***[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.
That's cool. Where can I find the article?
Why bother asking for proof of number 3? Number 3 is dependant on number 2...I would LOVE proof of that!
Sorry, you are not Willian Lane Craig by a long shot and even his Rube Goldberg rhetorical gymnastics do not translate metaphysics into physics. There is no basis for determining that there was 'nothing' before expansion, and even if there were there would be no basis for saying there was nothing but there WAS this fairy tale I like to think of as my imaginary friend.
The physics of which you speak are outdated by at least 2 decades, and were only seriously considered in the late 70's and early 80's - just long enough for Craig's Kalam argument to sell enough books to buy him his fancy suits. Nice try, but not really.
Evolution is simply change over time. My suggestion to you is to head over to talkorigins.org, which explains evolution. Abiogenesis is, to my understanding, a separate, but complimentary science to evolution. Here's a link on talkorigins.org covering abiogenesis: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html . I would actually suggest a video, put out by the history channel, titled How Life Began. It explains quite a bit, and is entertaining.
As to your point that the logical endpoint is god created life, no its not. The logical endpoint is to say "I don't know." Why is it so hard for theists in general and creationists in particular to admit that they don't know something? Instead they have to jam a deity in there. Seriously, learn the phrase I don't know. It's not harmful, and its far more honest then saying "god did it."
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken when you say that the only two options are abiogenesis or a creator did it. Panspermia is another theory of how life started here. If you google "theories on origin of life," you end up with close to 6 million hits, so to say that there are only two possibilities is grossly mistaken.
On your second point that creationists readily admit that they don't know, that claim is completely absurd. Since you are making that claim, I would love for you to point to one creationist, and provide a source, that has said, without the qualifier of inserting a god, "I don't know" when it comes to the origins of life on earth.
On your final thought about what "evolutionists want," what is wanted is for creationists to accept reality, because like it or not, evolution is a fact. Science continues to increase our understanding of the world and the universe we live in, and the gaps where a deity can hide keep getting smaller every day. Before you know it, there will be no gaps to shove a god into.
You link to the Discovery Institute and you expect to be taken seriously? Really? Those people aren't proper scientists. Their whole careers consist of poking holes into other people's work. They have literally nothing that can stand on its own feet. Which is exactly why Creationism is pseudo-scientific nonsense. It doesn't make any claims that are independent from evolution.
>"We don't know much about how light from distant stars reaches us in such a short time"
Uh, yes. Of course we do. The luminiferous aether was debunked over 120 years ago.