Friday, January 8, 2010
What’s on Your Tombstone?
"She went on a lot of vacations. She was a great person."
In a tragic story, http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/07/florida.model.death/index.html
a young woman (26) was found in a dumpster, burned beyond recognition.
Of course, who knows what any of us would say in that kind of situation. But when asked to comment, the sister of the deceased said, "She went on a lot of vacations. She was a great person."
Yikes! I don’t know about you but I want to be remembered for something more than posing in Playboy and taking lots of vacations.
In a tragic story, http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/07/florida.model.death/index.html
a young woman (26) was found in a dumpster, burned beyond recognition.
Of course, who knows what any of us would say in that kind of situation. But when asked to comment, the sister of the deceased said, "She went on a lot of vacations. She was a great person."
Yikes! I don’t know about you but I want to be remembered for something more than posing in Playboy and taking lots of vacations.
I Just Can’t Get It!!
Distinguishing the difference between Something and Nothing is absolutely beyond the grasp of atheists. This becomes a problem because the universe - which includes everything - came from nothing. But that means that Everything came from Nothing without a Natural cause. (no natural cause because nothing natural existed).
At some level, even atheists know that’s not “naturally” possible. That’s why for atheists, the term “nothing” HAS to mean something really, really, really, really small. Does one laugh or cry?
Here’s what we know both philosophically and scientifically. For our universe to exist:
Either Matter is eternal or a Supernatural (outside of nature) Cause is eternal.
Those are our two choices. And no - when there are only two choices, it is not a false dichotomy. This is when atheists say, “Well if something created the universe, what created the creator?” This is said as though it’s a show stopper. It isn’t. It’s just a question that is asked for no other reason than, in this case at least, the atheist’s hope that it will protect h/her world-view?”
It won’t - for nothing entailing reason and logic can protect the absurd and illogical atheist world-view. Think about it! If understanding the origin of a cause, was a requirement for knowing the something being studied, then all science would come a screeching halt.
That is why atheists are unable and unwilling to answer the questions:
. Why is it that, according to atheists, matter doesn't need a cause but a supernatural cause does?
. Why is it that, according to atheists, matter can be eternal but a supernatural cause can't?
The atheist rejection of an eternal (without cause) supernatural Cause is simply an arbitrary ruling geared to preserving an incoherent world-view. Standing solidly on the irrational, atheists, who have a priori rejected the possibility of there existing anything beyond nature, have only one option and that is to say, as one atheist said to me, “I’m right because I say so.”
Atheists - they just can’t get it.
At some level, even atheists know that’s not “naturally” possible. That’s why for atheists, the term “nothing” HAS to mean something really, really, really, really small. Does one laugh or cry?
Here’s what we know both philosophically and scientifically. For our universe to exist:
Either Matter is eternal or a Supernatural (outside of nature) Cause is eternal.
Those are our two choices. And no - when there are only two choices, it is not a false dichotomy. This is when atheists say, “Well if something created the universe, what created the creator?” This is said as though it’s a show stopper. It isn’t. It’s just a question that is asked for no other reason than, in this case at least, the atheist’s hope that it will protect h/her world-view?”
It won’t - for nothing entailing reason and logic can protect the absurd and illogical atheist world-view. Think about it! If understanding the origin of a cause, was a requirement for knowing the something being studied, then all science would come a screeching halt.
That is why atheists are unable and unwilling to answer the questions:
. Why is it that, according to atheists, matter doesn't need a cause but a supernatural cause does?
. Why is it that, according to atheists, matter can be eternal but a supernatural cause can't?
The atheist rejection of an eternal (without cause) supernatural Cause is simply an arbitrary ruling geared to preserving an incoherent world-view. Standing solidly on the irrational, atheists, who have a priori rejected the possibility of there existing anything beyond nature, have only one option and that is to say, as one atheist said to me, “I’m right because I say so.”
Atheists - they just can’t get it.
Clues of Indoctrination
On, Notes from the Perimeter:
http://www.porkbarrelcomix.com/hotflashblog/2010/01/willful-ignorance-should-students-be.html
we find this obvious account of indoctrination of a child by atheist parents.
