Ya. Are there? I know there are atheists. And I know there are scientists. But in the area of origins, are there any atheists who possess or adhere to knowledge that was obtained through systematised study? Are there atheists who have reached their conclusions about how the universe came to be via general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method?
I don’t see it. As soon as the Big Bang was confirmed, science and atheists seem to have gone their separate directions; the latter making their home firmly in the land of mythology and science fiction. The age old creed of science, “follow the evidence” has simply been ignored by the majority of atheists who used to do genuine science. The new creed is, "Follow The Money" and write a book.
I know. That's not entirely fair. Some atheists are brave enough to least acknowledge the obvious:
Arthur Eddington - “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”
Nobel prize winner Arno Penzias - “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”
Physicist Freeman Dyson - ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”
Stephen Hawking - “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
Anthony Flew - "The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance." Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in God.
From the point of view of integrity and honour, those comments sound encouraging. However, except for a few honest men like Flew, the deeply held bias that goes with out saying in atheism causes atheists to shake their heads, furrow their brows and turn away from the evidence.
It is the atheist’s determination to not follow any evidence that might point to God that keeps him from accepting the obvious. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” When there are several possible answers to the ideas that arise re: Beginnings, how does one keep internal bias from discarding opposing evidence or a conflicting hypothesis of equal validity? In this case, atheists don’t. They go with their bias.
On virtually every atheist blog that I read, I’m astonished by comments that, given the evidence, seem completely irrational to me, while seeming completely satisfactory to those who wrote them. For example,
. Atheist physicist Victor Stenger states, “So where did the laws of physics come from? They came from nothing.”
That is the logic and reason of atheism. As far as I can tell, Stenger has not been sanctioned or rebuked by any fellow atheists for making such an un scientific statement. In fact, making claims that go against the same scientific principles they hold dear, seems to be allowable to atheists as long as those statements muddy the thinking regarding the possibility of Creator God existing. Here are some more statements that, when compared to how scientists say they operate, well, it’s puzzling that they would allow themselves to work in this manner.
. Smithsonian paleobiologist, Douglas Erwin, “One of the rules of science is, no miracles allowed. That’s a fundamental presumption of what we do” (italics mine).
Even though the universe came into being outside of and prior to the existence of the laws of science, which is a working definition of a miracle, Erwin simply says, “Nah ah,” and goes on his merry way.
Biologist Barry Palevitz, “The supernatural is automatically off-limits as an explanation of the natural world” (italics mine).
Astronomer and physicist Lee Smolin, If the universe started at a point in time, “This leaves the door open for a return of religion. The theory is to be criticized as being unlikely on these grounds”
How in the world can a scientist, someone who says that s/he is dedicated to following the evidence where ever it leads, leave out a whole category of evidence just because it goes against h/her world view?
Are there atheist scientists? If there are, they’re few and far between.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Atheism and Mythology
Well, it’s happened. Atheism has devolved into full blown mythology. Part of me says it’s unbelievable, but another part realises that it had to happen. This just in from CNN.
“Researchers at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland constructed a computer model to create a synthetic galaxy with billions of stars and planets. They then studied how life evolved under various conditions in this virtual world, using a supercomputer to crunch the results.”
Good grief Charley Brown! They don’t even know how life evolved in this world! And now they’re projecting how life came about somewhere else? At least at this point in the article the myth is still recognised as such. But listen to what happens as the game progresses.
“In a paper published recently in the International Journal of Astrobiology, the researchers concluded that based on what they saw, at least 361 intelligent civilizations have emerged in the Milky Way since its creation, and as many as 38,000may have formed.”
Speculation is gone. We now have a new fantasy to live by. Listen in as we’re shown how these atheists zoom past speculation and move right on to relating to this new “reality.”
“Duncan Forgan, a doctoral candidate at the university who led the study, said he was “Surprised by the hardiness of life on these other worlds.”
Well slap my forehead.
"Forgan said. “I half-expected [extinction] events to disallow the rise of intelligence, and yet civilizations seemed to flourish."
When dealing with the question of “Where is everybody,” in this suddenly crowed universe, the mythological story has been expanded to,
"Civilizations come and go. Chances are, if you do happen to find a planet which is going to have intelligent life, it's not going to be in [the same] phase of [evolution] us.
Oh my! What ever happened to the good old days when science was science - observe, repeat, verify?
“Researchers at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland constructed a computer model to create a synthetic galaxy with billions of stars and planets. They then studied how life evolved under various conditions in this virtual world, using a supercomputer to crunch the results.”
Good grief Charley Brown! They don’t even know how life evolved in this world! And now they’re projecting how life came about somewhere else? At least at this point in the article the myth is still recognised as such. But listen to what happens as the game progresses.
“In a paper published recently in the International Journal of Astrobiology, the researchers concluded that based on what they saw, at least 361 intelligent civilizations have emerged in the Milky Way since its creation, and as many as 38,000may have formed.”
Speculation is gone. We now have a new fantasy to live by. Listen in as we’re shown how these atheists zoom past speculation and move right on to relating to this new “reality.”
“Duncan Forgan, a doctoral candidate at the university who led the study, said he was “Surprised by the hardiness of life on these other worlds.”
Well slap my forehead.
"Forgan said. “I half-expected [extinction] events to disallow the rise of intelligence, and yet civilizations seemed to flourish."
When dealing with the question of “Where is everybody,” in this suddenly crowed universe, the mythological story has been expanded to,
"Civilizations come and go. Chances are, if you do happen to find a planet which is going to have intelligent life, it's not going to be in [the same] phase of [evolution] us.
Oh my! What ever happened to the good old days when science was science - observe, repeat, verify?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
I Don’t Need God To Be Good!!
That’s become a standard part of atheist liturgy. The question is, is it true?
In trying to make a case for rejecting atheism, some Christians have voiced the argument that without God we’d all be out there pillaging and raping. In a more realistic vein, Dostoyevski has said, “Without God, all things are permissible.” What he means is, without God there’s no such thing as objective right or wrong. Without God, all we have are likes and dislikes; all we have are helpful and unhelpful behaviours. On the other hand just because something is permissible, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we’ll immediately do it - usually.
Christopher Hitchens poses the question, “If it was suddenly proven that God did not exist, would we all go out and commit horrendous acts?” Hitchens asks this question with his trademark sneer, and all the atheists in the audience laugh out loud. While on the verge of laughing themselves, Christian members of the same audience furrow their brow instead. They know that at one level Hitchens is almost right, but he’s almost wrong as well. How so? Well, it’s obvious that some functional atheists (those who think, talk and behave as though God doesn’t exist) only commit what humans call minor offences. And it’s obvious that some theists commit horrendous crimes. Clearly, some people will and some people won’t do wrong in the absence of God, just as they did or didn’t do those things while God was thought to exist. The problem is that Hitchens has left out of the equation what people do when those whom the Bible calls “God’s representatives on earth” are also taken out of the picture.
For example, we’ve all seen the reports of what happened after the fall of Saddam or after a natural disaster or during a riot or during celebrations of the home team's big win. In situations where the police are overwhelmed or where they can’t make it to the scene, in situations where the police or the government falls, chaos ensues. Would Christopher Hitchens go and loot a store if he knew for certain that he wouldn’t be caught? I suspect not, but who knows? If the window of a liquor store was broken out by a riot and Chris was standing on the sidewalk with no police around? Someone who is reading this, the same person who immediately slows down upon seeing a radar trap might know right now that s/he would in fact reach through the broken store window and grab what’s available. Society uses security cameras for a reason. We have traffic cameras and radar traps for a reason. Hitchens laughs at the prospect but reality is, people do behave better when they know they are being watched.
So, is that why some Christians say we’d all run rampant if God was removed from the picture? I suppose that’s part of it. What I do know is that prior to becoming a Christian, I was a much worse person than I am now. The world has paid a high price for my existence. Hopefully I can balance that out somewhat during whatever time I might have left. I also know that all those who became Christians later in life will be able to say the same thing about their existence. Further, those of us who became Christians later in life know beyond doubt that it is God Himself who has brought about quite an amazing change of character in us. What’s more, He seems intent on continuing this growth until the day we die.
Good for me. Good for us. Good for the world.
Could this change in character have happened without outside help? I suppose it could have but I don’t think it would have, at least not to this degree. Upon hearing this, I’ve had many an atheist tell me that I must be really weak and pitiful in character. Yes, well, they’re right. I couldn’t agree more. It truly was amazing grace that saved a wretch like me.
So I wonder. Could it be that those of us who accept Jesus’ invitation are in fact worse people than those who reject His offer? When Jesus said that He came to seek and to save the lost, are we “more lost” than those who are offended by the mere suggestion that they need saving? Those who flocked to Jesus in the Bible did so for two reasons. First they came because they knew that He could deliver what they didn't have. Second, to hound and harass Him because they were offended that He thought they needed saving.
In general, atheists as a group appear to see themselves as quite honourable people. Just like the Pharisees did in Jesus' time. Atheists view themselves as men and women of integrity. Of course they HAVE to see themselves in this light. As an atheist, if I tell myself that I don’t need God in order to be a good person, then in order to maintain that belief I really must believe that I AM a good person. On the other side of the tracks, we Christians fairly revel in our corrupt nature. “Look!” we cry. “Look at who God chose to love! I’m a lying, bigoted, hypocritical, adultering scoundrel and God said, “Today you will be with Me in paradise.”” We who follow Jesus believe that without God we really WOULD be doing awful things, and the reason that we believe this is because without God we really did awful things.
Does that mean that atheists likewise grovel in the gutter as we once used to do? Is it that they just don’t know they’re in the gutter? Not necessarily. While it’s true that many atheists are nothing more than brute beasts, most are probably socially functional and acceptable. On the other hand, the comment, “I don’t need God to be good,” invites the question, “So why aren’t you good?” Atheists don't even live up to their own code of ethics, never mind God's. The fact is, no one is good in a true sense and that’s obvious. Some are better than others while some are worse than most but none of us are good. Every motive of every action is tainted to some degree with corrupted self-love. No one has to teach us to put ourselves first. No one has to teach us to lie or to take what doesn’t belong to us. No one has to teach us to hit someone so as to release frustration. These things come naturally to us. From day one heaven help anyone who stands between us and the fulfilment of our desires..
Jesus said that no one will ever be good enough to be good enough for Heaven. Why? Because our character, our nature is the problem. It’s not what we do, per se but why we do it that’s the problem. Our very nature is “desperately wicked. Who can understand it?” Christopher Hitchens says, Christianity poisons everything. I would say,
Human beings poison everything, including Christianity.
Oh, about the title line? I for one do need God to be good. Simply reading His Word has a calming effect on me. Praying has a humbling effect. Talking with brothers and sisters in Christ infuses me with hope. Listening for God’s guidance creates an enduring desire to do good for others. None of this was present prior to my forgiven and healed relationship with Jesus. If you believe you have a good heart without the help of your Creator, well, good for you, I guess. I hope that when you’re old and alone your philosophy sees you through to the end.
In trying to make a case for rejecting atheism, some Christians have voiced the argument that without God we’d all be out there pillaging and raping. In a more realistic vein, Dostoyevski has said, “Without God, all things are permissible.” What he means is, without God there’s no such thing as objective right or wrong. Without God, all we have are likes and dislikes; all we have are helpful and unhelpful behaviours. On the other hand just because something is permissible, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we’ll immediately do it - usually.
Christopher Hitchens poses the question, “If it was suddenly proven that God did not exist, would we all go out and commit horrendous acts?” Hitchens asks this question with his trademark sneer, and all the atheists in the audience laugh out loud. While on the verge of laughing themselves, Christian members of the same audience furrow their brow instead. They know that at one level Hitchens is almost right, but he’s almost wrong as well. How so? Well, it’s obvious that some functional atheists (those who think, talk and behave as though God doesn’t exist) only commit what humans call minor offences. And it’s obvious that some theists commit horrendous crimes. Clearly, some people will and some people won’t do wrong in the absence of God, just as they did or didn’t do those things while God was thought to exist. The problem is that Hitchens has left out of the equation what people do when those whom the Bible calls “God’s representatives on earth” are also taken out of the picture.
For example, we’ve all seen the reports of what happened after the fall of Saddam or after a natural disaster or during a riot or during celebrations of the home team's big win. In situations where the police are overwhelmed or where they can’t make it to the scene, in situations where the police or the government falls, chaos ensues. Would Christopher Hitchens go and loot a store if he knew for certain that he wouldn’t be caught? I suspect not, but who knows? If the window of a liquor store was broken out by a riot and Chris was standing on the sidewalk with no police around? Someone who is reading this, the same person who immediately slows down upon seeing a radar trap might know right now that s/he would in fact reach through the broken store window and grab what’s available. Society uses security cameras for a reason. We have traffic cameras and radar traps for a reason. Hitchens laughs at the prospect but reality is, people do behave better when they know they are being watched.
So, is that why some Christians say we’d all run rampant if God was removed from the picture? I suppose that’s part of it. What I do know is that prior to becoming a Christian, I was a much worse person than I am now. The world has paid a high price for my existence. Hopefully I can balance that out somewhat during whatever time I might have left. I also know that all those who became Christians later in life will be able to say the same thing about their existence. Further, those of us who became Christians later in life know beyond doubt that it is God Himself who has brought about quite an amazing change of character in us. What’s more, He seems intent on continuing this growth until the day we die.
Good for me. Good for us. Good for the world.
Could this change in character have happened without outside help? I suppose it could have but I don’t think it would have, at least not to this degree. Upon hearing this, I’ve had many an atheist tell me that I must be really weak and pitiful in character. Yes, well, they’re right. I couldn’t agree more. It truly was amazing grace that saved a wretch like me.
So I wonder. Could it be that those of us who accept Jesus’ invitation are in fact worse people than those who reject His offer? When Jesus said that He came to seek and to save the lost, are we “more lost” than those who are offended by the mere suggestion that they need saving? Those who flocked to Jesus in the Bible did so for two reasons. First they came because they knew that He could deliver what they didn't have. Second, to hound and harass Him because they were offended that He thought they needed saving.
In general, atheists as a group appear to see themselves as quite honourable people. Just like the Pharisees did in Jesus' time. Atheists view themselves as men and women of integrity. Of course they HAVE to see themselves in this light. As an atheist, if I tell myself that I don’t need God in order to be a good person, then in order to maintain that belief I really must believe that I AM a good person. On the other side of the tracks, we Christians fairly revel in our corrupt nature. “Look!” we cry. “Look at who God chose to love! I’m a lying, bigoted, hypocritical, adultering scoundrel and God said, “Today you will be with Me in paradise.”” We who follow Jesus believe that without God we really WOULD be doing awful things, and the reason that we believe this is because without God we really did awful things.
Does that mean that atheists likewise grovel in the gutter as we once used to do? Is it that they just don’t know they’re in the gutter? Not necessarily. While it’s true that many atheists are nothing more than brute beasts, most are probably socially functional and acceptable. On the other hand, the comment, “I don’t need God to be good,” invites the question, “So why aren’t you good?” Atheists don't even live up to their own code of ethics, never mind God's. The fact is, no one is good in a true sense and that’s obvious. Some are better than others while some are worse than most but none of us are good. Every motive of every action is tainted to some degree with corrupted self-love. No one has to teach us to put ourselves first. No one has to teach us to lie or to take what doesn’t belong to us. No one has to teach us to hit someone so as to release frustration. These things come naturally to us. From day one heaven help anyone who stands between us and the fulfilment of our desires..
