot it down for you.

Such a stance is indeed taught in some seminary circles and the opposing view as well. As of late we have fragments of Daniel written in Aramaic that predate the Hellenistic era and the time of the alleged doctoring by Hellenistic Jewish sources.

Scholars have shown that the fragments are grammatically indicative of the 7th Century BCE. Daniel is inerrant when predicting the succession of Empires over the course of many centuries, that impact Israel. Moreover it's inerrancy has been noted when forecasting the exact amount of years between King Artaxerxes giving the order to rebuild and restore Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah ( Yeshua the Anointed)

I'll give some of my sources:

 

Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity by John Loftus

Godless by Dan Barker

Biblical Nonsense by Jason Long

The Holy Bible by men

 

The most conclusive failed prophecy that I've come across is when Jesus said in Matthew 24: 29-34 that the son of man will come down from heaven (and some other stuff that didn't happen) before the generation that Jesus was speaking to has passed away.

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:29-34&...

Reply by Alex 3 hours ago

The most conclusive failed prophecy that I've come across is when Jesus said in Matthew 24: 29-34 that the son of man will come down from heaven (and some other stuff that didn't happen) before the generation that Jesus was speaking to has passed away.

 

Pahu: Most Bible scholars say Jesus was not referring to the generation of His time, but the generation that witnessed all the events He predicted. One scholar is B. W. Johnson. Here is what he said:

 

34, 35. This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. Some hold that "all these things," in verse 33 and 34, refer only to what was said of the fall of Jerusalem, ending with verse 28. Others have contended that the phrase includes the second coming, but refers directly to the end of Jerusalem, which was a type of the end of the world. I believe, rather, that "all these things" embraces all thus far predicted, and that "this generation" means the Jewish race, instead of only those then living. The Greek word so rendered is used in the sense of race in the Greek classics, and as examples of such use in the New Testament, Alford points to Matt. 12:45, and Luke 16:8, as examples of such use in the New Testament. Christ has described the awful end of the Jewish state; [in AD 70] after such a destruction and scattering of the remnant to the ends of the earth, all the examples of history would declare that the Jewish race would become extinct. Christ, however, declares that, contrary to all probability, it shall not pass away until he comes. They still exist, 1850 years after the prediction, distinct, but without a country.

 

That commentary was written in the 19th century. Since then we have seen the reestablishment of the Jewish state in Palestine. Many of the signs Jesus told us to look for are taking place, indicating His return is near.

This is interesting, I've never thought of it that way. Still, I have questions. Why do some "hold that 'all these things,' in verse 33 and 34, refer only to what was said of the fall of Jerusalem, ending with verse 28?" In verse 34, he says "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened," not making any distinction between the events described before and after verse 28.

If the passage refers to the fall of Jerusalem, which I can see some of the events fitting, why does he say that the son of man will come, the sun will be darkened, the moon won't shine, heavenly bodies will be shaken, and stars will fall from the sky? I'm not aware of any of these events happening.

If "this generation" refers to the Jewish race, then we will just have to wait and see.

 

Where can I find the whole book or article that this is from?

This is interesting, I've never thought of it that way. Still, I have questions. Why do some "hold that 'all these things,' in verse 33 and 34, refer only to what was said of the fall of Jerusalem, ending with verse 28?" In verse 34, he says "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened," not making any distinction between the events described before and after verse 28.

If the passage refers to the fall of Jerusalem, which I can see some of the events fitting, why does he say that the son of man will come, the sun will be darkened, the moon won't shine, heavenly bodies will be shaken, and stars will fall from the sky? I'm not aware of any of these events happening.

If "this generation" refers to the Jewish race, then we will just have to wait and see.

 

Where can I find the whole book or article that this is from?

 

Pahu: I found that commentary specifically here:

http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/matthew/johnson/matthew24.htm

 

B. W. Johnson's Bible Commentary is one of many commentators on the whole Bible. Here is the complete list:

http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/

Paku, stop repeating the original message when you reply! It's plain stupid to do that - it does not emphasise your points and it is a waste of space.

Pahu: Most Bible scholars say Jesus was not referring to the generation of His time, but the generation that witnessed all the events He predicted.

 

Nuh Uh... Mark 9:1 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.

Reply by Moral Atheist 9 hours agoPahu: Most Bible scholars say Jesus was not referring to the generation of His time, but the generation that witnessed all the events He predicted.

 

Nuh Uh... Mark 9:1 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.

 

Pahu: Some scholars believe He fulfilled that prophecy eight days later at His transfiguration (vs. 2).

 

However, some older scholars had a different explanation. B. W. Johnson said: 

Till they have been seen the kingdom of God come with power. Compare Matt. 16:28 and Luke 9:27. Matthew says, "Till they have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom;" Luke, "Till they have seen the kingdom of God." A comparison shows that the reference is to "the coming of the kingdom in power" on the day of Pentecost. Of the twelve, one at a time was dead; the others had not tasted of death.

 

McGarvey and Pendleton agree:

9:1  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand [by], who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power1
There are some here of them that stand [by], who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power. The mention of his final coming suggested one nearer at hand which was to be accomplished during the life of most of those present, since none but Jesus himself and Judas were to die previous to that time. The kingdom was to come and likewise the King. The former coming was literal, the latter spiritual. Those who refer this expression to the transfiguration certainly err, for no visible kingdom was established at that time. The expression refers to the kingdom which was organized and set in motion on the Pentecost which followed the resurrection of Jesus. It was set up with power, because three thousand souls were converted the first day, Acts 2:41, and many other gospel triumphs speedily followed.

 

And John Wesley:

Verse 1.   Till they see the kingdom of God coming with power - So it began to do at the day of pentecost, when three thousand were converted to God at once.

 

Here is a more up to date commentary that agrees with the older ones:

http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&id=132

RSS

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