***[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: 5631

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Pahu, you are incorrect.  God as an explanation is unnecessary and inadequate.  "God did it" has no explanatory power whatsoever and is essentially the same as saying, "I have no idea what happened."  That is, using God as an explanation adds absolutely nothing to our understanding of what happened and how.

 

"The universe came from nothing for which there is no natural cause. Therefore, the cause must be supernatural."

Have you paid no attention to all those messages pointing out the fact that your #3 invalidates your entire argument?

 

In addition, you are attacking evolution without having an adequate understanding of the word.  Either that or you are blindly accepting the dishonest definition of evolution used by so many professional creationists.  Evolution is not about the origin of the universe.  That's cosmology.  Evolution is not about the origin of life.  That's abiogenesis.  Evolution is about everything that happened *after* the first life came into being and it says nothing about how it got there.

So, again, you are showing that you are not to be taken seriously because you are attacking evolution without knowing enough about it to criticize it competently.

It's the same. People who say "I have no idea" are honest and probably open to future discoveries. The ones who say "god did it" are happy to remain ignorant
Good point.  There is a difference in that one statement is more honest than the other.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

 

LOL. There is a cause therefore magic? More basless claims and wordplay based on no reason or evidence. Based on nothing.

Same with theology--nothing but mental masturbation disguised as sophisticated argument.

 

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

 

LOL. There is a cause therefore magic? More basless claims and wordplay based on no reason or evidence. Based on nothing.

 

 

Isn’t it absurd for evolutionists to ridicule creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while evolutionists maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything?

 

Instead of endless philosophical discussions to prove a point, doesn’t observation and experiment become the final arbitrator of truth? The issue becomes a bit sticky when discussing origins. How do we test the hypothesis of evolution? We don't have the luxury of having a miniature universe with eons of time in the corner of a laboratory. So this leaves both evolutionists and creationists in the same the boat: no absolute way to objectivily test their assertions. There are no eyewitnesses. Both are left to propose a model and then compare it with the facts of science for consistency. Notice too, that good hypotheses are falsifiable. Now consider the theory of evolution; how can it be proved false? What fraction of the theory of evolution is open to invalidation, some small detail, or the entire principle? The approach seems to be, "look, you're here and there is no intelligent designer so evolution must be true!" Is this science or something else?

 

Evolution != Big Bang theory

 

The two have nothing whatsoever to do withe each other. Absolutely nothing

 

Sure evolution is falsifiable. Show one species or fossil the origin of which can't be explained in relation to another species. With a genetic code that's completely unrelated to anything else. One fossil in a strata where it doesn't fit. You can't.

Show one species or fossil the origin of which can't be explained in relation to another species. With a genetic code that's completely unrelated to anything else.

That won't do it. If abiogenesis can occur once, it can occur multiple times. This would most likely lead to multiple trees of life. Multiple trees of life does not disprove evolution, in fact it is more evidence to support it.

 

strata

Not sure what a strata is exactly so I'll leave it alone.

Why must it be a magic?  Rather let it be the right hand side of this equation

 

Anthropic Principle+ Universal missing antimatter + the vacuum space producing 10 to some ridicules power less spontaneous particles than predicted by the standard model+where did all this water come from on earth + the earth being located precisely where it needs to be to sustain the biosphere which coincidentally has a magnet field just powerfuj enough to ward off solar flares+ water having the ability suck energy away from an object existing at the same exact temperature and lower the temperature of that object as it evaporates (critical for life). = one of two  possibliities, an infinite  multiverse or something else

 

 I don't understand why this continues.  I can't believe a useless conversation can generate so many responses.

 

I actually wrote a blog about my frustration with this very thing. I don't get it either, and it actually kind of irritates me.

It's almost so irrational and pathetic in a way ... we all feel compelled to vent our frustration at the O.P.  

 

 

so many responses and not a single response to any of my well thought out posts...guess pahu isn't interested in actually discussing this?

RSS

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service