***[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.
Oh my goodness, Suzanne... don't you think you're overreacting a bit?
I mean, it's true I jump at every badly conceived notion of religion, whenever I've my facts straight and I see it; and yes, I like persuading - but it's more out of a love of a good debate or fight. I'm guilty of liking a good "boxing" match.
Yes, while you could technically call it evangelizing... I really don't have that in my head or even have that purpose. I just, for so long as I can remember, had a love for philosophy and debating (and as I said before, I like a good debate).
My friends are often agnostics, anti-religious, Zeitgeist proponents, and even leftists. Yet I've often had discussions where a single comment box was a single-spaced, two-page Word essay. Funny thing? The conversation had around 57 of those comment boxes and we still remain friends in the after-math. Usually, we just jump again to another topic (Well, now not so often. One of my more talkative friends is traveling the whole of Europe right now.)
If everyone is disgusted at me arguing my position and openly having a debate, I'll shut up. Just as many atheists claim, it's useless to talk to someone who doesn't listen.
I'd have to say that I've still to see where I've failed in becoming the closed, hatred-mongering Christian stereotype one can often see in secular and perhaps even atheistic view.
P.S. Atheists can and are oftentimes, also, the culprits of many crimes and odious philosophies.
Karl Marx? Stalin? The current communist Chinese government and probably North Korean government? The former U.S.S.R. Government? Many of the eugenics, especially the very bad eugenics, are often atheists. What about those atheists that vandalize Christian buildings?
Are you really going to continue calling all Catholics pedophiles and Christians in general as evil? Should I consider all atheists on this site as communist murderers that believe anyone with color should be annihilated? Should I believe they've all decided to raid a Church in their hatred for all things religious?
Do you know that, even atheists such as yourself, have written in the Times of London that "As an Atheist, I Truly Believe That Africa Needs God"? Saying that "In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good". He wrote that "seeing the impact of Christianity on the lives of Africans "confounded his ideology and "embarrassed" his atheism".
Obviously... OBVIOUSLY... I'm not going to argue that Christianity is true merely because of this (though I certainly find it a great sign of what true religion can do when rightly used) or that it isn't responsible for some great and heinous crimes.
But could you go easy on the prejudice?
It just seems that you've a hatred for all things religious flowing through every vessel in your body -- to the extent that you unfairly stereotype all Christians for the actions of individuals.
I don't think you read one word of what I said - I just love it when xians completely twist what I have said - once again - Of course there are good xians, I have actually met three, a catholic priest, a catholic sister, a seventh day adventist - I hate the hypocrisy, I will say it again, hypocrisy surrounding all religions - that is all.
I really want you to start a Web Site calling all good xians together to counter all the bad, evil crimes against humanity xians are doing in YOUR GODS name. I have already given you a huge list of the men hiding behind their respective religions - we could start with those on the Web Site. In a position of power - anybody in a position of power should be judged. Read some stories of the children who were victims for years - then come back and talk to me, and I will give you more information.
You still haven't answered my question - don't you think that would be an absolutely brilliant thing to do, instead of wasting so much time here - the infidels. I don't HATE anybody - I just want all the MEN who are pedophiles not protected by their heirachy, are you suggesting they are not being protected???? they are, by people like you, who do not call for justice in god's name, who ignore the sex abuse, the misogyny, the torture in your bible.
You are the Christian stereotype - we have all been there, done that - I have read the bible, I had trouble getting past The Garden of Eden at the age of ten, and never stopped questioning. You don't see the evil, I do - and I totally reject your bible. I have been in many discussions with xians. I would say, that most everybody on Think Atheist have too. We have researched, and learned - End of that story.I come from a catholic background - would you like me to go into detail about the men that I know who were raped by priests - do you want me to go into detail about two homosexual boys, one fourteen one sixteen, who committed suicide, becasue they were turfed out of their house, by their god fearing, loving xian family. The priests are still being protected to this day.
Oh, yes, less do talk - no hate - just really tired of the people who hide, who close their xian eyes to the crimes against humanity still being done today.
I am not saying all atheists are good - but I would certainly trust an atheist over a xian any day - xians have dark secrets, who knew. I know that Atheists don't need anyone looking over their shoulder to make sure they are doing the right thing. Xians are repressed in so many ways as in sex - it pops out somewhere.
That could even be another discussion, of why priests are pedphiles and what makes a pedophile?
I have asked it before - why did God make men polygamous, I know, I know it isn't the right word, but it is the most commonly used one. And if god didn't make men polygamous,it is choice, why aren't women polygamous and want and need to have -pick a number - and - pick a number - concubines etc.
Why couldn't women have lots and lots of gorgeous men as sex slaves????Why aren't women kidnapping boys and keeping them in a basement - and why are, the majority I would say, pedophiles - men?
I would say, that xians who are challenged are fearful, that they just might be wasting their time - and that they just might twig to the fact that Atheists were right all along. Now, wouldn't that be a catastrophe. HaHaHa.
You and Pehu and Michael, just don't answer any questions?
But it has been fun - thank you once again Carlos. You, Pehu and Michael are excellent teachers.
I will admit to one thing, I did misinterpret part of your message. Partly, I felt you were merely disgusted that I made the slightest comment. You can say that you "hitched" slapped me, or whatever it is you atheists do whenever you appear to win... or actually do win an argument.
