***[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: 5060

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

3. Consciousness of consciousness necessarily requires primary consciousness to first obtain as awareness of existence.

This is an accepted postulate.



4. Prior to existence there could not have been anything to be aware of.

This is  predicated upon, nothing existing, but the true theist argument is that the universe that appears was created from what does not appear, as quoted from the scriptural source. 


5. Without anything to be aware of, there could not have been any awareness.

 The salient point above nullifies this statement.

6. Without awareness there could not have been any consciousness.

The salient point above nullifies this statement.

7. From 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 there could not have been a primordial consciousness prior to existence.

The salient point above nullifies this statement.


Michael: "This is  predicated upon, nothing existing, but the true theist argument is that the universe that appears was created from what does not appear, as quoted from the scriptural source."

 

The scriptural source is not acknowledged as factually true in the sense of a widely accepted postulate. Thus there is no salient point nullifying 5, 6, 7. You are mistaken, for the fantasy world of theism cannot be accepted as fact by mere assertion alone. To do so is gross question begging. However, the argument I have made regarding consciousness in my reply to Pahu was as I mentioned intended to prompt the theistic believer to expose his/her enthymemes. I apologize for not making that sufficiently clear. This is in order to be able to note and remark upon the circular or question begging nature of theism's notions of divine creationism. The argument was designed to prompt assertions that consciousness exists in absence of existence as is implied in my premise number 1.

 

1. To believe that a theistic creator deity exists, the believer must imagine their deity was in some timeless fashion akin to "before" existence alone in a timeless, non-spatial, void, without matter, energy, location, dimensions, fields, concepts, knowledge, symbols, perceptions, physical natural law, logic, or referents. And that it then wished existence to instantiate.

 

To assert as you have that "the true theist argument is that the universe that appears was created from what does not appear" is rejection of the doctrine of Creation ex Nihilo. This also exposes the theistic believer to criticisms such as written about by Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion" chapter 4 where he rebuttals allegations of creationism from some preexistent realm by asking "Where did God come from?" (Its been several years since I read TGD and I may be mistaken about c.4, but the point is still good.)  The point here is that the creationist wishes to claim reality must be explained while arbitrarily denying the same obligation to the question of their god.  Consequently non-theists are justified in rejecting the notion that reality is structured as a series of encapsulations of cosmic domains rather like Russian Bubushka dolls.

 

In regards to Pahu's premise "6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause." This is false. See Creation ex nihilo - without God by Mark Vuletic at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

 

Pahu's argument fails on multiple levels.  More importantly, however, the idea of god talk at all is incoherent. Thus non-cognativism is justified and is a viable alternative to either theism or atheism. See http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncog...

Reply by Malcolm Lorente yesterday

 Your "logical" explanation is flawed. Proteins can spontaneously be generated by the interaction of the elements Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Sulfur when charged by an electric force... even as small as an electron. This is scientific fact. The process randomly continues and eventually becomes more complex than proteins. It continues until the chemical constituents become "live" and exhibit life qualities.

 

Pahu: Has the random process you describe been observed? Has it been observed that it continues until the chemical constituents become "live" and exhibit life qualities? If so, when and where?

 

Malcolm Lorente: You simply must ascribe the "beginning" to an imaginary "guy in the sky".

 

Pahu: After seeing scientific evidence proving the existence of God, why do you continue to cling to your idea that He is imaginary?

 

Malcolm Lorente: I saw one of the captives who tried to carry children from Haiti into the Dominican Republic say, when she was released, "Our God is a mighty god and he stood by us the whole time." I ask you and her why he would stand by such a dim-wit and allow more than 200,000 men, women and innocent children to suffer as painful a fate as dying in an earthquake???? DUH!!

 

Pahu: You ask a valid question that has bothered believers since time began. I believe the Bible teaches the fact of reincarnation, which answers that question. We are all sinners and deserve death. Before Genesis 1:2, when we chose to rebel against God's will, we started a process of consequences that continue to the present. About 2000 years ago, God shed His blood for our redemption. If we choose to accept His salvation, we will receive eternal life. If not, we will receive eternal death, not eternal torment. If interested,  you will find the details of my belief in "Reincarnation in the Bible?". [http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-00000...]

Stephen Hawking, a man who has studied this subject more than any other man to date would be best to get an explanation from. He pretty much sums it up like this, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,". Hawking has many articles on this topic and I suggest you read more about them.

Also it is impossible to be both omnipotent and omniscient. If god is omniscient, he already knows when he is going to intervene and use his omnipotent powers. But that means he cant change his mind about intervening, thus making him no longer omnipotent.  Omniscience and omnipotence are not compatible.

Reply by John Locke yesterday

 Stephen Hawking, a man who has studied this subject more than any other man to date would be best to get an explanation from. He pretty much sums it up like this, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,". Hawking has many articles on this topic and I suggest you read more about them.

 

Pahu: Before the universe existed, wouldn't there be nothing, including gravity?

 

John Locke: Also it is impossible to be both omnipotent and omniscient. If god is omniscient, he already knows when he is going to intervene and use his omnipotent powers. But that means he cant change his mind about intervening, thus making him no longer omnipotent.  Omniscience and omnipotence are not compatible.

 

Pahu: Perhaps what is impossible for man is possible for God. He also reveals He is omnipresent.

according to quantum mechanics even nothing contains information.

 

its like telling a grown man there is no santa.

Reply by Kroli Danger Krolak 22 hours ago

according to quantum mechanics even nothing contains information.

