Science Proves God

[Pahu]

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?” ]

[NYC4SIN]

Nope.  No.'s 2 and 3 are not givens. 

[cmdsea]

"Heaven is a fairy story for grown ups scared of the dark..."

Stephen Hawking. The Worlds pre-eminent scientist

[NYC4SIN]

What was before the Big Bang? A Buddhist would say "mu." Unask the question. There is no answer to that question, because the start of the Big Bang was the first event. There were no events before the first event.

The universe is all there is.  And it is all there ever will be. 

So what was before the Big Bang?  The notion of "before" cannot be applied to the first event; it was the first event. There are no events that could be described as "before" the first event. One cannot even say "nothing," because that implies that there were events before the first event, only nothing happened at those events. There were literally no events before the first event. Because it was the first event. 
 
Your "logic" above is gibberish from #2-#7.

[name]

Beside the questionable premises, if this is "science" then how does it follow scientific method?  Where are the experiments to prove the theories?

If this is just observation leading to speculation, then you're left with philosophy.

Interestingly, the "argument" is based on the premise that anything unknown is attributed to God.  Though there is nothing to say what God might be.  Is God an entity?  Does God exist?  What created God?  Is God a single entity or many?  If God exists, can God die? 

BTW, P*** employs the typical preaching technique of "assertion as fact", a technique for answering the questions of children and others unfamiliar with or too ignorant of the world around them.

[robet183]

God is there and u will see the day of judgement is very near,uk immigration
hell and paradise are fact,angels are fact,and prophets are fact.

[Pahu]

Beside the questionable premises, if this is "science" then how does it follow scientific method?  Where are the experiments to prove the theories?

If this is just observation leading to speculation, then you're left with philosophy.

Interestingly, the "argument" is based on the premise that anything unknown is attributed to God.  Though there is nothing to say what God might be.  Is God an entity?  Does God exist?  What created God?  Is God a single entity or many?  If God exists, can God die? 

BTW, P*** employs the typical preaching technique of "assertion as fact", a technique for answering the questions of children and others unfamiliar with or too ignorant of the world around them.

The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here?” Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.

Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.

Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.

Five-year-olds are wonderful at using the law of cause and effect. We can picture a small child asking: “Mommy, where do peaches come from?” His mother says that they come from peach trees. Then the child asks where the trees come from, and his mother explains that they come from peaches. You can see the cycle. Eventually the child wants to know how the first peach tree got here. He can see very well that it must have had a cause, and he wants to know what that cause was.

One thing is for sure: the Universe did not create itself! We know this for a scientific fact, because matter cannot create matter. If we take a rock that weighs 1 pound and do 50,000 experiments on it, we never will be able to produce more than 1 pound of rock. So, whatever caused the Universe could not have been material.

FROM NOTHING COMES NOTHING

I know that it is insulting to your intelligence to have to include this paragraph, but some people today are saying that the Universe evolved from nothing. However, if there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.

THE BIBLE SPEAKS ABOUT THE CAUSE

The Bible certainly is not silent about what caused the Universe. In the very first verse of the first chapter of the first book it says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” Acts 17:24 records: “God, who made the world and everything in it…He is Lord of heaven and earth.” Exodus 20:11 notes: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.”

God is undoubtedly an adequate cause, since He is all-powerful. In Genesis 17:1, God told Abraham “I am Almighty God.”

He came before this material world, fulfilling the criteria that the cause must come before the effect. The psalmist wrote: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (Psalm 90:2).

And He definitely would instill within mankind the concept of morality, since He is a God of morals. Titus 1:2 says that He cannot lie.

Only God fits the criteria of an adequate cause that came before the Universe.

WHY DOES GOD NOT HAVE A CAUSE?

Hold on just a minute! If we contend that every material effect must have a cause, and we say that only God could have caused the Universe, then the obvious question is: “What caused God?” Doesn’t the law of cause and effect apply to God, too?

There is a single word in the law of cause and effect that helps provide the answer to this question—the word material. Every material effect must have a cause that existed before it. Scientists formulated the law of cause and effect based upon what they have observed while studying this Universe, which is made out of matter. No science experiment in the world can be performed on God, because He is an eternal spirit, not matter (John 4:24). Science is far from learning everything about this material world, and it is even farther from understanding the eternal nature of God. There had to be a First Cause, and God was (and is) the only One suitable for the job.

