***[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.
The bible is a load of unverifiable bullshit only about as historically accurate as the great gatsby
Lets talk about the great flood.
Radius of Earth = 6378km
Height of Mt Everest(highest point on earth) = 8.8km
density of water at 25C = 997kg/m^3
Put that all together, & presto you find that the water that never really covered the earth would have weighed 4.5 billion trillion kgs!
Well adjusting for the mountain ranges, lets take it to be 4 billion trillion kgs!
That still is quiet a lot of water. It would have crushed everything underneath it.
Nothing would have survived from before the flood, even marine life would have died out .
The Pyramids wouldn't have survived.
And all the animals would have died from lack of oxygen at that height.
Believing in bullshit doesn't make it true.
@ Ryan - I'll tell you what is not funny. What is not funny is it is getting to the point in the USA where there are too many people who think this imaginary God being is going to make everything A-Okay in the end.
Instead, these people should be concentrating on what needs to be done right now, to try to accomplish betterment in our own lives and for future generations. I fear that too many of these folks are placing too much emphasis on praying, hindering important scientific development, and looking forward to the rapture which promotes a give-up and leave it in the hands of the Lord attitude.
How do we know that there was a beginning, in my opinion it (the universe) was always there.
In the form of singularity maybe, yes. But we do know that the universe (that is spacetime itself) is expanding and that that expansion is accelerating. And from the cosmic microwave background radiation we do know that the universe was once really hot and dense
I notice that your God "reveals" Himself to be "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent," but not "omnibenevolent." Is that because you don't require your God to be benevolent toward the creatures He created? Or is it because you don't want you be trapped in the logically indefensible conundrum that such a concept unavoidably creates? I suspect it is the latter.
You've referred to it (your supernatural God) as "He," "Him," or "His" ten times in the space of only two paragraphs, so I assume your God has an incongruently natural penis. I think, then, that it is incumbent upon you to prove it, unless, of course, you would like to change "He" to "He, She, or It." Or are you content with expecting us to chauvinistically accept God's superior maleness as an a priori assumption without any of the "proof" you proffered for His (or her, or its) existence? Personally, I wouldn't assign gender to anything I chose to describe as "supernatural." Sex differentiation is something that appeared fairly late in the course of evolution - long after the universe became aware that it had been created by an anthropomorphic Supreme Being.