The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.

[Albert Einstein]; ?

We crawled

Do you know where the wild things go?

Stuff is happening; stuff not right and so I'm posting in an uncharacteristically out of step, anachronistic way.

This shot, this less than arty still life with jarring colours, walnuts and Atomic knobs is about chains of logic, of cause and effect and how stepping out of logic into chaos distresses everything. Douglas Adams nominated "wars, New York". Today we might add robodebt, Ukraine, Iran, Wieambilla…Don't "get me wrong" — art can and does coexist with logic. Art cannot through personal dismissal subvert logic. It cannot switch off gravity etcetera.

A former Social Security Minister, later Prime Minister will front a Royal Commission today to answer questions about the deeply flawed logic which contrived an artful justification to illegally it seems and in a punitive way, claw back welfare payments by data matching tax and welfare records. This was robodebt — bad logic, chaos and in sad truth a trigger for suicide. Sound logic won't bring them back. But the perversion needs to be explained.

Ukraine and Iran you will know about. Wieambilla has a lower profile and shouldn't be in the news. But it is and it's there because of, it is suspected, some conspiracy theorists, acolytes of the illogical, "cookers" if you wish to be so crude (Australian slang), who have gone off the rails. Now six people are dead and all because logic was abandoned and chaos embraced.

What you have here in this discordant image is at odds with these other things. It is soundly, rigidly, slavishly logical. It is cause and effect; if this, then that.

I choose to support wild creatures. Moneys have gone to the kākāpō, and have done for years. Now I'm getting behind the painted snipe. Free time and other resources pour into my garden and to citizen science. This world needs to be better than the mess we have made of it. It's the only one we have and cookers for all their zeal are not helping.

There's a limit to how far I'm prepared to go. I supplementary feed our birds, don't tidy up so much as to destroy habitat for reptiles, and keep flowering plants for insects beyond what might be a show garden.

But I draw the line at self-service. Berries are ripening now. A pied currawong began pick-your-own the other day. I ought to have been angry, that is, until I noticed two things: the berries were being carried away, not swallowed, and they were carried away by "one-eyed 'Wong", our NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) entitled and quite literally currawong with one eye. She was feeding a baby; a baby so young as to still have its yellow gape. Instead of robdebt, I instituted a diversionary process: feeding her soaked cat food so that she left the berries for me. That worked!

Her place was taken at the berries by another black bird: the unpleasantly ill-mannered male eastern koel — an hideous, indolent bird of low morals, a wastrel bird, a cuckoo making a cuckold of our red wattlebirds. He was not feeding his young. That's not what he does. He was feeding his "lifestyle". His natural yet discordant behaviour will not get my favour. There's that limit to generosity.

Same goes here with these walnuts. Cool weather makes the white cockatoos lazy. They look for the high energy wattle seeds in my trees, fruit, nuts, anything to avoid going a few extra metres to their usual habitat. Today its about 10°C below average. It's Summer and it has both been like this and forecast to not change in the immediate future. Logic says those cockies will be back looking for a hand out. From their spy perches (look up Australian slang "cockatoo") they'll see the little walnut tree. Only now, these nuts, the ones in this discordant image and following the logic that this tree was planted to feed me, not them, these nuts are headed for a delicious black as night, sharp as a harpy's tongue pickle.

That blue "colander" is a repurposed fresh ricotta strainer, the nuts are zero food miles, the coffee engine a thing of delight which sends its spent grounds to compost and no coffee pods to landfill. Here is logic, cause and effect. This image is poor, discordant, jarring, artless. It contains, instead, logical actions to make this world better, less wounded. Can the Ukraine crisis, the Iran situation, robodebt and the illogical tragedies at Wieambilla say the same?

Discussions continued and each person put forth their thoughts on the matter and we didn't all agree. The predicted weather and the thought of being hut bound then flying out were all major factors under discussion. I was keen to go and with the track visible below I had voted to walk out.

It was a tense moment but once the decision was made to go, all set to the task at hand. We were on the snow soon enough and following the track down to the glacier. There was a slight wind and the cloud had descended bringing whiteout but conditions were still good. I was out front following the previous tracks which were now from time to time disappearing on the icier sections of the walk.

