No.
2007-03-07 19:28:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Let me give you a simple argument called "The Cosmological Argument." The argument is simply this: The cosmos is here and must be explained as to how it got here. This argument is using the law of cause and effect, which states: Every effect must have a preceding and adequate cause (the cause must come first and be adequate). What do I mean by adequate? Well, the building didn’t collapse because a mosquito landed on it. The tsunami didn’t hit because someone threw a pebble into the ocean.
Now, when it comes to explaining the existence of the universe, you only get three possibilities: (1) the universe is eternal (it has always been here), (2) the universe created itself, or (3) something created the universe. There is no other possibility except to claim that the universe is simply an illusion and does not exist. So let’s examine these three possibilities to see which is the most reasonable.
First, is the universe eternal? Absolutely not. We know this is true because of the universally recognized second law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy decay or entropy). This law states that everything goes downhill from order to disorder, more usable energy to less. This law is the reason why heat flows from hot to cold and why this building will fall apart if it is not kept up with. If someone doesn’t believe in the second law of thermodynamics, just challenge them to live forever; even with this awesome machinery we have in our bodies, you will eventually wear out and die. We can see that the universe is running down and wearing out; the stars are burning up, the radioactive atoms are decaying, etc. Given enough time, the universe will experience what they call a “heat death” where there is no more energy available for work (everything will just be low level heat energy); every part of the universe will be the same temperature, and no further work will be possible.
Eternal things obviously do not wear out because they would have had an infinite amount of time to come to their end. Since you cannot have an end without a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning. And everything that has a beginning has a cause. This building had a beginning, you had a beginning, therefore there must have been a preceding and adequate cause. The evolutionists know this and so they came up with the “big bang” theory from that “cosmic egg” (the universe exploded into existence). But there is still a major problem, you have to explain where that “cosmic egg” came from. As it has been said, “There must be a cosmic chicken.” Some scientists like Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov proposed the oscillating universe theory to avoid a beginning. This theory states that the universe acts like a yo-yo; it explodes and then gravity pulls it back in, and then the process repeats itself over and over. But the second law of Thermodynamics still refutes that idea, since each cycle would exhaust more and more usable energy. The universe is not eternal!
Ok, that brings us to the second possibility: Did the universe create itself? I think Hebrews 3:4 answers that pretty well, “...every house is built by someone...” Let’s say I walk into my livingroom and see a crayon drawing of our family on the wall. When I ask my daughter where it came from, will I accept her answer of, “It just appeared there; it came from nothing”? Her grandparents might, but I won’t. It is pretty clear that something cannot bring itself into existence. As R.C. Sproul has said, “It is impossible for something to create itself. The concept of self-creation is a contradiction in terms, a nonsense statement . . . It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power.” As it has been said, “Nothing scratched its head one day and decided to become something.” I’m sorry to have to drop this bombshell on you, but from nothing, comes nothing.
And now the third possibility: Did something create the universe? If the universe is not eternal and could not have created itself, then the only remaining alternative is that the universe was created by something or Someone. This would have to be a transcendent, eternal, self-existing being. I can find only one satisfactory explanation to our conundrum, and that is found in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Someone may argue, “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause; who created God?” The answer is, everything that has a beginning has a cause. God, unlike the universe, did not have a beginning. Time is linked to matter and space (as we can see from Einstein’s general relativity). If God created the universe, then He created time along with matter and space. If God created time, then He is outside of time and doesn’t need a beginning.
What is more absurd, to believe that God Created everything out of nothing or that nothing turned itself into everything? The fact is, we live in a Universe that is an effect. There must be a preceding and adequate cause for it. The only thing that makes sense is a Creator who is more powerful than anything we can imagine.
2007-03-08 19:30:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by Questioner 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think this one is down to personal belief. Me, I don't think so. I've seen no evidence to suggest the existance of any god, be it the Christian one, any of the Roman ones, Eygptian ones, Greek ones, etc. To me, they're all inventions of the human mind to explain the unexplained, and control the masses.
But, if someone does believe, who's to say that God does not exist in their mind, and therefore exist?
2007-03-08 03:32:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Neilos 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
There is no evidence to support any theory of the existence of god. Nor is there any to oppose it. It follows that any theory of god is useless: it can say nothing about anything in the real world.
2007-03-08 03:30:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
If god does exist, he's nothin' but a dead-beat dad. I personally would rather never know he's there, then to know he's there and has abandoned us all....If god exists, I hate him.
2007-03-08 03:30:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Doc 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You just missed him. He was answering questions a couple of hours ago and smitting atheists hip and thigh but has now gone out for a cup of tea and a sandwich. When he gets back I'll tell him you were looking for him.
2007-03-08 04:36:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by John B 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes..He has to..or i have been mad since i was a child..that is the only thing that cud explain what ive seen and heard as a child if there is no God...and if there is no God why has man survived these millions of years? think about it, there are humans out there who eat their boogers and laugh when someone farts...are we ALONE capable of surviving this long? i dont think so ..im-a-thinkin it was divine intervention
2007-03-08 03:33:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by Amber Marie 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
yes
2007-03-08 06:54:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by wb 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
YES.<><
2007-03-08 03:29:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by funnana 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
we're here and i don't want to here any crap about "well given enough trials and enough time, life is made possible." oh please,
OF COURSE GOD IS REAL IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER!
2007-03-08 03:30:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by SouthCali4LifeSD 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
yes
2007-03-08 03:29:26
·
answer #11
·
answered by Starmu 1
·
0⤊
1⤋