Science Proves God

[Pahu]

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 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.

“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?” ]

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Don't let viole see this one...

[OldKingCole]

Scientists made "discoveries" that the writers of the Bible knew of during the time of their writings. A great example is the Earth being round and the fact that the universe continues to expand in all directions.

Both are addressed in Isaiah 40:21-22.

21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear Pahu,

Thanks for the OP.

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

Before viole sees this and munches down on it, I would like to point out the logical error in statement 2.

Not everything that exists have a beginning. If you postulate that, then you would have to explain the beginning of your god. Special pleadings are not a good way to begin claiming logic.

Regards,

UF

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear Pahu,

Thanks for the OP.

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

Before viole sees this and munches down on it, I would like to point out the logical error in statement 2.

Not everything that exists have a beginning. If you postulate that, then you would have to explain the beginning of your god. Special pleadings are not a good way to begin claiming logic.

Regards,

UF

That is correct.

The missing points are:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause;

2. The universe began to exist; therefore

3. The universe had a cause.

This line of reasoining works against the ol' John Stewart Mill assertion that God needed a cause, because the universe is known to have come into existance (by everyone except viole), therefore it required a cause. God, by contrast, is eternal and therefore did not come into existance.

There's nothing incoherent about something immaterial being eternal, but it is widely acknowledged that the universe is not so.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Scientists made "discoveries" that the writers of the Bible knew of during the time of their writings. A great example is the Earth being round and the fact that the universe continues to expand in all directions.

Both are addressed in Isaiah 40:21-22.

21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

Personally, I find this one a tough sell. A circle isn't necessarily a sphere. In fact, I've had people try to convince me that the author believed the earth to be flat, because of this verse.

I find it interesting that the Bible describes that earth is suspendedr,

"he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7)

And the accurate description of the earth's hydrocycle,

"For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly" (Job 36:27-28).

[~candice~]

UF, this objection has been raised before. It is argued logically that an exception clause MUST exist, otherwise one would have to agree with infinite backwards regression. The clause does not violate the logic, it is a result of it

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear ~candice~,

Thanks for the response.

UF, this objection has been raised before. It is argued logically that an exception clause MUST exist, otherwise one would have to agree with infinite backwards regression. The clause does not violate the logic, it is a result of it

No problem. Having made one exception clause, we can make other exception clauses.

We can now make an exception for the universe, not requiring a beginning (notwithstanding the big bang theory). By Occam's razor, we can therefore eliminate the required "creator".

The fact is that this is neither here nor there. It is all mental*edit*.

Regards,

UF

*Edited to remove the term that was in violation of the ToS

Please refrain from such terms in the future.*

[~candice~]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear ~candice~,

Thanks for the response.

UF, this objection has been raised before. It is argued logically that an exception clause MUST exist, otherwise one would have to agree with infinite backwards regression. The clause does not violate the logic, it is a result of it

No problem. Having made one exception clause, we can make other exception clauses.

We can now make an exception for the universe, not requiring a beginning (notwithstanding the big bang theory). By Occam's razor, we can therefore eliminate the required "creator".

Not really. The logical progression of the argument dictates ONE uncaused cause. Nothing else. To start the ball rolling there must be an event that was caused by this "uncaused cause". Everything else proceeding from that is caused.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear ~candice~,

Thanks for the response.

UF, this objection has been raised before. It is argued logically that an exception clause MUST exist, otherwise one would have to agree with infinite backwards regression. The clause does not violate the logic, it is a result of it

No problem. Having made one exception clause, we can make other exception clauses.

We can now make an exception for the universe, not requiring a beginning (notwithstanding the big bang theory). By Occam's razor, we can therefore eliminate the required "creator".

Not really. The logical progression of the argument dictates ONE uncaused cause. Nothing else. To start the ball rolling there must be an event that was caused by this "uncaused cause". Everything else proceeding from that is caused.

Further, the extent to which an argument is ad hoc is based on background knowledge.

Since energy can't be created or destroyed by natural means, and since entropy is moving towards equilibrium, then we know that there was an unnatural cause, a finite time ago.

Therefore any conclusion other than a supernatural cause would be ad hoc, and removed by occam's razor.