The post is dealing with a grade 10 kid, a kid from an atheist family (who else?) who refused to do an English / Literature assignment that required him to read a portion of the Bible. The post goes on to say,
"What does it mean, especially for a kid, to choose willful ignorance about something with the kind of historical and cultural impact as the Bible?
The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1963, in the case of School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, that schools can include religious texts as examples of literature and in cultural studies – they just cannot use those works in a religious context, for proselytizing or promoting a particular religious viewpoint.
The decision reads in part: “[It] might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities…as part of a secular program of education.”
A few of Jack’s (the wanna be atheist) comments about his position are unintentionally funny. In an interview with the press, he referred to the Bible as “the word of God” and a “holy text.” I fear that Jack hasn’t quite grasped the concept of atheism. Clearly Jack does believe that God and holiness exist – he just doesn’t want to be confronted with them.
Herein, for me lies the rub: the fear that new knowledge, especially knowledge that might challenge comfortable assumptions or beliefs, is somehow contagious, able to transform attitudes against the person’s will. I might change my mind about it – OMG!
The most fundamental point of education is to provide the framework for more choices, not fewer. The central premise of education is that knowledge expands and frees, not constricts and restricts.
===============
And yet restricting their child's learning is exactly what Jack’s parents are trying to do, not just for their son (refusing to do the assignment is not his idea - this is an atheist parent driven agenda from A to Z) but for everyone’s children. Even for those who wish to complete the assignment.
So what else is new. Atheists and Fascism have always gone hand in hand.
http://www.porkbarrelcomix.com/hotflashblog/2010/01/willful-ignorance-should-students-be.html
we find this obvious account of indoctrination of a child by atheist parents.
The post is dealing with a grade 10 kid, a kid from an atheist family (who else?) who refused to do an English / Literature assignment that required him to read a portion of the Bible. The post goes on to say,
"What does it mean, especially for a kid, to choose willful ignorance about something with the kind of historical and cultural impact as the Bible?
The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1963, in the case of School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, that schools can include religious texts as examples of literature and in cultural studies – they just cannot use those works in a religious context, for proselytizing or promoting a particular religious viewpoint.
The decision reads in part: “[It] might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities…as part of a secular program of education.”
A few of Jack’s (the wanna be atheist) comments about his position are unintentionally funny. In an interview with the press, he referred to the Bible as “the word of God” and a “holy text.” I fear that Jack hasn’t quite grasped the concept of atheism. Clearly Jack does believe that God and holiness exist – he just doesn’t want to be confronted with them.
Herein, for me lies the rub: the fear that new knowledge, especially knowledge that might challenge comfortable assumptions or beliefs, is somehow contagious, able to transform attitudes against the person’s will. I might change my mind about it – OMG!
The most fundamental point of education is to provide the framework for more choices, not fewer. The central premise of education is that knowledge expands and frees, not constricts and restricts.
===============
And yet restricting their child's learning is exactly what Jack’s parents are trying to do, not just for their son (refusing to do the assignment is not his idea - this is an atheist parent driven agenda from A to Z) but for everyone’s children. Even for those who wish to complete the assignment.
So what else is new. Atheists and Fascism have always gone hand in hand.
Triple Nipple
So my five-year-old is standing in the backyard at the top of the slide. And he announces to an audience that only he can see,
"This next act is so difficult, I call it "The Tripple Nipple Dipple."
With that, he takes a run, and a jump, hitting the slide close to the bottom and skidding to a standing finale.
Not Bad. Good Name.
"This next act is so difficult, I call it "The Tripple Nipple Dipple."
With that, he takes a run, and a jump, hitting the slide close to the bottom and skidding to a standing finale.
Not Bad. Good Name.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Is A Vacuum Nothing?
My dear friends in the atheist community continue to show their lack of understanding about what the word “Nothing” means.
In the comment section of my post "Worth Reading" I asked,
Why is it that, according to atheists, matter doesn't need a cause but God does?
Why is it that, according to atheists, matter can be eternal but God can't?
As an answer, I was asked, "Do Quantum fluctuations have a cause?"
I said, "Absolutely. They exist in something, come from something and return to something," which led to the question,
"Is a vacuum nothing?"
I think that question was asked seriously! As far as I could see, there wasn't any smiley face attached to it.
Backed into a corner and knowing it, atheist have grasped like a drowning man onto quantum mechanics as a means of refuting Big Bang cosmology which states that Everything came from Nothing without a Natural cause. (no natural cause because nothing natural existed)
Prior to this latest atheist origin of the universe mythology, there was the:
Oscillating universe -
Baby universes -
Multi verses -
The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario -
The Chaotic Inflationary universe -
Brane-cosmology -
Inflationary multi-verse -
Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum -
The many worlds hypothesis -
The black hole hypothesis -
Quantum gravity models -
Vacuum fluctuation models -
Each in turn has failed and failed miserably which necessitated the invention of the next mythology and the next and the next until we now have the QM mythology.
As even the dull of mind and slow of thought know, Everything coming from Nothing by Nothing is impossible.
Hence the rush to QM and the lack of understanding regarding -nothing.
Atheists have described the "nothing" from which the Big Bang arose as everything from “An intensely hot and dense speck” (They don’t say where the speck was), to a quantum event - that came out of “Nothing” to, today, the only electron in the universe. That last one sounds really plausible (snerk) if you ignore the fact that there weren't any electrons, not even one, and of course there was no universe in which that electron could have existed. Nevertheless, the atheist who said that the Big Bang was a Quantum Event says of his proposal, "I think the way I look at it has merit."
I'm no scientist but even I can see that his proposal is just as stupid as all the rest.
To be fair (who me?), atheists really are caught in a true dilemma. We know from science that from literally nothing, everything came. But how? The most logical conclusion is that "something" existed outside of matter, space and time and that "something" had to be the Cause of the universe. But when we begin to define what that Cause must have been like we wind up with a Greatest Conceivable Being or what we call God. And that of course is just not allowed in the atheist mind-set even if it meets the criteria for where the evidence is pointing. So what’s an atheist to do?
First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being IN A VACUUM. The vacuum is not NOTHING. In fact it is a sea of fluctuating energy. The energy is endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws.
Second, the vacuum in which QE's are studied is sparked BY A SCIENTIST. There is only one possible Being that could have existed prior to or outside of BB and it wasn’t a scientist.
Third, The particles that exist in a Quantum Event do so for a period of time INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR MASS. So much for the 14 billion year old universe being a Quantum Event.
Fourth, In the case of the big bang, there wasn't even a vacuum - THERE WAS NOTHING. No scientist, No particles - Nothing.
Fifth, As stated above, the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.
Sixth, While it’s well known that atheists as a group are easily confused, it is wrong to confuse causality with predictability. Just because the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle describes our inability to predict the location and speed of subatomic particles, i.e., where an electron will appear, that is not a case of an electron appearing out of nothing. You might be taken completely by surprise to find your aunt Zelda from Brussels (who you didn't even know existed) ringing your door-bell in Banff. It might be something that you would have NEVER predicted. But that doesn't mean she appeared out of nothing. In fact quantum theorists acknowledge that our very attempts to “observe” the speed and location of these particles makes them even more unpredictable to trace.
There is no QM model that involves a true origination ex nihilo.
Finally, atheists will say that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. Reality is, the ongoing and ever increasing trend or pattern of evidence is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing.
Atheist physicist Victor Stenger tells us that the Big Bang is looking more probable all the time, “We have to leave open the possibility that [the Big Bang] could be wrong, but every year that goes by, and more astronomical data comes in, it’s more and more consistent with the general Big Bang picture.”
Cliff Walker, “An Interview with Particle Physicist Victor J. Stenger,” at http:www.positiveatheism.com/crt/stenger1.htm
“The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural,”
Atheist astronomer Arthur Eddington, “The Expanding Universe (New York: Macmillan), 178
In the comment section of my post "Worth Reading" I asked,
Why is it that, according to atheists, matter doesn't need a cause but God does?
Why is it that, according to atheists, matter can be eternal but God can't?
As an answer, I was asked, "Do Quantum fluctuations have a cause?"
I said, "Absolutely. They exist in something, come from something and return to something," which led to the question,
"Is a vacuum nothing?"
I think that question was asked seriously! As far as I could see, there wasn't any smiley face attached to it.
Backed into a corner and knowing it, atheist have grasped like a drowning man onto quantum mechanics as a means of refuting Big Bang cosmology which states that Everything came from Nothing without a Natural cause. (no natural cause because nothing natural existed)
Prior to this latest atheist origin of the universe mythology, there was the:
Oscillating universe -
Baby universes -
Multi verses -
The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario -
The Chaotic Inflationary universe -
Brane-cosmology -
Inflationary multi-verse -
Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum -
The many worlds hypothesis -
The black hole hypothesis -
Quantum gravity models -
Vacuum fluctuation models -
Each in turn has failed and failed miserably which necessitated the invention of the next mythology and the next and the next until we now have the QM mythology.
As even the dull of mind and slow of thought know, Everything coming from Nothing by Nothing is impossible.
Hence the rush to QM and the lack of understanding regarding -nothing.
Atheists have described the "nothing" from which the Big Bang arose as everything from “An intensely hot and dense speck” (They don’t say where the speck was), to a quantum event - that came out of “Nothing” to, today, the only electron in the universe. That last one sounds really plausible (snerk) if you ignore the fact that there weren't any electrons, not even one, and of course there was no universe in which that electron could have existed. Nevertheless, the atheist who said that the Big Bang was a Quantum Event says of his proposal, "I think the way I look at it has merit."
I'm no scientist but even I can see that his proposal is just as stupid as all the rest.
To be fair (who me?), atheists really are caught in a true dilemma. We know from science that from literally nothing, everything came. But how? The most logical conclusion is that "something" existed outside of matter, space and time and that "something" had to be the Cause of the universe. But when we begin to define what that Cause must have been like we wind up with a Greatest Conceivable Being or what we call God. And that of course is just not allowed in the atheist mind-set even if it meets the criteria for where the evidence is pointing. So what’s an atheist to do?
First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being IN A VACUUM. The vacuum is not NOTHING. In fact it is a sea of fluctuating energy. The energy is endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws.
Second, the vacuum in which QE's are studied is sparked BY A SCIENTIST. There is only one possible Being that could have existed prior to or outside of BB and it wasn’t a scientist.
Third, The particles that exist in a Quantum Event do so for a period of time INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR MASS. So much for the 14 billion year old universe being a Quantum Event.
Fourth, In the case of the big bang, there wasn't even a vacuum - THERE WAS NOTHING. No scientist, No particles - Nothing.
Fifth, As stated above, the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.
Sixth, While it’s well known that atheists as a group are easily confused, it is wrong to confuse causality with predictability. Just because the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle describes our inability to predict the location and speed of subatomic particles, i.e., where an electron will appear, that is not a case of an electron appearing out of nothing. You might be taken completely by surprise to find your aunt Zelda from Brussels (who you didn't even know existed) ringing your door-bell in Banff. It might be something that you would have NEVER predicted. But that doesn't mean she appeared out of nothing. In fact quantum theorists acknowledge that our very attempts to “observe” the speed and location of these particles makes them even more unpredictable to trace.
There is no QM model that involves a true origination ex nihilo.
Finally, atheists will say that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. Reality is, the ongoing and ever increasing trend or pattern of evidence is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing.
Atheist physicist Victor Stenger tells us that the Big Bang is looking more probable all the time, “We have to leave open the possibility that [the Big Bang] could be wrong, but every year that goes by, and more astronomical data comes in, it’s more and more consistent with the general Big Bang picture.”
Cliff Walker, “An Interview with Particle Physicist Victor J. Stenger,” at http:www.positiveatheism.com/crt/stenger1.htm
“The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural,”
Atheist astronomer Arthur Eddington, “The Expanding Universe (New York: Macmillan), 178
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)