God and Court?

Question

In courts of law, you can't convict someone unless you have adequate evidence of their guilt, because without adequate evidence, a guilty verdict would not be justified. Many claim that what goes in courts of law should go in everyday life; you are justified in believing something only if you have adequate evidence for it. Could we say the same for the existence of God?

Hilarious the answers I receive in order to continue an argument appealing to the supernatural in a world of logic.

Answer 1

Absolutely.

Let me give you one of the many arguments for the existence of God, "The Cosmological Argument." The argument is 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. As Psalm 102:26 says, the heavens “will wear out like a garment.” Given enough time, the universe will experience what some 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.

Answer 2

The courtroom is a song and dance in reality... whomever does the best singing and dancing wins the case, unless irrefutable evidence is on hand to bash the jury or judge over the head with and even THEN sometimes heads retreat into the sand where politically or agenda makes it easiest to do so.

Life is the same way... people believe what they want to believe, cut and paste religious texts, and do their song and dance to get people to believe or accept their pov. Where irrefutable evidence arises, people either understand it and hang on or they stick their heads in the sand.

_()_

Answer 3

This is not true of courts, not to long ago I saw on the news where a man was convicted of murdering his wife even though there is no body. And when they went to the place where someone said he had buried her their was no evidents of a body ever being there. So you can't use that as your argument, it won't hold up in court

Answer 4

God has given plenty of evidence for His existence. That people choose to reject it is the problem.

God has revealed Himself in two ways: through general revelation (nature, etc.) and His Word (which has been attacked for millennia, yet remains to this day).

"For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes-his eternal power and divine nature-have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-20)

Answer 5

Read the prophecies concerning the signs of the times, then take a step back and look at the state of the world compared to what you read. Once you do all that, you'll have the answer, and He will be waiting for you to accept Him.

Answer 6

you're no longer required to swear on a Bible or to point any god/s on your oath to tell the certainty on the stand. i've got rather never heard that area in genuine life, in elementary terms on television.

Answer 7

What is God guilty of? Prove that and you got a case.