We were heading up between the bottom of the ridge and the first heavily crevassed section of the glacier when I heard a feint sound. It was unusual to hear anything other than feet on snow or ice. Curious, I turned and looked toward the sound. "Avalanche!" I could see it now through the white. We all began to run laden with packs and trying not to trip on ropes. A large chunk of ice had broken off above and had caused the snow below to avalanche.

Stopping just metres from the track behind us I found it very bizarre that in the entirety of this place that this was the first avalanche or even hint of avalanche I had seen. And here it was right behind us. We had avalanche transceivers on in case we had been caught in one, but in truth, of all the things on the mountain that I could fear, being caught in an avalanche was the highest on my list. Seeing it so close was quite an experience. Not far from here we would head away from the ridge into the centre of the glacier where the only risk would be crevasses...

The tracks we were following were disappearing, and this just at the time when we were approaching the most obviously crevassed section of the glacier. With compass and GPS I navigated as best as I could crossing snow bridges and weaving through small open crevasses and with a few discussions on routes we made our way to the centre of the glacier.

This shot gives a good idea of whiteout conditions that we were navigating through.

Atheism and the problem of time.

One of several ways atheists attempt to get round the Law of Cause and Effect (which they know is fatal to their natural, origins ideology) is to assert that, as time began with the alleged Big Bang (the natural origin of the universe scenario) there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of, since there was probably no ‘time’ for a ’cause’ to exist in.

What are we to make of that argument?

Is it possible that a big bang or any natural, creation event could happen without a cause?

The atheist belief that something physical can come from nothing, of its own volition, without any preceding cause, is logically bizarre, it violates the law of cause and effect, and several other natural laws.

Obviously, such a belief is not scientifically or logically credible.

Nevertheless, atheists are adamant that such a natural, origins scenario is a fact. So, is lack of time before an alleged, big bang scenario the answer to their dilemma?

It is pretty clear that this idea hasn’t been thought through properly.

First we need to ask what is time, exactly?

Time is essentially a chronology of natural (physical) events.

So, time, as we know it, had to begin with the creation of the material (physical) realm.

Theists realised that time is a physical thing, long before Einstein confirmed it in the 20th century.

And time, being physical, only applies to physical things. It doesn't apply to non-physical, non-tangible or abstract things. For example, time doesn't affect or diminish information or truth ...

2 + 2 = 4 is statistical information and is eternally true. It is not reliant on, or affected by, time. Information may require physical media to make it tangible to humans, but failure to store or record it in tangible form, doesn’t affect its enduring truth.

King Henry VIII had six wives - is a piece of historical information, it can be written down and stored on paper, or stored in other media such as a computer disc, microchip, or human memory.

However, if it is not stored in a tangible media, it doesn’t cease to be an historical fact. It will be true forever - for all eternity.

Time just doesn’t affect it. Because it is not a physical thing - it is outside the dominion of time. It cannot be changed by passage of time, or even diminished by whether we are aware of it, or not. Therefore, the atheist idea that - "there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of, since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in, prior to the effect”, is obvious nonsense.

Information and truth are both non-physical entities which (unlike physical entities) can exist independently of time. They are, in effect, eternal. Time does not affect them, in any way.

Unlike all physical things, they are not subject to the law of entropy. Only the tangible expression of information and truth in physical media can be eroded by time, but not the essence of their existence.

Truth and information continue to exist, whether or not they are made tangible in physical form.

If any physical thing or cause existed before the alleged Big Bang, it had to be subject to time.

Which, means - that which existed in a timeless state before the creation event of a physical universe (the first cause) had to be a non-physical (supernatural) entity. There is no other option.

Information is a non-physical entity that exists outside of time, truth also exists outside of time - and thus the original source of information, the non-physical, eternally-existent, first cause (or the Word - ‘Logos’ as the Bible describes it) MUST exist outside of time.

Atheists, who are bound by their belief in materialism, cannot contemplate a cause that is not physical. They assume that all causes are physical, and so, if there was no time before the big bang event for anything physical to exist as a cause, the big bang would have to be causeless.

However, this argument is confused, because they also believe that there was the existence of extremely dense matter before the big bang. Their own argument is that there WAS something physical before the big bang, i.e. dense matter.

