***[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: 5625

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Why do you trust Jewish scribes over scribes of some other religion that has thousands of years of witnesses? Like Hinduism for example.

 

Pahu: Hinduism, Buddism, etc. are nice religions with high ethical standards. The Holy Bible is historically accurate, as confirmed by archaeology and other disciplines. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed the amazing accuracy of the scribes in copying the manuscripts. The accurate fulfillment of hundreds of prophesies, given by God speaking in the first person, prove He is the author of the Bible.

 

Alex: "Or that mysterious black box between well functioning progressive stages of evolution, that gets it right on the money every time with no signs of half baked intermediates appearing in the geological/archeological record."

 

Do you mean you want to see fossils of, say, specific organs evolving? Can you give me an example of the "black box." I don't think organs fossilize, and very few animals fossilize anyway.

 

Pahu: Evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. The fossil record should show a progressive change from life form to life form, as required by evolution. Millions of fossils have been studied since 1859 in search of those changes. So far not one has been found.

List of transitional fossils.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

 

Again you are wrong.I get the feeling you read some crappy website that gave you speaking points of  creationism and you are spouting them one by one with no coherent stringing together of thoughts or ideas of your own. And all the ones you spout are wrong so far.

 

 

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing. 

 

FALSE 

thats assuming this truly is a UN-Iverse and not a MULTI-verse. if it can happen once then it can happen again. 

some evidence to support "Hyper-Space:" Gravity 

the nuclear forces along with electromagnetic force are relatively equal in comparison to weak little gravity. how could a universe even begin with one of these forces completely dwarfed by the others? answer: at one time they all were equal. why is it weak now? because it comes from the "nothing" you claim is beyond our universe. 

 

the point is just because its not natural in our 3D existence doesnt mean it isnt outside of it. god comes from a brain dead line of thinking which accepts not knowing which limits the expanding knowledge of man. 

 

AS FOR 10

the Miller-Urey experiment has shown amino acids can be made from non-life. recent findings have shown asteroids and comets can carry the necessary materials and/or already made amino acids to earth AND THEY CAN SURVIVE IMPACT!! truly amazing. much more than an imaginary friend :-)

 

Reply by Kroli Danger Krolak on Friday

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing. 

 

FALSE 

thats assuming this truly is a UN-Iverse and not a MULTI-verse. if it can happen once then it can happen again. 

some evidence to support "Hyper-Space:" Gravity 

the nuclear forces along with electromagnetic force are relatively equal in comparison to weak little gravity. how could a universe even begin with one of these forces completely dwarfed by the others? answer: at one time they all were equal. why is it weak now? because it comes from the "nothing" you claim is beyond our universe. 

 

Pahu: My statement is based on known observation, experience and experimentation. Your objection is based on speculation, which is similar to science fiction.

 

Kroli Danger Krolak: the point is just because its not natural in our 3D existence doesnt mean it isnt outside of it. god comes from a brain dead line of thinking which accepts not knowing which limits the expanding knowledge of man.

 

Pahu: Is it not reasonable to accept facts in our search for truth? How does the reality of God's existence interfere with our expansion of knowledge. Probably the modern scientific method would not exist had it not been for men seeking to learn more about His creation.

 

Kroli Danger Krolak:

AS FOR 10

the Miller-Urey experiment has shown amino acids can be made from non-life. 

 

Pahu: 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.

 

Kroli Danger Krolak: recent findings have shown asteroids and comets can carry the necessary materials and/or already made amino acids to earth AND THEY CAN SURVIVE IMPACT!! truly amazing. much more than an imaginary friend :-)

 

Pahu: You will find evidence those asteroids and comets originated from earth here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html#wp6713702

your statement is only based on observation and irrational assumptions about reality. as for my speculation, several discoveries in science begin as science fiction. there are several aspects of general relativity that couldn't be proven until just recently. 

 

Pahu: Is it not reasonable to accept facts in our search for truth? How does the reality of God's existence interfere with our expansion of knowledge. Probably the modern scientific method would not exist had it not been for men seeking to learn more about His creation.

 

i could ask you the same thing! the reality is WE DONT KNOW. there is no absolute way (yet) of proving gods existence or lack thereof. its that mindset that brought you to your insane list of "proof." when you claim god did it, you replace important questions about truth and replace them with imaginary figures. IF there is a god IT wouldnt be anything like the 330 million gods man has made up. 

*side note* once you realize why you dismiss all the 330,000,000 other gods you'll realize why i dismiss yours.

NEXT: you know the empire state analogy is right on! thats all it takes one brick that can replicate. ad 4 billion years to pass on traits and adapt to various environments and presto. look at the eye. extremely complex yet there are living creatures that can show the stages of eye evolution.

 

AND YOU CLAIM COMETS WERE MADE BY THE FLOOOOOOD?!?!?!?!

for a person with great intellect you sure are dumb. there is as much proof of a flood powerful enough to send water out to the furthest reaches of our solar system as there is for jesus being a real person. WHICH IS NONE

 

Reply by Kroli Danger Krolak 22 hours ago

there is no absolute way (yet) of proving gods existence or lack thereof.