Jesus said that no one will ever be good enough to be good enough for Heaven. Why? Because our character, our nature is the problem. It’s not what we do, per se but why we do it that’s the problem. Our very nature is “desperately wicked. Who can understand it?” Christopher Hitchens says, Christianity poisons everything. I would say,
Human beings poison everything, including Christianity.
Oh, about the title line? I for one do need God to be good. Simply reading His Word has a calming effect on me. Praying has a humbling effect. Talking with brothers and sisters in Christ infuses me with hope. Listening for God’s guidance creates an enduring desire to do good for others. None of this was present prior to my forgiven and healed relationship with Jesus. If you believe you have a good heart without the help of your Creator, well, good for you, I guess. I hope that when you’re old and alone your philosophy sees you through to the end.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Isn't It Weird?
Isn't it weird how before we become a Christian, we think we're pretty good people. We believe that we've arrived. After we become a Christian, or rather just before that decision is made, God opens our eyes to the wretched state of affairs that is our lives. From that point onward the closer we get to becoming like Jesus, the more clearly we see how much further we need to go. We see that we aren't anywhere close to arriving. In fact we've just barely begun. And here's the real kicker. The more clearly we see our true nature, the better we feel because with each click of reality, Jesus infuses Himself into our inner being. Isn't that weird?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Anybody could say those things
As ridiculous as it sounds, that’s what I hear from atheists regarding the prophecy that said, ‘Israel will disappear as a nation. Then far down the road, in the “latter years of history” Israel will be brought back into existence again and all the nations of the world will revolve around it. Israel will be like a stone around the neck of the world.
Atheists read that and say, “Anybody could say that about any country and it might happen.” And they’re serious! It’s my belief that anyone who makes those kind of comments simply don’t understand the mathematically prohibitive odds of something like that coming true by accident.
As astonishing as the prophecies of Jesus and Israel are, here’s one that I find especially amazing. In the Bible it was foretold that:
. A magnificent temple for the Lord would be built. This temple would become the centre of worship for Israelites. The temple would become the symbol of Israel’s national identity.
. Because of Israel’s disobedience the temple would be destroyed.
. Another temple would be built; less physically impressive than the first.
. The second temple would also be destroyed (this took place in AD 70) but not before Messiah Himself would come “suddenly” to the temple.
. Jesus the Christ would cause people from all the nations of earth to worship the God of Israel, Creator God, Yaweh, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
. Jesus the Christ would be brutally killed and by His death He would provide atonement for all people’s sins.
. This killing of Messiah would take place BEFORE the second temple was destroyed.
That what was prophesied hundreds and in a couple cases over one thousand years in advance.
Think about that! It's important!
Thousands of years before Jesus was born, God caused his prophets to foresee not only what race, what nation and what town the Messiah would be born in. Not only was it predicted how He would be killed. God, in the form of Jesus did come to this second temple before it was destroyed, and before Israel as a nation was destroyed. And this Jesus HAS caused people from around the world to abandon their former philosophy of life so they could worship, actually worship Creator God - Israel’s God. There are currently two billion people from almost every nation on earth who have placed their trust in this Jesus, just as predicted several thousand years ago.
Do you get that? Do you have ears that can hear what has been done?
This is not luck. This is not chance. This is supernatural. This is more proof that Creator God exists.
The Book that atheists derisively call a bronze age book (just as though time has bearing on Truth), this Book says that after these things have happened, Jesus will come again, this time bringing Peace and Justice to earth. Peace and Justice are what atheists demand of God - NOW! Trouble is, when Jesus comes again, evil and all those who persist in doing evil will be cast out from the presence of the Lord, for all time.
We can know that His second coming will happen because His first coming took place exactly as predicted, exactly when it had to happen, just before the second temple was destroyed and just before Israel ceased to exist as a nation.
These things have happened. They happened, not by luck but by the power of God. The Bible is supernatural. It’s amazing. It is a sign of God’s existence.
Atheists read that and say, “Anybody could say that about any country and it might happen.” And they’re serious! It’s my belief that anyone who makes those kind of comments simply don’t understand the mathematically prohibitive odds of something like that coming true by accident.
As astonishing as the prophecies of Jesus and Israel are, here’s one that I find especially amazing. In the Bible it was foretold that:
. A magnificent temple for the Lord would be built. This temple would become the centre of worship for Israelites. The temple would become the symbol of Israel’s national identity.
. Because of Israel’s disobedience the temple would be destroyed.
. Another temple would be built; less physically impressive than the first.
. The second temple would also be destroyed (this took place in AD 70) but not before Messiah Himself would come “suddenly” to the temple.
. Jesus the Christ would cause people from all the nations of earth to worship the God of Israel, Creator God, Yaweh, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
. Jesus the Christ would be brutally killed and by His death He would provide atonement for all people’s sins.
. This killing of Messiah would take place BEFORE the second temple was destroyed.
That what was prophesied hundreds and in a couple cases over one thousand years in advance.
Think about that! It's important!
Thousands of years before Jesus was born, God caused his prophets to foresee not only what race, what nation and what town the Messiah would be born in. Not only was it predicted how He would be killed. God, in the form of Jesus did come to this second temple before it was destroyed, and before Israel as a nation was destroyed. And this Jesus HAS caused people from around the world to abandon their former philosophy of life so they could worship, actually worship Creator God - Israel’s God. There are currently two billion people from almost every nation on earth who have placed their trust in this Jesus, just as predicted several thousand years ago.
Do you get that? Do you have ears that can hear what has been done?
This is not luck. This is not chance. This is supernatural. This is more proof that Creator God exists.
The Book that atheists derisively call a bronze age book (just as though time has bearing on Truth), this Book says that after these things have happened, Jesus will come again, this time bringing Peace and Justice to earth. Peace and Justice are what atheists demand of God - NOW! Trouble is, when Jesus comes again, evil and all those who persist in doing evil will be cast out from the presence of the Lord, for all time.
We can know that His second coming will happen because His first coming took place exactly as predicted, exactly when it had to happen, just before the second temple was destroyed and just before Israel ceased to exist as a nation.
These things have happened. They happened, not by luck but by the power of God. The Bible is supernatural. It’s amazing. It is a sign of God’s existence.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Atheists and Christians? We’re a lot alike!
It’s very tempting to look at others who think differently than we and then assume or feel that they are part of another species. It’s easier to denigrate and demonize that way. Still, Christians and atheists are similar in many areas.
. Both think the other is unbelievably stupid
. Both think the other is living out wishful thinking
. Both are obsessed with the concept of a Creator God
. Both think the other lacks reason and intellectual honesty
. Both think the quality of their lives is enhanced by their beliefs
. Both accept and believe things that they simply don’t understand
. Both think the other is making the world a worse place in which to live
. Both formulate “logical” reasons why they don’t believe what the other one believes
. Both sides rarely admit to the fact that they indoctrinate their children with their beliefs.
. Both beliefs require faith.
- Atheists’ faith is in their powers of intellect
- Christian faith is in the person of Jesus the Christ.
. Both are born in rebellion to the idea that a God exists to whom they will someday
be accountable.
. Atheists maintain that position throughout their lives by adhering to evidence that supports their position and discarding evidence that doesn’t.
. Christians have come to free their thinking and change their minds through spiritual and intellectual exploration. Christians come to their position by admitting and accepting evidence that cannot be successfully challenged or refuted.
. Both think the other is unbelievably stupid
. Both think the other is living out wishful thinking
. Both are obsessed with the concept of a Creator God
. Both think the other lacks reason and intellectual honesty
. Both think the quality of their lives is enhanced by their beliefs
. Both accept and believe things that they simply don’t understand
. Both think the other is making the world a worse place in which to live
. Both formulate “logical” reasons why they don’t believe what the other one believes
. Both sides rarely admit to the fact that they indoctrinate their children with their beliefs.
. Both beliefs require faith.
- Atheists’ faith is in their powers of intellect
- Christian faith is in the person of Jesus the Christ.
. Both are born in rebellion to the idea that a God exists to whom they will someday
be accountable.
. Atheists maintain that position throughout their lives by adhering to evidence that supports their position and discarding evidence that doesn’t.
. Christians have come to free their thinking and change their minds through spiritual and intellectual exploration. Christians come to their position by admitting and accepting evidence that cannot be successfully challenged or refuted.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
In The Beginning
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the Big Bang.
In their quest for answers regarding the origins of the universe, and imagining themselves to be rational inquisitors, atheists say that they follow the evidence wherever it takes them.
Ah - not so much. Because the implications are so distasteful for them, atheists are barely willing to accept the two words “Big Bang.” Some in fact perform mental contortions to avoid the implications of the universe having a beginning. Their narrow and irrational definition of “evidence” causes atheists to a priori reject the first five words of the verse with hardly a blink of the eye. The contradiction between what they say and what they do passes right over their heads.
John 1:1-5 says: - “In the beginning was the Reasoning Mind (Logos) and the Mind was with God and the Mind was God. / In the beginning was the Cause of the beginning of the universe. / In the beginning the Cause of the beginning of the universe was the Mind and the Cause was with God and the Cause was God. / Through the Mind all things have had a beginning. / All things that have a beginning were given a beginning by the Mind. What the Mind gave a beginning to was Life. / And this life was a light to live by. / The light shines in the darkness but atheists have not understood it.”
In their quest for answers regarding the origins of the universe, and imagining themselves to be rational inquisitors, atheists say that they follow the evidence wherever it takes them.
Ah - not so much. Because the implications are so distasteful for them, atheists are barely willing to accept the two words “Big Bang.” Some in fact perform mental contortions to avoid the implications of the universe having a beginning. Their narrow and irrational definition of “evidence” causes atheists to a priori reject the first five words of the verse with hardly a blink of the eye. The contradiction between what they say and what they do passes right over their heads.
John 1:1-5 says: - “In the beginning was the Reasoning Mind (Logos) and the Mind was with God and the Mind was God. / In the beginning was the Cause of the beginning of the universe. / In the beginning the Cause of the beginning of the universe was the Mind and the Cause was with God and the Cause was God. / Through the Mind all things have had a beginning. / All things that have a beginning were given a beginning by the Mind. What the Mind gave a beginning to was Life. / And this life was a light to live by. / The light shines in the darkness but atheists have not understood it.”
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Jesus Came to Earth to Bring us Freedom
I spoke in my last post about "free thinkers" who believe that following Chrisitanity was a sign of being a sheep, of being "not free." I used to believe that as well. That was before Jesus ran me to ground. Now, everything has changed.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have the freedom to have wonderful, deep and abiding peace. I have the freedom to have peace in the thick of adversity, peace in the midst of conflict, peace in the face of opposition, peace beneath the weight of every burden. I have the freedom to lie down and sleep in peace knowing that the Creator of the Universe provides for my safety.
Besides all that, I have freedom to experience joy. I have found that, no matter what the circumstance, no matter how filled with gloom the prospect, no matter how discouraging or disconcerting the difficulty - I can nevertheless tap that reservoir of joy which God has placed into every human heart that has come to Him through Christ. The assurance of His pardon, His power, His presence in every scene of life, has emptied my life of gloom and sadness and filled it with a high and holy gladness. Jesus came to earth to proclaim, in part, a religion of joy. Wherever He went, throughout His earthly life, He brought joy to the sorrowing, cheer to the downcast, and gladness to those who were sitting in the shadow of death. His earthly ministry restored joy to human hearts which had been languishing in the shackles of sin and sadness. He came to do that for me! Jesus says to His followers, "These things I have spoken to you that My joy might remain in you and that your joy might be full." Jesus has given me a joy that is so deep, so firm, so sure that the trials of life are but as the ripples on the surface of the sea.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from worry. I have freedom to be filled with passion for the most worthy cause on earth, that of furthering the kingdom of God. I have freedom from slavery to sin, freedom to obey my Creator, freedom to have patience in the face of frustration, freedom to know the will of God, and freedom from guilt.
Besides all that, I have freedom to become more spiritual than any seeker of worldly spirituality, for my soul, encased in this earthly shell is now the residence of God’s Holy Spirit. He uplifts my troubled soul. He is my unfailing comforter. He corrects me. He counsels me. He is my teacher who sanctifies me. I thank the Spirit of the Living God for the assurance He brings me on a daily basis. He brings me blessed and holy quietness. He revives me with life and with power. He cleanses and renews me. He bends me and remakes me. He gives me faith and I live an abundant life because of that faith. I am so very thankful for the Holy Spirit, for He has kindled a flame of sacred love in this once cold, cold heart of mine.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to know that God is pleased with me, freedom to sacrifice for others without feeling used, freedom to have a clear conscience, freedom to actually become a good person in the eyes of God, freedom from bitterness, freedom to be gentle toward those who are hostile toward me. I have freedom to submit to others from a position of inner strength and confidence, and I have the freedom to not only experience grace from God, but the freedom to extend that grace to others.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to love others, freedom to take a one-down position and not lose one iota of value or worth, freedom from anxiety, freedom from the fear of death, freedom from the fear of other people, freedom from the fear of anything that life wants to bring my way. I have the freedom to serve Jesus, freedom to be kind toward those who are not kind toward me, and freedom to do the right thing even when I’m strongly tempted to do the wrong thing.
Besides all that, I have freedom to have an inexhaustible Source of spiritual and moral power. By simply trusting Jesus, He has promised me pardon for my sin, peace for my soul, strength in the hour of trouble, courage in the face of difficulty, power in the moment of temptation - and I receive this pardon, peace, and power simply by trusting that He will keep His promise.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from resentments, freedom to look forward to eternity, freedom to become a man of integrity, freedom from self-centeredness, and freedom to be thankful, wonderfully, wonderfully thankful. I have the freedom to admit that everything that I have is from God and from Him alone, freedom from the need to be rich, freedom to be wronged without it becoming a big deal and I have found the freedom to learn and to grow into Christ-likeness in every single situation.
Besides all that, I have the freedom to hope. The New Testament is filled with messages of hope. I have "the hope of the gospel," "the hope of the promise," "the hope of His calling," "the hope which is laid up for me in heaven," "our hope of glory," "hope in our Lord Jesus Christ," "that blessed hope," "the hope of eternal life," "the full assurance of hope," "the hope we have as an anchor," "a lively hope" and on and on it goes. This is not some pious wish, but a hope in the sense of a sure confidence. The Christian’s hope, since it is rooted in the person of Jesus Christ is a hope of which I am not ashamed, a hope that is as sure as Jesus Christ Himself is sure. The future holds for me more good that I cold ever hope for.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from my past, freedom from anger, freedom from seeking self-worth in possessions, freedom from the need for popularity, and freedom to love and to be loved without reservation or self-protection.
