Reasons why i am a theist

[Javan502]

i believe Theism explains best our existence, and i believe, the God that revealed himself in the bible, is the creator of all that exists. What are my reasons to believe so ?

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, incredibly powerful. That description fits best to the God of the bible.
2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.
3. Life. Abiogenesis has not been able to explain the existence of life on earth. Science cannot explain it. There are strong reasons to believe, a natural origin is not probable, and a bad explanation. First of all, why whould dead rocks need to evolve, to create life ? Secondly, just one living cell is more complex than the most complex machine created by man. A living cell is irreducible complex. All parts must be on place, making a gradual evolution not possible.
Even the simplest cell needs DNA , which is a information carrier. Information is always created by a mind. There i no natural mechanism known to man, to create information. Information is by essence spiritual, and not physical. There is no bridge to cross the gulf from material to spiritual. Even through millions of years of evolution. Its not possible.

http://www.christiscreator.com/evolutionclass101.htm

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.


Add to this the moral argument, experience of miracles, the testimony of the bible, and you have a nice case of theism.

[brianp]

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, ...

A lot of unjustified assumptions there. How do you know it had a beginning? Why must it have a cause? Nobody knows what, if anything, is beyond our universe, let alone what properties it has. This seems to be a classic case of - science doesn't fully understand something, therefore Goddidit !

2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet.

Or perhaps there are multiple universes and life develops in those universes where the laws of physics allow it. Obviously our universe is one such. Another case of, here's something scientists don't understand, so Goddidit !

[Pebble]

i believe Theism explains best our existence, and i believe, the God that revealed himself in the bible, is the creator of all that exists. .

Everyone else here will challange the rest of your arguments and non evidence based assumptions, so I would like to concentrate on this one.

Why should an all powerful, all seeing and all knowing god bother to be so obtuse as to 'reveal' him/her/it self this way?

First we have the argument that there have been so many gods and still are believers in several - why should we take the bible as more accurate than the thalmud or quoran?

Second, if the bible reveals god why has it so many internal contradictions?

Why does the bible suggest such a vengeful, jealous and petty god?

Why does the bible lack any reasonable basis for a moral code that any sane individual in this day and age would subscribe to?

Why have so many versions of the bible (even back to before the counicl of Nicea) existed?

Why does evolution provide a more rational explanation for moral behavior than any holy tesxt in existence?

Why has the bible contributed to so many wars?

etc etc etc.

[Watchman]

I do not propose to engage your “reasons” myself , there are others on here who are far more qualified for that than I am.
But for my own curiosity , could you please tell me which Bible it is you talk about….?
I’ve often wondered. Is it King James , or the Geneva Bible or something older…perhaps…or the Latin Vulgate ,or then again maybe Codex Vaticanus Graecus , Codex Sinaiticus , Codex Alexandrinus . Is it the more exotic Peshitta or any of the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic or Georgian versions.
I’m hoping you may be able to clear this up for me. I’m assuming you are a Christian scholar as you’ve chosen to beard the skeptics in their den , and if you are not a scholar they will dismantle your ideas with phenomenal precision.
Any ,way if you could just answer my query please.
PS.
Try to hold on to your fantasies....


Damn...Brian & Pebble beat me to it...got to type faster....

[panama]

3. Life. Abiogenesis has not been able to explain the existence of life on earth.

Perhaps not the entire chain but it's a theory that fits with the available facts and observations

Science cannot explain it.

Really? It may not be able , at present, to tick all of the boxes YOU want it to but it does do a pretty good job. The various theories that scientists propose all do a better job and fit the data better than Genesis 1,11-12. A fact that most of the major Christian religious groups accept.

There are strong reasons to believe, a natural origin is not probable, and a bad explanation.

What do you mean? I may be thick but that sentence does not make any sort of sense. Indeed, it may not be a sentence.

First of all, why whould dead rocks need to evolve, to create life ?

