Science Disproves Evolution

I did not say everything must have a cause. Take another look. I said "All things that came into existence were caused to exist."

There is no internal logical inconsistency. You are comparing apples with snakes. The universe is physical. God is spiritual. That is a huge difference.

In logic, if you begin with an erroneous premise, you end with an erroneous conclusion, and vise versa.

We live in, among other things, a time dimension where one event follows another. Time passes. Everything ages. Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes. We would be confused if they didn’t. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the first cause, and even harder to imagine what, if anything, preceded “The First Cause.”

Just as God created the universe and everything in it, God also created time. There was a beginning of everything, including space and time. Consequently, God is outside of space and time. This means that God is unchanging (I Sam 15:29, Mal 3:6, Heb 6:17, James 1:17). He had no beginning and has no ending.

Also, and more pertinent to the question, from God’s perspective an effect does not follow a cause. He sees the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13). Asking who made God before time began reflects a lack of understanding—even though most of us at one time have pondered the question. No one made God; He is infinite and outside of time, and He existed before time began.

Seeing things from God’s infinite perspective is probably as hard for us as it is for a dog or cat to understand what is on this printed page. If God is infinite and we are His finite creations, our limited understanding and perspective should not surprise us.

How else do we know that time began? The Bible is the most widely read book of all time. Within it, the most read page is probably the first page of Genesis. The first three words on that page

“In the beginning ...”

are probably the best-known group of three words of all time—the single, most widely proclaimed idea. By reading the fourth word, one sees that God was there at the beginning.

Another key insight comes from John 1:1.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Again, there was a beginning; we are also told Who was there when time began. Verses 1:2, 3, and 14 clarify these profound events even more.


In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - References and Notes

Seriously, why is it the same old atheists go up to Christians daily and ask the "What caused God" question, pretending the Christians can't possibly have an answer, while ignoring the answer Christian give. Then they come back or go to other Christians asking them the same thing, still pretending as if it somehow blows a hole in Christian theology and still pretending the Christians don't have an answer.

So what is wrong with the assumption that the primordial atom had no cause and was just there - equally as valid in this logical scenario as saying God has no cause

Firstly - I am not an atheist.

Second - Creationist keep stating that the big bang is not logical because everything must have a first cause but God does not need a first cause. This is a logical inconsistency. If you can state that God exists with out a first cause - then you logical must say that it is plausible that the universe does not have a first cause.

Because you are saying matter has always existed, which is disproved by science:

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

I did not say that matter always existed - the primordial atom is a place holder - we do not know what it was so we call it an atom. what ever it was our language does not have the words to accurately describe it, nor our current state of knowledge even to accurately define what it was - it existed outside of all known laws of science and nature as they exist at the moment.

Your description of the primordial atom looks a lot like God.

It doesn't to me. It is stating the idea of a first cause, but the property of being the first cause is not synonymous with God. Being the first cause is a property that God has, but there are many other potential first causes throughout many philosophies that do not have the other property of God, or a god in general. All this is saying is that this concept and God share one property in common, and not a very important one for the definition of God or gods.

I'm against calling this concept the primordial atom because it makes it very confusing. Obviously it isn't an atom in the sense that we use the word today.

I don't think that all atheists claim this to be the case, but I would bring it up in conversations if I had to show that the idea of a first cause doesn't necessitate a god. I think one of the biggest problem with the cosmological argument (being used to talk about god) is that it doesn't come close to implying a god, but simply a first cause.

Since that first cause is intelligent enough and powerful enough

I don't think that all atheists claim this to be the case, but I would bring it up in conversations if I had to show that the idea of a first cause doesn't necessitate a god. I think one of the biggest problem with the cosmological argument (being used to talk about god) is that it doesn't come close to implying a god, but simply a first cause.

Because you are saying matter has always existed, which is disproved by science:

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

Since that first cause is intelligent enough and powerful enough to create everything and everyone, is it not logical to assume He is God?

Excuse me.................

Aaaaaagh, Ha, Ha ,Ha!!!

What do I find hilarious? Your lack of logic.
Listen, every effect has a cause, and every cause has an effect.
This is rudimentary Newtonian law.

What I find particularly funny is how you suspend all the known laws of the physical universe.
Just to hold your beliefs. (Try flying sometime)
Your abrogation of logic as it applies to the physical universe strikes me as humorous.
- - What you are claiming is an effect that caused itself, and this proposition is madcap three stooges humor; no matter how you case it.

I never stated anything I believed.Yes you did I just started some of the other conclusions someone can come to from the cosmological argument.I know, that was what was so funny I never even said I accepted the cosmological argument as sound.I know, you said exactly that it wasn't.

Why the objection? I am just reacting to what you said.

What you are claiming is an effect that caused itself, and this proposition is madcap three stooges humor; no matter how you case it