Besides all that, I have freedom to experience new mercies from God every single day. They are countless, constant, and sure. They greet me in the morning and gladden my heart at noon. They follow me into the shades of night. Because of God’s mercies, there is never a sorrow that I experience that Jesus does not come into with His presence, power and comfort. Neither is there a burden that He doesn’t bear. Jesus’ mercies shall follow me all the days of my life; they endure forever and ever.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to admit that I need to change, freedom to revel in the new song of righteousness, freedom from the need for power, freedom from spiritual darkness, freedom to first identify and then to have healthy, kind, generous, and loving friends. I have freedom from shame, freedom from having to be ‘right,’ and the freedom to trade the lessor and unstable god of self-esteem, for the glorious and solid provision of Christ-esteem.
Besides all that, I have genuine happiness. Not happiness as the world understands it, based on one pleasure inducing event after another. No, I have the real deal, because there is only one place where we find real happiness, and that is down at the feet of the crucified Saviour, because only there can we be freed from our sins.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to know the difference between life-giving and life-destroying behaviours, freedom from insecurity, freedom to not feel constrained by the rules of our society, freedom to have a life of meaning and context and purpose, freedom to know the difference between right and wrong, freedom to rejoice in being alive, freedom from the trap of bigotry, freedom from greed, freedom from envy and freedom to come to God with boldness and confidence because I’m shielded by His mercy and grace.
Besides all that, I have been given the freedom to know, to really know the person of Truth. He has revealed to me truth about God, truth about man, truth about life, truth about death, truth about myself, truth about heaven and the truth about hell.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to know what it’s like to have enough no matter the circumstance, freedom to find pure rest for my soul, freedom to know with certainty that because of my faith, every morning I can put on the breast-plate of God’s approval and to know that God will never leave me or give up on me.
Besides all that, I have freedom to have God either lighten my burden to match my strength, or increase my strength to match the burden. And without fail I have received His strength: strength to stand in the midst of the storm, strength to outlast the bombardment of pain, strength to bear the burden of the cross, strength to resist the onslaught of sin - or having fallen, to tread the path of the prodigal back to the Father’s house and to be assured of full and free forgiveness. These victories are by no means mine. Left to myself, to my own puny powers of resistance or endurance, I will fall short every single time. "Not that I am sufficient in myself, but my sufficiency is of God."
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from making huge life-decision mistakes, freedom to have a good marriage, freedom from confusion and second guessing, freedom from pride, freedom to give justice, but not to seek it, and I have the freedom to understand that all the good that happens in my life is like a stream that is leading me directly back to the Source.
Besides all that, I have freedom to be a brand new creation. His power has displaced hate with love, sorrow with joy, relational war with peace. His power took this man who was morally rotten and transformed me into a trophy of grace. Halleluiah - God be praised!
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from condemnation, freedom to have mercy lavished upon me, freedom from fake and shallow friendships, freedom to NOT say, "Lord, come into my life and change my pain," but, "Lord, come into my pain and change me." I have freedom to suffer with and for Jesus, and freedom to forgive.
Besides all that, I have freedom from judgment. He has blotted out my wrongs. He has cleansed me from sin. He is only interested in my broken and contrite heart and today I can praise God because Calvary covers all my sins, past, present, and future. How amazing! How incredible! How wonderful!
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from the need to achieve, freedom to look forward to tomorrow, freedom from God’s wrath, freedom from putting me first, freedom from the need for position, freedom from the feeling of alienation, freedom to be bathed in the soothing warmth of God’s enormous Love, freedom from dependence on false gods, freedom to have patience in the midst of suffering, and I have the freedom to become more than a conqueror.
Besides all that, I have the freedom to know Who to thank when I’m grateful, for every good and perfect gift is from God. He is the righteous One. I celebrate His glory. I acknowledge His sovereignty. I rejoice and sing the wonders of His grace. How great is my Lord and my Saviour!
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to inherit all of God’s riches, freedom to understand the Gospel message, freedom to know that I’m a disciple that Jesus loves. Great God of wonders, I proclaim your majesty! I exalt your deity! Your eyes are upon the righteous. Your ears are open to their cry. You are near to those whose hearts are breaking. You save those who have a contrite spirit. You are perfect in power, in love, and in purity. May You alone be exalted!
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to have total assurance in God’s promises for forgiveness, for strength and for eternity. Is faith in this God, as the world sees it, a crutch? Yes, and more than that. Jesus is my stretcher, my chariot, my sole support in each and every circumstance. After all, to what would we look to for help if not to that which is stronger than ourselves? Jesus has tested me and I now know that in every scene of life - in joy and sorrow, in success and failure, in health and in sickness, in moments of crisis when all lesser gods give way, I have trusted Jesus and have found that He is able to carry both me and my burden and bring me safely to the other side. With Paul and with believers of all ages I can say: "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him until the Day when He returns." I and all other Christians have the Divine assurance of comfort in sorrow, strength in sickness, solace in bereavement, help in distress, and ultimate triumph in the midst of dire calamity. And this assurance is signed and sealed in the blood of the Son of God Himself. The world has known no higher guarantee.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have the freedom to do something valuable until my dying breath, freedom to not only accept, but to enjoy my weaknesses, and I have the freedom to give away my time, my money and my self.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have the freedom to counter my culture, and the freedom to find contentment in every single situation. This contentment comes from knowing beyond any doubt that, "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" "My God will supply ALL my needs."
Finally, because of my relationship with Jesus, I have the freedom to say to life,
"Rain on, I will not drown, for I am standing on higher ground!"
None of these freedoms were mine prior to my healed relationship with Jesus. I was like a ship in the middle of the ocean with no navigational system. I could go any direction I chose, but I had no idea how to find a safe harbour for my soul. Do I experience all of these freedoms at all times with perfect regularity? No. But this I know. While I’m not who I should be. And I’m not who I’m going to be. Thanks to God alone, I’m not who I used to be.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have the freedom to have wonderful, deep and abiding peace. I have the freedom to have peace in the thick of adversity, peace in the midst of conflict, peace in the face of opposition, peace beneath the weight of every burden. I have the freedom to lie down and sleep in peace knowing that the Creator of the Universe provides for my safety.
Besides all that, I have freedom to experience joy. I have found that, no matter what the circumstance, no matter how filled with gloom the prospect, no matter how discouraging or disconcerting the difficulty - I can nevertheless tap that reservoir of joy which God has placed into every human heart that has come to Him through Christ. The assurance of His pardon, His power, His presence in every scene of life, has emptied my life of gloom and sadness and filled it with a high and holy gladness. Jesus came to earth to proclaim, in part, a religion of joy. Wherever He went, throughout His earthly life, He brought joy to the sorrowing, cheer to the downcast, and gladness to those who were sitting in the shadow of death. His earthly ministry restored joy to human hearts which had been languishing in the shackles of sin and sadness. He came to do that for me! Jesus says to His followers, "These things I have spoken to you that My joy might remain in you and that your joy might be full." Jesus has given me a joy that is so deep, so firm, so sure that the trials of life are but as the ripples on the surface of the sea.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from worry. I have freedom to be filled with passion for the most worthy cause on earth, that of furthering the kingdom of God. I have freedom from slavery to sin, freedom to obey my Creator, freedom to have patience in the face of frustration, freedom to know the will of God, and freedom from guilt.
Besides all that, I have freedom to become more spiritual than any seeker of worldly spirituality, for my soul, encased in this earthly shell is now the residence of God’s Holy Spirit. He uplifts my troubled soul. He is my unfailing comforter. He corrects me. He counsels me. He is my teacher who sanctifies me. I thank the Spirit of the Living God for the assurance He brings me on a daily basis. He brings me blessed and holy quietness. He revives me with life and with power. He cleanses and renews me. He bends me and remakes me. He gives me faith and I live an abundant life because of that faith. I am so very thankful for the Holy Spirit, for He has kindled a flame of sacred love in this once cold, cold heart of mine.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to know that God is pleased with me, freedom to sacrifice for others without feeling used, freedom to have a clear conscience, freedom to actually become a good person in the eyes of God, freedom from bitterness, freedom to be gentle toward those who are hostile toward me. I have freedom to submit to others from a position of inner strength and confidence, and I have the freedom to not only experience grace from God, but the freedom to extend that grace to others.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to love others, freedom to take a one-down position and not lose one iota of value or worth, freedom from anxiety, freedom from the fear of death, freedom from the fear of other people, freedom from the fear of anything that life wants to bring my way. I have the freedom to serve Jesus, freedom to be kind toward those who are not kind toward me, and freedom to do the right thing even when I’m strongly tempted to do the wrong thing.
Besides all that, I have freedom to have an inexhaustible Source of spiritual and moral power. By simply trusting Jesus, He has promised me pardon for my sin, peace for my soul, strength in the hour of trouble, courage in the face of difficulty, power in the moment of temptation - and I receive this pardon, peace, and power simply by trusting that He will keep His promise.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from resentments, freedom to look forward to eternity, freedom to become a man of integrity, freedom from self-centeredness, and freedom to be thankful, wonderfully, wonderfully thankful. I have the freedom to admit that everything that I have is from God and from Him alone, freedom from the need to be rich, freedom to be wronged without it becoming a big deal and I have found the freedom to learn and to grow into Christ-likeness in every single situation.
Besides all that, I have the freedom to hope. The New Testament is filled with messages of hope. I have "the hope of the gospel," "the hope of the promise," "the hope of His calling," "the hope which is laid up for me in heaven," "our hope of glory," "hope in our Lord Jesus Christ," "that blessed hope," "the hope of eternal life," "the full assurance of hope," "the hope we have as an anchor," "a lively hope" and on and on it goes. This is not some pious wish, but a hope in the sense of a sure confidence. The Christian’s hope, since it is rooted in the person of Jesus Christ is a hope of which I am not ashamed, a hope that is as sure as Jesus Christ Himself is sure. The future holds for me more good that I cold ever hope for.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from my past, freedom from anger, freedom from seeking self-worth in possessions, freedom from the need for popularity, and freedom to love and to be loved without reservation or self-protection.
Besides all that, I have freedom to experience new mercies from God every single day. They are countless, constant, and sure. They greet me in the morning and gladden my heart at noon. They follow me into the shades of night. Because of God’s mercies, there is never a sorrow that I experience that Jesus does not come into with His presence, power and comfort. Neither is there a burden that He doesn’t bear. Jesus’ mercies shall follow me all the days of my life; they endure forever and ever.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to admit that I need to change, freedom to revel in the new song of righteousness, freedom from the need for power, freedom from spiritual darkness, freedom to first identify and then to have healthy, kind, generous, and loving friends. I have freedom from shame, freedom from having to be ‘right,’ and the freedom to trade the lessor and unstable god of self-esteem, for the glorious and solid provision of Christ-esteem.
Besides all that, I have genuine happiness. Not happiness as the world understands it, based on one pleasure inducing event after another. No, I have the real deal, because there is only one place where we find real happiness, and that is down at the feet of the crucified Saviour, because only there can we be freed from our sins.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to know the difference between life-giving and life-destroying behaviours, freedom from insecurity, freedom to not feel constrained by the rules of our society, freedom to have a life of meaning and context and purpose, freedom to know the difference between right and wrong, freedom to rejoice in being alive, freedom from the trap of bigotry, freedom from greed, freedom from envy and freedom to come to God with boldness and confidence because I’m shielded by His mercy and grace.
Besides all that, I have been given the freedom to know, to really know the person of Truth. He has revealed to me truth about God, truth about man, truth about life, truth about death, truth about myself, truth about heaven and the truth about hell.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to know what it’s like to have enough no matter the circumstance, freedom to find pure rest for my soul, freedom to know with certainty that because of my faith, every morning I can put on the breast-plate of God’s approval and to know that God will never leave me or give up on me.
Besides all that, I have freedom to have God either lighten my burden to match my strength, or increase my strength to match the burden. And without fail I have received His strength: strength to stand in the midst of the storm, strength to outlast the bombardment of pain, strength to bear the burden of the cross, strength to resist the onslaught of sin - or having fallen, to tread the path of the prodigal back to the Father’s house and to be assured of full and free forgiveness. These victories are by no means mine. Left to myself, to my own puny powers of resistance or endurance, I will fall short every single time. "Not that I am sufficient in myself, but my sufficiency is of God."
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from making huge life-decision mistakes, freedom to have a good marriage, freedom from confusion and second guessing, freedom from pride, freedom to give justice, but not to seek it, and I have the freedom to understand that all the good that happens in my life is like a stream that is leading me directly back to the Source.
Besides all that, I have freedom to be a brand new creation. His power has displaced hate with love, sorrow with joy, relational war with peace. His power took this man who was morally rotten and transformed me into a trophy of grace. Halleluiah - God be praised!
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from condemnation, freedom to have mercy lavished upon me, freedom from fake and shallow friendships, freedom to NOT say, "Lord, come into my life and change my pain," but, "Lord, come into my pain and change me." I have freedom to suffer with and for Jesus, and freedom to forgive.
Besides all that, I have freedom from judgment. He has blotted out my wrongs. He has cleansed me from sin. He is only interested in my broken and contrite heart and today I can praise God because Calvary covers all my sins, past, present, and future. How amazing! How incredible! How wonderful!
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom from the need to achieve, freedom to look forward to tomorrow, freedom from God’s wrath, freedom from putting me first, freedom from the need for position, freedom from the feeling of alienation, freedom to be bathed in the soothing warmth of God’s enormous Love, freedom from dependence on false gods, freedom to have patience in the midst of suffering, and I have the freedom to become more than a conqueror.
Besides all that, I have the freedom to know Who to thank when I’m grateful, for every good and perfect gift is from God. He is the righteous One. I celebrate His glory. I acknowledge His sovereignty. I rejoice and sing the wonders of His grace. How great is my Lord and my Saviour!
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to inherit all of God’s riches, freedom to understand the Gospel message, freedom to know that I’m a disciple that Jesus loves. Great God of wonders, I proclaim your majesty! I exalt your deity! Your eyes are upon the righteous. Your ears are open to their cry. You are near to those whose hearts are breaking. You save those who have a contrite spirit. You are perfect in power, in love, and in purity. May You alone be exalted!
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have freedom to have total assurance in God’s promises for forgiveness, for strength and for eternity. Is faith in this God, as the world sees it, a crutch? Yes, and more than that. Jesus is my stretcher, my chariot, my sole support in each and every circumstance. After all, to what would we look to for help if not to that which is stronger than ourselves? Jesus has tested me and I now know that in every scene of life - in joy and sorrow, in success and failure, in health and in sickness, in moments of crisis when all lesser gods give way, I have trusted Jesus and have found that He is able to carry both me and my burden and bring me safely to the other side. With Paul and with believers of all ages I can say: "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him until the Day when He returns." I and all other Christians have the Divine assurance of comfort in sorrow, strength in sickness, solace in bereavement, help in distress, and ultimate triumph in the midst of dire calamity. And this assurance is signed and sealed in the blood of the Son of God Himself. The world has known no higher guarantee.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have the freedom to do something valuable until my dying breath, freedom to not only accept, but to enjoy my weaknesses, and I have the freedom to give away my time, my money and my self.
Because of my relationship with Jesus, I have the freedom to counter my culture, and the freedom to find contentment in every single situation. This contentment comes from knowing beyond any doubt that, "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" "My God will supply ALL my needs."
Finally, because of my relationship with Jesus, I have the freedom to say to life,
"Rain on, I will not drown, for I am standing on higher ground!"
