***[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: 5037

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Ha, Ha, What a laugh. 'Genesis is not supposed to be read completely in a literal sense'. Why not? Who decides what is supposed to be literal or not?

If you have to explain your manuel for life, a person is supposed to pick out the good bits of what is true and what is a story.

You follow a book written by primitive people with the morals and ethics of a nat. Full of hate, violent men who are territorial and misogynistic. I don't care what anybody believes in, I believe in evolution. If you want to believe that a bloke started all this, that's okay, I don't care. it's the hate, the advocation of violence, and the vilification of sex, and therefore women.  Jesus was (supposed) to be celibate, are you? - once again, many different interpretations and opinions, from the same book -  there are different religions that ban marriage, because they read the same book you do - but have a different interpretation - the result is misery to millions.

People have read the same book you have, and out comes the Spanish Inquisition and the German Inquisition etc. etc.

So, can you tell me, what is supposed to be taken literally and what is supposed to be taken non literally.

Do you play with snakes and drink arsenic - oh, sorry, that was 'written in' after the original. Bits and pieces added - you are reading only ONE VERSION, the operative word being version.

Kids being tossed out of home, because they are atheist or gay - Ah, yes, christians are truly loving people.


If somebody tells me 'I am christian' I run. Christians can do anything evil, rape children, as do catholics and jehovah witness, steal as in corporations, cheat AND steal as evangelicals, and they are forgiven - that's is why they can and will do it again.


No morals, no ethics no conscience.

Ok, I'll be honest and say that I have a good deal of temptation in answering in as petty and with senseless smearing as you did right now.

Miss, you see a christian... and you run? I heard that phrase from Christopher Hitchens, I believe. Are you saying you'd see a mother Theresa and run? Is it because you're weaker than that frail old lady? I honestly don't find the connection on why you should RUN.

While I certainly believe that the priests who have fallen into pedophile way of being are scum as priests... do you know that statistics show that parents are still the #1 child molesters?

Are you saying we should remove children from the custody of their parents? Should we brand all parents as pedophiles because they are the #1 child molesters?

If you're going to put the finger on the evils many believers do... why can't we also notice the evils non-believers do. Hitler, Mussolini, communist China, communist Korea. They are CERTAINLY not believers.

Many of them are atheists... yet even I don't believe atheism false merely because it is responsible for a definitely good share of deaths and evils.

If Christians keep doing evils because they will be forgiven, then empirically speaking, atheists should be able to kill, maim, murder, and do all sorts of things for the sake of their own pleasure --- because it is only this life you'll ever have. Might as well spend it for yourself, even if it is at the cost of others.

Christians and others fall into sin because they were either weak and were overcame with temptation, or because they chose to do an evil act. It has nothing to do with the veracity of a doctrine. If anything, it acknowledges it, since it is Christian doctrine that says we are fallen creatures.

You believe in evolution. My former pope, Pope John Paul II, was the one to say "Evolution is more than just a theory". (a.k.a., evolution does not affect a single hair of my belief, and over more, I find it very convincing)

If we're going to talk about the reasons people read differently and other interpretations, here is a good video that explains it all a bit well:


And I know this will sound corny, but sorry if I lashed out a bit. It's one thing to politely reject a belief and a completely different thing to smear it by taking things out of proportion.



Before you go calling Hitler and Atheist you should really pull your nose out of your dusty, old, irrelevant, bronze age holy book and check some facts.  Nazi belt buckles carried the slogan "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) and if you even read a chapter of Mein Kampf then you would know it was a devoutly Christian manifesto.


Now that you know the facts of the matter, the real question is whether or not you will stop lying and pretending that you don't?  I doubt it, because all of you apologists base your twisted rationalizations on lies - if you didn't then you would come to your senses and stop spewing this childish nonsense about your imaginary friend.

The thing is that we do have ancient Egyptian records from that time and they provide no support for the events mentioned in Exodus.

I have to accept that I don't know that much about the historical references of Christ during his times.

Fair enough.  If you do look into it, you'll find that there is nothing written about him from the time that he is supposed to have lived.

The Pauline epistles were written much earlier than the gospels and you'll notice that Paul doesn't seem to know any details about the life of Jesus.  What do you make of that?

