***[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: 5643

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

"just because something has not been discovered, it does not mean that it does not exist."

 

That's true.  It's also true that, unless there is evidence or at least sound reasoning pointing to the existence of something, we have no reason to think that it does exist.

Speculation is fine.  It's entertaining and it may lead to worthwhile new ideas.  However, it's important to me to keep in mind that it is just speculation.

For example supernatural event "levitation". It breaks the law of gravity and all physical facts of gravity. No true case of actual levitation has ever occurred that meets the criteria of scientific evidence of such a feat

What about magnets? they can be made to levitate... no reason to think it is magic though... just, we don't know how they work.

Our existence is the question you cant use it as the evidence as well.

 

Currently there is no evidence supporting sentient life.

 

There is evidence however miniscule of abiogenesis.

 

Creationist ideas are behind the curve is all i have been trying to say. 

What about Russell's Teapot? and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

The default position of anything is of disbelief not belief.

 

Why consider god instead of considering invisible space chimpanzees with magical flying banana surf boards who came to earth and made man in their image?

 

Making up an answer doesnt give you an answer it gives you a fun story.

Ahh well i cant disagree with that possibility.

 

It is however less plausible then a random chaotic existence of life since Heisenberg has been proven correct and atomic movement is indeed random.

 

We have evidence of chaos and randomness.. there is no evidence of any creative consciousness.


 

 

All religions have some form of interference in life from their diety. Its a prerequisite. Even Zeus and his band of merry makers often interfered in life. A being without that quality would hardly qualify as a god just a catalyst. Again no need to worship a catalyst as anything more then a cosmic entity that accidentally performed its function of creation. If thats the case its no more interesting then a meteorite and certainly not worth the moniker of deity.

Your still making the leap to another advanced lifeform.

 

it could have just as easily been a meteorite containing remnants of amino acids from another distant goldilocks planet..

 

or just fucking random atomic movement..

 

why even make the leap to intelligence when lack of intelligence is one thousand thousand times more likely based on the lack of sentience in the known universe. We are as yet the only reasoning creature in existence. Why assume another beyond all mathematical reason. And your not just assuming another sentient being your assuming one beyond our rationale with no basis.

 

Ill stick the with numbers .. chaotic happenstance is Mathematically more reasonable an explanation no matter how much you wish upon a star it isnt.

Reply by James 23 hours ago

you proceed, if i may be so bold, from the perspective of the traditional western abrahamic mono-god; being all-knowing, all-powerful, all-perfect, etc. other gods of other religions abound in imperfection. i suggest we dismiss that this being would be all-perfect (largely because i don't believe in perfection to begin with)

 

Pahu: Is it rational to assume that because you don't believe in perfection, the Creator of everything and everyone could not be perfect?

 

James: in this theory, 'life' could certainly be a plausible, random and latter bi-product of the created universe.

 

Pahu: So you do believe the universe was created? If 'life' could certainly be a plausible, random and latter bi-product of the created universe, why is there no evidence for that plausible, random bi-product?

Why consider god instead of considering invisible space chimpanzees with magical flying banana surf boards who came to earth and made man in their image?

Plenty of great examples of this...no need to make up new ones... Russel's Teapot springs to mind.

All the premises are doubtful and at least honestly debatable. In 1, The word "Universe" is a name for the set of all that exists. Stating it exists is similar to the fallacy of Anselem's ancient ontological argument that a greatest being greater than which none can be conceived must exist because existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. But Kant and Hume showed existence is not a predicate or property of anything. When we think of a thing the concept of existence is included, so stating it exists adds nothing to the understanding. Premise 1 is a tautology.

Premise 2 is suspect and probably false. Inflationary cosmology and Hawking's Wave Function of the Universe Law holds that existence has always existed. See Quentin Smith's work for the later "Stephen Hawking's Cosmology and Theism" at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/hawking.html and Why Stephen Hawking's Cosmology Precludes a Creator "http://www.qsmithwmu.com/why_stephen_hawking's_cosmology_precludes_a_creator.htm" for the later, and the works of Professor of Physics Andrei Linde (Stanford) at http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/ for the former.

