The serpent was right

Orefield, PA

#21 Aug 20, 2012
Pahu wrote:
Science Proves God
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 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.
“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.”[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
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,“Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.
[From "Reincarnation in the Bible?"]
A few quick points....
As soon as you mention the supernatural, you have left science. Therfore, the title of this thread is incorrect.
If god wrote the bible, than he is scientifically ignorant on many topics, and he is morally bankrupt. If god crated man in his own image, than he is subject to his own moral laws. Since he breaks his own laws, he is contradictory, and cannot be a god, but rather the product of men. There is not a single prophesy in the bible that was not self-fulfilling, and therefore void, or false. The bible does not correctly foretell of ANY scientific developments that were not already known by the people of the period when it was written.
In short, the Bible is not only grossly human, but an example of the thinking of primative man. The worst thing you can do is try to use the bible to prove the existance of a god.
truth will set you free

Waverly, OH

#22 Aug 20, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
A few quick points....
As soon as you mention the supernatural, you have left science. Therfore, the title of this thread is incorrect.
If god wrote the bible, than he is scientifically ignorant on many topics, and he is morally bankrupt. If god crated man in his own image, than he is subject to his own moral laws. Since he breaks his own laws, he is contradictory, and cannot be a god, but rather the product of men. There is not a single prophesy in the bible that was not self-fulfilling, and therefore void, or false. The bible does not correctly foretell of ANY scientific developments that were not already known by the people of the period when it was written.
In short, the Bible is not only grossly human, but an example of the thinking of primative man. The worst thing you can do is try to use the bible to prove the existance of a god.
wrong wrong wrong

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#23 Aug 21, 2012
truth will set you free wrote:
<quoted text>
wrong wrong wrong
Great counter argument.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#24 Aug 21, 2012
truth will set you free wrote:
<quoted text>
wrong wrong wrong
What a well thought out, reasonable, and clear response. Exactly the kind that I expect from most theists. LOL!!! When you have more than a one word comeback, let me know. Until then, my post stands.
truth will set you free

Sardinia, OH

#25 Aug 21, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
What a well thought out, reasonable, and clear response. Exactly the kind that I expect from most theists. LOL!!! When you have more than a one word comeback, let me know. Until then, my post stands.
Job 26:7-10...He is stretching out the north over the empty place,
Hanging the earth upon nothing;
 8 Wrapping up the waters in his clouds,
So that the cloud mass is not split under them;
 9 Enclosing the face of the throne,
Spreading out over it his cloud.
10 He has described a circle upon the face of the waters,
To where light ends in darkness.
The book of Job was completed around 1473 BCE...
the first thinking on a round earth came about in:

http://suite101.com/article/from-a-flat-to-a-...
about a thousands years before Pythagoras first postulated that the Earth must be a sphere way back in 570 BC.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#26 Aug 21, 2012
truth will set you free wrote:
<quoted text>
Job 26:7-10...He is stretching out the north over the empty place,
Hanging the earth upon nothing;
 8 Wrapping up the waters in his clouds,
So that the cloud mass is not split under them;
 9 Enclosing the face of the throne,
Spreading out over it his cloud.
10 He has described a circle upon the face of the waters,
To where light ends in darkness.
The book of Job was completed around 1473 BCE...
the first thinking on a round earth came about in:
http://suite101.com/article/from-a-flat-to-a-...
about a thousands years before Pythagoras first postulated that the Earth must be a sphere way back in 570 BC.
Wrong. It is describing a disk, not a sphere. Try again?
truth will set you free

Hamburg, Germany

#27 Aug 21, 2012
a disk?? sure- trying to reason with an atheist is a complete waste of time and effort.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#28 Aug 21, 2012
truth will set you free wrote:
a disk?? sure- trying to reason with an atheist is a complete waste of time and effort.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people" ~ Dr. Gregory House

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#29 Aug 21, 2012
Pahu wrote:
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? However, it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. Therefore, would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.
Actually, we know of events in this universe that are uncaused. For example, the decay of a muon. Or the timing of the decay of any radioactive particle. Most quantum events are uncaused with standard definitions of the word 'cause'.

Now, macroscopic causality generally works because the way that the laws of probability and quantum mechanics interact, but at the basic level, the universe is NOT causal.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#30 Aug 21, 2012
truth will set you free wrote:
a disk?? sure- trying to reason with an atheist is a complete waste of time and effort.
Isn't there a passage that talks about being able to see the entire Earth from on top of a mountain?

Seems there also at least one passage that talks of the four corners of Earth, another that describs the pillars of Earth, I think someone supposedly traveled to the North gate at the end of the world and say where the wind came from.

