HAve you ever had a person that is always bringing up the "evolution theory" or what they think science has proven to try to convince you that God doesnt exist?
If you have i would encourage you to get your hands on: LEE STROBELS 3 disc film collection :THE CASE FOR CHRIST-THE CASE FOR FAITH-THE CASSE FOR A CREATOR.
These films are full of valuable information for those tough questions that sometimes may make us fell iferior to those who try to use science to disprove the existence of God.
Also visit WWW.INTELLIGENTDESINGVERSUSEVOLUTION.COM*** GOD BLESS.!!!
OR! We can just talk about it here (: and I would be glad to answer your questions! (:
1-888-888-1906
>> FORUM HOME
|
|
About •
Track Order •
Outreach •
Wholesale •
Employment •
How We Give •
Customer Service
• FAQ • Locations • Corporate • Need Jesus? • Affiliates • Blog
• FAQ • Locations • Corporate • Need Jesus? • Affiliates • Blog
C2:8 Christian T-shirts, Inc ©2013 -
-
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
16 replies on this topic
CraigSnedeker - 1/17/12 @ 7:56 AM
thanks for the link man :)
PutHisBloodOnIt - 1/17/12 @ 8:43 AM
He also has a bible out that has alot of good info and historical info and the story of how he become a believer is pretty neat to.
Thirst - 1/17/12 @ 2:32 PM
Aye, I've heard a lot of good things about those. My church gives them out for free, in fact, though the books, not the dvds.
My personal favorite 'defence' is according to the laws of everything must have a beginning and that something cannot come from nothing, the big bang theory is invalidated. The atom that exploded must have come from some other source. Wherever that source came from, must also have a source, and so on, and so forth. At some point there must be something that does not follow these two laws. The only object or being to fit this description is God.
That is all
John - 1/17/12 @ 2:53 PM
The link isn't working for me.
Ryan - 1/17/12 @ 3:37 PM
Id have to disagree with the big bang theory being invalidated by the cause/effect argument since the big bang theory does not speak of a cause, it is just the event that occurred. You are more then welcome to believe that a god caused the big bang. But the cause and effect argument also creates an issue with a god hypothesis since then that god would also need a creator, and to say that it doesn't would be to argue special pleading since the premise of the argument is everything must have a beginning. Either way neither science nor religion know for sure what happened before the big bang. just my opinion :)
Thirst - 1/17/12 @ 7:46 PM
Didn't you miss my main point? Something has to exist that doesn't operate according to those two laws, and the only thing that we know of that follows that description is God
Ryan - 1/17/12 @ 8:32 PM
I dont know if we can say that we know god is the answer to that question because god itself is unproven, as well as physics tells us that something can come from "nothing". Although I know this being a christian website many will disagree. If we are going to make the assumption of a uncaused cause then why not stop at what we know is to exist and say the uncaused cause is itself the universe. I dont see any reason to think that the original cause was not a natural process,every phenomenon that we have so far observed has so far been shown to have natural origin, most times not right away but in due time.We have no basis on which to say that this event must have been supernatural in origin. No one knows what came before the big bang and to say god did it without going forward in investigating seems to be a god of the gaps argument. Lawrence Krass sheds a good amount of light on the cosmological subject, it in no way gives a definitive answer but the most plausible and natural explanation.
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326860653&sr=8-1
Jordan Dean - 1/17/12 @ 8:34 PM
Lol I love how Ryan is completely oblivious to the fact that the whole point of a divine creator (God) is that He does not require a cause because He is the initial cause which is why He is "divine". He said "I am the Alpha" which means He is the beginning: the inventor of this universe and the laws of science within it. The first cause argument doesn't work with God since He does not need to abide by science. If He was required to abide by scientific, earthly laws, how could He have created them?
Overall, without God, there is an infinite problem with the "cause and effect" issue since every effect needs a cause and therefore, there can't be an initial cause without something that defies science.
I just proved there must be a creator and I don't even have a science degree. God made it easy for everyone to understand yet for some reason all the "genius" evolutionists don't get it.
Jordan Dean - 1/17/12 @ 8:43 PM
"every phenomenon that we have so far observed has so far been shown to have natural origin"
That is because we have never observed the first phenomenon which resulted in every other phenomenon.
"We have no basis on which to say that this event must have been supernatural in origin"
If it was a natural origin, it would need an initial cause and that cause would need an initial cause, etc.
"No one knows what came before the big bang"
No one observed the big bang therefore no one knows the big bang ever took place.
