***[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: 4944

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Your still making the leap to another advanced lifeform.

 

it could have just as easily been a meteorite containing remnants of amino acids from another distant goldilocks planet..

 

or just fucking random atomic movement..

 

why even make the leap to intelligence when lack of intelligence is one thousand thousand times more likely based on the lack of sentience in the known universe. We are as yet the only reasoning creature in existence. Why assume another beyond all mathematical reason. And your not just assuming another sentient being your assuming one beyond our rationale with no basis.

 

Ill stick the with numbers .. chaotic happenstance is Mathematically more reasonable an explanation no matter how much you wish upon a star it isnt.

Reply by James 23 hours ago

you proceed, if i may be so bold, from the perspective of the traditional western abrahamic mono-god; being all-knowing, all-powerful, all-perfect, etc. other gods of other religions abound in imperfection. i suggest we dismiss that this being would be all-perfect (largely because i don't believe in perfection to begin with)

 

Pahu: Is it rational to assume that because you don't believe in perfection, the Creator of everything and everyone could not be perfect?

 

James: in this theory, 'life' could certainly be a plausible, random and latter bi-product of the created universe.

 

Pahu: So you do believe the universe was created? If 'life' could certainly be a plausible, random and latter bi-product of the created universe, why is there no evidence for that plausible, random bi-product?

Why consider god instead of considering invisible space chimpanzees with magical flying banana surf boards who came to earth and made man in their image?

Plenty of great examples of this...no need to make up new ones... Russel's Teapot springs to mind.

All the premises are doubtful and at least honestly debatable. In 1, The word "Universe" is a name for the set of all that exists. Stating it exists is similar to the fallacy of Anselem's ancient ontological argument that a greatest being greater than which none can be conceived must exist because existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. But Kant and Hume showed existence is not a predicate or property of anything. When we think of a thing the concept of existence is included, so stating it exists adds nothing to the understanding. Premise 1 is a tautology.

Premise 2 is suspect and probably false. Inflationary cosmology and Hawking's Wave Function of the Universe Law holds that existence has always existed. See Quentin Smith's work for the later "Stephen Hawking's Cosmology and Theism" at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/hawking.html and Why Stephen Hawking's Cosmology Precludes a Creator "http://www.qsmithwmu.com/why_stephen_hawking's_cosmology_precludes_a_creator.htm" for the later, and the works of Professor of Physics Andrei Linde (Stanford) at http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/ for the former.

Premise 3 brings about the problem of divine loneliness. Noting this unsolvable problem forces a theist's hand. It brings to the forefront the imaginative nature of her god belief. See Dawson Bethrick's blog at http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2008/07/before-beginning-problem-... Before the Beginning: The Problem of Divine Lonesomeness. Along these lines I thought of an argument that refutes the notion of creator gods.

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.

2. Consciousness is an axiomatic irreducible primary process that at the most common denominative rung on the ladder of complexity consists of awareness of existence.

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

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

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

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

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

8. Creator gods are defined as primordial consciousness.

9. From 7 and 8 Creator gods cannot exist.

My time is up, but the rest of Pahu's premises are probably false. His inference to supernaturalism in his conclusion in any event does not follow because of the facts observed by George H. Smith and noted in his book "Atheism: The Case Against God".

The following text is paraphrased from George H. Smith's book, “Atheism: The Case Against God” p.41.

To exist is to exist as something. To be something is to have a specific nature. That is to have a particular identity. The Laws of Identity A=A and Non-Contradiction A =/= ¬A entail that any ontological being must posses specific determinate characteristics. To have such characteristics is a consequence of being part of nature. But the theistic God is asserted to be super-natural, and that is to be exempt from the uniformity of nature. Herein lies the contradiction fatal to any claim of knowledge about God. Having specific determinate characteristics imposes limits, and those limits would restrict the capacities of the alleged super-natural being. Such restriction then renders the alleged super-natural being subject to the causal relationships that denote the uniformity of nature in actual existence and disqualify it from being God. To escape this contradiction, the religious mind proposes to somehow imagine a God lacking any definite attributes or properties. But a postulated existent devoid of properties or attributes is indistinguishable from nothingness and is incompatible with the concept of existence. For God to have characteristics necessarily means God must have definite characteristics. That is to say that God would then necessarily be limited, for to be A is to also not be ¬A. Any being with characteristics is then subject to the uniformity of nature imposed by those capacities. For a super-natural being to differ from natural existence, it must exist without a limited identity and nature. This amounts to existing without any nature or identity at all. If humanity is to have meaningful discourse about God, we must presuppose it to have properties by which is can be identified. By asserting that God is super-natural theism stipulates existence apart from the uniformity of nature and eliminates any possibility of assigning definite characteristics to God. But by assigning definite characteristics to God, theism brings its God within the natural realm and renders it not-God. Something cannot be both A and ¬A. God then cannot exist, and any claim of knowledge of God is indistinguishable from fantasy of God.

Time for me to go. Good luck and Best Wishes to the Reader.

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.

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