Dead rocks don't "evolve". Nobody has ever suggested, in the entire history of mankind, that they do. Are you saying that you don't understand the use of the word "evolve"?

Secondly, just one living cell is more complex than the most complex machine created by man.

Really? Show me some proof. Have you some sort of comparison that you could provide?

A living cell is irreducible complex.

Sorry. Again I do not understand your use of language. If by "irreducible" you mean "very" then I would have to agree.

All parts must be on place, making a gradual evolution not possible.

Why not? (Assuming you meant "in place")

Even the simplest cell needs DNA , which is a information carrier. Information is always created by a mind.

Is it? Please show some sort of argument that justifies your statement.

There i no natural mechanism known to man, to create information. Information is by essence spiritual, and not physical. There is no bridge to cross the gulf from material to spiritual. Even through millions of years of evolution. Its not possible.

Again, please show why you think this. Presumably you have some sort of "logical" argument? Kinda disregards your statement about DNA though.

[/QUOTE]

[Javan502]

I do not propose to engage your “reasons” myself , there are others on here who are far more qualified for that than I am.
But for my own curiosity , could you please tell me which Bible it is you talk about….?
I’ve often wondered. Is it King James , or the Geneva Bible or something older…perhaps…or the Latin Vulgate ,or then again maybe Codex Vaticanus Graecus , Codex Sinaiticus , Codex Alexandrinus . Is it the more exotic Peshitta or any of the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic or Georgian versions.
I’m hoping you may be able to clear this up for me. I’m assuming you are a Christian scholar as you’ve chosen to beard the skeptics in their den , and if you are not a scholar they will dismantle your ideas with phenomenal precision.
Any ,way if you could just answer my query please.
PS.
Try to hold on to your fantasies....


Damn...Brian & Pebble beat me to it...got to type faster....

the easyest way is to have more than just one translation. If you have some doubt, you can compare with a second translation.

if you wish a more indepth answer, please check the thread :

Are the bible translations accurate and trustworthy ?

at my virtual library :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bibl...orthy-t258.htm

[Javan502]

A lot of unjustified assumptions there. How do you know it had a beginning?

I don't know it in the sense of having absolute proof. But based on science, and philosophy, its the hypotheses which makes most sense.

Evidence that the universe had a beginning

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...nning-t199.htm

http://english.pravda.ru/science/ear...96-beginning-0

Science supports Einstein's claim that the universe is a closed system.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm

Very soon after arriving at the final form of the field equations, Einstein began to consider their implications with regard to the overall structure of the universe. His 1917 paper presented a simple model of a closed spherical universe which "from the standpoint of the general theory of relativity lies nearest at hand". More evidence that supports the universe is a closed system :
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...euniverse.html


That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

Isn't the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely an expression of probability? Yes, but the probability is so high and certain that the odds of just one calorie of energy spontaneously defying the Second Law would be trillions times trillions to one, and the universe is made up of far more than just one calorie of energy!

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

The Big Bang marking the beginning of the universe is amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."


http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big...rity_come_from

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/200...-observations/

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

Why must it have a cause?

everything that begins to exist, has a cause. The universe began to exist, and has therefore a cause. All our empirical experience evidences this fact. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives, since absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing.

Nobody knows what, if anything, is beyond our universe, let alone what properties it has. This seems to be a classic case of - science doesn't fully understand something, therefore Goddidit !

Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, and incredibly powerful. Why does it need to have these characteristics ? This cause cannot exist in the time/space/material universe because then it would exist within the very universe it created. That is impossible.
Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.The cause must be personal because an impersonal force would be deterministic and mechanistic, not possessing free will. A mechanistic being only operates according to the programming it received from something else. But if the cause of the universe received programming from something else, then we have again not provided the answer to the cause of the universe. We have just found a middle-man. The cause had to make a choice to create and only beings who are personal can make choices.That description fits best to the God of the bible.