One thing to be sure, I'm NOT here to evangelize. That may be hard to accept because I'm always fighting for the Christian side and I am a Christian, but I'll explain:
I would be an idiot to evangelize to an atheist, or an Islamic, or an agnostic, or a skeptic. I know my religion in a moderately advanced way and I'll always jump to a comment whenever I think it's wrong and defend my view.
And while there are many basic arguments by atheists that may be trumped by the Christian philosophy I hold, I don't know all the more sophisticated arguments of atheism or the more sophisticated arguments against the Church to those arguments... and so on.
Call me a weirdo, but I've always been obsessed with "truth" and I have a history with agnosticism, paganism, cultural Christianity, and just being "mere" spiritual. I've been enamored with philosophy, science, religion, and history. And while I can certainly say I'm not an expert in any one to any significant degree, I can say I still like hearing such things.
The reason I'm here is because I enjoy having an atheist, to a certain degree, pose questions to me that I've never heard before. I heard the argument about St. Theresa, which Brad gave me some links I've to still finish watching; Rosemary gave a seemingly persuasive theory on the Old Testament, and other people have mentioned Egypt and the lack of history.
Right now, I'm reading a book on archaeological discovery and their relationship to biblical events, I'm re-reading G.K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" and planning to read "Heretics" in his case for why, if there was a God, why the Abrahamic God (there was a person who made that argument too); and I'm planning to read Fr. Barron's book on St. Irenaeus, where their views on the apparent differences among the New Testament and Old Testament are given their reasons.
It's not that I'm "evangelizing". If I were true to my religious ideals, I'd be practicing prudence in NOT evangelizing. The worst of evils done to the Church can be made in good will - and trying to evangelize people whose philosophies I don't know in their entirety and whose counter arguments of my Church I don't know either... would be disastrous.
I only try to evangelize people that are Catholic as myself, since I know their already claimed faith and I show them when they might be making some mistake or another... just as they would to me.
And yes, I despise the actions of the seemingly religious that are in my Church. In fact, I could verily say I may hate them more than you do.
I hate, as I'm sure you do too, the damage these filthy actions of numerous people in the Church have done to the victims of pedophilia, among others. But I also hate the fact that their actions besmirch the name of the Church as a whole.
You see, and I may be wrong, I have more reasons to be displeased by their actions.
As to the questions you posed... I think that I would have to consult a sociology textbook, as well as a psychology one, to even begin making a hypothesis.
I'd argue that men would be inherently more prone to making sexual attacks due to their higher sex drive. Testosterone is responsible for libido and, generally, it's 20 times higher in men than in women.
Then again... that seems to me a bit of an over simplification.
To the fact of repression and priests? I'd argue that the Bible itself says that if a man or woman is unable to (and I say this because there are men and women who can control themselves) to keep their celibacy, then they should not make those voluntary vows to celibacy that, ultimately, could end up inducing them to have a higher goal than what is really attainable for them -- and thus bring problems to the Church... such as the current pedophilia scandal.
Lets talk Africa - Africans Quietly Confront Church Scandal - May 26 2011 - You still don't get it - where priests go child abuse will follow -
http://www.themediaproject.org/article/though-out-spotlight-africa-... - read this, and if you are serious about what you believe, then come back and talk about it. This is just ONE site covering this stuff - and it would be the tip of the ice berg.
As women know, rape is actually rarely reported, same with pedophilia.
You did a previous argument to my other reply, so I'll just answer it in here. (The one about heathens and merit).
The thing about your comment is this, that the Church doesn't say the Pagans would inherit Hell, and this will need a bit of explaining, since it seems I'm going against the Church in this:
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.
You see, just as a prudent father would not severely chastise a child when he does something he did not know to be wrong; just as so, God doesn't send heathens and Pagans away when they never even knew Christ or His Church in an appropriate way.
It is only after one knows the teachings of the Church that one will be judged according to the teachings of the Church. Thus, all the heathens and pagans that lived before Christ and those that live after Christ who never knew him, but nevertheless live according, to the best of their ability, by their God-given conscience, they will inherit Heaven after death.
As it is written in the Bible: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin."
And for the sake of clarity, I do mean true conscience and not rationalized conscience (The term might be ambiguous, I'll explain in a moment).
If, for example, a person is about to defame another for no real necessity, but nevertheless rationalizes himself into doing it by telling himself that he is or she is merely telling a truthful piece of information, for example, then he is nevertheless guilty of sin, for he knows the truth within himself - he/she is merely lying to himself to making the pricking conscience go away, usually for the sake of some hidden pleasure he/she takes from saying faults of others for the sake of his/her pride or envy or such.
In a short summary, a person who has been able to understand to the fullness the teachings of the Church or who has the ability and chance to understand them and who nevertheless rejects the Church is the one who is guilty of sin, for as the Church would say, "they preferred darkness to the light".
A person, however, who was innocently (to the topic above of rationalization) ignorant of the Church, it's true teachings, but who nevertheless seeks to follow his God-given conscience to the best of his ability, he is not guilty of any sin whatsoever.
There is something else that's important to mention about Hell that can be found in the writings of St. Faustina, such as how the only people who go to Hell are those that had such hardness of heart, that they utterly despise God to the degree that they prefer eternal torments than to spend a moment with Him, among other things, but I really need to finish a college assignment by today and don't have much time to elaborate.
You have made my day! That comment made me laugh for at least 10 sec.
And then you realized that yeah, it is really ridiculous?
No Albert. I just thought his comment was humorous.
HaHaHaHa, luv it.....
For many examples... watch this [please watch the whole thing!]: