Science Proves God
Science Proves God
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?”]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Proves God
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
Yes, life does come from non living matter. A molecule forms that has the ability to reproduce itself by whatever means. This is how the process of life first manifested itself. You have to understand that life is basically a chemical process in it's most basic form. Higher life forms are (in a nut shell) products of myriad chemical processes all naturally occurring.
Science has not proven the existence or the non existence of god. There is no proof either way, only theories. I personally believe the universe (for lack of a better word in describing everything) was a conscious act. Some conscious entity had to have started the snowball rolling down the hill.
Yes, life does come from non living matter. A molecule forms that has the ability to reproduce itself by whatever means. This is how the process of life first manifested itself. You have to understand that life is basically a chemical process in it's most basic form. Higher life forms are (in a nut shell) products of myriad chemical processes all naturally occurring.
Science has not proven the existence or the non existence of god. There is no proof either way, only theories. I personally believe the universe (for lack of a better word in describing everything) was a conscious act. Some conscious entity had to have started the snowball rolling down the hill.
Science Proves God
And also a recursion issue with:
Pahu;1399575 wrote: 9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
Therefore by 9, God likewise must come from another God (since he too is alive). Otherwise you violate your own assumption.
This God would likewise have to come from another God
Therefore there are an infinite number of Gods.
Pahu;1399575 wrote: 9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
Therefore by 9, God likewise must come from another God (since he too is alive). Otherwise you violate your own assumption.
This God would likewise have to come from another God
Therefore there are an infinite number of Gods.
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Science Proves God
yaaarrrgg;1399594 wrote: And also a recursion issue with:
Therefore by 9, God likewise must come from another God (since he too is alive). Otherwise you violate your own assumption.
This God would likewise have to come from another God
Therefore there are an infinite number of Gods.
Like the the Sky father and The earth mother begot the greek pantheon who begot the the greek heros. wait that life ends with the the blackness some void making the sky and earth so nevermind but at least it has a longer lineage
Therefore by 9, God likewise must come from another God (since he too is alive). Otherwise you violate your own assumption.
This God would likewise have to come from another God
Therefore there are an infinite number of Gods.
Like the the Sky father and The earth mother begot the greek pantheon who begot the the greek heros. wait that life ends with the the blackness some void making the sky and earth so nevermind but at least it has a longer lineage
Science Proves God
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." Carl Sagan
Science Proves God
Well now you have proved god exists all the religious folk can go to war over who worships him/her in the correct manner in the absurd belief that god actually cares.
You exist but you are only dreaming.
You exist but you are only dreaming.
Science Proves God
Scrat;1399578 wrote: Yes, life does come from non living matter. A molecule forms that has the ability to reproduce itself by whatever means. This is how the process of life first manifested itself. You have to understand that life is basically a chemical process in it's most basic form. Higher life forms are (in a nut shell) products of myriad chemical processes all naturally occurring.
How does that molecule reproduce itself if it is not alive? Also, chemicals are not alive, are they? A dead dog by the side of the road is a combination of molecules and chemicals, but it is still dead, isn't it?
Science has not proven the existence or the non existence of god. There is no proof either way, only theories. I personally believe the universe (for lack of a better word in describing everything) was a conscious act. Some conscious entity had to have started the snowball rolling down the hill.
If the universe is the result of a conscious act, doesn't that imply an intelligent designer, in other words, God?
How does that molecule reproduce itself if it is not alive? Also, chemicals are not alive, are they? A dead dog by the side of the road is a combination of molecules and chemicals, but it is still dead, isn't it?
Science has not proven the existence or the non existence of god. There is no proof either way, only theories. I personally believe the universe (for lack of a better word in describing everything) was a conscious act. Some conscious entity had to have started the snowball rolling down the hill.
If the universe is the result of a conscious act, doesn't that imply an intelligent designer, in other words, God?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Proves God
Right, time to dissect the claims.
