Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I know, I must have lost a keystroke there. And no, group hallucinations are impossible. People hallucinate, but never the same thing at the same time in the same setting and repeatedly over and over again in different group sizes, etc. Challenge yourself to search the literature, for none can be found. There are no cited cases in human history.It's actually the DSM-5 Psychology manual. And yes, mental disorders including hallucinations can be shared.The DM-5 Psychology manual says there are no such thing as group hallucinations, that is, involving eyesight. Hysteria is not a hallucination, but an emotional or physical symptom.Mass hallucination / hysteria is well known in the medical community.Far off in the distance events with your eyesight can be misconstrued since they are not up close and personal. Alien abductions are individually just hallucinations, and group hallucinations are impossible. None willingly died for what they knew was a lie.Problems with the Legends Theory
The Resurrection account itself can be traced to the real experiences of the original Apostles even if you disregard the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the other epistles of Peter, James, Jude and John. This can be concluded as follows:
- Paul recounted the oral tradition he received (1 Cor. 15) from the original Apostles he spent time within just five years after the cross (Gal. 1 & 2), but likely he would have heard about it much sooner than that since he was a persecutor of Christians before being saved;
- they set up churches based on the resurrection of Jesus (in Acts and Paul's epistles);
- the fact that James, who did not become a believer until after he saw Jesus resurrected, was an Elder of the church of Jerusalem; and
- various second generation Apostles reported they knew the original Apostles who testified to them that they had seen Jesus alive from the dead.
If embellishments were added over time so that the ending of the account became the resurrection of Jesus, then the original disciples would have given an account which would not have included the resurrection. But these earliest sources are the best evidence we have, and there are no early sources contradicting their eyewitness testimony.
Paul came to Christ through an experience which he thought he encountered the risen Jesus objectively with others present with him whom also at that moment had seen the light, fell to the ground, heard the voice and may have seen the man, but did not understand what was happening as Paul was talking to Jesus.
Since his conversion was based on his personal eyewitness testimony of the appearance of Jesus along with the testimony of the original Apostles having the same eyewitness testimony whom he spent time with, we can be sure legends theory is not possible as people don't willingly die for what they believe to be a lie. All of the original Apostles were put to death for their claim except for John who was imprisoned. Paul almost died seven times in the Scriptures before his final martyrdom in the Neronian persecutions around 65 AD.
With the early martyrdom of James the Greater and Stephen, and Jesus telling the disciples they would be put to death for their eyewitness testimony of having seen Him resurrected, precedence was clearly set in their own hearts, they knew full well what was going to happen to them if they continued to preach the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ being God and died on the cross for the sins of the world, was resurrected the third day, seen the fortieth day ascending to the clouds and gave the Holy Spirit to indwell believers at Pentecost.
Legends theory does not account for the martyrdom of the Apostles in their defense of the resurrection of Jesus. People don't willingly allow themselves to be put to death unless they really believed it, so those original twelve Apostles who spent over three years with Jesus would not set up churches based on the resurrection of Jesus if Jesus did not really rise from the dead. There were no early churches we know of that were not based on the resurrection of Jesus.
If the resurrection occurred they would be in the best position to know it more than anyone. Hence, the original disciples are the best primary source and thus, the key source.
Of all that we can glean from the New Testament, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is the disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. As Gary Habermas puts it, "The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus." The appearances were on multiple occasions with different individuals in places.
Claims of alien abductions, encounters with Bigfoot, sightings of Nessie, etc., can be traced to the real experiences of those with an agenda to pursue.