 

Pahu: If that is true, which I  doubt, then quantum mechanics is as confused as evolutionists and atheists. Can you demonstrate how nothing can contain anything?

In QM you have something called the Uncertainty Principle and following from this you have an uncertainty relation between time and energy, as follows: the uncertainty about the amount of energy (in Joules) times the uncertainty in what amount of time that amount of energy is present (in seconds) is always minimally equal to Plancks constant (divided by 4 pi).

Therefore an atom for example cannot ever be perfectly still which in turn means no patch of spacetime can ever reach the temperature of absolute zero (on the Kelvin scale) and there is always energy present in the vacuum: zero point energy.

This is established science. When we go one further in the realm of quantum-gravity theories that are "background independent" that is to say, that (this is guaranteed when a quantized) spacetime itself flows out of the theory as it were, the uncertainty relations are already built into spacetime as it is dynamically created conforming to the rules set out in the theory.

On large scales this would resemble in classical Newtonian terms what Mark Whittle in his wonderful Cosmology lectures called "falling outward."

Then you are saying there cannot be nothing , but must be something?  Ok then , your logic works for me.  So the universe has always been here?  No need for a God?  

 

Did you ever think if you replaced the word 'universe' with 'God' in your original logical arguments , you might get a hint of what we are talking about?  

The first two assumptions I will grant.

1. The universe exists.

It's possible there is no universe and our conscious existence is a lie but I hate that line of thinking cuz it's boring & redundant. If assumption one is wrong, this entire argument is moot. So I'll grant that leap of faith. I grant that assumption w/o sufficient evidence outside what we know about our own existence. We'll pretend that's a given. The universe exists. If it doesn't, this is all academic anyway.

2. The universe had a beginning.

Now, we kinda have proof for number two. There is the echo of The Big Bang at the furthest reaches of our known universe. Scientists have detected it. Our known perception of the universe has an outer layer. We can observe it and examine it from this great distance. Our universe as we know it is not infinite. It's finite. This does allow us one further leap of faith: the known universe had a beginning.

This is big really. Cuz until recently we really couldn't stretch this far in our knowledge of the universe. We've jumped to a lot of conclusions as a species that have later proven to be false. We're getting better at this but we still have a long way to go.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

We don't know this. Someday we might figure out a way to get information about what is outside the known universe but right now that looks about as impossible as breaking the sound barrier once seemed to be, or figuring out speed of light travel appears to be now. Human Flight was once impossible. Going to the moon was once impossible. Maybe someday we'll resolve number three too. However, not today. Not yet.

Perhaps before this universe began there was another universe. A different one. Maybe there's something outside our known universe even now. Maybe whatever that something is is still there, maybe it was replaced by something else and we didn't notice cuz we're inside this bubble. Maybe it was there then but it's gone now. We don't know. We have no way of knowing if statement 3 is correct or not. It's too much of a leap of faith from what we know.

This argument is a load of dingoes kidneys. It's an argument from ignorance. Because we are inside the universe, we can't see what is outside the universe, if in fact there is anything. We don't know. Assuming from what we know is always a leap of faith.

Believers leap w/o looking. Doubters look first, and in this case, we can't look. At least not yet.

Currently we simply can't see outside our known universe. That doesn't mean nothing's there. That doesn't mean something's there. That doesn't mean anything. Maybe the laws of nature as we know them don't apply outside the known universe. By definition that'd make anything outside what we know supernatural. However, that doesn't mean YOUR god is definitely THE answer. It'd make all the gods mankind has ever envisioned a few possibilities among a near infinity of possibilities.

Any of the assumptions made past number three are not relevant, cuz you can't get past number three. It's too much of a jump from rational thought to assume before the something we can perceive now there was nothing. That's what the bible insists. It's just a book. It's no more right than the creation stories from other cultures. It's a great myth. It's fun. It's thought provoking. That doesn't make it the final word.

The bible is not the word of god. It only claims to be. It was written by men who wanted to control other men and tell them how to think, feel, behave & treat one another and sometimes that was beneficial to mankind and sometimes that was malevolent. I'm not arguing the ethics here. I'm arguing for knowledge.

Assumptions are not facts. If you can back up assumptions with facts, then what had been an assumption previously may be seen as a fact, but to accept assumptions blindly without evidence takes religion, and humanity simply doesn't need that BS any longer.

We need proof. Prove your god. Or shut the f*** up.

Reply by ZachsMind yesterday

The first two assumptions I will grant.

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

We don't know this. 

 

Pahu: You begin by agreeing the universe had a beginning and then balk at the idea that before it existed there was nothing. Isn't that a logical conclusion? How could the universe exist before it existed?

 

ZachsMind: Perhaps before this universe began there was another universe. A different one. Maybe there's something outside our known universe even now. Maybe whatever that something is is still there, maybe it was replaced by something else and we didn't notice cuz we're inside this bubble. Maybe it was there then but it's gone now. We don't know. We have no way of knowing if statement 3 is correct or not. It's too much of a leap of faith from what we know.

 

Pahu: You attempt to explain your contradiction with a series of speculations of perhapses and maybes. As I pointed out, my statements are based on known observation, experience and experimentation. Not speculation or "faith." Isn't your response faith that maybe some day we will finally discover natural causes for the existence of the universe? Do you resist conclusions based on facts because they disprove what you want to believe?

RSS

Events

Blog Posts

It's all Greek to me

Posted by Simon Mathews on April 15, 2015 at 4:14am 18 Comments

Free at last

Posted by Belle Rose on April 15, 2015 at 1:00am 3 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service