1. The universe exists.
True.
2. The universe had a beginning.
False. The CURRENT universe had a beginning. Pre-Planck time universe was essentially the same energy we have now, but timeless due to it being a singularity, and time not existing in such dense objects. (when the gravitational pull due to mass surpasses certain values, namely the speed of light, spacetime collapses onto itself and time seizes to exist in that point)
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
False, there was a singularity, it simply expanded following quantum mechanics, particularly a quantum well-up. Also, there is no "before", as this implies time. Which did not exist. Unless we discover that there is in fact a multiverse, and this will also denote a "deep time" concept. But I will leave this to CERN to discover, I dare not speculate on a subject so poorly understood as is the case of a multiverse and deep time outside the current confines of the universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
False, see point 3.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
It came from the mathematical concept of zero-not nothing, but an energy equilibrium, shifted from zero to -1 space and +1 matter due to quantum well-up. The universe is better explained through math than it is through physics. As the super-small and super-dense object have the nasty habit of breaking the laws of physics.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
Zero is not a nothing, but the default state. Think of it as wanting to make a mound of dirt. You dig the dirt and pile it up. You get the ground, being the zero, the -1 hole, being empty space that expanded at the moment of the Big Bang, and the +1 matter. The only wrongness of this analogy is that the -1 is expanding within itself, but without adding to itself (think of a soap bubble expanding)
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
False. The supernatural is not proven to exist in any form. Should you have such a proof of existance, and it is empirically testable, please do submit it for peer review. I guarantee that a Nobel Prize will be waiting for you upon proving that.
8. Life exists.
True.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
False. Such a law does not exist. It was a hypothesis proposed by Louis Pasteur, later overturned by the field of genetics. Also, there is no such thing as a "kind" in science. There is species, and speciation is what is also known as evolution, a.k.a. the explanation of the biodiversity of life. (not the origins of such, the latter being the currently proposed models of abiogenesis) If the case of Pasteur's Biogenesis hypothesis was true, we would not be seeing ring species and common genetic markers. But Professor Pasteur has an excuse for not knowing this - he lived in times where genetics was an unknown concept, and he himself is one of the founders of microbiology. You, on the other hand, have no excuse for not reading prior to writing.
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
False. Life is inherently nonliving matter connected into self-replicating mollecules. Several proposed models exist, the most prevallent is mollecular assembly within montmorillonite clay, as it is organic in substance, and is prone to catalysing reactions of forming DNA bases and popypeptide polymers.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
False. The supernatural is not proven to exist in any form.
1. The universe exists.
True.
2. The universe had a beginning.
False. The CURRENT universe had a beginning. Pre-Planck time universe was essentially the same energy we have now, but timeless due to it being a singularity, and time not existing in such dense objects. (when the gravitational pull due to mass surpasses certain values, namely the speed of light, spacetime collapses onto itself and time seizes to exist in that point)
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
False, there was a singularity, it simply expanded following quantum mechanics, particularly a quantum well-up. Also, there is no "before", as this implies time. Which did not exist. Unless we discover that there is in fact a multiverse, and this will also denote a "deep time" concept. But I will leave this to CERN to discover, I dare not speculate on a subject so poorly understood as is the case of a multiverse and deep time outside the current confines of the universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
False, see point 3.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
It came from the mathematical concept of zero-not nothing, but an energy equilibrium, shifted from zero to -1 space and +1 matter due to quantum well-up. The universe is better explained through math than it is through physics. As the super-small and super-dense object have the nasty habit of breaking the laws of physics.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
Zero is not a nothing, but the default state. Think of it as wanting to make a mound of dirt. You dig the dirt and pile it up. You get the ground, being the zero, the -1 hole, being empty space that expanded at the moment of the Big Bang, and the +1 matter. The only wrongness of this analogy is that the -1 is expanding within itself, but without adding to itself (think of a soap bubble expanding)
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
False. The supernatural is not proven to exist in any form. Should you have such a proof of existance, and it is empirically testable, please do submit it for peer review. I guarantee that a Nobel Prize will be waiting for you upon proving that.