Premise 3 brings about the problem of divine loneliness. Noting this unsolvable problem forces a theist's hand. It brings to the forefront the imaginative nature of her god belief. See Dawson Bethrick's blog at http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2008/07/before-beginning-problem-... Before the Beginning: The Problem of Divine Lonesomeness. Along these lines I thought of an argument that refutes the notion of creator gods.

1. To believe that a theistic creator deity exists, the believer must imagine their deity was in some timeless fashion akin to "before" existence alone in a timeless, non-spatial, void, without matter, energy, location, dimensions, fields, concepts, knowledge, symbols, perceptions, physical natural law, logic, or referents. And that it then wished existence to instantiate.

2. Consciousness is an axiomatic irreducible primary process that at the most common denominative rung on the ladder of complexity consists of awareness of existence.

3. Consciousness of consciousness necessarily requires primary consciousness to first obtain as awareness of existence.

4. Prior to existence there could not have been anything to be aware of.

5. Without anything to be aware of, there could not have been any awareness.

6. Without awareness there could not have been any consciousness.

7. From 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 there could not have been a primordial consciousness prior to existence.

8. Creator gods are defined as primordial consciousness.

9. From 7 and 8 Creator gods cannot exist.

My time is up, but the rest of Pahu's premises are probably false. His inference to supernaturalism in his conclusion in any event does not follow because of the facts observed by George H. Smith and noted in his book "Atheism: The Case Against God".

The following text is paraphrased from George H. Smith's book, “Atheism: The Case Against God” p.41.

To exist is to exist as something. To be something is to have a specific nature. That is to have a particular identity. The Laws of Identity A=A and Non-Contradiction A =/= ¬A entail that any ontological being must posses specific determinate characteristics. To have such characteristics is a consequence of being part of nature. But the theistic God is asserted to be super-natural, and that is to be exempt from the uniformity of nature. Herein lies the contradiction fatal to any claim of knowledge about God. Having specific determinate characteristics imposes limits, and those limits would restrict the capacities of the alleged super-natural being. Such restriction then renders the alleged super-natural being subject to the causal relationships that denote the uniformity of nature in actual existence and disqualify it from being God. To escape this contradiction, the religious mind proposes to somehow imagine a God lacking any definite attributes or properties. But a postulated existent devoid of properties or attributes is indistinguishable from nothingness and is incompatible with the concept of existence. For God to have characteristics necessarily means God must have definite characteristics. That is to say that God would then necessarily be limited, for to be A is to also not be ¬A. Any being with characteristics is then subject to the uniformity of nature imposed by those capacities. For a super-natural being to differ from natural existence, it must exist without a limited identity and nature. This amounts to existing without any nature or identity at all. If humanity is to have meaningful discourse about God, we must presuppose it to have properties by which is can be identified. By asserting that God is super-natural theism stipulates existence apart from the uniformity of nature and eliminates any possibility of assigning definite characteristics to God. But by assigning definite characteristics to God, theism brings its God within the natural realm and renders it not-God. Something cannot be both A and ¬A. God then cannot exist, and any claim of knowledge of God is indistinguishable from fantasy of God.

Time for me to go. Good luck and Best Wishes to the Reader.

3. Consciousness of consciousness necessarily requires primary consciousness to first obtain as awareness of existence.

This is an accepted postulate.



4. Prior to existence there could not have been anything to be aware of.

This is  predicated upon, nothing existing, but the true theist argument is that the universe that appears was created from what does not appear, as quoted from the scriptural source. 


5. Without anything to be aware of, there could not have been any awareness.

 The salient point above nullifies this statement.

6. Without awareness there could not have been any consciousness.

The salient point above nullifies this statement.

7. From 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 there could not have been a primordial consciousness prior to existence.

The salient point above nullifies this statement.


RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service