***[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.
I see how you read the verse.
I read it differently: The generation that sees all of the above shall not pass away before all is fulfilled.
This harmonizes very well with the Revelation. Many dire prophecies must be fulfilled before the second coming:
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?
Not to mention that there are literally a dozen other desert gods who were born on the winter solstice to a virgin, grew up to become some kind of teacher, died and were resurrected or turned into a god.
Christianity is plagiarized from start to finish. There are few original thoughts on it. The OT parts are stolen from much earlier cultures, and a lot of the incidental theology and rituals (like Easter and Christmas) were borrowed from current ones to make conversion easier.
At least the OT god - despite his murderous psychopathy - was kind enough to just kill people and let them stay dead. The concept of eternal torture for finite transgressions didn't appear until gentle loving Jesus.
Never mind that the whole particulars of hell were worked out in the middle ages. Over a thousand years later
Reply by Moral Atheist
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.
Pahu: There are numerous skeptics who will claim anything to discredit the Bible. What very well documentation are you referring to? It is true there are many myths, but does that prove there is not a true story? Archaeology, and other disciplines confirm the Bible to be historically accurate, including the events of the Hebrews in Egypt.
Moral Atheist: 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.
Pahu: False. The "after the fact" notion has been shown to be false. What failed prophecies are you referring to? Here are some fulfilled prophecies:
Moral Atheist: 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.
Pahu: That notion has been refuted by many historians. Josh McDowell does an excellent job in his book, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict."
There are no contradictions in the Bible. Here is one source:
Moral Atheist: 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....
Pahu: How do you explain his Damascus experience? The New Testament was written by eye witnesses. Paul experienced the risen Christ and spent three years under His tutelage, after which he spent the rest of his life mingling with the other eye witnesses, some of whom accompanied him on his journeys.
Moral Atheist: 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.
Pahu: I have read that prophecy. It does refer to Jesus. There are over 300 OT prophecies about Jesus, all of which were fulfilled in Him. Those who don't want to believe in God imagine all sorts of reasons why the Bible can't be true. Prophecy, archaeology, and other sources prove it is true.
You are the victim of deception, which you will be able to clear up if you are willing to honestly look at all the evidence proving God does exist and He is the author of the Bible.
Reply by Moral Atheist
5.) No way did you read that entire chapter and think it was talking about Jesus. You probably just read a few verses and thought the same thing the author of Matthew did. Let me break it down for you.
Isaiah 7 is God talking to Isaiah and Ahaz because "the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken" due to the alliance of Aram and Ephraim. The boy who was to be born of a Virgin (young mother in Hebrew) would not know "enough to reject the wrong and choose the right" before the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. In other words, it was predicting that the alliance would be broken before they could even attack.
Pahu: That passage has been debated for centuries. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Matthew said that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the virgin birth of Jesus. The problem you and others have is with verse 16: "For before the child knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you abhor shall be forsaken." Of course that happened before the virgin birth of Jesus.
One way of looking at it is before Jesus knew to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land referred to had been forsaken a few hundred years before.
Here is another explanation by John Gill:
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and
choose the good
This may be understood of Isaiah's child, Shearjashub, he had along with him, he was bid to take with him; and who therefore must be supposed to bear some part, or answer some end or other, in this prophecy; which it is very probable may be this, viz. to assure Ahaz and the house of David that the land which was abhorred by them should be forsaken of both its kings, before the child that was with him was grown to years of discretion; though it may be understood of any child, and so of the Messiah; and the sense be, that before any child, or new born babe, such an one as is promised, ( Isaiah 7:14 ) , arrives to years of discretion, even in the space of a few years, this remarkable deliverance should be wrought, and the Jews freed from all fears of being destroyed by these princes: the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings; meaning not the land of Judea, now distressed by them, which they should leave; for that could not be said to be abhorred by Ahaz, or the house of David; but the land of Israel and Syria, called one land, because of the confederacy between the kings of them, Rezin and Remaliah's son, which Ahaz and his nobles abhorred, because of their joining together against them; and so it was, that in a very little time both these kings were cut off; Pekah the son of Remaliah was slain by Hoshea the son of Elah, who reigned in his stead, ( 2 Kings 15:30 ) and Rezin was slain by the king of Assyria, ( 2 Kings 16:9 ).
Here is another one:
16. For--The deliverance implied in the name "Immanuel," and the cessation of distress as to food ( Isaiah 7:14 Isaiah 7:15 ), shall last only till the child grows to know good and evil; for . . . the land that . . . abhorrest . . . forsaken of . . . kings--rather, desolate shall be the land, before whose two kings thou art alarmed [HENGSTENBERG and GESENIUS]. the land--namely, Syria and Samaria regarded as one ( 2 Kings 16:9 , 15:30 ), just two years after this prophecy, as it foretells. HORSLEY takes it, "The land (Judah and Samaria) of (the former of) which thou art the plague (literally, 'thorn') shall be forsaken," &c.; a prediction thus, that Judah and Israel (appropriately regarded asone "land") should cease to be kingdoms ( Luke 2:1 , Genesis 49:10 ) before Immanuel came.
Last, but not least, is this commentary from my NKJV:
It is not uncommon for biblical prophecies to have one level of fulfillment in the immediate future, and a final fulfillment many years later in the person and work of he Saviour, Jesus. Thus the pregnancy of Isaiah's new wife and the birth of her son (8:3) could have been a sign to King Ahaz. However, this would have been a fulfillment, not the fulfillment. The prophecy was completely fulfilled in the coming of God's only Son to the earth. He is he only Child who can truly be called Wonderful, Counselor, and Prince of Peace (see 9:6).