8. Life exists.
True.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
False. Such a law does not exist. It was a hypothesis proposed by Louis Pasteur, later overturned by the field of genetics. Also, there is no such thing as a "kind" in science. There is species, and speciation is what is also known as evolution, a.k.a. the explanation of the biodiversity of life. (not the origins of such, the latter being the currently proposed models of abiogenesis) If the case of Pasteur's Biogenesis hypothesis was true, we would not be seeing ring species and common genetic markers. But Professor Pasteur has an excuse for not knowing this - he lived in times where genetics was an unknown concept, and he himself is one of the founders of microbiology. You, on the other hand, have no excuse for not reading prior to writing.
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
False. Life is inherently nonliving matter connected into self-replicating mollecules. Several proposed models exist, the most prevallent is mollecular assembly within montmorillonite clay, as it is organic in substance, and is prone to catalysing reactions of forming DNA bases and popypeptide polymers.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
False. The supernatural is not proven to exist in any form.
Science Proves God
Townes;1399807 wrote: Right, time to dissect the claims.
1. The universe exists.
True.
2. The universe had a beginning.
False. The CURRENT universe had a beginning. Pre-Planck time universe was essentially the same energy we have now, but timeless due to it being a singularity, and time not existing in such dense objects. (when the gravitational pull due to mass surpasses certain values, namely the speed of light, spacetime collapses onto itself and time seizes to exist in that point)
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
False, there was a singularity, it simply expanded following quantum mechanics, particularly a quantum well-up. Also, there is no "before", as this implies time. Which did not exist. Unless we discover that there is in fact a multiverse, and this will also denote a "deep time" concept. But I will leave this to CERN to discover, I dare not speculate on a subject so poorly understood as is the case of a multiverse and deep time outside the current confines of the universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
False, see point 3.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
It came from the mathematical concept of zero-not nothing, but an energy equilibrium, shifted from zero to -1 space and +1 matter due to quantum well-up. The universe is better explained through math than it is through physics. As the super-small and super-dense object have the nasty habit of breaking the laws of physics.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
Zero is not a nothing, but the default state. Think of it as wanting to make a mound of dirt. You dig the dirt and pile it up. You get the ground, being the zero, the -1 hole, being empty space that expanded at the moment of the Big Bang, and the +1 matter. The only wrongness of this analogy is that the -1 is expanding within itself, but without adding to itself (think of a soap bubble expanding)
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
False. The supernatural is not proven to exist in any form. Should you have such a proof of existance, and it is empirically testable, please do submit it for peer review. I guarantee that a Nobel Prize will be waiting for you upon proving that.
8. Life exists.
True.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
False. Such a law does not exist. It was a hypothesis proposed by Louis Pasteur, later overturned by the field of genetics. Also, there is no such thing as a "kind" in science. There is species, and speciation is what is also known as evolution, a.k.a. the explanation of the biodiversity of life. (not the origins of such, the latter being the currently proposed models of abiogenesis) If the case of Pasteur's Biogenesis hypothesis was true, we would not be seeing ring species and common genetic markers. But Professor Pasteur has an excuse for not knowing this - he lived in times where genetics was an unknown concept, and he himself is one of the founders of microbiology. You, on the other hand, have no excuse for not reading prior to writing.
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
False. Life is inherently nonliving matter connected into self-replicating mollecules. Several proposed models exist, the most prevallent is mollecular assembly within montmorillonite clay, as it is organic in substance, and is prone to catalysing reactions of forming DNA bases and popypeptide polymers.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
False. The supernatural is not proven to exist in any form.
This is a prime example of the ability of the human mind to imagine all kinds of evidence free speculative notions to deny the facts. As I mentioned in my original post:
"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."