So, we have to go back further and ask what caused the dense matter to exist?

Did it exist in a timeless environment?

Not possible! If time is a physical thing (which we know it is), time must exist wherever physical things exist, because it is a chronology of physical things.

A big bang allegedly followed the existence of dense matter, that is a chronological event, within a physical time frame. Thus, even according to the beliefs of atheism, time could not have begun with the big bang explosion. Time would have needed to exist during the period that dense matter existed, prior to the big bang.

Can matter have always existed?

The simple answer is no.

Matter/energy and all natural entities and events are contingent, they rely on causes for everything. Because they are contingent they cannot be eternally self-existent or necessary entities. They do not contain within themselves the reason or cause of their own existence. As contingent entities, they are entirely reliant on that which causes and maintains them. They cannot exist or operate in any way without causes, Thus they must have had an original cause at some stage, even if the chain of causes and effects is very long, it had to have a beginning at some point.

A basic principle of the scientific method is that we can expect to find an adequate cause for every natural occurrence (The Law of Cause and Effect). All scientific research is based on that premise. The Law of Cause and Effect tells us that every natural effect/event/entity has an adequate cause. The natural effect/event/entity cannot be greater than its cause/causes.

To propose a non-contingent, natural occurrence or entity as the originator of the universe (as atheists are forced to do), is unscientific fantasy.

Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does, they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.

Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….

And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.

We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. If the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg, or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.

The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.

The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.

SO....

Is the law of cause and effect really universal?

Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.

In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.

ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.

Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.

Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere at any time.

If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the very start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?

Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?

If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.

Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?

Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?

To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.

That is why atheism is really just a re-invented version of pagan naturalism.

By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.

____________________________________________

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"

Lord William Kelvin.

Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.

Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”

Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Evolution multi-million year timescale refuted by field and experimental evidence, i.e. real scientific evidence.

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/albums/72157635944...

What is atheism?

Modern atheists say that atheism is the non-belief in ALL deities (gods). They also say things like; atheism does not require any beliefs - similar to not believing in fairies. Some even say that atheism is like not being a stamp collector or not engaging in some other hobby.

However, many people would disagree with the idea that atheism doesn't require any beliefs, or is not in itself a type of ideology/religion. The Bible proclaims that such atheism is irrational nonsense (the fool hath said in his heart there is no God).

So which view is correct?

Is it rational or feasible to reject ALL deities, and could such a rejection be described as simply a non-belief, similar to not believing in fairies?

Rejecting all deities seems fine at first glance. However, if we bother to consider what it really means, we soon realise that rejecting ALMOST all deities could be feasible - BUT not EVERY deity, because there is one particular exception..

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realises that all deities (gods) are NOT the same. They can’t all be lumped together. There is one particular deity that is fundamentally different from all the others. There is one particular deity that it is not credible for any rational person to reject or dismiss. This may seem like a bold statement but, as we will see, it is not logically possible to reject the deity (God) that is regarded as the ‘Creator’ or supernatural, first cause of the universe.

Why?

Because, if you reject the supernatural, first cause, you have no option but to transfer all the creative powers and godlike attributes of the supernatural, first cause to nature or the natural/material realm. This means you effectively deify nature.

So by attempting to eliminate one deity - a supernatural, first cause (God) - you simply create another deity with similar, godlike powers (such as Mother Nature) to replace it.

Therefore, no rational person can honestly reject belief in a creator god. The only question is; which god best fits the bill of being the creator of the universe?

Is it the supernatural, first cause monotheists call ‘God’- or a natural, first cause - a material god of nature?

So we are left with the option of choosing which creator god (first cause) to believe in? Either - a supernatural, first cause (God) - or a natural, first cause (a material, pagan style god)? We do not have the choice or luxury of believing in neither, there is no other option. This reveals the atheist claim that it is rational, feasible or logical to reject ALL deities as completely bogus.

A most crucial question in this matter is ….

Why is there something rather than nothing?

It seems the most logical viewpoint would be the idea of eternal nothingness – i.e. total non- existence - that there is not, never was and never has been, the existence of anything. However, it is not that easy, we don’t have that option, because something definitely does exist and thus we are forced to face the question of why and how something exists here and now, rather than an eternal, infinite nothingness?