None of these freedoms were mine prior to my healed relationship with Jesus. I was like a ship in the middle of the ocean with no navigational system. I could go any direction I chose, but I had no idea how to find a safe harbour for my soul. Do I experience all of these freedoms at all times with perfect regularity? No. But this I know. While I’m not who I should be. And I’m not who I’m going to be. Thanks to God alone, I’m not who I used to be.
Monday, February 16, 2009
I’m a Free Thinker
That’s a phrase that appears a lot on atheist blogs. I remember when I wasn’t a Christian, I honestly believed that the further I got from God and all things Christian, the freer I’d be, the more fun that I’d have, the greater and more varied and interesting would be my experiences in all areas of life. In hindsight I now know that I couldn’t have been more wrong.
A few days ago I was tripping around some blogs of those who specifically described themselves as free thinkers. I asked people what it meant when they used that description. From what I can gather, “free thinkers” are those who have found a certain enjoyment or sense of accomplishment in “questioning everything and accepting nothing at face value.” This is particularly true for messages that these thinkers have encountered from authority figures and / or from the Church. This is particularly true of those who feel they have “broken free” from religious instruction.
A significant number of those who spoke to me about their free thinking personality were quite certain that if a person agreed with what the Church taught, then that person must have accepted those teachings without question. I wasn’t able to find out what evidence they have for thinking that, other than perhaps their own childhood experience. That is however what children do. They believe what their parents tell them. On the other hand, it seems that many of these bloggers had parents who actually encouraged cynicism in their children at a very young age. It's a primary teaching that these people have carried with them into adulthood. As well, it doesn't sound like these adults bothered to question the appropriateness of this teaching. Personally I think it’s a bad idea, but to each his own, I guess.
Regardless, it seems to have never occurred to those who consider themselves free in their thinking that it might be possible to think and to think very deeply, to question and to question with great diligence the teachings of various religions and actually come to the conclusion that one of those religions is correct. It might even be the religion in which one was raised. I have no way of knowing of course but I wonder if the free thinkers themselves questioned both Christianity AND atheism or just the former while allowing the latter to get a free pass. I don’t know.
The atheist author of the blog whispersessions wrote:
"It’s imperative to understand that not all atheists are advocates of reason. We are all born atheists, therefore it is our default state. Many atheists don’t believe in a god because they simply never gave it a thought. They could very well be dishonest, angry people who have no moral code whatsoever. Some are atheists out of rebellion to their family. They may have never given a thought to philosophy or science, let alone ethics and morality. Some are atheists simply because they despise religion. Their “lack of belief” is actually a vicious anti-belief, and when asked about what they do believe, they’ll generally have nothing more to say than how badly they hate someone else’s beliefs. They will tell you that religion is wrong, but they’ll have nothing to say about what is right. They’ll say theism is false, but they will have nothing to say about what is true. To be sure, many atheists’ atheism rests upon nothing at all. They are not advocates of reason. They are advocates of nothing. They are atheist, non-rational, amoral, and anti-reason all at the same time."
While he was certain that none of these reasons applied to him (he was an atheist because he was so logical and reasoned in his thinking) he explained the situation very well.
Is a free thinker someone who rejects the beliefs of h/her parents as long as those beliefs are religious in nature? Or, in the case of a child raised in an atheist home, would you have to reject that teaching as well in order to be a free thinker? And if you could accept your parent's atheist arguments and be a free thinker, couldn’t another person consider h/her parents’ arguments for Jesus, conclude they are correct, and also be a free thinker? To listen to those who describe themselves as free thinkers, that doesn’t seem to be possible. The main evidence for being a free thinker, according to these people is to reject Christianity.
Now atheists tell us that we are born atheists; that atheism is our default position. I happen to agree with that and the Bible tells us that atheists have concluded correctly on this count. So if I remain in the state with which I was born, how exactly is that being free? If I have not thought my way out of my default position, or if I "bought into Christianity” at one point in my life, but was later sucked back into the vortex of my default position, how is that actually being free? By doing absolutely nothing about the thoughts and beliefs with which I was born, isn’t that staying in my cage?
The word associations on blogs that contain the phrase Free Thinker are interesting. Some of them include:
Free thinker - infidelity in marriage - This was seen as a good thing.
Free thinker - cynical and negative
Free thinkers have blogs that come with content warnings. What’s the connection there?
When I asked people to define what they meant by, “I’m a free thinker,” or how would you describe someone who isn’t a free thinker, they said things like:
“Those who prefer (and, yes, I do consider it a preference) to believe and do and buy as their (sic) told are simply sheep.”
I’m not quite sure what that means. If I've decided to trust the person who is telling me something, as opposed to questioning everything that s/he's telling me, doesn’t that actually make me a free thinker? Haven’t I made the choice to trust?
I ask this because my experience with atheists has led me to believe that they actually can’t NOT question authority and / or the Church. It seems to be a personality trait, and it’s one, I might add, that I’ve seen in my work with thousands upon thousands of drug addicts, alcoholics and criminals. “No one is going to tell me how to live my life.” And they’re proud of it! Like the Marlboro Man who is proud to be independently smoking himself to death. I actually think that a certain personality type is predisposed to being an atheist. Rigid and repetitive, black and white, pervasive and persistent ultra literal thinking seems to be a very common trait in the atheists with whom I’ve communicated. But listen to the next comment.
===========
“a "non" free thinker to me would be like someone who reads the bible and assumes there is a god b/c this storybook is telling them so.”
Again, there seems to be an assumption that someone reading, say, the four accounts of Jesus’ life on earth, cannot in an unbiased way come to a rational conclusion that there is something strikingly genuine in these accounts. And there seems to be a very, um, un free inability to acknowledge that some of the brightest minds both past and present have concluded that these accounts have something very important to teach us. Bigotry of course must be some type of antonym for free thinking. Yet bigotry (I know. It’s on both sides of the fence) against Christianity seems to account for much of the anecdotal evidence for people describing themselves as free thinkers. They may be not nearly as free in their thinking as they would like to imagine. The next response came in one paragraph but I’ve broken up the sentences to make room for my comments.
============
“I am a free thinker because, I do not allow the media, or popular culture, or religious doctrine to influence my opinions.”
Again, what if you actually agree that there is enough evidence for Jesus’ resurrection? There are many, many historical scholars, both religious, agnostic and atheist who agree that the New Testament accounts of this event are historically accurate. Is it fair to judge them as not being free thinkers on the basis of their beliefs. Are they sheep because they’ve allowed the evidence to influence their opinions? I believe that the people with whom I spoke would say that is in fact, the case.
=======
“People who, I believe, are not thinking for themselves are the ones who make their decisions based on what their church says.”
So how do free thinkers make decisions? Isn’t everything that we read or listen to the same as someone “telling” us something. Richard Dawkins said, not long ago, “Thinking is anathema to religion.” Can someone who believes what Richard says still be a free thinker?
===========
Remember, the following is from the same writer who made the above comments -
“My wife and I were watching TV last night, a show on Biography called Psychic Kids, the mother of one of the kids was taught by her church that their (sic) were no spirits, only angels and demons. Her daughters (sic) abilities conflicted with her beliefs, so therefore her daughter was doing something evil or being tricked by the demons. She refused to open her mind to new possibilities because it didnt (sic) mesh with the religious doctrine she had been brainwashed with all her life.”
But I thought that refusing to open your mind to just any new information was the sign of a free thinker? Wasn’t the mother approaching the child’s psychic ability in a critical manner? I thought that was supposed to be a good thing? And are we to believe that this guy, who apparently believes in “Psychic Kids,” someone who has researched this subject carefully and come to the conclusion that psychic ability is real? Or is he siding with psychics because it, at least in this case, seems to be proving how awful it is to be taught things in Church? Again, is he a free thinker, or has his atheist bias actually prevented him from weighing the evidence fairly and impartially?
============
“She only thought what the church told her to think, thus [she is] NOT a free thinker.”
Right. Un like this atheist “free thinker” who believes what psychics tell him, I suppose.
==========
“He ended with, “Thanks for the challenging question, you sound like a free thinker too.”
That’s kind of funny. Don’t you think? I agree with atheists that we're all born in rebellion to the idea that a God exists to whom they will someday be accountable.
. Atheists maintain that position throughout their lives by adhering to evidence that supports their position and discarding evidence that doesn’t.
. Christians have come to free their thinking and change their minds through spiritual and intellectual exploration. Christians come to their position by admitting and accepting evidence that cannot be successfully challenged or refuted.
A few days ago I was tripping around some blogs of those who specifically described themselves as free thinkers. I asked people what it meant when they used that description. From what I can gather, “free thinkers” are those who have found a certain enjoyment or sense of accomplishment in “questioning everything and accepting nothing at face value.” This is particularly true for messages that these thinkers have encountered from authority figures and / or from the Church. This is particularly true of those who feel they have “broken free” from religious instruction.
A significant number of those who spoke to me about their free thinking personality were quite certain that if a person agreed with what the Church taught, then that person must have accepted those teachings without question. I wasn’t able to find out what evidence they have for thinking that, other than perhaps their own childhood experience. That is however what children do. They believe what their parents tell them. On the other hand, it seems that many of these bloggers had parents who actually encouraged cynicism in their children at a very young age. It's a primary teaching that these people have carried with them into adulthood. As well, it doesn't sound like these adults bothered to question the appropriateness of this teaching. Personally I think it’s a bad idea, but to each his own, I guess.
Regardless, it seems to have never occurred to those who consider themselves free in their thinking that it might be possible to think and to think very deeply, to question and to question with great diligence the teachings of various religions and actually come to the conclusion that one of those religions is correct. It might even be the religion in which one was raised. I have no way of knowing of course but I wonder if the free thinkers themselves questioned both Christianity AND atheism or just the former while allowing the latter to get a free pass. I don’t know.
The atheist author of the blog whispersessions wrote:
"It’s imperative to understand that not all atheists are advocates of reason. We are all born atheists, therefore it is our default state. Many atheists don’t believe in a god because they simply never gave it a thought. They could very well be dishonest, angry people who have no moral code whatsoever. Some are atheists out of rebellion to their family. They may have never given a thought to philosophy or science, let alone ethics and morality. Some are atheists simply because they despise religion. Their “lack of belief” is actually a vicious anti-belief, and when asked about what they do believe, they’ll generally have nothing more to say than how badly they hate someone else’s beliefs. They will tell you that religion is wrong, but they’ll have nothing to say about what is right. They’ll say theism is false, but they will have nothing to say about what is true. To be sure, many atheists’ atheism rests upon nothing at all. They are not advocates of reason. They are advocates of nothing. They are atheist, non-rational, amoral, and anti-reason all at the same time."
While he was certain that none of these reasons applied to him (he was an atheist because he was so logical and reasoned in his thinking) he explained the situation very well.
Is a free thinker someone who rejects the beliefs of h/her parents as long as those beliefs are religious in nature? Or, in the case of a child raised in an atheist home, would you have to reject that teaching as well in order to be a free thinker? And if you could accept your parent's atheist arguments and be a free thinker, couldn’t another person consider h/her parents’ arguments for Jesus, conclude they are correct, and also be a free thinker? To listen to those who describe themselves as free thinkers, that doesn’t seem to be possible. The main evidence for being a free thinker, according to these people is to reject Christianity.
Now atheists tell us that we are born atheists; that atheism is our default position. I happen to agree with that and the Bible tells us that atheists have concluded correctly on this count. So if I remain in the state with which I was born, how exactly is that being free? If I have not thought my way out of my default position, or if I "bought into Christianity” at one point in my life, but was later sucked back into the vortex of my default position, how is that actually being free? By doing absolutely nothing about the thoughts and beliefs with which I was born, isn’t that staying in my cage?
The word associations on blogs that contain the phrase Free Thinker are interesting. Some of them include:
Free thinker - infidelity in marriage - This was seen as a good thing.
Free thinker - cynical and negative
Free thinkers have blogs that come with content warnings. What’s the connection there?
When I asked people to define what they meant by, “I’m a free thinker,” or how would you describe someone who isn’t a free thinker, they said things like:
“Those who prefer (and, yes, I do consider it a preference) to believe and do and buy as their (sic) told are simply sheep.”
I’m not quite sure what that means. If I've decided to trust the person who is telling me something, as opposed to questioning everything that s/he's telling me, doesn’t that actually make me a free thinker? Haven’t I made the choice to trust?
I ask this because my experience with atheists has led me to believe that they actually can’t NOT question authority and / or the Church. It seems to be a personality trait, and it’s one, I might add, that I’ve seen in my work with thousands upon thousands of drug addicts, alcoholics and criminals. “No one is going to tell me how to live my life.” And they’re proud of it! Like the Marlboro Man who is proud to be independently smoking himself to death. I actually think that a certain personality type is predisposed to being an atheist. Rigid and repetitive, black and white, pervasive and persistent ultra literal thinking seems to be a very common trait in the atheists with whom I’ve communicated. But listen to the next comment.
===========
“a "non" free thinker to me would be like someone who reads the bible and assumes there is a god b/c this storybook is telling them so.”
Again, there seems to be an assumption that someone reading, say, the four accounts of Jesus’ life on earth, cannot in an unbiased way come to a rational conclusion that there is something strikingly genuine in these accounts. And there seems to be a very, um, un free inability to acknowledge that some of the brightest minds both past and present have concluded that these accounts have something very important to teach us. Bigotry of course must be some type of antonym for free thinking. Yet bigotry (I know. It’s on both sides of the fence) against Christianity seems to account for much of the anecdotal evidence for people describing themselves as free thinkers. They may be not nearly as free in their thinking as they would like to imagine. The next response came in one paragraph but I’ve broken up the sentences to make room for my comments.
============
“I am a free thinker because, I do not allow the media, or popular culture, or religious doctrine to influence my opinions.”
Again, what if you actually agree that there is enough evidence for Jesus’ resurrection? There are many, many historical scholars, both religious, agnostic and atheist who agree that the New Testament accounts of this event are historically accurate. Is it fair to judge them as not being free thinkers on the basis of their beliefs. Are they sheep because they’ve allowed the evidence to influence their opinions? I believe that the people with whom I spoke would say that is in fact, the case.
=======
“People who, I believe, are not thinking for themselves are the ones who make their decisions based on what their church says.”
So how do free thinkers make decisions? Isn’t everything that we read or listen to the same as someone “telling” us something. Richard Dawkins said, not long ago, “Thinking is anathema to religion.” Can someone who believes what Richard says still be a free thinker?
===========
Remember, the following is from the same writer who made the above comments -
“My wife and I were watching TV last night, a show on Biography called Psychic Kids, the mother of one of the kids was taught by her church that their (sic) were no spirits, only angels and demons. Her daughters (sic) abilities conflicted with her beliefs, so therefore her daughter was doing something evil or being tricked by the demons. She refused to open her mind to new possibilities because it didnt (sic) mesh with the religious doctrine she had been brainwashed with all her life.”
But I thought that refusing to open your mind to just any new information was the sign of a free thinker? Wasn’t the mother approaching the child’s psychic ability in a critical manner? I thought that was supposed to be a good thing? And are we to believe that this guy, who apparently believes in “Psychic Kids,” someone who has researched this subject carefully and come to the conclusion that psychic ability is real? Or is he siding with psychics because it, at least in this case, seems to be proving how awful it is to be taught things in Church? Again, is he a free thinker, or has his atheist bias actually prevented him from weighing the evidence fairly and impartially?