CONCLUSION

The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions. It was not conjured up from the creationists’ magic hat to prove the existence of God (although it does that quite well). The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God. If natural forces created the Universe, randomly selecting themselves, then morality in humans never could be explained. Why is this Universe here? Because “in the beginning, God….”

[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1762]

[somersa]

I would say there'll be a lot of disappointed believers in a God when they pass away.  But they'll all be dust as well and have no understanding.   Even if there were a God, she cares naught for what happens and therefore is irrelevant, anyway.  If she were to care, and is responsible, then she's the one that created this mess by her own design.  So why should I care in any of these cases?

You can't "prove" God through science.  Or through logic.  Since there's no scientific evidence nor does logic lead you to the conclusion there is a God or Gods. It's a "leap of faith" which I haven't taken.   But believe if you want - it doesn't change a thing either way.

[Pahu]

I would say there'll be a lot of disappointed believers in a God when they pass away.  But they'll all be dust as well and have no understanding.   Even if there were a God, she cares naught for what happens and therefore is irrelevant, anyway.  If she were to care, and is responsible, then she's the one that created this mess by her own design.  So why should I care in any of these cases?

You can't "prove" God through science.  Or through logic.  Since there's no scientific evidence nor does logic lead you to the conclusion there is a God or Gods. It's a "leap of faith" which I haven't taken.   But believe if you want - it doesn't change a thing either way.

A Logical Argument for God's Existence


1. Something exists.

That seems pretty simple, right? Can we all agree that this is true? Even the atheist will agree that this is true. This seems to be undeniably true. Anybody who would say that “nothing exists” would have to exist to in order to say that in which case he would be defeating his own statement.

2. Nothing does not produce something.

This statement is of course true as well. Think about it. It would be absurd to say that nothing could create or produce something.

Nothing is no-thing. Nothing does not have the power to do anything at all, does it! Even David Hume one of the most zealous skeptics of Christianity ever agreed to the truth of this second premise. He said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” (Feb. 1754).

To propose that nothing could do anything at all sounds utterly foolish. A basic law of physics (and if you ever had a physics class you’ll recall this) is called the Law of Conservation. It states: “From nothing, comes nothing.”

This supports our second premise as well. So if the first two premises are true, that 1. Something exists and 2. Nothing does not produce something, then a rather astounding conclusion logically follows...

3. Something must have always existed.

Why’s that? Okay, well, let’s walk back through this. Something now exists. Nothing does not produce something, then something must have always existed.

Why must something have always existed? To have brought the “something” that now exists (in No.1) into existence. Why? Because premise number two is true (Nothing does not produce something). But the critic asks, “Why does that something have to be eternal? Aren’t you just assuming the eternality of that something that brought into existence the something that now exists (no.1)?"

Not at all. Stay with me on this. There is a reason why that something (no. 3) must be eternal. To say that that something (in premise no. 3) did not always exist would be to say that it was finite. Right?

If that something (in premise no. 3) was finite, that means it had a beginning. If that something had a beginning we are back at our start. How did that something (premise no. 3) begin? Did nothing create something? No, that’s impossible. Nothing can’t do anything.

Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. If we deny this we are saying that nothing produced something from nothing and by nothing. But this is absurd. So we are left with the only other option and that is that something in no. 3 must have always existed.

Do you understand why premise 3 must be true?
Now, there are only two options as to what that “something (No.3) [that] always existed” might be:

A. The universe, or
B. Something outside the universe

The fourth premise in my argument is this:

4. The universe has not always existed.

In 1948, a theory known as The Steady State Theory, was set forth, that proposed that the universe was eternal (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 102). It stated that the universe has always been. “If this theory is correct” the critics of Christianity said, “there is no need for a Creator.” Well, the theory sounded good on paper for the atheist, for a while but the scientific evidence against it has since demolished the theory.

Numerous evidences from the field of astronomy now overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe actually began to exist a finite time ago in an event when all the physical space, time, matter, and energy in the universe came into being.

And that is exactly what the Bible affirms, that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).

Let me share with you just 2 facts of science that deal a fatal deathblow to the theory of an eternal universe. The first blow to this theory that universe is eternal is…

A. THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES

Prior to the 1920’s, scientists had always assumed that the universe as a whole was stationary. [Of course they acknowledged that there was movement of planets in solar systems, etc.]

But in 1929 an alarming thing happened. An astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from distant galaxies appeared to be redder than it should. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led was that the light is redder because the universe is growing apart; it is expanding! When the source of incoming light is moving away from an object the light that you see is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The light of the galaxies was redder because they are moving away from us. But here is the interesting part: Hubble not only showed that the universe is expanding, but that it is expanding the same in all directions. Scientists have concluded that the galaxies in the universe are not stationary but are expanding further and further away from each other from what appears to be some stationary point.