1. The universe exists.
True.
2. The universe had a beginning.
False. The CURRENT universe had a beginning. Pre-Planck time universe was essentially the same energy we have now, but timeless due to it being a singularity, and time not existing in such dense objects. (when the gravitational pull due to mass surpasses certain values, namely the speed of light, spacetime collapses onto itself and time seizes to exist in that point)
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
False, there was a singularity, it simply expanded following quantum mechanics, particularly a quantum well-up. Also, there is no "before", as this implies time. Which did not exist. Unless we discover that there is in fact a multiverse, and this will also denote a "deep time" concept. But I will leave this to CERN to discover, I dare not speculate on a subject so poorly understood as is the case of a multiverse and deep time outside the current confines of the universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
False, see point 3.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
It came from the mathematical concept of zero-not nothing, but an energy equilibrium, shifted from zero to -1 space and +1 matter due to quantum well-up. The universe is better explained through math than it is through physics. As the super-small and super-dense object have the nasty habit of breaking the laws of physics.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
Zero is not a nothing, but the default state. Think of it as wanting to make a mound of dirt. You dig the dirt and pile it up. You get the ground, being the zero, the -1 hole, being empty space that expanded at the moment of the Big Bang, and the +1 matter. The only wrongness of this analogy is that the -1 is expanding within itself, but without adding to itself (think of a soap bubble expanding)
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
False. The supernatural is not proven to exist in any form. Should you have such a proof of existance, and it is empirically testable, please do submit it for peer review. I guarantee that a Nobel Prize will be waiting for you upon proving that.
8. Life exists.
True.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
False. Such a law does not exist. It was a hypothesis proposed by Louis Pasteur, later overturned by the field of genetics. Also, there is no such thing as a "kind" in science. There is species, and speciation is what is also known as evolution, a.k.a. the explanation of the biodiversity of life. (not the origins of such, the latter being the currently proposed models of abiogenesis) If the case of Pasteur's Biogenesis hypothesis was true, we would not be seeing ring species and common genetic markers. But Professor Pasteur has an excuse for not knowing this - he lived in times where genetics was an unknown concept, and he himself is one of the founders of microbiology. You, on the other hand, have no excuse for not reading prior to writing.
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
False. Life is inherently nonliving matter connected into self-replicating mollecules. Several proposed models exist, the most prevallent is mollecular assembly within montmorillonite clay, as it is organic in substance, and is prone to catalysing reactions of forming DNA bases and popypeptide polymers.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
False. The supernatural is not proven to exist in any form.
This is a prime example of the ability of the human mind to imagine all kinds of evidence free speculative notions to deny the facts. As I mentioned in my original post:
"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."
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Proves God
Pahu;1399824 wrote: This is a prime example of the ability of the human mind to imagine all kinds of evidence free speculative notions to deny the facts. As I mentioned in my original post:
"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."
It's not an assumption to reject supernatural theories... The general problem with the supernatural theories isn't with the evidence, but the over-abundance of equally valid and competing supernatural theories.
You say God started the process, I say it was the Queen of Hearts. Someone else may conclude it was the Mad Hatter. Who's God did it? You end up with an infinite number of competing theories, all equally supported by the evidence. The conclusion is an infinite number of possible Gods, along with aliens, leprechauns, and other oddities.
Scientists don't assume supernatural theories are invalid. Rather, the supernatural theories cancel themselves out, because there are so many of them, and they are cheap to make. Religious people and paranormal "science" will fixate on one of the possibilities and at the same time ignore all others. The problem for you isn't proving the possibility, but keeping out the flood of other conclusions you don't want to let through the gate.
"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."
It's not an assumption to reject supernatural theories... The general problem with the supernatural theories isn't with the evidence, but the over-abundance of equally valid and competing supernatural theories.