============
“She only thought what the church told her to think, thus [she is] NOT a free thinker.”
Right. Un like this atheist “free thinker” who believes what psychics tell him, I suppose.
==========
“He ended with, “Thanks for the challenging question, you sound like a free thinker too.”
That’s kind of funny. Don’t you think? I agree with atheists that we're all born in rebellion to the idea that a God exists to whom they will someday be accountable.
. Atheists maintain that position throughout their lives by adhering to evidence that supports their position and discarding evidence that doesn’t.
. Christians have come to free their thinking and change their minds through spiritual and intellectual exploration. Christians come to their position by admitting and accepting evidence that cannot be successfully challenged or refuted.
Friday, February 13, 2009
No basis for atheist belief - Conclusion
This is the last in a series of posts whereby I show that evidence based upon the scientific method or inquiry shows emphatically that Creator God best answers the question,
Why is there a universe and why is it this universe and not another?
While there have been criticisms of the arguments that I’ve posted in the last few days, what’s important to note is that a criticism or an objection is not necessarily the same as a refutation. What I’ve attempted to highlight is that:
. Science knows for a fact that matter cannot exist from eternity past, but other than Creator God, science has no explanation for why matter exists now.
. Science knows for a fact that matter cannot precede itself either physically or chronologically, but other than Creator God, science has no explanation for why matter exists now.
. Science knows for a fact that matter cannot create itself, but other than Creator God science has no explanation for why matter exists now.
. Science knows for a fact that whatever begins to exist has a cause, but other than Creator God, science has no explanation for what caused the beginning of the universe.
. Science knows for a fact that whatever begins to exist has an explanation of its beginning. Other than Creator God science has no explanation for WHY our universe came into being or WHY it came into being in this way and not another.
. Science knows for a fact that the universe began to exist, but other than Creator God science has no explanation for what caused the universe to begin.
. Science knows for a fact that the universe cannot be infinite, yet other than Creator God, science has no explanation for HOW the universe came to be.
. Science knows for a fact that intelligent life would not have evolved on this planet if the universe wasn’t finely tuned to an exquisite degree. Yet other than Creator God, science has no explanation for how our universe could ever come “pre loaded” with several dozen finely tuned constants and quantities.
These are known facts that were garnered via a scientific method of enquiry. These facts are evidence for the existence of Creator God.
Because atheism is NOT science, atheists are allowed to say ridiculous things like -
The universe does not have a beginning or a cause.
Because atheism is NOT science, atheists are allowed to say ridiculous things like,
“Everything came from nothing, and it did so without any cause whatsoever.”
Atheists, are free to propose the ridiculous even if the suppositions don’t fit the evidence. Science, cannot say these things because science knows them to be untrue.
On the other hand because the evidence for Creator God is so compelling, atheist scientists are devolving into the mythological in an effort to explain the origins of our universe. To avoid the logical relationship of Creator God to the known facts of our existence, scientists have proposed:
The steady state model
Oscillating models
Baby universes
Multi verses
The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario
The Chaotic Inflationary Model
Brane-cosmology
Inflationary multi-verse
Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum
The many worlds hypothesis
The black hole hypothesis
String Scenarios
Quantum gravity models
Vacuum fluctuation models
Imaginary time and imaginary space
None of these propositions have been able to explain what science observes today. Yet the metaphysical implications of the Big Bang are so disturbing to atheist scientists that even
"Space aliens brought life to earth"
is better than allowing for Creator God.
Now, as Carl Sagan once said, "Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among 'multiple working hypotheses,' has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy."
Unfortunately for athesits, it can be said with absolute confidence that no cosmogonic model has been:
As repeatedly verified in its predictions,
As corroborated by attempts at its falsification,
As concordant with empirical discoveries, and
As philosophically coherent as the Standard Big Bang Model.
Reaching their “No God” conclusion PRIOR to confirming evidence allows atheists to stand in their faith and claim with great confidence,
“There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.”
What is the basis for the atheist belief that God does not exist?
There is no basis for such a belief! None whatsoever! Everything that science has discovered about the origin and nature of our universe contains the finger print of Creator God.
Atheism is a philosophy that is protected by irrational, illogical and incoherent conclusions. Atheism is dishonest. When atheism influences science, science suffers.
When an intelligent person willfully abandons reason and begins to posit finite infinities, causeless beginnings and beginningless beginnings, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When an intelligent person willfully abandons classical historical scholarship and begins to deny known and knowable facts of history, but only as they apply to the person of Jesus, I know that I’m dealing with someone who is confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When an intelligent person willfully and falsely claims to follow whatever ethical standard is currently in vogue and calls that a reasonable way to live, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate, fearful attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When someone goes in search of ever more complicated solutions, abandoning one after another, after another, after another, not because of new evidence but because of a need to avoid the conclusion indicated by current evidence, and when that person never returns to a simple solution that coincides with current knowledge and common sense, I know that I’ve encountered an individual who has been confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
That is sad and that is why I’m not an atheist.
By one atheist’s definition, the phrase “There is no evidence for God” means, “This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
The “fact” that atheists are too blind to see, the “fact” that could not exist unless there was a Creator God is the universe itself.
Lord of lords, King of kings, True God, Creator of the universe, the heavens declare Your handiwork. May Your name be forever praised!!
Why is there a universe and why is it this universe and not another?
While there have been criticisms of the arguments that I’ve posted in the last few days, what’s important to note is that a criticism or an objection is not necessarily the same as a refutation. What I’ve attempted to highlight is that:
. Science knows for a fact that matter cannot exist from eternity past, but other than Creator God, science has no explanation for why matter exists now.
. Science knows for a fact that matter cannot precede itself either physically or chronologically, but other than Creator God, science has no explanation for why matter exists now.
. Science knows for a fact that matter cannot create itself, but other than Creator God science has no explanation for why matter exists now.
. Science knows for a fact that whatever begins to exist has a cause, but other than Creator God, science has no explanation for what caused the beginning of the universe.
. Science knows for a fact that whatever begins to exist has an explanation of its beginning. Other than Creator God science has no explanation for WHY our universe came into being or WHY it came into being in this way and not another.
. Science knows for a fact that the universe began to exist, but other than Creator God science has no explanation for what caused the universe to begin.
. Science knows for a fact that the universe cannot be infinite, yet other than Creator God, science has no explanation for HOW the universe came to be.
. Science knows for a fact that intelligent life would not have evolved on this planet if the universe wasn’t finely tuned to an exquisite degree. Yet other than Creator God, science has no explanation for how our universe could ever come “pre loaded” with several dozen finely tuned constants and quantities.
These are known facts that were garnered via a scientific method of enquiry. These facts are evidence for the existence of Creator God.
Because atheism is NOT science, atheists are allowed to say ridiculous things like -
The universe does not have a beginning or a cause.
Because atheism is NOT science, atheists are allowed to say ridiculous things like,
“Everything came from nothing, and it did so without any cause whatsoever.”
Atheists, are free to propose the ridiculous even if the suppositions don’t fit the evidence. Science, cannot say these things because science knows them to be untrue.
On the other hand because the evidence for Creator God is so compelling, atheist scientists are devolving into the mythological in an effort to explain the origins of our universe. To avoid the logical relationship of Creator God to the known facts of our existence, scientists have proposed:
The steady state model
Oscillating models
Baby universes
Multi verses
The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario
The Chaotic Inflationary Model
Brane-cosmology
Inflationary multi-verse
Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum
The many worlds hypothesis
The black hole hypothesis
String Scenarios
Quantum gravity models
Vacuum fluctuation models
Imaginary time and imaginary space
None of these propositions have been able to explain what science observes today. Yet the metaphysical implications of the Big Bang are so disturbing to atheist scientists that even
"Space aliens brought life to earth"
is better than allowing for Creator God.
Now, as Carl Sagan once said, "Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among 'multiple working hypotheses,' has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy."
Unfortunately for athesits, it can be said with absolute confidence that no cosmogonic model has been:
As repeatedly verified in its predictions,
As corroborated by attempts at its falsification,
As concordant with empirical discoveries, and
As philosophically coherent as the Standard Big Bang Model.
Reaching their “No God” conclusion PRIOR to confirming evidence allows atheists to stand in their faith and claim with great confidence,
“There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.”
What is the basis for the atheist belief that God does not exist?
There is no basis for such a belief! None whatsoever! Everything that science has discovered about the origin and nature of our universe contains the finger print of Creator God.
Atheism is a philosophy that is protected by irrational, illogical and incoherent conclusions. Atheism is dishonest. When atheism influences science, science suffers.
When an intelligent person willfully abandons reason and begins to posit finite infinities, causeless beginnings and beginningless beginnings, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When an intelligent person willfully abandons classical historical scholarship and begins to deny known and knowable facts of history, but only as they apply to the person of Jesus, I know that I’m dealing with someone who is confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When an intelligent person willfully and falsely claims to follow whatever ethical standard is currently in vogue and calls that a reasonable way to live, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate, fearful attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When someone goes in search of ever more complicated solutions, abandoning one after another, after another, after another, not because of new evidence but because of a need to avoid the conclusion indicated by current evidence, and when that person never returns to a simple solution that coincides with current knowledge and common sense, I know that I’ve encountered an individual who has been confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
That is sad and that is why I’m not an atheist.
By one atheist’s definition, the phrase “There is no evidence for God” means, “This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
The “fact” that atheists are too blind to see, the “fact” that could not exist unless there was a Creator God is the universe itself.
Lord of lords, King of kings, True God, Creator of the universe, the heavens declare Your handiwork. May Your name be forever praised!!
The basis of atheist belief - Part 6
This is the second to last post in a series of posts indicating that science itself provides evidence for the reality of Creator God.
While I often highlight the absurdities in the atheist faith, Christians and atheists actually have a lot of things in common. We share the same hopes and dreams for our children. We share the same revulsion toward the evil that’s in the world. While there are huge differences in our interpretation of what we see going on around us, we do need each other more than either of us would like to admit. One thing that atheists and Christians agree on is the presence of a seemingly inherent knowledge of morality. Again however we disagree on how and why our morals and values are present. Let me explain it this way.
. Have you ever had someone kill one of your children?
. Have you ever been mugged or robbed?
. How about someone taking your seat on the bus when it was obvious that you were about to sit down?
. Have you ever had a business partner or employee steal from you?
. Have you ever had someone cut you off in traffic?
. Have you ever had a spouse cheat on you?
. Have you ever had a friend lie to you?
. Has anyone done a hit-and-run on one of your vehicles?
Are any of these things wrong? Really?
How do you know they’re wrong?
As the old line goes, “Says who?”
The fact is, if God does not exist, then none of these things are "wrong." They may be annoying, even infuriating, but wrong? How could it be? As Richard Dawkins almost gleefully says, “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . it is every living object’s sole reason for being.”
If God does not exist, and if we are just one animal species among thousands, then even a rapist is nothing more than someone thumbing his nose at societal conventions. After all, rape and killing and taking food from another goes on all the time in other animal societies. Yet no would accuse animals of murder or stealing or even rape. Some people have made the case that rape can and should be expected within the selfish-gene paradigm. In fact, we can say this and know that it is completely coherent within the atheist paradigm. That is because:
. If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations (def. below) do not exist
. But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. (We know, and we know absolutely when someone does “wrong” to us).
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion is also true:
God exists
Before I explain what this is saying, it’s important that I explain what it is NOT saying.
This is NOT saying that We must believe in God in order to live moral lives.
This is NOT saying that We cannot form an ethical system without reference to God
This is NOT saying that A person must believe in God to recognise that objective moral values exist.
Objective morals, values and obligations do NOT result from a belief in God.
Objective morals, values and obligations are the result of God’s existence.
If morals, values and obligations are NOT anchored in God or some other transcendent foundation, then they are nothing more than mist that disappears with the morning Sun. They are not objective but subjective and relative to the situation. Yet atheist consistently speak as though morals, values and duties are objective and they're objective because, well, because the atheist says so. That's just one of the many absurdities in the atheist's belief system.
However, just as physical laws are fully realised in the physical world, objective moral laws are fully realised in Creator God. As I stated above, our daily interactions with others shows we believe without doubt and we respond without hesitation in a manner which shows that objective moral duty is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things.
Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.
People who are God’s enemies claim that if He exists, then God acts in a capricious and arbitrary manner. They sometimes use the Euthyphro Dilemma to make their point. Rather than taking more space describing the argument here I’ll let you Google it. Or you can go to Alonzo Fyfe's blog as he is addressing this same subject. However I will show how this so-called dilemma is terribly misunderstood. Something is not good just because God likes it. Nor does God like something simply because it’s good. Instead:
. Objective moral Goodness and Obligation are based on God’s character. Therefore, God’s commands are not arbitrary, for they are the inescapable expression of His Just and Loving nature, and -
. Since our moral obligations are grounded in the Divine commands, moral values and duties do not exist independent of God.
. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, and self-destructive. This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective, selective or relative to the situation. Objective morality is not based on the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy, or that person’s likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity.
Neither is objective morality based upon our socio-biological or community trends. In another’s treatment of us, we know clearly what’s objectively right and what’s objectively wrong. It has nothing to do with what's acceptable in your community. For example, a Hitler or the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger may well believe that exterminating or euthanising those they deem unnecessary or a hindrance to society’s well-being to be a good and right thing to do. But those being exterminated know beyond doubt that it is not a good thing. You may believe that having sex with another person’s spouse is the right thing to do under your particular circumstances. However, let someone start screwing around with your spouse and the picture changes dramatically.
So why choose God as the arbiter of objective morals? Because any other point of reference is arbitrary and based upon taste, desire and current social standards. That is why atheists cannot say with any integrity that honour killings are wrong. Atheists cannot say with any integrity that female circumcision is wrong. The societies which have those standards have developed them in the same manner that a North American atheist has developed his. It’s subjective, relative to the situation and based upon the ebb and flow of societal norms.
Atheists might protest by saying that any behaviour that doesn't contribute to the health and flourishing of human society is wrong and bad and the opposite is right and good. But who is to arbitrate between what Saddam or Hitler thinks helps his society to flourish and what you believe accomplishes the same goal? Who's to judge between totalitarian and open democracy and anarchy? How can any atheist say that "Might is right" is good in "the wild" but not for the human animal? You're college society will say that cooperation with the laws of society is the best route and that crime is wrong. Someone who's grown up in a gangster society may say that crime is right and good and he may say so in order that he might feed his children.
That fact is:
. If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations do not exist
. But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. (We know, and we know absolutely when someone does “wrong” to us).
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion is also true:
God exists.
While I often highlight the absurdities in the atheist faith, Christians and atheists actually have a lot of things in common. We share the same hopes and dreams for our children. We share the same revulsion toward the evil that’s in the world. While there are huge differences in our interpretation of what we see going on around us, we do need each other more than either of us would like to admit. One thing that atheists and Christians agree on is the presence of a seemingly inherent knowledge of morality. Again however we disagree on how and why our morals and values are present. Let me explain it this way.