Mass hallucination - definition of Mass hallucination by Medical dictionary
I challenged myself to research the data and found nothing to indicate that mass hallucinations cannot occur. If you research the data for yourself, you will discover that mass hysteria can incorporate symptoms of mass hallucinations.I know, I must have lost a keystroke there. And no, group hallucinations are impossible. People hallucinate, but never the same thing at the same time in the same setting and repeatedly over and over again in different group sizes, etc. Challenge yourself to search the literature, for none can be found. There are no cited cases in human history.It's actually the DSM-5 Psychology manual. And yes, mental disorders including hallucinations can be shared.The DM-5 Psychology manual says there are no such thing as group hallucinations, that is, involving eyesight. Hysteria is not a hallucination, but an emotional or physical symptom.Mass hallucination / hysteria is well known in the medical community.Far off in the distance events with your eyesight can be misconstrued since they are not up close and personal. Alien abductions are individually just hallucinations, and group hallucinations are impossible. None willingly died for what they knew was a lie.Claims of alien abductions, encounters with Bigfoot, sightings of Nessie, etc., can be traced to the real experiences of those with an agenda to pursue.
Mass hallucination - definition of Mass hallucination by Medical dictionary
There are no known cases in human history of group hallucinations. You should have been able to find one if they were true. Hysteria involving eyes is subject to the law of group hallucinations being impossible since there is no evidence for any in the DSM-5 Psychology Manual or anywhere else in human record. Thanks for proving this to be so.I challenged myself to research the data and found nothing to indicate that mass hallucinations cannot occur. If you research the data for yourself, you will discover that mass hysteria can incorporate symptoms of mass hallucinations.I know, I must have lost a keystroke there. And no, group hallucinations are impossible. People hallucinate, but never the same thing at the same time in the same setting and repeatedly over and over again in different group sizes, etc. Challenge yourself to search the literature, for none can be found. There are no cited cases in human history.It's actually the DSM-5 Psychology manual. And yes, mental disorders including hallucinations can be shared.The DM-5 Psychology manual says there are no such thing as group hallucinations, that is, involving eyesight. Hysteria is not a hallucination, but an emotional or physical symptom.Mass hallucination / hysteria is well known in the medical community.Far off in the distance events with your eyesight can be misconstrued since they are not up close and personal. Alien abductions are individually just hallucinations, and group hallucinations are impossible. None willingly died for what they knew was a lie.
Mass hallucination - definition of Mass hallucination by Medical dictionary
That's not trueAnd there is also the fact that even that simple one celled amoeba had a complex DNA.
And there never was a simple form of a working eye. The eye is an extreme case of complex design.
Infinite Regress is Impossible
1. We observe trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for causation. But if there is this infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point. As you can see, infinite regress in all its varieties (e.g. cycles, multiverses) is inherently contradictory and therefore, false.
Something Can't Come From Nothing
2. Something can't come from nothing (non-existence) either, because that which does not exist can't cause anything. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. Since that which does not exist has no energy, it cannot produce a singularity for the universe. Many times I have heard atheists say, "The properties of the universe are different from the whole, so the composition doesn't need to abide in the law of cause and effect when it was brought into being." Of course, this is doublespeak because for something to be "brought into being" requires a causation.
A Mind is Needed to Create a Mind
3. Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, there must exist that which is outside of nature, that is, outside of time and space which always existed. This is whom we call the uncreated Creator. If you want to compare an always existing timeless singularity to the uncreated Creator, simply observe what we know that that which doesn't have a mind, will, emotion, conscience, intuition or self-consciousness can't produce that which does. The lesser can never produce the greater. There has not even been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to be able to do so. If you claim time is needed to bring about this universe from a causeless singularity but the singularity has no element of time then this universe would never have come into being.
The Resurrection Proof Proves Jesus is God
4. Now that we know the uncreated Creator exists, we can compare. A God who is accessible and personal is better than one that is not. Only in Christianity do we find God enters His creation, dies for the sins of the world and proves He is our Creator by resurrecting Himself from the dead which can only occur supernaturally. Since almost all skeptical scholars concede for good reasons the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and there are no naturalistic explanations that can account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, having exhausted them all, we should submit ourselves to this evidence, because if a person doesn't, he or she will surely go to Hell according to Jesus our Creator.