One difference is the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses within a few years of the events. 

Sorry, but the gospels cannot reasonably be seen as eyewitness accounts.

First, it is reasonably well established that they were written several decades after the time of the events on which they purportedly report.  So, even if they were intended to be eyewitness testimony, the gap between the supposed events and the writing of the books means that they are less likely to be reliable.  Even fresh eyewitness testimony is recognized as one of the least reliable forms of evidence.  For example, many wrongly-convicted and imprisoned people who have been freed on the basis of DNA evidence were convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony.

Human memory is "plastic".  That is, intentionally or not, our memories tend to get shaped to match our biases and expectations, especially as time goes on.  Furthermore, we have a strong tendency to make errors in how we perceive that which is going on around us.  See this web site for more information on that if you're interested.

Second, the authorship of the gospels is unknown.  The names attached to them are based on tradition but serious Bible scholars (not the biblical literalists by whom you've been influenced) will tell you that it is simply not known who wrote them.  That isn't true of the entire New Testament -- for example, it is pretty well established that most of the epistles attributed to Paul were actually written or dictated by him -- but the gospels are anonymous.

So, what we have are decades-old anonymous writings.  These cannot be taken seriously as eyewitness testimony.

Third, one must consider the intent of the gospels.  It is fairly well accepted that the purpose of the gospels was to promote certain doctrines within the fledgling Christian religion and to oppose certain other doctrines.  That is, they were intended to be doctrinal tracts and not necessarily historical accounts.


There was no time for mythology to grow.

Joseph Smith had is first "vision" in 1820.  Only ten years later, in 1830, he was able to formally establish what was to become The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints -- the Mormons.  There was considerably more than one decade between the writing of the gospels and the events which they supposedly portray.  I think that leaves plenty of time for mythology to grow.

hahaha! comedy hour.

No, comedy month(almost)

So why does the loving god give kids bone cancer?

Because god wants them with him in heaven so he can share his love with him. Bloody pervert.

Having read several pages and seeing the same arguments from Pahu being copy-pasted, I will no longer waste my time on this thread.


Pahu, when and if you get any real proof of your(or any) god. Let me know, I would truly LOVE to have a single book do all my thinking for me. Life would be so much simpler then.

Carlos - The Catholic prohibition on condoms during a time of overpopulation is a crime against humanity.  Spreading the fallacy that condoms increase the risk of contracting aids to low-literacy rural Africans is worse than murder.  Condoning the death penalty for gays in third world countries while denying them the right to marry in the developed world is just plain hateful.  Then there is the creationist movement against scientific literacy, admittedly not Catholic based, but still based on the same Bronze Age cult.  Of course there is the opposition to stem cell research as well as opposition to abortion coupled with opposition to sex education - just how much do you have to hate young girls to jump on both bandwagons?


Now the U.S. has a governor in Texas who is admitting he knows nothing about economics but he plans a big prayer rally to fix the damn problem.  Prayer does zero, zilch, nada, and you all bloody well know it.  All you have to do is look at the mortality statistics from a few hospitals to realize that death is not the least bit distracted by prayer - children die in equal numbers whether prayed for or not and that is absolute fact.


Now this guy in Norway may have been Christian or maybe he tailored his theism to his own designs like all the rest.  One way or the other, though, he believed there was a wonderful afterlife waiting for him and he prayed for courage to carry out his task.  It should be a no-brainer to lock up any nutter who believes in invisible super beings who listen to his ramblings and provide him with supernatural protection - but it isn't because the world is polluted to saturation with the likes of you.


You do not have one shred of evidence for the existence of your imaginary friend.  You are perfectly aware that there are thousands of bits of evidence that suggest your imaginary friend is 100% in your imagination only.  Yet you continue to walk around, unembarrassed that you follow a Bronze Age cult, talk to a deity from the Semitic pantheon, and base your sexual morality on the teaching of a group of celibates and paedophiles.  What does it take for you to wake up and realize you have been brainwashed by a cult?

You know, this method of atheists of throwing a thousand things that each deserve a thousand lines for a defense is really tiresome. Over more, the blank misunderstanding of religion by, though not all, but many atheists is really worrisome.

Overpopulation? May I ask where is the overpopulation? America is going to go to a depression worse than the great depression because the retired elderly are sucking up all the money of the government when there are almost no more children to replace the wealth sucked up by these retired people.

In fact, talk to any scientist. I have a biologist in college that says that overpopulation is NOT a current problem. It's the distribution of wealth. 40% of all of Americas wealth lies in 1% of the people. Are you truly going to attack overpopulation when all of that money is thrown away in the vain and useless desires of the disgustingly rich?

I don't know for other religions, but Catholicism DOES NOT condone the death penalty for homosexuals. It is even against it. For Catholics and many other branches of Christianity, homosexual desires are a cross like any else. I have met gay Catholics that are celibate for life... and they are rather praised for such a sacrifice.

Prayer does not work that way! Prayer isn't something one does to a force that surrenders unflinchingly to the one that says a prayer. Prayer, when done to God, is a petition to a will --- and like any petition, it rests on the decision of God and the trust and faith of the person. Ultimately, the only prayers that are invariably answered, for so long as they are done unceasingly everyday, is that for the acquirement of faith, hope, love, and other like virtues.

God doesn't hear, however, the sinful prayer... and if one were to merely be doing such prayers for the sake of mocking or cynically proving God through irreverence, you might as well be answered by the ignorance of God to your prayer.

All in all, that Texas governor seems sketchy to me, as you paint him to me.

Sex education? Any person who studies countries with sex education and countries without sex education would know that countries educated about sex by the government are invariably more promiscuous. Might I say, America is the only country I know of that has a school exclusive for those that are pregnant underage.

My Russian boss said that things are wonderful in her country, concerning birth education. There is not so much foolish, meaningless licentiousness and the flood of unplanned pregnancies. It is by coming here and seeing a documentary of "Sex in America" that she is convinced that she should vote for a "No" for government sex education in Russia. By the by, she isn't even religious.

Embryonic stem cell research is considered evil because you need to destroy the zygote. Adult stem cell research is important and even praised by Catholics. Even more so, do you know that adult stem cell research has been found as a means of curing AIDS? It's a beautiful thing, since the media only said it was gene therapy or stem cell research, without mentioning adult.

Over more, embryonic stem cell research are prone to producing tumors, poorly manageable, and "ungovernable". Mind you, all current research with these embryonic stem cell research has generally concluded in failure. Nevertheless, adult stem cell research has MANY promising venues... yet America is the only place where they want to continue research, even though it has sent them only to a seemingly large loss of money.

Abortion? Why do you need to abort? And please, don't tell me it's more prudent. If one cares for prudence, one should care in remembering that when two people have sex, the highest form of an organism will not resemble a fly or a squirrel, but a human being.

Instead of working towards abortion mills... why can't money be spent in giving women free prenatal care and, if they don't want a baby, a good means of giving it up for a good foster home?

In fact, people are verily unaware of the harmful side effects of abortion. My Russian boss's mother committed one... and she had a mental trauma. There's also scientific research that shows correlation with the amount of abortions committed and the mental state and other health effect of their mothers.

All in all, I've even heard of atheists that are against abortion. Even if he is within a mother's womb, he still has his own circulatory system and, if not that, his own genetic makeup. It may be the woman's body the fetus depends on, but that doesn't give her a right to kill it anymore I have right to kill someone for being a mere bother to me.

The evidence? [And I'm already falling asleep and can barely write anymore]. Science treats on what is the mechanism. It can't take on a more bigger question. Since everything we know has a cause... and we know that nothing only causes nothing...

The question of Why is there something, instead of nothing?, a question strictly confined to philosophy and religion. What is the primary cause?

The idea that the only things that can be believed or thought of as true have to be proven by science is just scientism. It's more of an exaggeration of the ability of science. I'll leave a video because I can hardly defend myself anymore... want to sleep...



Anything I didn't say or defended poorly in the last couple of paragraphs is there. Sleep....


Blog Posts

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 3 Comments

Forever Cursed

Posted by Nerdy Keith on February 25, 2015 at 8:00pm 4 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service