. Have you ever had someone kill one of your children?
. Have you ever been mugged or robbed?
. How about someone taking your seat on the bus when it was obvious that you were about to sit down?
. Have you ever had a business partner or employee steal from you?
. Have you ever had someone cut you off in traffic?
. Have you ever had a spouse cheat on you?
. Have you ever had a friend lie to you?
. Has anyone done a hit-and-run on one of your vehicles?
Are any of these things wrong? Really?
How do you know they’re wrong?
As the old line goes, “Says who?”
The fact is, if God does not exist, then none of these things are "wrong." They may be annoying, even infuriating, but wrong? How could it be? As Richard Dawkins almost gleefully says, “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . it is every living object’s sole reason for being.”
If God does not exist, and if we are just one animal species among thousands, then even a rapist is nothing more than someone thumbing his nose at societal conventions. After all, rape and killing and taking food from another goes on all the time in other animal societies. Yet no would accuse animals of murder or stealing or even rape. Some people have made the case that rape can and should be expected within the selfish-gene paradigm. In fact, we can say this and know that it is completely coherent within the atheist paradigm. That is because:
. If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations (def. below) do not exist
. But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. (We know, and we know absolutely when someone does “wrong” to us).
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion is also true:
God exists
Before I explain what this is saying, it’s important that I explain what it is NOT saying.
This is NOT saying that We must believe in God in order to live moral lives.
This is NOT saying that We cannot form an ethical system without reference to God
This is NOT saying that A person must believe in God to recognise that objective moral values exist.
Objective morals, values and obligations do NOT result from a belief in God.
Objective morals, values and obligations are the result of God’s existence.
If morals, values and obligations are NOT anchored in God or some other transcendent foundation, then they are nothing more than mist that disappears with the morning Sun. They are not objective but subjective and relative to the situation. Yet atheist consistently speak as though morals, values and duties are objective and they're objective because, well, because the atheist says so. That's just one of the many absurdities in the atheist's belief system.
However, just as physical laws are fully realised in the physical world, objective moral laws are fully realised in Creator God. As I stated above, our daily interactions with others shows we believe without doubt and we respond without hesitation in a manner which shows that objective moral duty is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things.
Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.
People who are God’s enemies claim that if He exists, then God acts in a capricious and arbitrary manner. They sometimes use the Euthyphro Dilemma to make their point. Rather than taking more space describing the argument here I’ll let you Google it. Or you can go to Alonzo Fyfe's blog as he is addressing this same subject. However I will show how this so-called dilemma is terribly misunderstood. Something is not good just because God likes it. Nor does God like something simply because it’s good. Instead:
. Objective moral Goodness and Obligation are based on God’s character. Therefore, God’s commands are not arbitrary, for they are the inescapable expression of His Just and Loving nature, and -
. Since our moral obligations are grounded in the Divine commands, moral values and duties do not exist independent of God.
. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, and self-destructive. This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective, selective or relative to the situation. Objective morality is not based on the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy, or that person’s likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity.
Neither is objective morality based upon our socio-biological or community trends. In another’s treatment of us, we know clearly what’s objectively right and what’s objectively wrong. It has nothing to do with what's acceptable in your community. For example, a Hitler or the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger may well believe that exterminating or euthanising those they deem unnecessary or a hindrance to society’s well-being to be a good and right thing to do. But those being exterminated know beyond doubt that it is not a good thing. You may believe that having sex with another person’s spouse is the right thing to do under your particular circumstances. However, let someone start screwing around with your spouse and the picture changes dramatically.
So why choose God as the arbiter of objective morals? Because any other point of reference is arbitrary and based upon taste, desire and current social standards. That is why atheists cannot say with any integrity that honour killings are wrong. Atheists cannot say with any integrity that female circumcision is wrong. The societies which have those standards have developed them in the same manner that a North American atheist has developed his. It’s subjective, relative to the situation and based upon the ebb and flow of societal norms.
Atheists might protest by saying that any behaviour that doesn't contribute to the health and flourishing of human society is wrong and bad and the opposite is right and good. But who is to arbitrate between what Saddam or Hitler thinks helps his society to flourish and what you believe accomplishes the same goal? Who's to judge between totalitarian and open democracy and anarchy? How can any atheist say that "Might is right" is good in "the wild" but not for the human animal? You're college society will say that cooperation with the laws of society is the best route and that crime is wrong. Someone who's grown up in a gangster society may say that crime is right and good and he may say so in order that he might feed his children.
That fact is:
. If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations do not exist
. But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. (We know, and we know absolutely when someone does “wrong” to us).
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion is also true:
God exists.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The basis of atheist belief - Part 5
By one atheist’s definition, the phrase “There is no evidence for God” means,
“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
Each and every one of these posts is giving:
Examples of facts,
Examples that are based on scientific facts,
Facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists
That show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the “Facts” that we observe.
Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God.
In other words, According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.
Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist. This conclusion is emphatically not based on evidence or facts. Atheism is a philosophical stance.
Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses regarding how the universe came into being? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of the discussion. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations on the origin of the universe was acceptable, there wouldn't be any more theories proposed. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable.
In the last post I gave examples of the exquisite fine tuning of our life sustaining universe. Even atheist scientists allow that because of this fine tuning, the beginning of our universe seems supernatural in nature. They won’t allow that this is the case, of course, but they will allow that "it seems that way." There is simply no other explanation that fits the evidence.
Today I want to take a look at the three alternatives before us; alternatives that explain how we came to live in this highly improbable life sustaining universe.
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that the fine tuning of the universe that I spoke about in the last post is due to only ONE of the following: (if you can think of any others you're welcome to post them)
1) Physical necessity (our universe had to be this way and no other way),
2) Chance (it’s just a really, really, really lucky accident), or
3) It’s the design of a Creator God.
Everyone, except those on the lunatic fringe agrees that the universe as we know it is not due to physical necessity. Roughly 13.5 billion years ago, literally nothing existed. No matter, no energy, no time, no space - nothing existed. In a secular or natural reality there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that ANY given universe had to come into being, let alone a universe that HAD to be so finely tuned as to be life sustaining. It’s far more likely that if a universe came into being out of nothing, it would not be the kind of universe that could allow the evolution of life, nor could it sustain life. That’s possibility number one.
Nor is this fine tuning due to chance. As I stated in the Part 4, science has shown us that the fine tuning of our universe is so exquisite that an infinitesimal change in any one of the necessary constants and quantities would mean that neither we nor any life would happen. The odds against all of them being perfectly set by chance prior to Planck time are insurmountable. Yet, science has shown that they were in place by Planck time. Every single one of them was in place and ready to produce a life sustaining universe. Because of this, atheists are forced to say that it happened by chance because the only other alternative is philosophically and metaphysically untenable to the atheist’s world-view.
Because of an a priori rejection of the concept of Creator God, Richard Dawkins and fundamentalist atheists like him are forced to say, “As improbable as it is for our universe to be exactly as we find it, it must have happened by accident because here we are.”
Because of a philosophy that actually rejects a whole category of evidence for only one reason, i.e., it contradicts their world-view, what atheists are really saying is, “Yes it’s impossible but it must have happened anyway.”
As I stated in an earlier post on this subject, If atheism is true, then the universe is the first and only time that something (in this case EVERYTHING) came into being from nothing BY nothing.
If on the other hand there is a Cause for the existence of the universe, then atheism is false because the only possible Cause for the Singularity, for the coming into being of space, time, matter and energy, again out of nothing, is Creator God.
. True claim: If observers who exist within a universe are able to analyse its constants and quantities, it is highly PROBABLE that they will observe them to be fine-tuned for their existence.
. True claim: Without a Designer, a Creator, a First Cause, it is highly and extraordinarily IMPROBABLE that a universe exists which is finely tuned for the existence of observers within it.
Some gullible people have been led to think that if the constants and quantities of our universe were different, then other life forms would have evolved. This is simply not true. Floating fanciful theories and hoping that they snag a believer here and there is not by any means good science. Yet it would seem that each one of the dozens of possibilities that have been sent out, including
- Everything that we experience is happening in imaginary space and imaginary time, and
- Life was brought to earth by space aliens
have had many, many followers of the atheist mind-set.
In reality, “Life” means the ability to take in food and use its energy, to grow and adapt and reproduce. Without the fine tuning that we observe, not even atomic matter would exist, not to mention a planet where life might exist.
There is no reason whatsoever that a universe such as ours had to exist. That it couldn’t NOT exist.
And there is most certainly no reason to expect that a universe as finely tuned as is our universe should exist by chance.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true:
. The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.
. We do not experience just the appearance of design.
. The design we experience is apparent and real.
. The design that we experience is from Creator God.
“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
Each and every one of these posts is giving:
Examples of facts,
Examples that are based on scientific facts,
Facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists
That show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the “Facts” that we observe.
Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God.
In other words, According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.
Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist. This conclusion is emphatically not based on evidence or facts. Atheism is a philosophical stance.
Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses regarding how the universe came into being? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of the discussion. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations on the origin of the universe was acceptable, there wouldn't be any more theories proposed. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable.
In the last post I gave examples of the exquisite fine tuning of our life sustaining universe. Even atheist scientists allow that because of this fine tuning, the beginning of our universe seems supernatural in nature. They won’t allow that this is the case, of course, but they will allow that "it seems that way." There is simply no other explanation that fits the evidence.
Today I want to take a look at the three alternatives before us; alternatives that explain how we came to live in this highly improbable life sustaining universe.
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that the fine tuning of the universe that I spoke about in the last post is due to only ONE of the following: (if you can think of any others you're welcome to post them)
1) Physical necessity (our universe had to be this way and no other way),
2) Chance (it’s just a really, really, really lucky accident), or
3) It’s the design of a Creator God.
Everyone, except those on the lunatic fringe agrees that the universe as we know it is not due to physical necessity. Roughly 13.5 billion years ago, literally nothing existed. No matter, no energy, no time, no space - nothing existed. In a secular or natural reality there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that ANY given universe had to come into being, let alone a universe that HAD to be so finely tuned as to be life sustaining. It’s far more likely that if a universe came into being out of nothing, it would not be the kind of universe that could allow the evolution of life, nor could it sustain life. That’s possibility number one.
Nor is this fine tuning due to chance. As I stated in the Part 4, science has shown us that the fine tuning of our universe is so exquisite that an infinitesimal change in any one of the necessary constants and quantities would mean that neither we nor any life would happen. The odds against all of them being perfectly set by chance prior to Planck time are insurmountable. Yet, science has shown that they were in place by Planck time. Every single one of them was in place and ready to produce a life sustaining universe. Because of this, atheists are forced to say that it happened by chance because the only other alternative is philosophically and metaphysically untenable to the atheist’s world-view.
Because of an a priori rejection of the concept of Creator God, Richard Dawkins and fundamentalist atheists like him are forced to say, “As improbable as it is for our universe to be exactly as we find it, it must have happened by accident because here we are.”
Because of a philosophy that actually rejects a whole category of evidence for only one reason, i.e., it contradicts their world-view, what atheists are really saying is, “Yes it’s impossible but it must have happened anyway.”
As I stated in an earlier post on this subject, If atheism is true, then the universe is the first and only time that something (in this case EVERYTHING) came into being from nothing BY nothing.
If on the other hand there is a Cause for the existence of the universe, then atheism is false because the only possible Cause for the Singularity, for the coming into being of space, time, matter and energy, again out of nothing, is Creator God.
. True claim: If observers who exist within a universe are able to analyse its constants and quantities, it is highly PROBABLE that they will observe them to be fine-tuned for their existence.
. True claim: Without a Designer, a Creator, a First Cause, it is highly and extraordinarily IMPROBABLE that a universe exists which is finely tuned for the existence of observers within it.
Some gullible people have been led to think that if the constants and quantities of our universe were different, then other life forms would have evolved. This is simply not true. Floating fanciful theories and hoping that they snag a believer here and there is not by any means good science. Yet it would seem that each one of the dozens of possibilities that have been sent out, including
- Everything that we experience is happening in imaginary space and imaginary time, and
- Life was brought to earth by space aliens
have had many, many followers of the atheist mind-set.
In reality, “Life” means the ability to take in food and use its energy, to grow and adapt and reproduce. Without the fine tuning that we observe, not even atomic matter would exist, not to mention a planet where life might exist.
There is no reason whatsoever that a universe such as ours had to exist. That it couldn’t NOT exist.
And there is most certainly no reason to expect that a universe as finely tuned as is our universe should exist by chance.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true:
. The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.
. We do not experience just the appearance of design.
. The design we experience is apparent and real.
. The design that we experience is from Creator God.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The basis of atheist belief - Part 4
By one atheist’s definition, the phrase “There is no evidence for God” means,
“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
Well, each and every one of these posts is giving”
Examples of facts,
Examples that are based on scientific facts,
Facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists
That show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the “Facts” that we observe.
Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God.
In other words, According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.
Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist.
Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of the discussion. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations on the origin of the universe was acceptable, there wouldn't be any more theories proposed. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable or workable.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Only in a universe so finely tuned as ours, could we expect observers such as ourselves to exist.
Note: Fine Tuning is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) being precisely (We cannot overemphasis the term precisely) as they are for the existence of intelligent life.
That’s in comparison with the huge range of possible values. In fact, science tells us that the natural range of POSSIBLE values for the constants and qualities of our universe is from 0 > 10 ^53 or from
0 - 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000000.
That being the case, let’s look at the ranges upon which our lives, our very existence depend.
I think that it’s important to remember that the values of these constants and qualities were not something that evolved, nor are they something that “settled in” as the universe aged. In order for a life sustaining universe to exist, these constants were “put in” at the Big Bang. They had to have been there prior to Planck time.
As well, you may be interested to note that the constants, quantities and values that are found in our cosmos are unrelated in any way. They seem to be random, arbitrary if you will. They are independent of each other in every way but one. The ONE thing in common, in fact the ONLY thing the constants, quantities and values of our universe have in common is that all of them, every single one of them are needed to be exactly as they are in order for intelligent life to exist on this planet.
So: While there are several dozen constants and quantities, the most fundamental constants are the Fine Structure constant, the Gravitational constant, the Weak Force, the Strong Force and the Ratio between the mass of protons and electrons.
. A change of only 1 part in 10,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in the Gravitational constant would prevent life from existing in this universe.
A change of only 1 part in 10,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in the Weak Force would prevent life from existing in this universe.
. If the density of the universe and the speed of expansion had been off by one part in one hundred thousand million million, again, no life of any kind.
Remember, these values had to be in place prior to what is known as Planck time; that is, 10 ^ - 43 seconds after the Singularity.
. The cosmological constant is what drives the inflation of the universe. It is tuned to 1 part in 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.
Any variation in either direction more than that and - no universe.
. The entropy per baryon that had to be “put in” prior to Planck time is 1 part in 10 followed by 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.
That’s 1,230 zeros.
Think about that for a moment. It’s important.
If the entropy per baryon hadn’t been put in at the Big Bang, to EXACTLY this specification, our life supporting universe would not exist. If you’ve been able to make yourself think that all of this was just a really, really, really lucky accident, I can only conclude that you are desperately afraid of the most realistic and obvious metaphysical alternative.