There are no assumptions, for it is all evidenced (which can't be said of your beliefs).
Infinite Regress is Impossible
1. We observe trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for causation. But if there is this infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point. As you can see, infinite regress in all its varieties (e.g. cycles, multiverses) is inherently contradictory and therefore, false.
There are several assumptions and logical fallacies that are made in this point:
1. That there was nothing before the Big Bang, or before the current iteration of the Universe.
2. That infinite regression applies to creation or the universe, but not God. In other words, if one claims that everything must have a cause then to claim "except God" is committing the logical fallacy of special pleading.
3. Cause and effect are how are brains perceive the direction of time. Because we don't understand time, nor even our perceptions very well, cause and effect may only be only assumed and not given as fact.
By you assuming there was nothing before the universe, the universe could not have come into being.Something Can't Come From Nothing
2. Something can't come from nothing (non-existence) either, because that which does not exist can't cause anything. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. Since that which does not exist has no energy, it cannot produce a singularity for the universe. Many times I have heard atheists say, "The properties of the universe are different from the whole, so the composition doesn't need to abide in the law of cause and effect when it was brought into being." Of course, this is doublespeak because for something to be "brought into being" requires a causation.
This assumes there was nothing before the the Universe as we experience it existed.
Step 1 & 2 show that something in nature can't come from nothing and infinite regress are impossible so the uncreated Creator must exist. This uncreated Creator must have qualities that exceed that of the creation. Since we have a mind, the mind can't come from that which is lesser. For example, a rock can't ever become self-conscious, have feelings of love, free will, ability to reason, intuit, possess a conscience to do right and wrong, have affections of love and hate, desire, sensing of feeling and emotion, etc. The lesser can't exceed the greater. This is proven as Step 1 & 2 are proven, Step 3 follows, for that which exists outside of time and space is greater than the created by definition.A Mind is Needed to Create a Mind
3. Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, there must exist that which is outside of nature, that is, outside of time and space which always existed. This is whom we call the uncreated Creator. If you want to compare an always existing timeless singularity to the uncreated Creator, simply observe what we know that that which doesn't have a mind, will, emotion, conscience, intuition or self-consciousness can't produce that which does. The lesser can never produce the greater. There has not even been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to be able to do so. If you claim time is needed to bring about this universe from a causeless singularity but the singularity has no element of time then this universe would never have come into being.
This assumes that consciousness can't evolve from naturalistic mechanisms. This has yet to be proved or disproved and so can only be an assumption.
It also incorrectly does calculations on the probability of life evolving from naturalistic mechanisms. This is better explained here:
Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance
The Resurrection Proof Proves Jesus is God
1. The sacrifice of Jesus is original for their are no known sacrifices and resurrections prior to Jesus. None of those in your list were resurrections. Some have tried to attach a resurrection to ancient figures but they did this after the time of Christ. They all fail the test of bodily resurrection.4. Now that we know the uncreated Creator exists, we can compare. A God who is accessible and personal is better than one that is not. Only in Christianity do we find God enters His creation, dies for the sins of the world and proves He is our Creator by resurrecting Himself from the dead which can only occur supernaturally. Since almost all skeptical scholars concede for good reasons the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and there are no naturalistic explanations that can account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, having exhausted them all, we should submit ourselves to this evidence, because if a person doesn't, he or she will surely go to Hell according to Jesus our Creator.
1. The self-sacrificing savior story is not original to Christianity, nor even unique to it.
The World s Sixteen Crucified Saviors Christianity Before Christ Amazon Books
2. Many religions have martyrs, like those who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Dying for what believe does not mean what you believe true.
This argument doesn't pass rigorous analysis and is therefore not convincing or even compelling.
