***[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: 5881

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Heck, in London, when people actually bothered for modesty and other chastity related things, 500 years ago, puberty started at the age of 18 or 20.


LOL evidence please.


Puberty has always been as a species between 8-14. There are some variables but to suggest that the average age of puberty was 18-20... especially during a time when people barely lived to 35 on average is ricockulous.

I know, right? This guy just made a claim that directly counters all known evidence of our biological species. Is this an educational gap or is he deluded?
Of course, some Xtians really believe that men have one less rib than women, too... so eh.
I really hope these people don't try to grow up and work in the medical field...at least not on my family.

"Disordered passions" are whatever a sociopathic, megalomaniac priest caste declare them to be

You are mixing up the word 'natural' for 'moral' or 'alturistic' or 'godly.' 


Natural means occurring in nature. 

Sex for pleasure occurs in nature. That means it's natural. 

Killing your young, rape and abandonment is immoral. But it also occurs in some species naturally. That means it is natural to them. 

But it's not natural to us -to our species.- 

That's why we find it abhorrent. 


And with that in mind, it sorta takes apart your entire post. 

Which is why...without the scary idea of morality inflicted by religion..sex between two informed, consenting adults isn't abhorrent to us as a species. 



The priest in the video you posted starts off with the usual arguments and does ok until he says (at about 5:25 in video 1 that “Science is grounded in something like a philosophical intuition” which to a point is ok or as he calls it a “religious intuition” He, like most Theists I have met make this error. There is no religious basis in scientific endeavors or experiments. Any religious intuition he may have can only be theological. He is confusing Philosophical enquiry with theology. I would agree with Thomas Paine’s sentiments about theology:

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."

Then, thirty seconds later, he mentions Catholic Theology before talking about saints i.e. dead people somehow brought back to life before the Day of Judgment. Listen a bit more and his god delusion becomes all the more evident thus destroying any authority he thinks he has when talking about this modern “heresy” before going on to state that he “does not feel scandalized at all” by the sex abuse of children. Pity their god did not help them to control their passions.

Your arguments are ignorance-based. 


Just because you don't understand science is no reason to make things up. 

You need to learn what evolution is.  You should be able to tell the difference between the theory that explains how the process of evolution works to produced a variety of species that are all inter-related and the theory of abiogenesis that explains who life began from non-life on this planet.


You need to discover what physicists mean by "nothing" and why they have no problem with explaining the origin of the universe without resorting to untestable conjectures about supernatural personalities that defy the laws they are invented to explain.  There is no known example of something popping into created existence since it became possible to record and measure things in a detached scientific manner. OTOH, we have an almost infinitive number of examples of things that we can prove were created by the laws and operating theories of physics, with no god being required.


The cosmological argument has been around for centuries and so has it refutation.  Modern day philosophers are not impressed by it, with the exception of a small and bigoted school of evangelical apologists, like William Lane Craig, whose employment is dependent on them finding ways to make it sound plausible to the average Faith Patsy.


The arguments made by the likes of Josh McDowell only sound good to the already converted. They rest of a whole text book of logical fallacies and the "proofs" demonstrate massive confirmation bias.


All you have achieved here is to confirm that you need a lot more basic education in science, philosophy and critical thinking.  You have simply provided additional support for the contention that religious believers are  stupid, poorly educated or immature. Somehow I think that was the opposite of what you intended.

I have been studying the evidence for the origins of Homo sapiens since 1972. To date I see no compelling evidence that we have evolved from lower species. I see species fully adapted for their environment in the paleontological record yet no evidence of transitional forms in between.

Lacking this evidence, natural selection and mutation are simply the most plausible scientific explanation at this time.  It is not a theory derived from first principles like relativity or quantum mechanics. 


So, there's evidence for some supernatural creator deity outside of personal testimony of believers?  Please tell me.

Science and the scientific method is the only valid way of determining truth, not some adult, feel-good fairy tale.

None are so blind as they who will not see. 

Faith is not science and can never be.


For nearly 2000 years the Jews were spoken to by an invisible being that periodically manifested himself in various forms (Theophany). 

This devote race were not a horde of vagabonds and mumblers in the wilderness deceiving and being deceived. These were the forebears of what we know as righteousness as it is defined.

Yes the fore bearers of righteousness.

And also the Pioneers of Genital Mutilation of Children.

Actually the Jewish dietary law along with circumcision has medicinal advantages.

You would have to be a fool to believe that.


Medicinal advantages?  Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?






© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service