Or perhaps there are multiple universes and life develops in those universes where the laws of physics allow it. Obviously our universe is one such. Another case of, here's something scientists don't understand, so Goddidit !

there are strong arguments against the multiverse theory. First of all : it does not explain away God. Something would have to trigger these Multiverses to happen.


http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...theses-t20.htm

How are these extraordinary numbers to be explained? The most popular explanation and the one that appeals to Dawkins, is the ‘multiverse’. The idea here is that, unbeknown to us, there are other universes, all slightly different, so that it becomes more likely that in that number, a universe like ours might exist. Davies wrote, “The multiverse theory seeks to replace the appearance of design by the hand of chance.”[9] I have read some accounts that leave one to believe that a relatively small number of other universes would significantly alter the probabilities. That however is clearly not the case.

How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500. It might help to see that number written out. It is 1 with 500 zeroes after it.

Here goes: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000.



http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.c...e-lead-to-god/

McMullin sees only four possible answers: luck, premature science, the multiverse theory, and a Creator God. He rejects “luck” as being wildly unlikely. He rejects premature science because “there are so many coincidences in the laws of nature that it’s not very likely that they could all follow from a simple, single theory.”

the multiverse (of perhaps an infinity of universes) requeres “an enormous additional postulate” and being “quite extreme.” “To postulate something so totally new, something for which there is no evidence at all, is wishful thinking.”

Multiple universes would explain the fine-tuning of our universe, but a fine-tuned “universe generator” for the vast ensemble of multiple universes is still needed.

One can still explain the universe by randomness—this universe is one of a run of universes and big bangs, and ours happened to have the right characteristics for life. Or one can invoke the many-worlds theory: the universe is constantly splitting into many worlds, some of which will be right for life. But to invent myriads of other worlds in order to explain how this one came to be seems to show an addiction to randomness in one's explanatory scheme. It seems more economical (and remember that science often recommends simplicity in explanations) to posit that there were some constraints on the only universe we know that made it right for life.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/bl...isely-planned/

One of the more common explanations seems to be “There was an infinite number of universes, so it was inevitable that things would have turned out right in at least one of them.”
The “infinite universes” theory is truly an amazing theory. Just think about it, if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible… It’s actually happened!
It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year. There’s a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn’t get cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes President of the United States. There’s even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine the possibilities! I might sound like I’m joking, but actually I’m dead serious. To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.

[Pebble]

the easyest way is to have more than just one translation. If you have some doubt, you can compare with a second translation.

if you wish a more indepth answer, please check the thread :

Are the bible translations accurate and trustworthy ?

at my virtual library :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bibl...orthy-t258.htm

Versions versus translations? An interesting distinction, especially when one considers the gospels.

So how do you address these 'translations'? Is there agreement that where two translations give different accounts, either there is room for doubt or is there a majority wins approach? Alternately, does someone claim to have had the real meaning revealed to him/herself and set up a faction based on followers?

[Jules]

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, incredibly powerful. That description fits best to the God of the bible.
2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation.

The reason I find 1) unconvincing is because the implied claim that God is the FIRST cause seems arbitrary. ie; if nothing caused God, then it's not true that EVERYTHING has a cause. If an exception is being made, so that a thing is allowed NOT to have a cause, then why could it not be the universe itself? why go on to posit the existence of some supernatural entity for which there is no evidence?

2) The fact that life is very improbable isn't itself evidence of God. I just don't see the connection. Because an event is massively improbably doesn't imply the existence of a creator, that would be a bit like saying you could never win the lottery unless it's rigged in your favour. Also, had the universe turned out any other way it would have been equally unlikely, and that wouldn't be any more evidence for a creator than the way it has actually turned out.

[smudge]

i believe Theism explains best our existence, and i believe, the God that revealed himself in the bible, is the creator of all that exists. What are my reasons to believe so ?

Hello Javan.
It seems most of your points have been dismantled already by the nice folks here.