Well actually, and as I noted, mass hysteria can havs as a manifestation, mass hallucination.There are no known cases in human history of group hallucinations. You should have been able to find one if they were true. Hysteria involving eyes is subject to the law of group hallucinations being impossible since there is no evidence for any in the DSM-5 Psychology Manual or anywhere else in human record. Thanks for proving this to be so.I challenged myself to research the data and found nothing to indicate that mass hallucinations cannot occur. If you research the data for yourself, you will discover that mass hysteria can incorporate symptoms of mass hallucinations.I know, I must have lost a keystroke there. And no, group hallucinations are impossible. People hallucinate, but never the same thing at the same time in the same setting and repeatedly over and over again in different group sizes, etc. Challenge yourself to search the literature, for none can be found. There are no cited cases in human history.It's actually the DSM-5 Psychology manual. And yes, mental disorders including hallucinations can be shared.The DM-5 Psychology manual says there are no such thing as group hallucinations, that is, involving eyesight. Hysteria is not a hallucination, but an emotional or physical symptom.Mass hallucination / hysteria is well known in the medical community.
Mass hallucination - definition of Mass hallucination by Medical dictionary
Other than your "because I say so" commandment. what evidence can you submit for your statement that DNA is the result of supernatural "design"?D
That's not trueAnd there is also the fact that even that simple one celled amoeba had a complex DNA.
And there never was a simple form of a working eye. The eye is an extreme case of complex design.
DNA is complex by design. It has a designer. Because of it and it's tendency to auto correct, it is the reason we are not walking on all of the bones of all of the mutants, (in all the species), and missing links there would have to be if Darwin was correct. If monkeys turn into man, then you should be able to reach down and pick up incomplete almost man bones everywhere.
And do we just over look the fact that Darwin was quite mad?
Part, Have I introduced you to Hollie?
You never showed anywhere where there were any group hallucinations.Well actually, and as I noted, mass hysteria can havs as a manifestation, mass hallucination.There are no known cases in human history of group hallucinations. You should have been able to find one if they were true. Hysteria involving eyes is subject to the law of group hallucinations being impossible since there is no evidence for any in the DSM-5 Psychology Manual or anywhere else in human record. Thanks for proving this to be so.I challenged myself to research the data and found nothing to indicate that mass hallucinations cannot occur. If you research the data for yourself, you will discover that mass hysteria can incorporate symptoms of mass hallucinations.I know, I must have lost a keystroke there. And no, group hallucinations are impossible. People hallucinate, but never the same thing at the same time in the same setting and repeatedly over and over again in different group sizes, etc. Challenge yourself to search the literature, for none can be found. There are no cited cases in human history.It's actually the DSM-5 Psychology manual. And yes, mental disorders including hallucinations can be shared.The DM-5 Psychology manual says there are no such thing as group hallucinations, that is, involving eyesight. Hysteria is not a hallucination, but an emotional or physical symptom.
Maybe check your manual for what you may have missed.
DNA has a cause, but infinite regress is impossible so it needs a supernatural cause from outside of time and space.Other than your "because I say so" commandment. what evidence can you submit for your statement that DNA is the result of supernatural "design"?D
That's not trueAnd there is also the fact that even that simple one celled amoeba had a complex DNA.
And there never was a simple form of a working eye. The eye is an extreme case of complex design.
DNA is complex by design. It has a designer. Because of it and it's tendency to auto correct, it is the reason we are not walking on all of the bones of all of the mutants, (in all the species), and missing links there would have to be if Darwin was correct. If monkeys turn into man, then you should be able to reach down and pick up incomplete almost man bones everywhere.
And do we just over look the fact that Darwin was quite mad?
Part, Have I introduced you to Hollie?
You neglected to append the obligatory "because I say so" to your argument.DNA has a cause, but infinite regress is impossible so it needs a supernatural cause from outside of time and space.Other than your "because I say so" commandment. what evidence can you submit for your statement that DNA is the result of supernatural "design"?D
That's not trueAnd there is also the fact that even that simple one celled amoeba had a complex DNA.
