View RSS Feed

everstill

  1. What are the Rules of Something from Nothing?

    An atheist once said to me that since nothingness does not exist it has no rules, so there are no rules preventing non-existence from creating or causing something to happen. The flaw in that thinking is that though it is true nothingness has no rules, there is nothing for it to prevent since there is just nothing, so remains non-existence always non-existent. You can be confident in saying nothing always leaves nothing from nothing.

    Another way you can respond to this is to say since nothingness has no rules it has no rule to cause something, so nothingness can't cause anything. It likewise has no rules to prevent something, but since there is not anything then there is nothing to prevent. If theoretically there was something to prevent then 'no rule to cause something' and 'no rule to prevent something' are contradicting each other. That which is self-contradictory is flawed in its reasoning. Either way you approach this problem, something still can't come from nothing.

    The reason why a billion pound gorilla can't stomp NYC is because it doesn't exist. The reason why there are no square circles that can cause other shapes (assuming they could) is because square circles don't exist. Does a square circle have no rules to prevent the creation of rectangles? It has no such rules but since there is only nothing (no rectangles or triangles for that matter), there is nothing to prevent. A square circle has no rule to cause something either so it can't cause something. If there was something 'it has no rule to prevent,' again, that would be self-contradictory to 'having no rule to cause things.' That which is self-contradictory is inherently flawed in its approach; so that false approach is to play with nothingness as though it could have rules or no rules.

    Nothingness is simply non-existence, and giving rules or no rules to it is a false approach because it has neither rule nor no rules. Having no rules is itself a rule. So you can't have nothingness with a rule of no rules since non-existence has no rules. We only have evidence for cause and effect from something, no hard evidence of something from nothing. We observe trillions of cause and effects and not one iota of evidence of something from nothing. Let us rest on the evidence and the evidence alone without having to be cute about rules or no rules. I am satisfied with that fact.

    The same atheist also said to me that the mechanics of nothingness need to ...
  2. Why Am I a Christian?

    The reason I am a Christian is because I don’t know how to disprove the proof for God and who God is.

    I see trillions of cause and effects in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing, so this evidence is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to know that the first event of the universe like all the events of the universe has a cause and can’t come from nothing (i.e. non-existence). Non-existence can't produce anything as it does not exist. Claiming non-existence caused existence belongs in the loony bin!

    And there can’t be an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature either, because if there had been, you would have, by that very definition, an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And you should never have existed because a past eternity of nature would go on forever never reaching this point of your existence. So a past eternity of nature is inherently contradictory and a man-made superstition.

    Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated whom we call God. But God can’t have morals below our own so He must have perfect morality. He can't be inaccessible (an absentee landlord, i.e. deistic) for that is beneath us, contrary to our own way of being, for we entreat our fellow man in need or at least we should. He is not impersonal for we are personal beings. He must have a mind because a mind is needed to create a mind: the lesser can't produce the greater: a mind can't originate from lesser non-consciousness. He has self-consciousness, because consciousness is needed to create consciousness in creatures. Life has a soul, that divine spark of life when spirit makes contact with the body, which can't be explained solely by the dust of the ground by itself.

    There are only 3 religions or faiths on the planet that are accessible and pervasive enough worth taking a gander at for a personal God: Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. We know Islam is false because you can’t come along six centuries later without anything to support your claim that Jesus never died on the cross or even went to the cross. Otherwise, you could spout off anything as being the truth. But we are evidentialists not suppositionalists.

    Hinduism fails because its god is said to be amoral which is below our own morality. And reincarnation, coming back as a chicken if you are overly sinful, ...