***[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

The universe as we know it, is about 13.7 billion years old. Before that, we don't know what existed & what the laws of physics were. So entropy only applies to things that happened after the big bang. We don't know about the state of the universe or the primeval atom or the multiverse or whatever was there to speculate on how things would have panned out. So your entropy reasoning goes out of the window.

So, entropy only applies to the universe as we know it, which is about 13.7 billion years old. Ta da! 

Reply by Akshay Bist 18 hours ago

The universe as we know it, is about 13.7 billion years old.

 

Pahu: Is that fact or speculation? Why do you believe it is that old?

 

Akshay Bist:

Before that, we don't know what existed & what the laws of physics were. So entropy only applies to things that happened after the big bang. We don't know about the state of the universe or the primeval atom or the multiverse or whatever was there to speculate on how things would have panned out. So your entropy reasoning goes out of the window.

So, entropy only applies to the universe as we know it, which is about 13.7 billion years old. Ta da! 

 

Pahu: You begin by saying you don't know what existed & what the laws of physics were. Then you assert entropy only applies to things that happened after the big bang. How do you know it didn't apply before the BB if you don't know? How can you confidently assert that my entropy reasoning goes out of the window when you admit you don't know what happened before the BB? 

 

Is it possible your reasoning goes out the window, by your own admission?

Pahu: Is that fact or speculation? Why do you believe it is that old?

Science.

I believe in something that has been vetted by scientists the world over. It is something that I can calculate myself, if I had access to equipment or could build some crude equipment of my own.

You believe in an dusty old book with NO proof for its explanations. It has many inconsistencies. In all it is a rubbish book.

How do you know it didn't apply before the BB if you don't know?

How do you know it didn't? It has been determined by scientists that the laws of physics weren't the same before the big bang & that the laws came into operation in the first moments of the big bang. Using that I can say that entropy (most likely) didn't apply before the big bang.

It funny how you question things that have been scientifically proven but unquestionably follow whats written in a few thousand year old rag.

Is it possible your reasoning goes out the window, by your own admission?

No. Read the last paragraph.

Read a book on astronomy and astrophysics, will you? There are plenty of popular science books out there that explain it in layman's terms. Hell, there are YouTube videos that explain this. Why are you even talking about something that you know absolutely nothing about?

 

The age of the universe can be calculated from red shift of galaxies moving away from us (see Hubble's Law, Hubble constant) and from the distribution of the cosmic microwave background radiation - which is the remnant of the Big Bang.

 

We know that the laws of physics break down at a certain point because of quantum mechanics, which divides everything into discrete packets (hence the name quanta). That includes time. You can't calculate anything below the Planck time - the lowest amount of time that can measured.

Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from?” His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.

Who's to say your example couldn't be applied to the universe itself? From a primeval atom we get a universe, and over billions and billions of years as stars collapse and galaxies collide, it ends up once again as a primeval atom, until it rapidly and violently expands into a universe. 

I'm sure you'll ask how I know any of that to be true, and the answer is I don't. It's a hypothesis, one of many. And if it turns out that it's wrong, big deal. Humans have always and will always have a desire to explore, learn, and create. To just accept one of the hundreds of creation myths as fact without question is absurd. Why would you want to allow yourself to mentally stagnate like that?

If humans just accepted that god is in heaven and whether or not we eat, live, or die is all up to him, we would never have advanced in any area. Improved Agriculture, Science, Philosophy, Medicine, Industry, the electricity powering the computers we all use to argue with each other and the forum server we do it on, let alone the computers themselves, would not exist if we applied the blanket "Well God is there and he says this is all I need" conclusion to everything else. So why apply it to anything at all?

Reply by Akshay Bist yesterday

Of course you can say you prescribe to no particular religious model, but believe that the universe needed a creator. Well the problem with that is where did this creator of yours come from? Did s/he have another creator or did it just exist on its own, yada yada. Its absurd that you can argue that the universe couldn't have come into existence on its own so it needed a creator, but then when asked about the origin of this creator of yours you claim it to have come into existence on its own or having always existed. Its like you need a layer of abstraction -  a creator created the universe & there is nothing more to it.