If your God created "all that exists" can you tell me who or what created him?
Why would he "reveal himself" in such a confused, contradictory, nasty, violent book as the Bible? Why use a book at all?

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, incredibly powerful. That description fits best to the God of the bible.

How do you know any of this? On what basis do you make these assumptions?

Add to this the moral argument, experience of miracles, the testimony of the bible, and you have a nice case of theism.

What "moral argument"? Are you honestly suggesting the bible is a good moral guide? Have you read it? Even if the bible was a very wise moral book, in what way would this imply the existence of God?

What "miracles"? Please show evidence of such things.

If your imaginary God is capable of such "miracles" please explain to me why in the time it took you to type your argument several innocent, talented, kind, beautiful people, have almost certainly died somewhere on this planet. Perhaps painfully. Perhaps through starvation. Or violent murder. Or lingering illness.
Ask yourself; if you could stop it (because you were an all powerful God) would you? Is any God that would ignore (worse CAUSE!) such things worthy of your worship?

[Watchman]

[QUOTE=Javan502;91031]the easyest way is to have more than just one translation. If you have some doubt, you can compare with a second translation.


Thank you for your reply , it however does not answer my question….which Bible is it that you refer to..? The link you gave only refers to the translations in English…and ,fairly obviously ,the originals were not in English…where does your information come from…what is its point of origin….Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Hebrew scholars..?
I know you won’t see the point but these are important questions. Latin scholars were reinforcing the concept of the Papacy while the Greeks were far more interested in bolstering the Emperor (an over simplification I know but it serves to make a point). Why , for instance , were the gospels of Phillip and Thomas omitted from some versions but included in some Gnostic versions and what about the gospel of Mary Magdelene ? (just think of the problems the Catholic Church could have avoided if they could have just pointed to her gospel when the DaVinci Code came out).
Why does Mathew have quotes from the Book of Enoch but the book itself is not included…is it possible that scriptures may be like the “curate’s egg”.. good in parts ,or is it simple sloppy editing and if it is Gods word, why is any editing needed ?.
You see my problem..?

[Javan502]

[QUOTE=Watchman;91038]

the easyest way is to have more than just one translation. If you have some doubt, you can compare with a second translation.


Thank you for your reply , it however does not answer my question….which Bible is it that you refer to..? The link you gave only refers to the translations in English…and ,fairly obviously ,the originals were not in English…where does your information come from…what is its point of origin….Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Hebrew scholars..?
I know you won’t see the point but these are important questions. Latin scholars were reinforcing the concept of the Papacy while the Greeks were far more interested in bolstering the Emperor (an over simplification I know but it serves to make a point). Why , for instance , were the gospels of Phillip and Thomas omitted from some versions but included in some Gnostic versions and what about the gospel of Mary Magdelene ? (just think of the problems the Catholic Church could have avoided if they could have just pointed to her gospel when the DaVinci Code came out).
Why does Mathew have quotes from the Book of Enoch but the book itself is not included…is it possible that scriptures may be like the “curate’s egg”.. good in parts ,or is it simple sloppy editing and if it is Gods word, why is any editing needed ?.
You see my problem..?

as a true seeker you should not have any problem :

there are excellent bible study tools available on the net, better than ever before, and also sites with direct translation comparsions greek/english etc.

http://www.bcbsr.com/books/sgbs.html

[Pebble]

[QUOTE=Javan502;91040]

as a true seeker you should not have any problem :

there are excellent bible study tools available on the net, better than ever before, and also sites with direct translation comparsions greek/english etc.

http://www.bcbsr.com/books/sgbs.html

Now you have just gone and committed a second sin, too late for repentance.

Your first mortal sin was the long diatribe above cherry pciking bits of physics that you think might impress us, when in reality you already know the truth that the earth, universe and cosmos date to 4004 BC. So are you lying just to try to gain a convert or two, or are you trying to deceive us - either way hell is the only likely reward.

