Science Proves God
***[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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
If you have been following some of my 700 posts on this site derided pagan Christianity as falsehood and an affront to the Truth.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Pahu on -
Reply by Moral Atheist
I believe your claims about the bible are the largest failures in logic. There are many, many reasons for this and I have spent a few years now learning all of them so I can't list them. That being said, here are some good examples.
1.) Moses was the adopted son of a pharaohs daughter in Egypt. The Genesis creation myth, taken right out of the Egyptian creation myth. This has been VERY well documented.
Pahu: There are numerous skeptics who will claim anything to discredit the Bible. What very well documentation are you referring to? It is true there are many myths, but does that prove there is not a true story? Archaeology, and other disciplines confirm the Bible to be historically accurate, including the events of the Hebrews in Egypt.
Moral Atheist: 2.) Old testament "prophesies" have all failed or have been shown by many independent sources to have been added after the fact. You might want to look into the failed prophecies. They far outnumber even the subjective prophecies you claim.
Pahu: False. The "after the fact" notion has been shown to be false. What failed prophecies are you referring to? Here are some fulfilled prophecies:
Moral Atheist: 3.) The Old Testament has shown to have many authors that were then modified over time. There are countless contradictions. The Document Hypothesis shows that you can remove these other authors and all of the sudden the old testament reads smoothly with fewer contradictions. Proving that, whether the bible is inspired or not, we wouldn't know because we have NO IDEA what the bible actually said when the original authors wrote them.
Pahu: That notion has been refuted by many historians. Josh McDowell does an excellent job in his book, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict."
There are no contradictions in the Bible. Here is one source:
Moral Atheist: 4.) New testament is just as bad. Paul has no knowledge of Jesus' life on earth at all. No virgin birth, no direct quotes, no communion in all of his church rules, no anything accounting for any knowledge of the life of Jesus. Only that he died for our sins. Then DECADES later, we get a very detailed account of his life that incrementally grew with each new gospel written. BS....
Pahu: How do you explain his Damascus experience? The New Testament was written by eye witnesses. Paul experienced the risen Christ and spent three years under His tutelage, after which he spent the rest of his life mingling with the other eye witnesses, some of whom accompanied him on his journeys.
Moral Atheist: 5.) New Testament shows repeatedly that they wrote the new testament to make sure Jesus matched earlier prophecies of "The Messiah". Virgin birth is the best example. Gospel of Matthew is 1st gospel written that mentions the virgin birth and references a story from Isiah that prophecies the virgin birth. Look it up in your bible, read the entire chapter he is referring to, and tell me if you think it was talking about the Messiah. If God inspired the bible, he actually misinterpreted his own inspired word.
Pahu: I have read that prophecy. It does refer to Jesus. There are over 300 OT prophecies about Jesus, all of which were fulfilled in Him. Those who don't want to believe in God imagine all sorts of reasons why the Bible can't be true. Prophecy, archaeology, and other sources prove it is true.
You are the victim of deception, which you will be able to clear up if you are willing to honestly look at all the evidence proving God does exist and He is the author of the Bible.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Moral Atheist on -
1.) Pahu, I do not know what archaeological evidence you are referring to because I have spent many years studying this topic and I have NEVER seen anyone say that the Hebrew events in Egypt have been confirmed. Common sense says that they can't be true. At least 2 of the plagues killed all of the live stock in Egypt. Simple biology says once the live stock are killed, they cannot be re-killed. There are many sources. A good example would be the book "A 4000 Year history of God". It is a single source that covers most of these topics.
2.) Most of the prophecies were written after the fact. I have already replied to you giving some examples.
3.) Every time someone says there are no contradictions in the bible I lose a little more faith in humanity. Instead of pointing out the MANY examples I will instead tell you that you are doing your own book a disservice by making this claim. The authors of the different books had different stories to tell. Different opinions they were expressing. By combining all accounts into one bigger story which falsely tries to reconcile the differences, is doing an injustice to those authors. Saying that there was a single author of the, for example, the Torah, is claiming that Moses wrote Genesis twice... Not likely.