You say God started the process, I say it was the Queen of Hearts. Someone else may conclude it was the Mad Hatter. Who's God did it? You end up with an infinite number of competing theories, all equally supported by the evidence. The conclusion is an infinite number of possible Gods, along with aliens, leprechauns, and other oddities.
Scientists don't assume supernatural theories are invalid. Rather, the supernatural theories cancel themselves out, because there are so many of them, and they are cheap to make. Religious people and paranormal "science" will fixate on one of the possibilities and at the same time ignore all others. The problem for you isn't proving the possibility, but keeping out the flood of other conclusions you don't want to let through the gate.
Science Proves God
yaaarrrgg;1399828 wrote: It's not an assumption to reject supernatural theories... The general problem with the supernatural theories isn't with the evidence, but the over-abundance of equally valid and competing supernatural theories.
You say God started the process, I say it was the Queen of Hearts. Someone else may conclude it was the Mad Hatter. Who's God did it? You end up with an infinite number of competing theories, all equally supported by the evidence. The conclusion is an infinite number of possible Gods, along with aliens, leprechauns, and other oddities.
Scientists don't assume supernatural theories are invalid. Rather, the supernatural theories cancel themselves out, because there are so many of them, and they are cheap to make. Religious people and paranormal "science" will fixate on one of the possibilities and at the same time ignore all others. The problem for you isn't proving the possibility, but keeping out the flood of other conclusions you don't want to let through the gate.
Apparently you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my explanation on this subject in my original post. Admittedly there are thousands of man-made gods. But there is only one true, creator God who reveals Himself in the Bible. How do I know He is real? Because He is the source of hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies. If interested, go here:
About Bible Prophecy
100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
You say God started the process, I say it was the Queen of Hearts. Someone else may conclude it was the Mad Hatter. Who's God did it? You end up with an infinite number of competing theories, all equally supported by the evidence. The conclusion is an infinite number of possible Gods, along with aliens, leprechauns, and other oddities.
Scientists don't assume supernatural theories are invalid. Rather, the supernatural theories cancel themselves out, because there are so many of them, and they are cheap to make. Religious people and paranormal "science" will fixate on one of the possibilities and at the same time ignore all others. The problem for you isn't proving the possibility, but keeping out the flood of other conclusions you don't want to let through the gate.
Apparently you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my explanation on this subject in my original post. Admittedly there are thousands of man-made gods. But there is only one true, creator God who reveals Himself in the Bible. How do I know He is real? Because He is the source of hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies. If interested, go here:
About Bible Prophecy
100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Proves God
Pahu;1399844 wrote: Apparently you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my explanation on this subject in my original post. Admittedly there are thousands of man-made gods. But there is only one true, creator God who reveals Himself in the Bible. How do I know He is real? Because He is the source of hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies. If interested, go here:
About Bible Prophecy
100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
According to the Hebrews/Jews, the Messiah still hasn't arrived. I think they'd know their own prophesies better than Christians would.
If you look at the earlier mythology that predates Christianity, you see a lot of the same stories and miracles. Jesus as depicted in the Bible is largely an amalgamation of previous mythology, wrapped into a person.
About Bible Prophecy
100 fulfilled Bible prophecies
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
According to the Hebrews/Jews, the Messiah still hasn't arrived. I think they'd know their own prophesies better than Christians would.
If you look at the earlier mythology that predates Christianity, you see a lot of the same stories and miracles. Jesus as depicted in the Bible is largely an amalgamation of previous mythology, wrapped into a person.
Science Proves God
yaaarrrgg;1399859 wrote: According to the Hebrews/Jews, the Messiah still hasn't arrived. I think they'd know their own prophesies better than Christians would.
Of course many Jews rejected Christ when He came despite His miracles and about 300 prophecies He fulfilled. Many more accepted Him and were the first members of the Christian Church. That's human nature for you. People are reluctant to admit they are wrong even in spite of the facts.