Because these constants and qualities are independent of and unrelated to each other, and as astronomical the odds of any one of them being just exactly the right value, to find ALL of them being as they are in the same universe, by accident is beyond comprehension.
To figure out those odds, you would take, say, the Weak Force constant of 1 in 10^100and add to that the constant of gravitational constant 1 in 10^120 + 100, and add to that . . . and so on for all of the several DOZEN constants and quantities. And those are your odds of this life supporting universe coming into being by accident or chance.
If any one of these constants were off by the amount just described, we would not exist. Just how strong IS your faith in “no God?”
We need to seriously consider what this means. I don’t see how anyone can a priori reject this EVIDENCE for Creator God yet call themselves and honest seeker after truth. This type of evidence demands an explanation.
The Creation Event and its metaphysical implications is so serious a problem for those who have devolved into Scientism that they are now claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that something can have a beginning without a cause. Here are some examples of what atheist scientists are saying.
Astronomer Arthur Eddington - “The concept of the Big Bang is preposterous, incredible, repugnant.”
Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”
Physicist Victor Stenger - “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.”
On the “bright” side David Hume stated, “I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without cause.”
Well, back in his day, when atheists were still hopeful that their faith system would prevail, that might have been possible for him to say. It is my belief that if Hume had known that Christianity would prove so resistant to destruction, he would have joined today’s atheist scientists in throwing off all restraints, put his integrity on the shelf, proposed ever more ridiculous scenarios and in that manner he would have increased his intellectual stature among the atheist crowd.
A universe with a beginning is disconcerting for atheist scientists because what existed before the Big Bang can’t be detected by observation or by the laws of physics. In fact the very concept of “before” is incoherent regarding the Big Bang because there wasn’t any such thing. Before the Big Bang, there wasn’t any time, or space, or matter or laws of physics to govern that matter.
Whatever produced The Big Bang, produced those laws. As stated a few pages back, if the universe came into being without using the laws of physics, more than that, before the laws of physics were even in place, then that is the working definition of a miracle. Miracles as we all know are not allowed into the vocabulary of an atheist.
There may be a black door in front of an atheist but if s/he doesn't believe in black doors then by golly that atheist is going to call the door another colour - any colour! as long as it isn't black.
Admittedly, some scientists feel compelled to tentatively acknowledge the obvious.
Arthur Eddington - “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”
Nobel prize winner Arno Penzias - “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”
Anthony Flew - The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in God.
Physicist Freeman Dyson - ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”
It is the atheist’s determination to not follow any evidence that might point to God that keeps him from accepting the obvious. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
When there are several possible answers to the ideas that arise re: Beginnings, how does one keep internal bias from discarding opposing evidence or a conflicting hypothesis of equal validity? In this case, atheists don’t. They go with their bias.
The next post will continue with this topic of fine tuning.
“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
Well, each and every one of these posts is giving”
Examples of facts,
Examples that are based on scientific facts,
Facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists
That show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the “Facts” that we observe.
Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God.
In other words, According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.
Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist.
Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of the discussion. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations on the origin of the universe was acceptable, there wouldn't be any more theories proposed. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable or workable.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Only in a universe so finely tuned as ours, could we expect observers such as ourselves to exist.
Note: Fine Tuning is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) being precisely (We cannot overemphasis the term precisely) as they are for the existence of intelligent life.
That’s in comparison with the huge range of possible values. In fact, science tells us that the natural range of POSSIBLE values for the constants and qualities of our universe is from 0 > 10 ^53 or from
0 - 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000000.
That being the case, let’s look at the ranges upon which our lives, our very existence depend.
I think that it’s important to remember that the values of these constants and qualities were not something that evolved, nor are they something that “settled in” as the universe aged. In order for a life sustaining universe to exist, these constants were “put in” at the Big Bang. They had to have been there prior to Planck time.
As well, you may be interested to note that the constants, quantities and values that are found in our cosmos are unrelated in any way. They seem to be random, arbitrary if you will. They are independent of each other in every way but one. The ONE thing in common, in fact the ONLY thing the constants, quantities and values of our universe have in common is that all of them, every single one of them are needed to be exactly as they are in order for intelligent life to exist on this planet.
So: While there are several dozen constants and quantities, the most fundamental constants are the Fine Structure constant, the Gravitational constant, the Weak Force, the Strong Force and the Ratio between the mass of protons and electrons.
. A change of only 1 part in 10,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in the Gravitational constant would prevent life from existing in this universe.
A change of only 1 part in 10,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in the Weak Force would prevent life from existing in this universe.
. If the density of the universe and the speed of expansion had been off by one part in one hundred thousand million million, again, no life of any kind.
Remember, these values had to be in place prior to what is known as Planck time; that is, 10 ^ - 43 seconds after the Singularity.
. The cosmological constant is what drives the inflation of the universe. It is tuned to 1 part in 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.
Any variation in either direction more than that and - no universe.
. The entropy per baryon that had to be “put in” prior to Planck time is 1 part in 10 followed by 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.
That’s 1,230 zeros.
Think about that for a moment. It’s important.
If the entropy per baryon hadn’t been put in at the Big Bang, to EXACTLY this specification, our life supporting universe would not exist. If you’ve been able to make yourself think that all of this was just a really, really, really lucky accident, I can only conclude that you are desperately afraid of the most realistic and obvious metaphysical alternative.
Because these constants and qualities are independent of and unrelated to each other, and as astronomical the odds of any one of them being just exactly the right value, to find ALL of them being as they are in the same universe, by accident is beyond comprehension.
To figure out those odds, you would take, say, the Weak Force constant of 1 in 10^100and add to that the constant of gravitational constant 1 in 10^120 + 100, and add to that . . . and so on for all of the several DOZEN constants and quantities. And those are your odds of this life supporting universe coming into being by accident or chance.
If any one of these constants were off by the amount just described, we would not exist. Just how strong IS your faith in “no God?”
We need to seriously consider what this means. I don’t see how anyone can a priori reject this EVIDENCE for Creator God yet call themselves and honest seeker after truth. This type of evidence demands an explanation.
The Creation Event and its metaphysical implications is so serious a problem for those who have devolved into Scientism that they are now claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that something can have a beginning without a cause. Here are some examples of what atheist scientists are saying.
Astronomer Arthur Eddington - “The concept of the Big Bang is preposterous, incredible, repugnant.”
Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”
Physicist Victor Stenger - “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.”
On the “bright” side David Hume stated, “I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without cause.”
Well, back in his day, when atheists were still hopeful that their faith system would prevail, that might have been possible for him to say. It is my belief that if Hume had known that Christianity would prove so resistant to destruction, he would have joined today’s atheist scientists in throwing off all restraints, put his integrity on the shelf, proposed ever more ridiculous scenarios and in that manner he would have increased his intellectual stature among the atheist crowd.
A universe with a beginning is disconcerting for atheist scientists because what existed before the Big Bang can’t be detected by observation or by the laws of physics. In fact the very concept of “before” is incoherent regarding the Big Bang because there wasn’t any such thing. Before the Big Bang, there wasn’t any time, or space, or matter or laws of physics to govern that matter.
Whatever produced The Big Bang, produced those laws. As stated a few pages back, if the universe came into being without using the laws of physics, more than that, before the laws of physics were even in place, then that is the working definition of a miracle. Miracles as we all know are not allowed into the vocabulary of an atheist.
There may be a black door in front of an atheist but if s/he doesn't believe in black doors then by golly that atheist is going to call the door another colour - any colour! as long as it isn't black.
Admittedly, some scientists feel compelled to tentatively acknowledge the obvious.
Arthur Eddington - “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”
Nobel prize winner Arno Penzias - “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”
Anthony Flew - The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in God.
Physicist Freeman Dyson - ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”
It is the atheist’s determination to not follow any evidence that might point to God that keeps him from accepting the obvious. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
When there are several possible answers to the ideas that arise re: Beginnings, how does one keep internal bias from discarding opposing evidence or a conflicting hypothesis of equal validity? In this case, atheists don’t. They go with their bias.
The next post will continue with this topic of fine tuning.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The basis of atheist faith - Part 3
By one atheist’s definition, the phrase “There is no evidence for God” means,
“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
Well, each and every one of these posts is giving examples, examples that are based on scientific facts, facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists that show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the facts that we observe.
Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God. In other words,
According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.
Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist. Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of it. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations was acceptable there wouldn't be any more theories. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. The universe cannot be infinite. That is because:
a) The Borde-Guth-Vilinkin Theorem proves that any expanding universe be it theoretical like atheists posit ad nauseam, or real like our own, must have a definitive space / time boundary, a point of beginning, a singularity, a point of Creation.
b) The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the possibility of the universe existing from infinity past.
c) Background radiation,
d) Known levels of entropy and
e) The Expanding universe confirm the truth of the 2nd Law >
. The universe had a beginning.
(About the Second Law, atheist scientist Arthur Eddington states, “The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation, well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but collapse in deepest humiliation”).
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. It is physically impossible to have an Actual Infinite SERIES of Things or Events or even moments of Time preceding our today.
. Nor can we have an Actual Infinite COLLECTION by adding Things or Events or moments of Time one to another to another in order to reach today. This is why we can say with confidence that matter / universe cannot be infinite and that they haven’t always existed.
Imagine units of time as individual books filling a book shelf that stretches infinitely into the past. You could imagine an infinitely long street or an infinitely long rope or whatever, but for this example I’ll use a shelf of books.
While mathematics is able to deal with abstract or theoretical or conceptual or potential infinities, and while our imagination can create an imaginary shelf of books stretching infinitely into the past, sort of, reality holds no such possibility for us.
Time is not imaginary.
Time is not abstract or theoretical or conceptual.
Time is real.
Time is measured in real units.
In a scenario like this, with the shelf of books (units of time) stretching infinitely into the past you could never actually arrive at the first book. It is impossible to travel through infinite time to reach a starting point FROM WHICH you could begin your journey to the last book on the shelf or to what we call today.
If, in order to reach the last book (what we call today), you had to have the second to last book or yesterday.
And if, in order to have the second to last book you had to have the third to last book,
And if, in order to have the third to last book you had to have the fourth to last book and so on and so on, you could never reach today because you could never reach the “first” day (book) that made possible the second day which made possible the third day . . ..
Since the past is made up of units of real time, in the case of a beginningless past we would have had to pass through, or travel through infinite time in order to reach today and that is physically impossible. To reach today, we had to have had a starting point, a push point, a point of beginning, a point of first cause. That of course is what science tells occurred with the Singularity.
There was a beginning; a beginning that required a Cause.
If the past were actually infinite, we could never reach today because the past would simply extend infinitely into the past. Neither can we, as some desperate atheists have tried to do, arbitrarily pick a set or group or point in real time and begin counting from there. Of course you CAN do that, but it proves nothing regarding the beginning of the universe.
The fact is, we HAVE reached today so we can know not only that the universe had a beginning, but that time itself had a beginning. Just as a bookshelf stretching infinitely into the past with no beginning would prohibit our reaching today, neither can there be an infinite regress of causes of the universe. That would also prohibit reaching today’s universe.
. A beginningless Series or Collection of Things or Events in time entails, not a potential but an actual infinite number of Things or Events or moments in Time.
. As we’ve just seen, a beginningless Series of Things or Events or moments in Time that leads to the today cannot exist.
. Therefore, in order to reach today, time and the universe had to have a beginning; they had to have a starting point.
. Clear scientific evidence show us that beginning had to have a Cause.
The fact is, the infinite exists only as an idea or as a concept. It does not exist anywhere in realty. Of course, if the above argument is too cumbersome for you, you could just refer to the Quantum Physics discovery of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. These scientists have proven that any expanding universe, be it real, such as ours, or theoretical, such as the dozens proposed by desperate atheists cannot be without a past space-time boundary, a Big Bang, a Creation event.
“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
Well, each and every one of these posts is giving examples, examples that are based on scientific facts, facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists that show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the facts that we observe.
Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God. In other words,
According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.
Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist. Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of it. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations was acceptable there wouldn't be any more theories. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. The universe cannot be infinite. That is because:
a) The Borde-Guth-Vilinkin Theorem proves that any expanding universe be it theoretical like atheists posit ad nauseam, or real like our own, must have a definitive space / time boundary, a point of beginning, a singularity, a point of Creation.
b) The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the possibility of the universe existing from infinity past.
c) Background radiation,
d) Known levels of entropy and
e) The Expanding universe confirm the truth of the 2nd Law >
. The universe had a beginning.
(About the Second Law, atheist scientist Arthur Eddington states, “The second law of thermodynamics holds, I think the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation, well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but collapse in deepest humiliation”).
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. It is physically impossible to have an Actual Infinite SERIES of Things or Events or even moments of Time preceding our today.
. Nor can we have an Actual Infinite COLLECTION by adding Things or Events or moments of Time one to another to another in order to reach today. This is why we can say with confidence that matter / universe cannot be infinite and that they haven’t always existed.
Imagine units of time as individual books filling a book shelf that stretches infinitely into the past. You could imagine an infinitely long street or an infinitely long rope or whatever, but for this example I’ll use a shelf of books.
While mathematics is able to deal with abstract or theoretical or conceptual or potential infinities, and while our imagination can create an imaginary shelf of books stretching infinitely into the past, sort of, reality holds no such possibility for us.
Time is not imaginary.
Time is not abstract or theoretical or conceptual.
Time is real.
Time is measured in real units.
In a scenario like this, with the shelf of books (units of time) stretching infinitely into the past you could never actually arrive at the first book. It is impossible to travel through infinite time to reach a starting point FROM WHICH you could begin your journey to the last book on the shelf or to what we call today.
If, in order to reach the last book (what we call today), you had to have the second to last book or yesterday.
And if, in order to have the second to last book you had to have the third to last book,
And if, in order to have the third to last book you had to have the fourth to last book and so on and so on, you could never reach today because you could never reach the “first” day (book) that made possible the second day which made possible the third day . . ..
Since the past is made up of units of real time, in the case of a beginningless past we would have had to pass through, or travel through infinite time in order to reach today and that is physically impossible. To reach today, we had to have had a starting point, a push point, a point of beginning, a point of first cause. That of course is what science tells occurred with the Singularity.
There was a beginning; a beginning that required a Cause.
If the past were actually infinite, we could never reach today because the past would simply extend infinitely into the past. Neither can we, as some desperate atheists have tried to do, arbitrarily pick a set or group or point in real time and begin counting from there. Of course you CAN do that, but it proves nothing regarding the beginning of the universe.
The fact is, we HAVE reached today so we can know not only that the universe had a beginning, but that time itself had a beginning. Just as a bookshelf stretching infinitely into the past with no beginning would prohibit our reaching today, neither can there be an infinite regress of causes of the universe. That would also prohibit reaching today’s universe.
. A beginningless Series or Collection of Things or Events in time entails, not a potential but an actual infinite number of Things or Events or moments in Time.
. As we’ve just seen, a beginningless Series of Things or Events or moments in Time that leads to the today cannot exist.
. Therefore, in order to reach today, time and the universe had to have a beginning; they had to have a starting point.
. Clear scientific evidence show us that beginning had to have a Cause.