"without going forward in investigating seems to be a god of the gaps argument"
Assuming a natural phenomenon (as if a massive implosion resulting in people playing xbox billions of years later is "natural") created the universe when there is no foundation or fact but only theory and continuous research hoping to fill the gaps in the evolutionary process is an evolution of the gaps argument.
Ryan - 1/18/12 @ 9:31 AM
In reply to Jordan...You cant say you have proved the existence of a god within 1 paragraph,you have made assumptions but the evidence remains the same. Could there have been a divine creator? Sure,but the "proof" (which is a very strong word) is still lacking for that positive claim. We have evidence that the big bang took place as we can clearly observe the background radiation left over from it.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/
You also keep you using theory in the incorrect manner as I have shown you in the past, a theory does not mean what you think it means (no foundation,non factual) according to the US national Academy of Sciences a scientific theory is...."The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."
Btw did you decided what university to attend yet? I know you were looking at some last time.
Thirst - 1/18/12 @ 2:30 PM
Thanks Jordan, you explained it perfectly 'high five'
Jordan Dean - 1/18/12 @ 3:32 PM
"We have evidence that the big bang took place"
And that "evidence" is all you have
"a theory does not mean what you think it means (no foundation,non factual)"
If a theory was a fact, it wouldn't be a theory, it'd be a fact.
"It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"
A theory is indeed "supported by a vast body of evidence" just as creation is a theory supported by a vast body of evidence.
"Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially"
Notice the use of the words "many", "likely", and "substantially".
"no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun"
Satellites have visually proven this.
"or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms"
Ever hear of the scanning tunneling microscope (STM). This is also proven through observation.
"they [theories] can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."
And predictions are all they can make.
And yes, I'm going to attend UCONN for their ROTC program. Getting my Bachelor's in political science, do 6 years in the Air Force Special Forces, and then continue onto an Ivy League law school (Yale most likely).
Spirit in the Sky - 1/18/12 @ 3:40 PM
What created 'existence'? What was before 'existence'?
'nothing'? but nothing by its very nature (or lack thereof) does not exist; being cannot come from nonbeing
existence exists
therefore - existence always existed
I am THAT I am - Exodus
God is
Ryan - 1/18/12 @ 4:26 PM
In reply to jordan... You have a misunderstanding of science and how the scientific method works as I have tried to show you, I could show you evidence after evidence and it would be for not. Hopefully when you get to Uconn you can see these misconceptions in a different light.
Jordan Dean - 1/18/12 @ 6:31 PM
Ryan - I understand the scientific method quite well; I even went to a source extremely bias against creationism and we share the same definition of the scientific method.
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/a/ScientificMethod.htm
I could show you evidence after evidence that there must be a God and it would be meaningless. Hopefully you learn to understand and accept the truth before it's too late.
Alpha - 1/22/12 @ 6:05 PM
*sigh*
to hop into the conversation...
What is "the universe"?
To help answer that you have to try to contemplate what is "not-the-universe". I use the the word "try" because our minds are incapable of picturing a true Void.
The Universe is All Time, All Matter, and All Space (these three things are very importantly related, but that understanding isnt dire for the extent of understanding it in laymans terms), outside the universe is no time, no matter and no space - it is not describable in itself, but merely of what it lacks. To speak strictly in terms pertaining to our physical existence, there is nothing outside of the universe.
All of the Scientific Laws we have discovered are laws of our universe, they rule our physical plane of existence, but apply only to this realm that we call "The Universe."
To try to make things less abstract, the existence of time, matter and space require some form of order, or "law". However, outside of these things, there is no need or requirement for this form of order, because there is nothing to bring order to. (all this is, of course, strictly physical.)
So what's this have to do with the Big Bang or Creation?
The fact that the laws of science are only a byproduct of the universe makes it stand to reason that prior to the "existence" of the universe, there would be none of these laws, and hence no requirement for cause and effect.
but that explanation is either inadequate or over-explaining...because outside of the universe, there is no "time"...making it impossible for a "prior" to exist. it is a very impossible concept to grasp and envision.
in conclusion, it just doesnt make sense to ask for a cause of the universe, because this sense of "cause" only pertains to the universe we occupy, and we have no way of knowing any other thing.
EDIT: Me and my un-edumacated self explains it very poorly :P but i hope it kinda is legible enough to start the idea to present enough that it can be held to the fire of each's own mind and perhaps follow the tiny taste of truth that slipped thro my unintelligible mumble of words =P