 

Pahu: It's amazing how often this question comes up, even after I have answered it several times. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy).  This has not occurred.  Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed?  Something cannot bring itself into existence.  Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence?  It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

 

All things that came into existence were caused to exist.  You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed).  Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy).  This has not occurred.  Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed?

Ever heard of a multiverse?


Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

Yes, the multiverse, not your imaginary friend.

I propose that it's more rational to speculate that there is a multiverse than that there is a God.

We have direct testable evidence of the existence of one space-time continuum, so it is not completely unreasonable to speculate that there may be more than one.

On the other hand, we have absolutely no testable evidence of the existence of any god, so to propose that such a being might exist is to (if you'll pardon the expression) create the concept out of nothing -- nothing, that is, except the delusions and misapprehensions of millenia past.

More succinctly, to propose that there is more than one of something of which we know one exists seems more rational to propose that there is one of something of which we do not know that even one exists.

Reply by Akshay Bist 18 hours ago

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy).  This has not occurred.  Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed?

Ever heard of a multiverse?


Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

Yes, the multiverse, not your imaginary friend.

 

Pahu: What is the evidence for a multiverse? Is it composed of matter? Did that matter have a beginning? Did it exist before it began? Does it make more sense to believe the multiverse came from nothing by some natural cause? Did it create itself before it existed? If not, wouldn't the cause still be supernatural?

 

If not, wouldn't the cause still be supernatural?

Its ridiculous that you still claim that your god didn't need a cause but the universe or multiverse did. You use entropy as your main argument. I have conclusively argued that entropy is something that couldn't have applied before the big bang as we don't know that the laws of physics were before then & that scientists say that the laws of physics as we know them were established in the first moments of the big bang.

Out side of that, I don't know. I'm no cosmologist or astrophysicist, though I doubt that even they know much more than that.

But that fact that we don't know doesn't imply the supernatural. Ages ago people attributed natural phenomena to gods. Rain, storms, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruption & many other phenomena, even Love! Many mental illnesses were thought to be the work of the devil. Now because of science we know the natural reasons those phenomena.

I doubt that we'd ever be able to find out how the universe or the multiverse came into existence. But if we do, I doubt it will be some old guy with a beard that some people dreamed into existence a few thousand years ago.

The big problem D. Clair is that you cannot invoke God of the Gaps. Saying "I don't know how it happened so God did it!" Doesn't really answer any question at all. Instead it just gives a new word to the phrase "I don't know." So what do I see when theists say "God did it." I see them admitting that they don't know the answer. Second... let's pretend for a moment that an "intelligent agent" is required to start the universe... how do you know that agent is the God of Abraham? To say this is to take speculation to a level that is unprecedented. Furthermore... this violates

Actually the singularity isn't in the current model of big bang cosmology. This is from a research paper I wrote last year:

 

"...the current big bang model does not say that the universe started out as a singularity. Victor Stenger, a retired professor of physics and astronomy and adjunct professor of philosophy, explains in his book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed For Us, that the singularity is a “mathematical proof by Cambridge cosmologist Stephen Hawking and Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose published in 1970” (Stenger 123). This proof only took into account general relativity, but didn't take into account quantum mechanics. General relativity “does not apply when distances and times become very small, on the order of what is called the Planck scale. The Planck length is the smallest measurable distance, 1.616*10^-35 meters. The Planck time is the smallest measurable time, 6.391*10^-44 second” (Stenger 125). Like I said before, the big bang theory states that the universe started out as a point with extremely high density about the size of an atom, so since general relativity doesn't apply, neither does the singularity. Big bang cosmology does not say the universe must have begun, it only describes it's expansion from a very early point in its history."

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