Tuesday, July 7, 2009

An atheist’s Tale

In the beginning there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. No matter. No energy. No space. No time. No hot supremely dense particle. Oh sure some, without knowing the box they’re opening SAY there was this invisible spot of something. They don’t say where it was or how it came to be or how long it had been. In their ignorance they just say it WAS; even though there was no place for it to be.

Reality is, in the beginning there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. And because there was nothing there would always be nothing. Always is a strange term here because without time, “nothing” didn’t exist before, during, forever or always. These same ignorant people who think there was something speak of “before” the singularity. But there wasn’t any “before” and there wasn’t any “prior to.” There was nothing. No laws of physics and no laws of science. No constants and quantities to provide for the existence of any potential universe. There wasn’t any interacting of elements because in the beginning there was nothing.

In an atheist’s world, there was literally nothing and then? There was everything. In an instant.

On naturalism, Why would everything - in an instant - come from nothing?

On naturalism, How would everything - in an instant - come from nothing?

On naturalism, What would cause nothing - absolutely nothing - in an instant - become everything?

On naturalism, Where did everything come from?

Because atheism is absurd, illogical and incoherent, the most brilliant of atheists are forced to propose the silliest of scenarios. They are even willing to contradict long accepted axioms and they are even willing to contradict themselves. All in a effort to salvage their absurd, illogical and incoherent world-view. Let me give you an example that is a favourite of mine. Richard Dawkins states that he is, “Leery of strongly held beliefs in the absence of evidence.” Leery is he? Then why does he state as though it’s fact, that in this universe there are a billion planets with life evolving on them, even as we speak. He’s not alone in his absurd philosophy of atheism.

Brilliant atheists state things like, Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proofs. And then they say:

1) The universe doesn’t need to have a beginning because we come from a Finite Infinity.

1a) Even though “infinity” doesn't exist in reality, but only as a concept or as an idea, to avoid the implications of a Cause for the Big Bang atheists propose that our universe is just the latest in an infinite number of universes. In other words, our universe was caused by a previous universe that was caused by a previous universe, that was caused by . . .

1b) While stating that the universe is infinitely old, and while being forced to admit that if that were true, “today” would never arrive, atheists simply ignore that reality, continue to propose an infinite universe and hope that no one will notice or protest too loudly.

1c) It doesn’t matter what the second law of Thermodynamics says
It doesn’t matter about the levels of background radiation
It doesn’t matter about the levels of entropy
It doesn’t matter that the expansion of the universe is speeding up rather than slowing down, atheists ignore all this and maintain that our universe has existed from infinity past.

That is a highly extraordinary claim that has zero evidence to support it!

2) Because the Big Bang carries with it the need for a Cause, atheists declare that despite ALL scientific evidence to the contrary, some beginnings, or at least this one, i.e., our universe, doesn’t need a cause. “It just happened.”

That is a highly extraordinary claim that has zero evidence to support it!

3) Because the Big Bang carries with it the need for a Cause, atheists declare that our universe was preceded by the universe itself, both materially and chronologically. In essence the universe brought itself into being.

That is a highly extraordinary claim that has zero evidence to support it!

4) There are approximately 100 constants and quantities that are so finely tuned that if any one of them were “off” by an infinitesimally small degree, neither we nor the universe would exist. And even though Penrose and Hawking have calculated that all this coming about by chance is 1 in 10 to the 10 ^ 1,230 (which is an impossibly vast number to comprehend), atheists still maintain that everything that we see happened by chance.

That is a highly extraordinary claim that has zero evidence to support it!

5) Atheists claim that there is no objective set of morals, values, and duties. They say something like, “My personal likes / dislikes, tastes, preferences and opinions will do just fine when determining the rightness or wrongness of my behaviours. On the other hand, other people’s behaviours, as they affect the quality of my life, must adhere to MY personal likes / dislikes, tastes, preferences and opinions. If they don’t, I can rightfully declare that those people are wrong.

That is a highly extraordinary claim that has zero evidence to support it!

6) Atheists claim that regarding the cause of the universe and regarding the first DNA / RNA pre-loaded cell, there is nothing wrong with going 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 current evidence which points directly to Creator God. Atheists say that’s all the reason they need to disregard current scientific evidence.

This is a highly extraordinary claim that has zero evidence to support it!


6a) Atheists say that there is nothing wrong with never returning to a simple solution that coincides with current knowledge and common sense, as long as that current scientific evidence points directly to Creator God. Atheists say that’s all the reason they need to disregard current scientific evidence.

This is a highly extraordinary claim that has zero evidence to support it!

7) Atheists say that contrary to what classical historical scholarship says, known and knowable facts of history do not actually apply to the person of Jesus. In fact, Jesus never existed.

That is a highly extraordinary claim that has zero evidence to support it!

. Even though the beginning of our universe demands a Cause and

. Even though the design of our mathematically precise universe demands a Designer and

. Even though the objective moral code with which atheists demand others treat them can only come from an ultimate authority, and

. Even though the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth point to the reality of Creator God, atheists claim that none of this points to anything beyond nature itself,

Now, atheists say that they will have evidence eventually, but the promise of proof at some point in the future is the same as no proof at all. Atheists are making extraordinary claims that are lacking not just extraordinary evidence but ANY evidence. What’s more, these people call their way of life reasonable and logical.

That's sad and that's why I'm not an atheist.

9 comments:

Quasar said...

In an atheist’s world, there was literally nothing and then? There was everything. In an instant.

Given the lack of time, your "and then" would seem to be misplaced. The nothing-to-singularity hypotheses does not encompass a time before the big bang. In a very real sense, according to this hypotheses, the Big Bang was the very first thing to happen. The universe, ergo, has always existed. "Nothing" never existed, there was no time for it to exist in.

In addition, I would reword "everything" to read "a single point of mass." "Everything" is a word that has unnecessary connotations to much more than a single point of mass.

Of course, there are other hypotheses, as I imagine you are tired of hearing.

....

It is rapidly becoming apparent that you are unwilling to accept contradictory evidence. For example:

4) There are approximately 100 constants and quantities that are so finely tuned...

You have already been made aware that there are only 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants, with most of these describing "the properties of the unstable strange, charmed, bottom and top quarks and mu and tau leptons which seem to play little part in the universe or the structure of matter.")

Combined with your continued refusal to substantiate your assersions, or provide sources, I am forced to conclude that a worthwhile debate with you is impossible. Therefore, I shall bow out of this conversation.

Best of luck in all your future endeavours, excluding those which spread intolerance or misinformation.

Quasar.

Flute said...

. Even though the design of our mathematically precise universe demands a Designer and

Not even worth replying to again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Disputes_on_the_existence_of_fine-tuning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe#Naturalistic_possibilities

. Even though the objective moral code with which atheists demand others treat them can only come from an ultimate authority, and

Morals are not objective.

. Even though the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth point to the reality of Creator God, atheists claim that none of this points to anything beyond nature itself,

All you have to "prove" the resurrection is a holy book. Not unlike other holy books. Unimpressive.

Atheists are making extraordinary claims that are lacking not just extraordinary evidence but ANY evidence. What’s more, these people call their way of life reasonable and logical.

That's sad and that's why I'm not an atheist
.

It looks to me like atheists are saying "where's your evidence?" and you're trying to shift the burden of proof.

But anyway, you're probably busy writing some more strawman filled posts...

Còmhradh said...

That is a highly extraordinary claim that has zero evidence to support it!

So, of course the only correct answer is that your particular god created everything in six days in a highly unscientific order (a highly extraordinary claim that has zero evidence to support it).

The Atheist Missionary said...

This post, perhaps better than most, displays the vacuous reasoning of Makarios: "God must exist and the Bible must be true because you can't provide me with an explanation that discounts a supernatural creator". How intellectually lazy can you get? Quasar is right: a worthwhile debate with Mak is impossible. None are so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

Thesauros said...

"Morals are not objective."

Is it wrong to discriminate? Says who? Is it wrong to kill six million jews? Says who? Is it wrong to take your child and raise h/her as my own? Says who? Is it wrong to take the seat on the bus that you were about to sit in? Says who?
================
"All you have to "prove" the resurrection is a holy book. Not unlike other holy books. Unimpressive."

That's not even close to accurate.
=============

Rabhimself said...

I think you'd find allah disagrees with your god on th genocide of th jews. He quite clearly writes that non-muslims should be killed.

Oh. Right. Moral standards have to be judged from the christian god....

Thesauros said...

So - you're not able to answer the question or what?

Rabhimself said...

Regarding morals?

If you must know i believe they are subjective. It just so happens that through human nature, human beings generally agree on what is morally acceptable and what is not.

Certain societies also produce moral standards that would be frowned upon in other socieities.

This was the point i was tring to make after your inference that only god can be the standard that makes things right or wrong.

You very likely find the oppression of women to be wrong. According to you, the objective standard for this to which you turn to is god. However, if you go to iran, oppression of women is a part of life and therefore morally right. What happened to your god's objective standard there?

I'd bet a muslim in iran would argue that his god (his objective standard) deems it acceptable and perhaps necessary to treat women the way they do.

Flute said...

"Morals are not objective."

Is it wrong to discriminate? Says who? Is it wrong to kill six million jews? Says who? Is it wrong to take your child and raise h/her as my own? Says who? Is it wrong to take the seat on the bus that you were about to sit in? Says who
?

If we both agree on some morals, does that make them any less subjective?

Random Christian blogger, Sye Tenb says lying is absolutely morally wrong. I disagree as I would say it is morally correct to lie to save another from torture.

================
"All you have to "prove" the resurrection is a holy book. Not unlike other holy books. Unimpressive."

That's not even close to accurate.
============
=

Still unimpressive.