What you've got is a poorly written Aesop's fairytail book. It was even written about the same time as Aesop's fables.

Look you believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones who are unreasonable?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#31 Aug 21, 2012
Pahu wrote:
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever; otherwise, it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.
This is a reasonable argument for the universe as we know it having a beginning, but it does allow for previous universes or multiverses of which ours is just a part. The reason? Entropy is also related to the number of avialble energy states. if there was a previous, contracting universe, it is quite concievable that the number of available energy states was at a minumum when the 'bounce' occurred. In this case, the entropy direction of time would have switched at the bounce.
So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.
Well described by Big Bang cosmology, which, by the way, does NOT assume there was anything previous to the Big Bang.
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? However, it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. Therefore, would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.
You are mistaking macroscoipic causality, which is known and microscopic causality, which is known to be false. The link between the two is the laws of probability.
In addition, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.
IN SUMMARY
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
The universe therefore requires a cause, just as (Gen. 1:1) and (Rom. 1:20) teach.
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
Being 'outside of time' is not the same as 'always exists' or 'without a beginning'. It simply means that the usual time coordinate of our universe doesn't extend to a larger realm. It is also independent of 'not having a cause' since we know of things in our own universe that are not caused.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#32 Aug 21, 2012
truth will set you free wrote:
a disk?? sure- trying to reason with an atheist is a complete waste of time and effort.
In other words, you have nothing to offer.

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#33 Aug 22, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
It is obvious that you are speaking of the bible god. Since the bible states that god created man in his image, than god would have to have an image. For god to have an image, than he would have to be made of matter.[/quote]

God is spirit, not matter. We are created in His image, which includes mind, spirit and free will.

[quote]Since you claim to adhere to science, than you cannot claim that god is supernatural. Science does not recognise the supernatural. In other words, since you claim god exists, it is up to you to provide the evidence of that existance.[/quote]

Science limits itself to the examination of God's creation. Using logic, based on the facts of science, I have proved God's existence in my original post.

[quote]Simply saying that since we cannot explain what existed before 'our' universe existed that means that there must be a god, is illogical, and still provides zero evidence that god exists.[/quote]

Nothing existed before the universe. It is logical to assume that since something does not come from nothing by any natural cause, the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

[quote]Also, since you are climing that god is material, than he would, by your assertion, have had to have been created. He is, according to the bible matter, and all matter, according to you, has to have been created.[/quote]

Why do you imagine I claimed God is material, or that the Bible makes that claim?

[quote]Please present your scientific evidence of a god, without the fallcy of "we don't know so that proves there is a god". Ignorance of one thing is never proof of another.
Review my original post.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#34 Aug 22, 2012
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Review my original post.
There are people who search for the truth and people like yourself who are only interested in using history or science for the purpose of pushing their faith-based delusions.

The only thing you have proved is that nothing can influence your 'beliefs' except your own intuition and prejudices.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#35 Aug 22, 2012
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Review my original post.
How do you explain people seeing ghosts around? There are people who claim that they can feel and see them. What scientific explanations are there for ghosts to be lingering around?

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#36 Aug 22, 2012
Serpent: As soon as you mention the supernatural, you have left science. Therfore, the title of this thread is incorrect.

Pahu: It is true that science limits itself the a study of God’s creation, but we can use logic, based on the facts of science, to conclude a supernatural cause of the universe appearing from nothing.

Serpent: If god wrote the bible, than he is scientifically ignorant on many topics, and he is morally bankrupt.

Pahu: The Bible is scientifically accurate.

Serpent: If god crated man in his own image, than he is subject to his own moral laws.

Pahu: A logical error.

Serpent: Since he breaks his own laws, he is contradictory, and cannot be a god, but rather the product of men.

Pahu: When did God break His own laws.

Serpent: There is not a single prophesy in the bible that was not self-fulfilling, and therefore void, or false.

Pahu: For example?

Serpent: The bible does not correctly foretell of ANY scientific developments that were not already known by the people of the period when it was written.

Pahu: In fact, it does. See: The Bible is scientifically accurate.

Serpent: In short, the Bible is not only grossly human, but an example of the thinking of primative man. The worst thing you can do is try to use the bible to prove the existance of a god.

Pahu: The Bible consists of 66 books: 39 in the OT and 27 in the new. The Bible took about 1600 years to write. It was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) by about 40 authors and is internally consistent throughout.

The Bible is 98½ percent textually pure. Through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1½% has any question about it. Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents.

The 1½ percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling.

The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 1% textual variation in the NT manuscripts.