4.) I do realize that Paul claims to basically be possessed by Jesus and telling people his rules for the church. My question is, why are none of the stories in the Gospel mentioned by Paul? If he was buddies with Jesus and was walking with eye witnesses, why doesn't he mention things like communion when telling te churches how to perform the rituals of the Christian cult? He obviously had never heard the stories of the Gospel. Most likely because the stories were not made up until later.
5.) No way did you read that entire chapter and think it was talking about Jesus. You probably just read a few verses and thought the same thing the author of Matthew did. Let me break it down for you.
Isaiah 7 is God talking to Isaiah and Ahaz because "the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken" due to the alliance of Aram and Ephraim. The boy who was to be born of a Virgin (young mother in Hebrew) would not know "enough to reject the wrong and choose the right" before the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. In other words, it was predicting that the alliance would be broken before they could even attack.
If you want to know when Ahaz was alive, we can go right back to Matthew. Right before telling the story of Jesus, he gives a geneology of Jesus. Ahaz is way up on that list. Therfore, for that verse maentioned in Matthew to be refering to Jesus, Ahaz would have had to be another one of those people who lived to be over a thousand years old... Which he wasn't. It gives us an account of his death in other places. So I continue my claim that, if God inspuired the words of the bible, he misinterpreted his own inspiration. -
-
Permalink Reply by Pahu on
-
Reply by Moral Atheist
5.) No way did you read that entire chapter and think it was talking about Jesus. You probably just read a few verses and thought the same thing the author of Matthew did. Let me break it down for you.
Isaiah 7 is God talking to Isaiah and Ahaz because "the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken" due to the alliance of Aram and Ephraim. The boy who was to be born of a Virgin (young mother in Hebrew) would not know "enough to reject the wrong and choose the right" before the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. In other words, it was predicting that the alliance would be broken before they could even attack.Pahu: That passage has been debated for centuries. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Matthew said that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the virgin birth of Jesus. The problem you and others have is with verse 16: "For before the child knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you abhor shall be forsaken." Of course that happened before the virgin birth of Jesus.
One way of looking at it is before Jesus knew to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land referred to had been forsaken a few hundred years before.
Here is another explanation by John Gill:
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and
choose the good
This may be understood of Isaiah's child, Shearjashub, he had along with him, he was bid to take with him; and who therefore must be supposed to bear some part, or answer some end or other, in this prophecy; which it is very probable may be this, viz. to assure Ahaz and the house of David that the land which was abhorred by them should be forsaken of both its kings, before the child that was with him was grown to years of discretion; though it may be understood of any child, and so of the Messiah; and the sense be, that before any child, or new born babe, such an one as is promised, ( Isaiah 7:14 ) , arrives to years of discretion, even in the space of a few years, this remarkable deliverance should be wrought, and the Jews freed from all fears of being destroyed by these princes: the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings; meaning not the land of Judea, now distressed by them, which they should leave; for that could not be said to be abhorred by Ahaz, or the house of David; but the land of Israel and Syria, called one land, because of the confederacy between the kings of them, Rezin and Remaliah's son, which Ahaz and his nobles abhorred, because of their joining together against them; and so it was, that in a very little time both these kings were cut off; Pekah the son of Remaliah was slain by Hoshea the son of Elah, who reigned in his stead, ( 2 Kings 15:30 ) and Rezin was slain by the king of Assyria, ( 2 Kings 16:9 ).Here is another one:
16. For--The deliverance implied in the name "Immanuel," and the cessation of distress as to food ( Isaiah 7:14 Isaiah 7:15 ), shall last only till the child grows to know good and evil; for . . . the land that . . . abhorrest . . . forsaken of . . . kings--rather, desolate shall be the land, before whose two kings thou art alarmed [HENGSTENBERG and GESENIUS]. the land--namely, Syria and Samaria regarded as one ( 2 Kings 16:9 , 15:30 ), just two years after this prophecy, as it foretells. HORSLEY takes it, "The land (Judah and Samaria) of (the former of) which thou art the plague (literally, 'thorn') shall be forsaken," &c.; a prediction thus, that Judah and Israel (appropriately regarded asone "land") should cease to be kingdoms ( Luke 2:1 , Genesis 49:10 ) before Immanuel came.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/...]