If you look at the earlier mythology that predates Christianity, you see a lot of the same stories and miracles. Jesus as depicted in the Bible is largely an amalgamation of previous mythology, wrapped into a person.
The first century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200).
Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century A.D., wrote: "Christus [Latin for Christ], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), "The Annals," Book15, par.44.
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.
There are many more references to Jesus outside of the Bible. We can be sure that Christ actually spoke the words found in the gospels.
If Jesus had not said such things surely His disciples would not have risked their lives for the cause of truth. If He had not said such things, those who opposed Him would have vehemently challenged such writings. However, no one during the early days of Christianity ever did. Two of the writers of the gospels were close companions of Christ. Both his disciples and his enemies heard his words openly. People in general he talked to heard his words. Yet, the letters of the gospels were never called into question. There are many historical writings about Christ from the early centuries to help substantiate his existence. During the early days when the gospel was preached publicly, no one questioned it because it was factual. Even Jesus’ close disciples died because of what Jesus taught them. If He had not actually said such things they would not have had such convictions.
Of course many Jews rejected Christ when He came despite His miracles and about 300 prophecies He fulfilled. Many more accepted Him and were the first members of the Christian Church. That's human nature for you. People are reluctant to admit they are wrong even in spite of the facts.
If you look at the earlier mythology that predates Christianity, you see a lot of the same stories and miracles. Jesus as depicted in the Bible is largely an amalgamation of previous mythology, wrapped into a person.
The first century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200).
Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century A.D., wrote: "Christus [Latin for Christ], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), "The Annals," Book15, par.44.
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.
There are many more references to Jesus outside of the Bible. We can be sure that Christ actually spoke the words found in the gospels.
If Jesus had not said such things surely His disciples would not have risked their lives for the cause of truth. If He had not said such things, those who opposed Him would have vehemently challenged such writings. However, no one during the early days of Christianity ever did. Two of the writers of the gospels were close companions of Christ. Both his disciples and his enemies heard his words openly. People in general he talked to heard his words. Yet, the letters of the gospels were never called into question. There are many historical writings about Christ from the early centuries to help substantiate his existence. During the early days when the gospel was preached publicly, no one questioned it because it was factual. Even Jesus’ close disciples died because of what Jesus taught them. If He had not actually said such things they would not have had such convictions.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Proves God
Pahu;1399865 wrote: Of course many Jews rejected Christ when He came despite His miracles and about 300 prophecies He fulfilled. Many more accepted Him and were the first members of the Christian Church. That's human nature for you. People are reluctant to admit they are wrong even in spite of the facts.
I'm not sure the Jews are wrong in their belief that Jesus didn't fit the description of the Messiah. They were expecting a guy who fit a completely different description, a political savior. That guy still hasn't shown up. They certainly were not expecting someone who would upend thousands of years of tradition, only to get killed prematurely.
Pahu;1399865 wrote:
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.
It's plausible that there was a guy named Jesus that was killed in Rome. What likely got the historical Jesus killed is that he broke the law when destroying property in the temple. I'm saying the full account is more legend than fact.
The earliest account of Jesus was actually written by Paul, who never actually met him in person. His account is very sparse, only covering a few basic details such as: he was born, and killed. Most of what Paul talked about was marketing and church organization.
Later on, you see the gospels John, Mark, etc, which may be written a hundred years later. These stories incorporate a lot of ancient stories that predate Christianity. Such walking on water, being born of a virgin, raising from the dead after three days. These were fairly old stories to the people at the time.
The core of the religion is based on the notion of human and animal sacrifices, where Jesus is the sacrifice. Again, these practices predate Christianity.
Christianity only became a serious contender as a world religion, when Rome (ironically enough) adopted it as the state religion. They saw a militaristic advantage in the religion. It was an imperialistic state religion up until the protestant reformation.
I'm not sure the Jews are wrong in their belief that Jesus didn't fit the description of the Messiah. They were expecting a guy who fit a completely different description, a political savior. That guy still hasn't shown up. They certainly were not expecting someone who would upend thousands of years of tradition, only to get killed prematurely.