Some of the supporting manuscripts of the NT are:

John Rylands MS written around A.D. 130, the oldest existing fragment of the gospel of John.
Bodmer Papyrus II (A.D. 150-200).
Chester Beatty Papyri (A.D. 200), contains major portions of the NT .
Codex Vaticanus (A.D. 325-350), contains nearly all the Bible.
Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 350), contains almost all the NT and over half of the OT .

[Bible Accuracy]

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#37 Aug 22, 2012
Pahu wrote:
...
Pahu: The Bible is scientifically accurate.
...
Pahu: In fact, it does. See: The Bible is scientifically accurate.
...
The Bible is a poorly written fairy tail that describes a world where a flood can cover the whole earth and leave no trace.

A world where man was made from mud and woman was grown from his rib like an off-cut from a plant?

A world where a snake and donkey talked, where giants lived in the land, where dragons, unicorns and cockatrices exist and where people live to be over 900 years old?

A world where a woman was turned into a pillar of salt, where a pillar of fire led people by night, where the sun stopped moving across the sky or could even back up, where an axe head can float on water, where a star could point down to a specific home, where people could instantly speak in foreign languages and where someone's shadow or handkerchief could heal you and where you can genetically alter sheep by floating slivers of tree bark in water?

A world where a man could walk on water, turn water into wine, calm a stormy sea, be swallowed by a big fish and live to tell about it?

A world that is full of demons that could create chaos on earth as well as make people sick?

A world where you find idol worship and where human and animal sacrifices pleased God. It is a world where God lives in the sky and people who die go down to the dark recesses of the earth?

A world that is full of visions, inspired dreams, prophetic utterances, miracle workers, magicians, diviners, etc. Man is not in control of his life. Evil spirits may possess him and Satan may inspire him with evil thoughts?

It is all, of course, complete and utter nonsense. It's absolutely amazing that people in this day and age really do believe such rubbish.

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#38 Aug 22, 2012
Serpent: Wrong. It is describing a disk, not a sphere. Try again?

Pahu: Right! Isaiah 40:22

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth&#8232;Or, "the globe [F26]" of it; for the earth is spherical or globular: not a flat plain, but round, hung as a ball in the air; here Jehovah sits as the Lord and Sovereign; being the Maker of it, he is above it, orders and directs its motion, and governs all things in it: Kimchi rightly observes, that the heavens are the circle of the earth, which is the centre of them, and around which they are; and so it signifies, that the Lord sits or dwells in the heavens, from whence he beholds the children of men.
[F26 (gwx le) "super sphaeram", Pagninus; "globum", Montanus Vatablus; "super orbem telluris", Vitringa.]

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/g...

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#39 Aug 22, 2012
Polymath: Actually, we know of events in this universe that are uncaused. For example, the decay of a muon. Or the timing of the decay of any radioactive particle.

Pahu: Why do you believe those things are uncaused?

Polymath: Most quantum events are uncaused with standard definitions of the word 'cause'.

Now, macroscopic causality generally works because the way that the laws of probability and quantum mechanics interact, but at the basic level, the universe is NOT causal.

Pahu: My dictionary says a cause is a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect.

In the real world, every effect has a cause, including the universe, which did not exist before it existed, and therefore there was nothing, from which the universe appeared. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause, therefore the cause of the universe was supernatural.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#40 Aug 22, 2012
Pahu wrote:
Serpent: Wrong. It is describing a disk, not a sphere. Try again?
Pahu: Right! Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth&#8232;Or, "the globe [F26]" of it; for the earth is spherical or globular: not a flat plain, but round, hung as a ball in the air; here Jehovah sits as the Lord and Sovereign; being the Maker of it, he is above it, orders and directs its motion, and governs all things in it: Kimchi rightly observes, that the heavens are the circle of the earth, which is the centre of them, and around which they are; and so it signifies, that the Lord sits or dwells in the heavens, from whence he beholds the children of men.
[F26 (gwx le) "super sphaeram", Pagninus; "globum", Montanus Vatablus; "super orbem telluris", Vitringa.]
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/g...
Except the original Hebrew did NOT use the word for sphere, it specifically used the word for circle. You are referencing an apologetic translation.

try: " http://biblos.com/isaiah/40-22.htm" ;

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr MUQ1 23,041
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr ChristineM 230,944
Former Atheist Academic Who Rejected God and Be... 6 hr Hooogle It 77
Evidence for God! 10 hr Uncle Sam 43
Heaven 10 hr susanblange 42
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 19 hr Ooogah Boogah 14,391
Our world came from nothing? 23 hr _Bad Company 1,103

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE