***[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: 5634

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

It is alright to try to explain miracles alternatively in naturalistic terms if you first prove that the story is actually historical in the first place.

Reply by Jeremy Lester

Science doesn't prove god exists.

 

Reply by Pahu: On the contrary: 

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.

 

“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. [From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

 

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, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From "Reincarnation in the Bible?]

 

Jeremy Lester: Science gives logical explanations for some of the outlandish things the bible says. Such as "parting the red sea". Was the sea magically parted? Obviously not.

 

Pahu: I agree. God parted it!

 

Jeremy Lester: There are lakes with red algae in them that make the water appear red, so a "red sea" is obviously plausible. Scientists have seen that some of these lakes evaporate over time and appear to "part". Back then, i doubt people (Most at least) understood evaporation, so to them it probably was some magical thing. They probably wrote about it in the way that made most sense to them. Some people decided to get crazy and take it literally. So no, science doesn't prove the bible right, it simply provides logical explanations for crazy stories.

 

Pahu: How do we explain the crazy stories you have just told us? For example, how do you explain the fact that the entire Egyptian army and its horses drowned in a few inches of evaporated water. Isn't that a greater miracle than the Bible account? Actually, archaeology has shown that the Israelites crossed the eastern arm of the Red Sea into what is now northwestern Saudi Arabia, not the Sinai Peninsula. Here is some proof:

Red Sea Crossing 1

Red Sea Crossing 2

Red Sea Crossing 3

Red Sea Crossing 4

Red Sea Crossing 5

Red Sea Crossing 6

Red Sea Crossing 7

Red Sea Crossing 8

 

I recommend that you don't feed this troll.  Pahu has repeatedly demonstrated that, no matter how well you explain things to him, he will cling to his erroneous ideas.

Call me a weirdo, but I've always been obsessed with "truth.

 

Oh, hardly - you are seeking to entrench your christianity even more - if yu were really seeking the truth, you would be researching. The only book you have read on this is the bible. We have all done the research, over a very long time. That's all.

 

There are a few people on this Think Atheist site that weren't indoctrinated and brainwashed as children. The majority have evolved - and many had a turbulent and difficult time coming to their conclusion. The bible didn't make sense, and then on top of that, it was totally evil - how can anybody support this genocide, slavery, rape etc. etc.

 

My first doubt came at First Communion - very expensive Bishop, gold thread, ruby ring, gold challice, very expensive sheep hook thinky, very expensive shoes,  everything hand made.  I refused to kneel and kiss his ruby ring - all this when people were starving - first sign of hypocrisy  - It was then that I reallty started to read the bible - stories that didn't make any sense to me - had real trouble with genesis - then started researching - and found there were so many other fables and myths - which the male writers of the bible, simply copied and covered up - if you are really looking for truth, do your research on the myths and fables leading up to the many versions of the bible.

 

Christianity is not based on history - it is propogated from pagan myth - copied Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian mythology, and tweaked just a little - to suit the new purpose christianity. You should do the research, which is just what we have all done - I know you won't - you NEED your religion to stay on the straight and narrow. But just for a real easy one take a look at The Flood of Gilgamesh - and see how the story for the bible was tweaked to fit. This is one of many. If you really are seeking Truth, that is the way to do it.

 

You evanglize to other catholics - what you are doing is supporting a corrupt, power hungry evil system. Even if I was a catholic christian - I would not, could not support a system that covered up crimes against humanity.

 

'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.'  BUT WHY???? Why don't women have this high sex drive, why don't women have huge amounts of testoserone?

 

You don't need any degrees to know this one - it is evolution. The strongest male got more females, because he had the best genes. And females wanted the very best of genes. They were not going to bare a child, who didn't have the best genes going. He had to compete for the honour.

 

The male had to be ready at all times, he had to be ready to spread his genes, and in many cases, it can be in 14 seconds flat - :D Just look at the lion, the giraffe, the camel, all compete, just to mate, while the females wait, see who wins, and mate with them. Humans are exactly the same.