 

Pahu: It is interesting you would make that assertion after the proof I have shared (assuming you read it). Perhaps this will help you to accept reality:

 

1. Something exists.

 

That seems pretty simple, right? Can we all agree that this is true? Even the atheist will agree that this is true. This seems to be undeniably true. Anybody who would say that “nothing exists” would have to exist to in order to say that in which case he would be defeating his own statement.

 

2. Nothing does not produce something.

 

This statement is of course true as well. Think about it. It would be absurd to say that nothing could create or produce something.

 

Nothing is no-thing. Nothing does not have the power to do anything at all, does it! Even David Hume one of the most zealous skeptics of Christianity ever agreed to the truth of this second premise. He said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” (Feb. 1754).

 

To propose that nothing could do anything at all sounds utterly foolish. A basic law of physics (and if you ever had a physics class you’ll recall this) is called the Law of Conservation. It states: “From nothing, comes nothing.”

 

This supports our second premise as well. So if the first two premises are true, that 1. Something exists and 2. Nothing does not produce something, then a rather astounding conclusion logically follows...

 

3. Something must have always existed.

 

Why’s that? Okay, well, let’s walk back through this. Something now exists. Nothing does not produce something, then something must have always existed.

 

Why must something have always existed? To have brought the “something” that now exists (in No.1) into existence. Why? Because premise number two is true (Nothing does not produce something). But the critic asks, “Why does that something have to be eternal? Aren’t you just assuming the eternality of that something that brought into existence the something that now exists (no.1)?"

 

Not at all. Stay with me on this. There is a reason why that something (no. 3) must be eternal. To say that that something (in premise no. 3) did not always exist would be to say that it was finite. Right?

 

If that something (in premise no. 3) was finite, that means it had a beginning. If that something had a beginning we are back at our start. How did that something (premise no. 3) begin? Did nothing create something? No, that’s impossible. Nothing can’t do anything.

 

Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. If we deny this we are saying that nothing produced something from nothing and by nothing. But this is absurd. So we are left with the only other option and that is that something in no. 3 must have always existed.

 

Do you understand why premise 3 must be true?

Now, there are only two options as to what that “something (No.3) [that] always existed” might be:

 

A. The universe, or

B. Something outside the universe

 

The fourth premise in my argument is this:

 

4. The universe has not always existed.

 

In 1948, a theory known as The Steady State Theory, was set forth, that proposed that the universe was eternal (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 102). It stated that the universe has always been. “If this theory is correct” the critics of Christianity said, “there is no need for a Creator.” Well, the theory sounded good on paper for the atheist, for a while but the scientific evidence against it has since demolished the theory.

 

Numerous evidences from the field of astronomy now overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe actually began to exist a finite time ago in an event when all the physical space, time, matter, and energy in the universe came into being.

 

And that is exactly what the Bible affirms, that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).

 

Let me share with you just 2 facts of science that deal a fatal deathblow to the theory of an eternal universe. The first blow to this theory that universe is eternal is…

 

A. THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES

 

Prior to the 1920’s, scientists had always assumed that the universe as a whole was stationary. [Of course they acknowledged that there was movement of planets in solar systems, etc.]

 

But in 1929 an alarming thing happened. An astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from distant galaxies appeared to be redder than it should. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led was that the light is redder because the universe is growing apart; it is expanding! When the source of incoming light is moving away from an object the light that you see is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The light of the galaxies was redder because they are moving away from us. But here is the interesting part: Hubble not only showed that the universe is expanding, but that it is expanding the same in all directions. Scientists have concluded that the galaxies in the universe are not stationary but are expanding further and further away from each other from what appears to be some stationary point.

 

Imagine that I were to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon that represented galaxies and then blow up the balloon. If you were to suck the air back out, or let’s say rewind the film, go back in time—what would happen? The dots would converge, i.e. get closer to one another. The same is true with our universe. If you go back in time scientists say that the stars would converge into a singular space, where they exploded into being:

 

This explosion or beginning of the universe is often referred to as, you know the name:

 

“THE BIG BANG." We call it Genesis 1:1!! It’s incredible that the scientific evidence that helps establish Big Bang theory also helps verify what the Christian theist has always believed: That the universe actually had a beginning!!

 

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens..."

 

A second blow to the theory that the universe is eternal comes from the facts behind...

 

B. THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

 

[The first law says that the actual amount of energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn’t change.] 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of the best, most established laws in all of science. In fact, there is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts it. It states that: the amount of useable energy in any closed system (which the universe is) is decreasing. In other words, the useable energy in the universe is dying out like the batteries in a flashlight.

 

Scientists acknowledge that the sun can not burn forever, and that even our galaxy itself will one day, if left to itself, burn up and die out. So we reason that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true for all closed systems, and it is, then it is true for the universe as a whole. The universe according to the atheist is a gigantic closed system, since to them it is all there is and there is nothing outside it. This means that the universe is currently running out of useable energy.

 

If it is running out of useable energy, then it cannot be eternal, for a finite amount of energy (no matter how large the quantity.) could never have brought the universe through an eternity of time.