Then you exhibit pride (false modesty) - you know your bible (at least the bits you like) very well, but pretend that we should explore for ourselves - yet again trying to deceive us into checking the field out for ourselves - since you think exposure will lead to enlightenment. Obviously unaware that everyone here has read just as much of the bible as you have - simply drawing different conclusions.

Your biggest sin from a forum perspective - is that you have become boring.

[Watchman]

[QUOTE=Javan502;91040][QUOTE=Watchman;91038]

as a true seeker you should not have any problem :

there are excellent bible study tools available on the net, better than ever before, and also sites with direct translation comparsions greek/english etc.

Thank you for replying again , however you still have not answered my question.
Yes I know there are Bible study tools available on line , there are also instructions on how to build a Spitfire ,and I don’t want those either.
I’m beginning to think you may be being deliberately evasive, although I can see no reason for you to be so.
Anyway I’ll try just once more.
Open your Bible ,(I know you have it to hand) ,now what does it say on the very first page .
Please , as you seem reluctant , just tell me which Bible and I’ll track down which tradition it originates from.

[Javan502]

Hello Javan.
It seems most of your points have been dismantled already by the nice folks here.

If your God created "all that exists" can you tell me who or what created him?

of course. Nobody created God. He always was.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does...od-t77.htm#173

God has always existed, independent from anything he created.Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.So, if there were onces absolutely nothing, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.


The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

Why would he "reveal himself" in such a confused, contradictory, nasty, violent book as the Bible? Why use a book at all?

have you read the bible ?

How do you know any of this? On what basis do you make these assumptions?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...cause-t344.htm

Self-existence because whatever is the cause of the universe must ultimately be uncaused. If it is not, then the argument just moves back one step. There has to be a first uncaused cause.
This cause cannot exist in the time/space/material universe because then it would exist within the very universe it created. That is impossible.
The cause must be incredibly powerful to have created the entire universe and all of its physical laws.

What "moral argument"? Are you honestly suggesting the bible is a good moral guide? Have you read it? Even if the bible was a very wise moral book, in what way would this imply the existence of God?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does...-t186.htm#1248

How do you explain where guilt comes from? How do you explain why
all people in the world have this feeling called a conscience that
seems to tell them that something is wrong, such as murder. How come
people feel a heavy weight on their emotions called guilt when they do
something wrong, such as lie and steal, and the best thing to do to
take the weight off themselves is to tell the truth and/or ask for
forgiveness. If God doesn't exist, then how could you rationally
explain all that?


If life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or as a saint. Since one’s destiny is ultimately unrelated to one’s behavior, you may as well just live as you please. As Dostoyevsky put it: “If there is no immortality then all things are permitted.” On this basis, a writer like Ayn Rand is absolutely correct to praise the virtues of selfishness. Live totally for self; no one holds you accountable! Indeed, it would be foolish to do anything else, for life is too short to jeopardize it by acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Sacrifice for another person would be stupid. Kai Nielsen, an atheist philosopher who attempts to defend the viability of ethics without God, in the end admits,

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me. . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.7

But the problem becomes even worse. For, regardless of immortality, if there is no God, then there can be no objective standards of right and wrong. All we are confronted with is, in Jean-Paul Sartre’s words, the bare, valueless fact of existence. Moral values are either just expressions of personal taste or the by-products of socio-biological evolution and conditioning. In the words of one humanist philosopher, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion.”8 In a world without God, who is to say which values are right and which are wrong? Who is to judge that the values of Adolf Hitler are inferior to those of a saint? The concept of morality loses all meaning in a universe without God. As one contemporary atheistic ethicist points out, “to say that something is wrong because . . . it is forbidden by God, is . . . perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong . . . even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable. . . .” “The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.”9 In a world without God, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments. This means that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, and love as good. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist—there is only the bare valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say you are right and I am wrong.