Last, but not least, is this commentary from my NKJV:
It is not uncommon for biblical prophecies to have one level of fulfillment in the immediate future, and a final fulfillment many years later in the person and work of he Saviour, Jesus. Thus the pregnancy of Isaiah's new wife and the birth of her son (8:3) could have been a sign to King Ahaz. However, this would have been a fulfillment, not the fulfillment. The prophecy was completely fulfilled in the coming of God's only Son to the earth. He is he only Child who can truly be called Wonderful, Counselor, and Prince of Peace (see 9:6).
-
-
Permalink Reply by Sassan K. on -
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof" - in addition, there is no reason for the universe to exist and life as we know it with a creator. Therefore, without evidence it is just as likely that the all-knowing and all-powerful Spaghetti Monster rules over us with his noodley body parts.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
I trust 1400 years of the Jewish people being an eye witness of the supernatural. These people weren't whistling Dixie. They were definitely in it for the gain: Blessings, protection from huge invading Empires and kingdoms, the accurate forecast of events and healing from the men of God.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Darrell Mont on -
***Bangs head on wall*** Is there a club for people who repeat this arguement, call it scientific proof and then magically leap to the christian god?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dustin on -
1.) Take an argument that is known to be failing
2.) Call this argument scientific
3.) *insert magic here*
4.) My Christian God is proven!
5.) My personal interpretation of the Christian God is proven!
6.) Deny , Deny , Deny any and all refutations of steps 1 through 5
7.) If by any chance you find fault in any parts of your arguments debating with a particular someone , admit it is faulty but continue using the same argument when debating new people.
8.) Act like you are oblivious to the dishonest position of step 7.
9.) Congratulation , you can now call yourself a Theologian!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Pahu on
-
1.) Take an argument that is known to be failing
2.) Call this argument scientific
3.) *insert magic here*
4.) My Christian God is proven!
5.) My personal interpretation of the Christian God is proven!
6.) Deny , Deny , Deny any and all refutations of steps 1 through 5
7.) If by any chance you find fault in any parts of your arguments debating with a particular someone , admit it is faulty but continue using the same argument when debating new people.
8.) Act like you are oblivious to the dishonest position of step 7.
9.) Congratulation , you can now call yourself a Theologian!
Pahu: 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 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?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on -
In any argument those that assert the conclusion are the ones that have the burden of proof resting at their feet.
No scientist says for certain how the universe began simply we have the best known explanation based on the current facts. Our minds are open to new evidence.
You continue to assert you have the answers but provide no proof. This means you have failed this argument as all creationists before you. There really is nothing more to say until you can produce observable, independently testable proof of your assertion of a god. And sorry but a book of fairy tales, and supernatural gap filling "logic" does not count.
Also note its called the theory of evolution quite incorrectly. The theory is actually the "theory of evolution by natural selection" that you are talking about. Evolution is fact. the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best known explanation there is currently for how evolution takes place.
Testing creation is simple. Creation requires a supernatural being and event. No such event or being is observable, testable, or reproducible. Evolution is observable and testable. It deals in the natural laws of the universe. If you could even produce one single supernatural event that is testable you might have an argument. And you would be exceedingly rich. James Randi has an ongoing prize for anyone that can demonstrate a testable, reproducible supernatural event. Amazingly for the decades he has offered this prize none have claimed it. -
-
Permalink Reply by Steve on -
Evolution has been proven experimentally in the lab and in many ways in nature. It has been proven in separate fields, some of which were not even around when Darwin came up with the idea. Most notably genetics. You can't even have modern biology without evolution.
Again, you don't understand what evolution is or how it works. You're simply an idiot and troll
If you want to disprove evolution all you have to do is find a fossil in a strata it doesn't belong or find some animal that isn't genetically related to another one. Sounds simple enough
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
"Evolution has been proven experimentally in the lab and in many ways in nature. "
This is an incorrect statement. Natural selection and mutation are the most plausible scientific explanation for speciation.
However the combined process of Natural selection and mutation still remains a black box mystery since the trillions of failed attempts do not appear in the geological/ archeological record.
-
What's new today
Forum
insane comment following tornadoes in Oklahoma
Started by Ron Humphrey in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Ron Humphrey 1 minute ago. 49 Replies 1 Like
Blog Posts
So the Pope said I can go to heaven...
Posted by Misty: Baytheist Living! on May 22, 2013 at 6:56pm 5 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