And there never was a simple form of a working eye. The eye is an extreme case of complex design.
DNA is complex by design. It has a designer. Because of it and it's tendency to auto correct, it is the reason we are not walking on all of the bones of all of the mutants, (in all the species), and missing links there would have to be if Darwin was correct. If monkeys turn into man, then you should be able to reach down and pick up incomplete almost man bones everywhere.
And do we just over look the fact that Darwin was quite mad?
Part, Have I introduced you to Hollie?
Infinite Regress is Impossible
1. We observe trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for causation. But if there is this infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point. As you can see, infinite regress in all its varieties (e.g. cycles, multiverses) is inherently contradictory and therefore, false.
Something Can't Come From Nothing
2. Something can't come from nothing (non-existence) either, because that which does not exist can't cause anything. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. Since that which does not exist has no energy, it cannot produce a singularity for the universe. Many times I have heard atheists say, "The properties of the universe are different from the whole, so the composition doesn't need to abide in the law of cause and effect when it was brought into being." Of course, this is doublespeak because for something to be "brought into being" requires a causation.
A Mind is Needed to Create a Mind
3. Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, there must exist that which is outside of nature, that is, outside of time and space which always existed. This is whom we call the uncreated Creator. If you want to compare an always existing timeless singularity to the uncreated Creator, simply observe what we know that that which doesn't have a mind, will, emotion, conscience, intuition or self-consciousness can't produce that which does. The lesser can never produce the greater. There has not even been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to be able to do so. If you claim time is needed to bring about this universe from a causeless singularity but the singularity has no element of time then this universe would never have come into being.
The Resurrection Proof Proves Jesus is God
4. Now that we know the uncreated Creator exists, we can compare. A God who is accessible and personal is better than one that is not. Only in Christianity do we find God enters His creation, dies for the sins of the world and proves He is our Creator by resurrecting Himself from the dead which can only occur supernaturally. Since almost all skeptical scholars concede for good reasons the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and there are no naturalistic explanations that can account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, having exhausted them all, we should submit ourselves to this evidence, because if a person doesn't, he or she will surely go to Hell according to Jesus our Creator.
It's backed up by trillions of cause and effects we observe in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing. This is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. All you have is you say so.You neglected to append the obligatory "because I say so" to your argument.DNA has a cause, but infinite regress is impossible so it needs a supernatural cause from outside of time and space.Other than your "because I say so" commandment. what evidence can you submit for your statement that DNA is the result of supernatural "design"?D
That's not trueAnd there is also the fact that even that simple one celled amoeba had a complex DNA.
And there never was a simple form of a working eye. The eye is an extreme case of complex design.
DNA is complex by design. It has a designer. Because of it and it's tendency to auto correct, it is the reason we are not walking on all of the bones of all of the mutants, (in all the species), and missing links there would have to be if Darwin was correct. If monkeys turn into man, then you should be able to reach down and pick up incomplete almost man bones everywhere.
And do we just over look the fact that Darwin was quite mad?
Part, Have I introduced you to Hollie?
The universe did not always exist because if it had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It doesn't matter how many universes you think there are, the same problem exists with your theory.
Infinite Regress is Impossible
1. We observe trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for causation. But if there is this infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point. As you can see, infinite regress in all its varieties (e.g. cycles, multiverses) is inherently contradictory and therefore, false.
Something Can't Come From Nothing
2. Something can't come from nothing (non-existence) either, because that which does not exist can't cause anything. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. Since that which does not exist has no energy, it cannot produce a singularity for the universe. Many times I have heard atheists say, "The properties of the universe are different from the whole, so the composition doesn't need to abide in the law of cause and effect when it was brought into being." Of course, this is doublespeak because for something to be "brought into being" requires a causation.