 

Men are polygomous by nature - and it takes a very honest, civilized Atheist, who doesn't artifically repress his sexuality, to be really healthy and happy - no guilt for his thoughts or what he does behind closed doors, and makes the best partner a girl could have.

 

Why priests are pedophiles - that is another very long story - which I got from a catholic priest. Pedophiles go into the priest hood, pre-prepared. They know they are a pedophile - easy pickings, and also knows it is going to be covered up, because of the doctrine -- God will forgive you. Ratzinger knew and knows who are the pedophiles, and is STILL covering it up. Do your research.

 

'There are men and women who can control themselves"

And they are called Atheists - just another reason why I dont trust xians - repression makes it very dangerous for a female.

 

I also don't go to sophisticated arguments, I will leave that to the brilliance of Rosemary Lyndall Wemm, and Heathert Spoonheim and Skycomet :D

I have told you before, I am a simple soul, but know evil when I see it.

 

This is going to be my last post, it takes me into places which are unclean, and I don't want tot hink about anymore. so, good luck in your life. I wish you well.


 

You haven't answered this one yet. Tell me again about all the good things the catholic priests are doing in Africa?

 

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.

 

http://biggovernment.com/lrose/2011/02/02/planned-parenthood-strugg...

I don't defend abortion, but atheists [usually] are. Should we destroy Planned Parenthood for it being responsible of aiding pimps who ran underage prostitution rings? 

I'll reply to everything else you said later on. I have to go to work now.

Did you miss the part from actual news sources that demonstrated that this was a hoax? It was a set up by James O'Keefe and edited specifically to paint Planned Parenthood in a poor light. See the below links as sources. 

NPR

Alternet

 

And a video demonstrating Mr. Breitbart's lack of credibility http://youtu.be/OmOwafnVGug

 

If you want to play these types of games, I'll gladly destroy everything you try to sling as "facts" from scum such as Mr. Breitbart and his lackeys

Here:

http://exposeplannedparenthood.net/get-the-facts/planned-parenthood...

And here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjFrPnDu6F4


To the best of my knowledge, it was made by Lila Rose. She was independent and started posing while secretly holding a camera to hold out their reactions.

You make a very quick and unfounded conclusion when you state that before the universe there was nothing. We do not know if this is true or not. In fact, current theories point to possibility where the universe has either 1)always existed (time being a byproduct of such) or 2)our concept of "nothing" does not apply to the physical reality.

Point of the matter here is that we simply do not know what happened before the Big Bang or what exactly "nothing" means. Therefore we cannot conclude that there was nothing before the universe.

Lack of knowledge is not a license to make up the work of a deity.

Reply by Victor Pariter

 

You make a very quick and unfounded conclusion when you state that before the universe there was nothing. We do not know if this is true or not. In fact, current theories point to possibility where the universe has either 1)always existed (time being a byproduct of such) or 2)our concept of "nothing" does not apply to the physical reality.

 

Point of the matter here is that we simply do not know what happened before the Big Bang or what exactly "nothing" means. Therefore we cannot conclude that there was nothing before the universe.

 

Pahu: Do you know of anything in the physical universe that did not have a beginning? Doesn't experience teach us that everything has a beginning? Why is that an "unfounded" conclusion. Since the universe is everything that exists, isn't reasonable to conclude that before everything existed, there was nothing?

 

In order for your two possible alternatives to be possible, wouldn't you have to deny known laws of physics? For example:

 

1. 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.

 

2. Physical reality includes the fact that before anything existed, there would be nothing. We do know exactly what nothing is, it is the absence of everything. If there was a time when all matter in the universe was compressed into a single point before it expanded, that still leaves the question: where did all the matter in the universe come from? There still had to have been a time before it existed, when there was nothing. That much we can know from experience.

 

Victor Pariter: Lack of knowledge is not a license to make up the work of a deity.

 

Pahu: Is lack of knowledge license to deny the work of a deity?

What kind of twisted logic goes on in a head, that spends most of a post claiming that something cannot come from nothing and must have a cause, and then in the last sentence proposes a being without cause or measurable substance (the very definition of nothing).

RSS

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service