The fact is, the infinite exists only as an idea or as a concept. It does not exist anywhere in realty. Of course, if the above argument is too cumbersome for you, you could just refer to the Quantum Physics discovery of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. These scientists have proven that any expanding universe, be it real, such as ours, or theoretical, such as the dozens proposed by desperate atheists cannot be without a past space-time boundary, a Big Bang, a Creation event.
Monday, February 9, 2009
The atheist basis for belief - Part 2
By one atheist’s definition, the phrase “There is no evidence for God” means,
“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
Well, each and every one of these posts is giving examples, examples that are based on scientific facts, facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists that show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the facts that we observe.
Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God. In other words,
According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.
Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist. Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of it. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations was acceptable there wouldn't be any more theories. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable.
I find it amusingly ironic how atheists, with zero basis from a scientific perspective, invent mythologies to explain the coming into being of our universe while Christians are able to use scientific laws and facts to show:
1. That the “Creation Event” happened, and
2. That it did not happen by accident.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Anything that exists has an explanation of it’s existence, either:
In the necessity of its own nature (It can’t NOT exist), or
In an external cause.
. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is external to as well as transcendent to the universe. That is because:
. Existing outside of time, the Cause is infinite or Eternal,
. Existing outside of matter (which is finite), the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual,
. Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.
The Cause cannot be “scientific” because neither matter nor the laws of physics (i.e., the laws that science has observed and identified), existed prior to the Singularity.
Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal.
The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind.
That Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
That Cause, is what is normally described as God.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. The universe exists.
. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true:
The explanation of the existence of the universe is God
. According to atheism the universe doesn’t have an explanation of its existence. Atheists say that “It just happened.” Everything that we see came from nothing by nothing. Over a dozen theories and over a dozen more variations on those theories have come and gone in a vain attempt to rule out God as the Cause of a beginning universe. Despite the current scientific knowledge described above, atheists persist in stating that either matter has always existed (impossible) or that matter created itself (also impossible). Why do they do this? Because >
. If there is an explanation of the universe’s existence, then atheism is not true. And that is because the only explanation that fits the evidence of how and why the universe came into being is Creator God. That is why Richard Dawkins himself has lately admitted that a good case could be made for the existence of a Deistic God.
Actually, I believe that some day there won’t be any atheists. There will be people for God and people against God but there won’t be anyone who believes that God doesn’t exist. And, irony of ironies it will be science that will prove the existence of God.
As one atheist single mother of two 'useless fetal blobs that managed to survive,' said recently, “A big fuck-you to anyone who believes in original sin. The christian god, should it exist, should be fought and resisted by every MORAL person who has ever lived.”
Mmm, I’m wandering off topic . . .
. Because of overwhelming scientific evidence, most atheists do grudgingly admit that the universe does indeed have a beginning.
. Hence, most atheists are implicitly committed to God being the explanation of why the universe exists.
This is why I call atheists irrational agnostics.
“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
Well, each and every one of these posts is giving examples, examples that are based on scientific facts, facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists that show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the facts that we observe.
Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God. In other words,
According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.
Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist. Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of it. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations was acceptable there wouldn't be any more theories. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable.
I find it amusingly ironic how atheists, with zero basis from a scientific perspective, invent mythologies to explain the coming into being of our universe while Christians are able to use scientific laws and facts to show:
1. That the “Creation Event” happened, and
2. That it did not happen by accident.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Anything that exists has an explanation of it’s existence, either:
In the necessity of its own nature (It can’t NOT exist), or
In an external cause.
. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is external to as well as transcendent to the universe. That is because:
. Existing outside of time, the Cause is infinite or Eternal,
. Existing outside of matter (which is finite), the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual,
. Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.
The Cause cannot be “scientific” because neither matter nor the laws of physics (i.e., the laws that science has observed and identified), existed prior to the Singularity.
Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal.
The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind.
That Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
That Cause, is what is normally described as God.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. The universe exists.
. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true:
The explanation of the existence of the universe is God
. According to atheism the universe doesn’t have an explanation of its existence. Atheists say that “It just happened.” Everything that we see came from nothing by nothing. Over a dozen theories and over a dozen more variations on those theories have come and gone in a vain attempt to rule out God as the Cause of a beginning universe. Despite the current scientific knowledge described above, atheists persist in stating that either matter has always existed (impossible) or that matter created itself (also impossible). Why do they do this? Because >
. If there is an explanation of the universe’s existence, then atheism is not true. And that is because the only explanation that fits the evidence of how and why the universe came into being is Creator God. That is why Richard Dawkins himself has lately admitted that a good case could be made for the existence of a Deistic God.
Actually, I believe that some day there won’t be any atheists. There will be people for God and people against God but there won’t be anyone who believes that God doesn’t exist. And, irony of ironies it will be science that will prove the existence of God.
As one atheist single mother of two 'useless fetal blobs that managed to survive,' said recently, “A big fuck-you to anyone who believes in original sin. The christian god, should it exist, should be fought and resisted by every MORAL person who has ever lived.”
Mmm, I’m wandering off topic . . .
. Because of overwhelming scientific evidence, most atheists do grudgingly admit that the universe does indeed have a beginning.
. Hence, most atheists are implicitly committed to God being the explanation of why the universe exists.
This is why I call atheists irrational agnostics.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The atheist basis for belief
By one atheist’s definition, the phrase “There is no evidence for God” means,
“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
Well, each and every one of these posts is giving examples, examples that are based on scientific facts, facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists that show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the facts that we observe.
Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God. In other words,
According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.
Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist. Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of it. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations was acceptable there wouldn't be any more theories. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable.
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that:
. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Richard, This point, I think, goes directly to your comment that "atheists DO have a basis for their view." That we consistently observe this premise to be true is critically important because scientific naturalists, I assume that includes you demand that nothing can be believed without consistent observation and verification. Every single attempt to promote alternatives to this premise have only reinforced its truth. Therefore, atheists, including you have the highest motivation to accept this premise. As well -
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that:
. The universe began to exist.
Because those premises are true and coherent we can know that the following conclusion is also true:
The universe has a cause.
While Christians agree with this line of thought, it is science and soley science that proves it to be true regardless of various failed attempts to refute the conclusion. I'd be very interested in how you think this is not relevant to the existence of Creator God, or more specifically relevant to your statement that atheists have a basis for their belief that everything including the universe came from nothing, by nothing.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Matter and energy cannot precede themselves or preexist themselves either physically or chronologically.
The reason that matter and energy cannot precede themselves is because “Coming Into Being” is an essential and objective feature of time. Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Matter and energy do not have the ability to create themselves or bring themselves into existence from nothing or ex nihilo.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Matter and energy cannot exist from infinity past.
Therefore, whatever brought matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics into existence had to have existed outside of these entities.
I look forward to your thoughts / explanations. Before I sign off, Richard I wonder if you would also comment on the following. An atheist who blogs at whispersessions once wrote,
"It’s imperative to understand that not all atheists are advocates of reason. We are all born atheists, therefore it is our default state. Many atheists don’t believe in a god because they simply never gave it a thought. They could very well be dishonest, angry people who have no moral code whatsoever. Some are atheists out of rebellion to their family. They may have never given a thought to philosophy or science, let alone ethics and morality. Some are atheists simply because they despise religion. Their “lack of belief” is actually a vicious anti-belief, and when asked about what they do believe, they’ll generally have nothing more to say than how badly they hate someone else’s beliefs. They will tell you that religion is wrong, but they’ll have nothing to say about what is right. They’ll say theism is false, but they will have nothing to say about what is true. To be sure, many atheists’ atheism rests upon nothing at all. They are not advocates of reason. They are advocates of nothing. They are atheist, non-rational, amoral, and anti-reason all at the same time."
While he was certain that none of these reasons applied to him (he was an atheist because he was so logical and reasoned in his thinking) he explained the situation very well.
Richard, do you think that you might fit in here somewhere? That's not a snarky challenge. I seriously wonder if it might be true.
“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
Well, each and every one of these posts is giving examples, examples that are based on scientific facts, facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists that show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the facts that we observe.
Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God. In other words,
According to known and accepted scientific laws and observations, the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.
Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist. Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of it. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations was acceptable there wouldn't be any more theories. The fact is, based on known science, NONE of them are acceptable.
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that:
. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Richard, This point, I think, goes directly to your comment that "atheists DO have a basis for their view." That we consistently observe this premise to be true is critically important because scientific naturalists, I assume that includes you demand that nothing can be believed without consistent observation and verification. Every single attempt to promote alternatives to this premise have only reinforced its truth. Therefore, atheists, including you have the highest motivation to accept this premise. As well -
Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that:
. The universe began to exist.
Because those premises are true and coherent we can know that the following conclusion is also true:
The universe has a cause.
While Christians agree with this line of thought, it is science and soley science that proves it to be true regardless of various failed attempts to refute the conclusion. I'd be very interested in how you think this is not relevant to the existence of Creator God, or more specifically relevant to your statement that atheists have a basis for their belief that everything including the universe came from nothing, by nothing.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Matter and energy cannot precede themselves or preexist themselves either physically or chronologically.
The reason that matter and energy cannot precede themselves is because “Coming Into Being” is an essential and objective feature of time. Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Matter and energy do not have the ability to create themselves or bring themselves into existence from nothing or ex nihilo.
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Matter and energy cannot exist from infinity past.
Therefore, whatever brought matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics into existence had to have existed outside of these entities.
I look forward to your thoughts / explanations. Before I sign off, Richard I wonder if you would also comment on the following. An atheist who blogs at whispersessions once wrote,
"It’s imperative to understand that not all atheists are advocates of reason. We are all born atheists, therefore it is our default state. Many atheists don’t believe in a god because they simply never gave it a thought. They could very well be dishonest, angry people who have no moral code whatsoever. Some are atheists out of rebellion to their family. They may have never given a thought to philosophy or science, let alone ethics and morality. Some are atheists simply because they despise religion. Their “lack of belief” is actually a vicious anti-belief, and when asked about what they do believe, they’ll generally have nothing more to say than how badly they hate someone else’s beliefs. They will tell you that religion is wrong, but they’ll have nothing to say about what is right. They’ll say theism is false, but they will have nothing to say about what is true. To be sure, many atheists’ atheism rests upon nothing at all. They are not advocates of reason. They are advocates of nothing. They are atheist, non-rational, amoral, and anti-reason all at the same time."
While he was certain that none of these reasons applied to him (he was an atheist because he was so logical and reasoned in his thinking) he explained the situation very well.
Richard, do you think that you might fit in here somewhere? That's not a snarky challenge. I seriously wonder if it might be true.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Spoken Like a True Atheist
A blogger shared these words of atheist wisdom with me.
“Human beings are all valuable - as long as they are valued by others.”
From an atheist’s perspective, truer words were never spoken. ‘Humans have value as long as someone values them,’ and the rest can be, and are thrown away by the tens of millions on a yearly basis. The unwanted, the inconvenient, the undervalued, the ugly, the poor, the wretched, the pitiful. The most helpless and hopeless of our world are by and large left to the vultures. All the people that Jesus told us to serve as though they were our superior, those of an atheistic mind-set discard as being beyond useless.
February 7 / 09 - MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- A doctor's license was revoked Friday in the case of a teenager who planned to have an abortion but instead gave birth to a baby she says was killed when clinic staffers put it into a plastic bag and threw it in the trash. The baby’s mother alleges in her suit that "she witnessed the murder of her daughter" and said she "sustained severe emotional distress, shock and psychic trauma which have resulted in discernible bodily injury."A clinic co-owner entered the room and used a pair of shears to cut the baby's umbilical cord, the suit said. She "then scooped up the baby and placed the live baby, placenta and afterbirth in a red plastic biohazard bag, which she sealed, and then threw bag and the baby in a trash can."
So the baby, whom the mother didn’t value one second before, suddenly became valuable when she could see it. What wasn’t murder to her one second before, became like murder one second later, esp. when someone else was doing it. What became murder for the mother was not murder to the clinic workers. Subjective morality. This is the life that atheists want for you and for me.
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need . We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock." Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review.
From conception to natural death, Christians believe that all humans have value because we are all created in the image of God.
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race." Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company.
Christians find it repugnant when atheists ridicule and mock those who love others not in spite of, but because of their wretchedness. Atheists however see no problem with their inverted value system because their faith system advances the human species by getting rid of the weak and unwanted.
"The life growing in a woman is just a useless blob of cells." "Fiery, Atheisthomeschooler.
"Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control." Birth Control Review
Unlike atheists, those who work in Mission Hospitals, Shelters, Orphanages, Food Distribution Programs etc. actually value the humble, the meek, the weak and the rejected.
“Human beings are all valuable - as long as they are valued by others.”
If there is one sentence that summarizes the atheistic world-view, that might well be the most succinct. If today’s atheist doesn’t adapt to changing styles, s/he too will lose value. In the cold-hearted world of atheism, the philosophy of survival of the fittest watches and waits its chance to pounce with an unblinking eye.
“Human beings are all valuable - as long as they are valued by others.”
From an atheist’s perspective, truer words were never spoken. ‘Humans have value as long as someone values them,’ and the rest can be, and are thrown away by the tens of millions on a yearly basis. The unwanted, the inconvenient, the undervalued, the ugly, the poor, the wretched, the pitiful. The most helpless and hopeless of our world are by and large left to the vultures. All the people that Jesus told us to serve as though they were our superior, those of an atheistic mind-set discard as being beyond useless.
February 7 / 09 - MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- A doctor's license was revoked Friday in the case of a teenager who planned to have an abortion but instead gave birth to a baby she says was killed when clinic staffers put it into a plastic bag and threw it in the trash. The baby’s mother alleges in her suit that "she witnessed the murder of her daughter" and said she "sustained severe emotional distress, shock and psychic trauma which have resulted in discernible bodily injury."A clinic co-owner entered the room and used a pair of shears to cut the baby's umbilical cord, the suit said. She "then scooped up the baby and placed the live baby, placenta and afterbirth in a red plastic biohazard bag, which she sealed, and then threw bag and the baby in a trash can."
So the baby, whom the mother didn’t value one second before, suddenly became valuable when she could see it. What wasn’t murder to her one second before, became like murder one second later, esp. when someone else was doing it. What became murder for the mother was not murder to the clinic workers. Subjective morality. This is the life that atheists want for you and for me.
"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need . We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock." Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review.
From conception to natural death, Christians believe that all humans have value because we are all created in the image of God.
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race." Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company.
Christians find it repugnant when atheists ridicule and mock those who love others not in spite of, but because of their wretchedness. Atheists however see no problem with their inverted value system because their faith system advances the human species by getting rid of the weak and unwanted.
"The life growing in a woman is just a useless blob of cells." "Fiery, Atheisthomeschooler.
"Eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems. Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control." Birth Control Review
Unlike atheists, those who work in Mission Hospitals, Shelters, Orphanages, Food Distribution Programs etc. actually value the humble, the meek, the weak and the rejected.
“Human beings are all valuable - as long as they are valued by others.”
If there is one sentence that summarizes the atheistic world-view, that might well be the most succinct. If today’s atheist doesn’t adapt to changing styles, s/he too will lose value. In the cold-hearted world of atheism, the philosophy of survival of the fittest watches and waits its chance to pounce with an unblinking eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)