A Mind is Needed to Create a Mind
3. Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, there must exist that which is outside of nature, that is, outside of time and space which always existed. This is whom we call the uncreated Creator. If you want to compare an always existing timeless singularity to the uncreated Creator, simply observe what we know that that which doesn't have a mind, will, emotion, conscience, intuition or self-consciousness can't produce that which does. The lesser can never produce the greater. There has not even been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to be able to do so. If you claim time is needed to bring about this universe from a causeless singularity but the singularity has no element of time then this universe would never have come into being.
The Resurrection Proof Proves Jesus is God
4. Now that we know the uncreated Creator exists, we can compare. A God who is accessible and personal is better than one that is not. Only in Christianity do we find God enters His creation, dies for the sins of the world and proves He is our Creator by resurrecting Himself from the dead which can only occur supernaturally. Since almost all skeptical scholars concede for good reasons the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and there are no naturalistic explanations that can account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, having exhausted them all, we should submit ourselves to this evidence, because if a person doesn't, he or she will surely go to Hell according to Jesus our Creator.
We didn't come from nothing.
What you fail to grasp is that something has always existed and something will always exist. Long after our universe dies another one will form and long before our universe other universes existed. The universe always was is and will be. No need for a god. Why can't the universe be eternal but a god can?
There was never a beginning and there will never Be an end.
If we are so special why weren't we on the scene until about a million years ago? And what's god gonna do with the universe when were gone?
Not true. I didn't mean this universe stupid. A universe before ours.The universe did not always exist because if it had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It doesn't matter how many universes you think there are, the same problem exists with your theory.
Infinite Regress is Impossible
1. We observe trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for causation. But if there is this infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point. As you can see, infinite regress in all its varieties (e.g. cycles, multiverses) is inherently contradictory and therefore, false.
Something Can't Come From Nothing
2. Something can't come from nothing (non-existence) either, because that which does not exist can't cause anything. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. Since that which does not exist has no energy, it cannot produce a singularity for the universe. Many times I have heard atheists say, "The properties of the universe are different from the whole, so the composition doesn't need to abide in the law of cause and effect when it was brought into being." Of course, this is doublespeak because for something to be "brought into being" requires a causation.
A Mind is Needed to Create a Mind
3. Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, there must exist that which is outside of nature, that is, outside of time and space which always existed. This is whom we call the uncreated Creator. If you want to compare an always existing timeless singularity to the uncreated Creator, simply observe what we know that that which doesn't have a mind, will, emotion, conscience, intuition or self-consciousness can't produce that which does. The lesser can never produce the greater. There has not even been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to be able to do so. If you claim time is needed to bring about this universe from a causeless singularity but the singularity has no element of time then this universe would never have come into being.
The Resurrection Proof Proves Jesus is God
4. Now that we know the uncreated Creator exists, we can compare. A God who is accessible and personal is better than one that is not. Only in Christianity do we find God enters His creation, dies for the sins of the world and proves He is our Creator by resurrecting Himself from the dead which can only occur supernaturally. Since almost all skeptical scholars concede for good reasons the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and there are no naturalistic explanations that can account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, having exhausted them all, we should submit ourselves to this evidence, because if a person doesn't, he or she will surely go to Hell according to Jesus our Creator.
We didn't come from nothing.
What you fail to grasp is that something has always existed and something will always exist. Long after our universe dies another one will form and long before our universe other universes existed. The universe always was is and will be. No need for a god. Why can't the universe be eternal but a god can?
There was never a beginning and there will never Be an end.
If we are so special why weren't we on the scene until about a million years ago? And what's god gonna do with the universe when were gone?
Thus nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.
God says the New City has no need of the sun in eternity future. The first God-conscious man, a person who never ceases to exist, was born 4004 BC. Pre-Adamic men before that ceased to exist when they died as the body from dust (Gen. 2.7).
It is illogical to ask why God did it when He did for it is His prerogative outside of time and space.