Imagine that I were to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon that represented galaxies and then blow up the balloon. If you were to suck the air back out, or let’s say rewind the film, go back in time—what would happen? The dots would converge, i.e. get closer to one another. The same is true with our universe. If you go back in time scientists say that the stars would converge into a singular space, where they exploded into being:

This explosion or beginning of the universe is often referred to as, you know the name:

“THE BIG BANG." We call it Genesis 1:1!! It’s incredible that the scientific evidence that helps establish Big Bang theory also helps verify what the Christian theist has always believed: That the universe actually had a beginning!!

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens..."

A second blow to the theory that the universe is eternal comes from the facts behind...

B. THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

[The first law says that the actual amount of energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn’t change.]
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of the best, most established laws in all of science. In fact, there is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts it. It states that: the amount of useable energy in any closed system (which the universe is) is decreasing. In other words, the useable energy in the universe is dying out like the batteries in a flashlight.

Scientists acknowledge that the sun can not burn forever, and that even our galaxy itself will one day, if left to itself, burn up and die out. So we reason that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true for all closed systems, and it is, then it is true for the universe as a whole. The universe according to the atheist is a gigantic closed system, since to them it is all there is and there is nothing outside it. This means that the universe is currently running out of useable energy.

If it is running out of useable energy, then it cannot be eternal, for a finite amount of energy (no matter how large the quantity.) could never have brought the universe through an eternity of time.

Flashlight Illustration: Let's say you stumbled upon this flashlight and you’re curious how long it has been burning. So you do a little investigation. Through your investigation you discover that the batteries are going down hill. They are running out of energy. You turn to a scientist standing nearby and ask him: “How long do you think the flashlight’s been burning?” Now, what if he was to tell you: “It’s always been on. It’s been lit like this and burning like this forever.”

Hunh? Would you believe that? Of course not. There’s a problem with that isn’t there?

Batteries with a finite amount of energy (seen in the fact that they are steadily running out of energy) could never have kept the light burning for an eternal amount of time. It would have run out of batteries trillions of years ago!! So it is with the universe. The amount of useable energy is steadily decreasing, thus proving it impossible that it has been burning for all eternity. So, it is scientific discoveries like…

1. The Motion of the Galaxies
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (and other discoveries like the background radiation echo discovered by Penzias and Wilson) ...that have blown the Steady State Theory into smithereens.

Now, if my premises are all true:
1. Something exists.
2. Nothing does not produce something.
3. Something must have always existed.
4. The universe has not always existed
...then a conclusion can be validly drawn from these premises.

5. There must be an eternal power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.

Do you think this is a sound argument thus far? I believe it is! The whole argument could come crashing down, if even just one of the premises could be proven to be false. Causing the argument to crash wouldn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, it would just prove that the argument is not valid. Let’s take it a bit further.

6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.

I take that to be self-evident. This also seems to be undeniable. Anybody who would say that there is not intelligent life in the universe would be uttering an intelligent statement from an intelligent being.

To understand any of this study this far (even if you disagreed with what I was saying) would prove that this sixth premise is true...for it has taken a great degree of intelligence to understand the thousands of combinations of syllables that I have been uttering.

So this premise is undeniably true as well.
Let’s take it further.

7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.

How could a material, inanimate, unintelligent, unconscious force produce on intelligent living, breathing being? It takes a living, intelligent being to create a living, intelligent being. Non-life does not produce life. You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to...

--wind
--rain
--the forces of nature
--chance
--and millions of years of time and you would never get a Mount Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention.

It would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and even more so, it takes intelligence to create a real human being.

8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.

That intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe that created the universe is God.

If the universe has not always existed, and something must have always existed, then something or someone outside of the universe must have always existed, I propose to you that that person is an intelligent, living, powerful being, i.e. God.

CONCLUSION

For me it is more reasonable to believe, based on the laws of logic as well as the observable scientific evidence that God exists, rather than to believe what the atheist believes that nothing, times nobody, equals everything we see in the universe.

Throw in the fact that we also have the testimony of our conscience and the revelation of God in the scriptures and I believe we are standing on solid ground when we affirm:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

[Charlie H. Campbell adopted major premises from a debate heard on the existence of God by Norman Geisler]

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137