Pahu;1399865 wrote:
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The Encyclopedia Britannica states: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."—(1976), Macropaedia, Vol. 10, p.145.
It's plausible that there was a guy named Jesus that was killed in Rome. What likely got the historical Jesus killed is that he broke the law when destroying property in the temple. I'm saying the full account is more legend than fact.
The earliest account of Jesus was actually written by Paul, who never actually met him in person. His account is very sparse, only covering a few basic details such as: he was born, and killed. Most of what Paul talked about was marketing and church organization.
Later on, you see the gospels John, Mark, etc, which may be written a hundred years later. These stories incorporate a lot of ancient stories that predate Christianity. Such walking on water, being born of a virgin, raising from the dead after three days. These were fairly old stories to the people at the time.
The core of the religion is based on the notion of human and animal sacrifices, where Jesus is the sacrifice. Again, these practices predate Christianity.
Christianity only became a serious contender as a world religion, when Rome (ironically enough) adopted it as the state religion. They saw a militaristic advantage in the religion. It was an imperialistic state religion up until the protestant reformation.
Science Proves God
To be honest, I did my utmost to provide all the current facts and hypotheses, and all you did is reject them outright without a single actual point, and started spewing prophecies.
I can make prophecies myself:
There will be many wars to come. Nations shall clash against their neighbours, and much blood shall be spilled.
Rulers shall no longer rule, as the common folk make new kings.
And hunger and disease shall sweep the land, and many more will then perish.
Am I the messiah now? Nope. Just a guy with common sense.
All the "prophecies" are post-hoc writings of people who lived at least a century after the alledged death of Jesus, and had free access to the religious texts. Want followers? Fulfull their prophecies! Or at least claim so. Just like North Korea's rulers had a new star appear above them at birth, Shoko Asahara was apparently a manifestation of Shiva or something such, if you want to be deified, you gotta make unsubstantiated claims. LOTS of them!
I do not suppose you can back your outright denial of what I originally wrote with evidence? Or will you just descend into the never-proven-to-exist supernatural, and particularly ol' Yahweh, while you clearly argued for deism in your fist post, with a poorly worded Kalam Cosmological Argument and blatant untruths inbetween?
Here is a tip: If you wanna argue with science, provide evidence. As in, empirically testable and provable one. Not philosophy. Alternatively, just link peer reviewed papers. I will make sure to follow-up on any proof of the supernatural or disproof of current scientific models you provide, and will comment on them as soon as time constraints would allow.
I can make prophecies myself:
There will be many wars to come. Nations shall clash against their neighbours, and much blood shall be spilled.
Rulers shall no longer rule, as the common folk make new kings.
And hunger and disease shall sweep the land, and many more will then perish.
Am I the messiah now? Nope. Just a guy with common sense.
All the "prophecies" are post-hoc writings of people who lived at least a century after the alledged death of Jesus, and had free access to the religious texts. Want followers? Fulfull their prophecies! Or at least claim so. Just like North Korea's rulers had a new star appear above them at birth, Shoko Asahara was apparently a manifestation of Shiva or something such, if you want to be deified, you gotta make unsubstantiated claims. LOTS of them!
I do not suppose you can back your outright denial of what I originally wrote with evidence? Or will you just descend into the never-proven-to-exist supernatural, and particularly ol' Yahweh, while you clearly argued for deism in your fist post, with a poorly worded Kalam Cosmological Argument and blatant untruths inbetween?
Here is a tip: If you wanna argue with science, provide evidence. As in, empirically testable and provable one. Not philosophy. Alternatively, just link peer reviewed papers. I will make sure to follow-up on any proof of the supernatural or disproof of current scientific models you provide, and will comment on them as soon as time constraints would allow.
Science Proves God
Nice little thread in archives.