So then, of these "trillions of cause and effects", Shirley, you can provide a few relevant examples of the objective data that demonstrate the "supernatural cause from outside of tine and space".It's backed up by trillions of cause and effects we observe in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing. This is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. All you have is you say so.You neglected to append the obligatory "because I say so" to your argument.DNA has a cause, but infinite regress is impossible so it needs a supernatural cause from outside of time and space.Other than your "because I say so" commandment. what evidence can you submit for your statement that DNA is the result of supernatural "design"?D
That's not true
DNA is complex by design. It has a designer. Because of it and it's tendency to auto correct, it is the reason we are not walking on all of the bones of all of the mutants, (in all the species), and missing links there would have to be if Darwin was correct. If monkeys turn into man, then you should be able to reach down and pick up incomplete almost man bones everywhere.
And do we just over look the fact that Darwin was quite mad?
Part, Have I introduced you to Hollie?
You're stupid since I said it doesn't matter how many universes you think there are the same problem with your theory exists. Infinite regress is impossible.Not true. I didn't mean this universe stupid. A universe before ours.The universe did not always exist because if it had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. It doesn't matter how many universes you think there are, the same problem exists with your theory.
Infinite Regress is Impossible
1. We observe trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for causation. But if there is this infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point. As you can see, infinite regress in all its varieties (e.g. cycles, multiverses) is inherently contradictory and therefore, false.
Something Can't Come From Nothing
2. Something can't come from nothing (non-existence) either, because that which does not exist can't cause anything. Nothing always leaves nothing from nothing. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same. Since that which does not exist has no energy, it cannot produce a singularity for the universe. Many times I have heard atheists say, "The properties of the universe are different from the whole, so the composition doesn't need to abide in the law of cause and effect when it was brought into being." Of course, this is doublespeak because for something to be "brought into being" requires a causation.
A Mind is Needed to Create a Mind
3. Since nature can't always have existed nor start up from nothing, there must exist that which is outside of nature, that is, outside of time and space which always existed. This is whom we call the uncreated Creator. If you want to compare an always existing timeless singularity to the uncreated Creator, simply observe what we know that that which doesn't have a mind, will, emotion, conscience, intuition or self-consciousness can't produce that which does. The lesser can never produce the greater. There has not even been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to be able to do so. If you claim time is needed to bring about this universe from a causeless singularity but the singularity has no element of time then this universe would never have come into being.
The Resurrection Proof Proves Jesus is God
4. Now that we know the uncreated Creator exists, we can compare. A God who is accessible and personal is better than one that is not. Only in Christianity do we find God enters His creation, dies for the sins of the world and proves He is our Creator by resurrecting Himself from the dead which can only occur supernaturally. Since almost all skeptical scholars concede for good reasons the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and there are no naturalistic explanations that can account for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, having exhausted them all, we should submit ourselves to this evidence, because if a person doesn't, he or she will surely go to Hell according to Jesus our Creator.
We didn't come from nothing.
What you fail to grasp is that something has always existed and something will always exist. Long after our universe dies another one will form and long before our universe other universes existed. The universe always was is and will be. No need for a god. Why can't the universe be eternal but a god can?
There was never a beginning and there will never Be an end.
If we are so special why weren't we on the scene until about a million years ago? And what's god gonna do with the universe when were gone?
Thus nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.
God says the New City has no need of the sun in eternity future. The first God-conscious man, a person who never ceases to exist, was born 4004 BC. Pre-Adamic men before that ceased to exist when they died as the body from dust (Gen. 2.7).
It is illogical to ask why God did it when He did for it is His prerogative outside of time and space.
You do know stars die and are born every day right? Hell every second.
That's how big the universe is. Infinite.
As we have seen it doesn't matter how big the universe is since infinite regress is impossible. So nature proves the uncreated Creator.The people who invented god didn't understand how big the universe is.
Giordano Bruno tried to explain but they didn't want to hear it. They were wrong about the universe and wrong about god.
I can't explain it to you I'd you believe in Jesus Jo or mo so...