 

Flashlight Illustration: Let's say you stumbled upon this flashlight and you’re curious how long it has been burning. So you do a little investigation. Through your investigation you discover that the batteries are going down hill. They are running out of energy. You turn to a scientist standing nearby and ask him: “How long do you think the flashlight’s been burning?” Now, what if he was to tell you: “It’s always been on. It’s been lit like this and burning like this forever.”

 

Hunh? Would you believe that? Of course not. There’s a problem with that isn’t there?

 

Batteries with a finite amount of energy (seen in the fact that they are steadily running out of energy) could never have kept the light burning for an eternal amount of time. It would have run out of batteries trillions of years ago!! So it is with the universe. The amount of useable energy is steadily decreasing, thus proving it impossible that it has been burning for all eternity. So, it is scientific discoveries like…

 

1. The Motion of the Galaxies

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (and other discoveries like the background radiation echo discovered by Penzias and Wilson) ...that have blown the Steady State Theory into smithereens.

 

Now, if my premises are all true:

1. Something exists.

2. Nothing does not produce something.

3. Something must have always existed.

4. The universe has not always existed

...then a conclusion can be validly drawn from these premises.

 

5. There must be an eternal power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.

 

Do you think this is a sound argument thus far? I believe it is! The whole argument could come crashing down, if even just one of the premises could be proven to be false. Causing the argument to crash wouldn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, it would just prove that the argument is not valid. Let’s take it a bit further.

 

6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.

 

I take that to be self-evident. This also seems to be undeniable. Anybody who would say that there is not intelligent life in the universe would be uttering an intelligent statement from an intelligent being.

 

To understand any of this study this far (even if you disagreed with what I was saying) would prove that this sixth premise is true...for it has taken a great degree of intelligence to understand the thousands of combinations of syllables that I have been uttering.

 

So this premise is undeniably true as well.

Let’s take it further.

 

7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.

 

How could a material, inanimate, unintelligent, unconscious force produce on intelligent living, breathing being? It takes a living, intelligent being to create a living, intelligent being. Non-life does not produce life. You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to...

 

--wind

--rain

--the forces of nature

--chance

--and millions of years of time and you would never get a Mount Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention.

 

It would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and even more so, it takes intelligence to create a real human being.

 

8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.

 

That intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe that created the universe is God.

 

If the universe has not always existed, and something must have always existed, then something or someone outside of the universe must have always existed, I propose to you that that person is an intelligent, living, powerful being, i.e. God.

 

CONCLUSION

 

For me it is more reasonable to believe, based on the laws of logic as well as the observable scientific evidence that God exists, rather than to believe what the atheist believes that nothing, times nobody, equals everything we see in the universe.

 

Throw in the fact that we also have the testimony of our conscience and the revelation of God in the scriptures and I believe we are standing on solid ground when we affirm:

 

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

 

[Charlie H. Campbell adopted major premises from a debate heard on the existence of God by Norman Geisler]

 

 

The universe as we know it does indeed seem to have had a beginning.  However...

 

5. There must be an eternal power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.

 

That is pure speculation.  Anything to do with "outside the universe", if indeed there is an "outside", is necessarily speculative, as has been explained to you before. 

Now, what is more reasonable?  To speculate that there exists more than one of something of which we already know one exists by direct evidence or to speculate that there exists one of something of which we have absolutely no direct evidence?  Obviously, the former.  That is why it is more reasonable to speculate about a multiverse than it is to speculate that God did it.

Similarly, which is more reasonable, to conclude that matter/energy in some form has always existed (not necessarily in the form of the universe as we know it) or that a being for whom we have no direct evidence has always existed?  Again, obviously the former.

 

7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.

 

Again, speculation.  You don't know this and cannot know it.  You assume it because it is necessary for your faith but you cannot know this and you are ignoring all the research that has been done and is being done into how abiogenesis may have happened.  Others have already explained some of this to you.  Why is it that you have failed to learn anything from what others have shared with you?

 

Interesting , so he is implying God is not intelligent?  I think we can all agree with that!

 

Reply by Kroli Danger Krolak 22 hours ago

 AND YOU CLAIM COMETS WERE MADE BY THE FLOOOOOOD?!?!?!?!

for a person with great intellect you sure are dumb.

 

Pahu: With that, I can agree, but where did you get the idea I have great intellect?

 

Kroli Danger Krolakthere is as much proof of a flood powerful enough to send water out to the furthest reaches of our solar system as there is for jesus being a real person. WHICH IS NONE

 

Pahu: There is a mountain of evidence proving Jesus is a real historical person. Likewise, there is a lot of  scientific evidence suggesting the flood did propel large chunks of earth into space. You will find that evidence here:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

creationscience.com eh? doesn't sound biased at all </sarcasm>

I blame the MOON! its great because it added to the earths mass and slowed its rotation making it much more suitable for life. I blame it because it made our crust so thin plate tectonics has destroyed a lot of the evidence we need to slap theists in the face!

rocks hurt just as much so I guess i'll stick with that
Just because the origins of the universe are sketchy and unknown does not mean you can logically point the finger at a supreme being.

RSS

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service