We are left with only two options for where the ‘something’ we know as the material universe came from? - It either came from:

1) An eternally, pre-existing nothingness.

OR

2) An eternally, pre-existing something.

The first option of something tangible/material arising of its own volition from absolute and complete nothingness is not logically credible. It is safe to say it is a certain impossibility. There is no rational argument that can be made for such a scenario. Which means that we are forced to accept the second option (an eternally pre-existing something) as the only credible possibility for the origin of everything that now exists.

If the ‘something’ that eternally pre-existed the material universe has always existed, it must be entirely self-sufficient in its ability to exist. Which means it is eternally self-existent, i.e. not dependent on anything else, other than itself, for its origin or its continued existence. It always has, and always will exist.

In other words, it is non-contingent and completely independent and autonomous. Nothing can effect, cause or prevent its existence in any way.

It also has to be the first cause of everything else that exists. Without it nothing else could exist.

What does science tell us?

Science tells us that all material entities are regulated by natural laws - natural laws are based on the properties of natural/material things. Natural laws allow scientists to make predictions concerning the behaviour of all natural entities. It is obvious that natural things can never exceed the limits of their own inherent properties which natural laws describe. One natural law, that is actually the founding principle behind all scientific research, is the Law of Cause and Effect. It tells us that every natural effect/entity has to have a sufficient or adequate cause. A causeless, natural entity is impossible according to science, science cannot entertain such a prospect, because scientific research is based on looking for a sufficient cause or causes of EVERY natural occurrence. Scientists expect every natural occurrence to be contingent - to be adequately caused. Science cannot look for non-causes. That would be a nonsense. The dilemma here for atheists is that the first cause of everything had to be uncaused, it had to be eternally self-existent, it could not be contingent, it could not be subject to the limits of any natural laws, it had to be entirely autonomous and self-sufficient. It could not rely on causes or anything else for its existence, it had to contain within itself everything it required to exist and furthermore to bring everything else that exists into existence.

Atheism is not just a rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, it is also the BELIEF (by default) in the only other option ... a NATURAL first cause.

Atheists may call their natural, first cause - a big bang, a quantum fluctuation of nothing, a singularity, a cyclical universe, a self-creating universe, string theory, or any other fantastical invention.

It makes no difference, because none of them can be UNCAUSED and none of them are ADEQUATE as a first cause of everything that exists in the universe. They are all contingent and all inferior to the end result, and consequently ALL are disqualified as possible, first causes by the Law of Cause and Effect.

So atheists simply transfer the creative powers, properties and qualities, that theists attribute to a Supernatural, First Cause (God), to a natural entity. In other words, they effectively deify matter/energy and credit matter/energy with godlike, creative powers. Thus atheism is simply a revamped version of the discredited beliefs of pagan naturalism.

Remember the pagan belief in the all powerful Sun god (Ra), or the Moon god, Mother Nature etc.? EXACTLY!

A natural first cause is an impossibility, there is no such thing as an UNCAUSED NATURAL event or entity.

That is not my opinion, it is the verdict of science, which is founded on the principle that every natural effect/event/entity requires an adequate cause. There is no exception to that rule. Which means any scenario atheists propose as a natural, first cause cannot be regarded as scientific. They are all unscientific nonsense.

People may be surprised to hear that, because we are conditioned by the popular media and incessant, atheist hype to believe that such proposed, natural causes are a scientific version of origins. It is complete hogwash, they all violate scientific principles without exception, and have got nothing to do with science. The public is being cynically conned and manipulated. All atheist, naturalistic, origin scenarios are based purely on ideology and the pagan religion of naturalism, and that is the true nature of atheism.

Pagan naturalism was soundly debunked by the onset of modern science and the understanding that all natural occurrences are contingent - that all natural occurrences MUST have an adequate cause and are subject to, and limited by, natural laws based on the inherent properties of matter/energy. The idea that nature/material things are some sort of power unto themselves - that they are all powerful, autonomous, non-contingent entities which can behave with impunity unrestricted by natural laws etc., that things can just happen the due to the vagaries of Mother Nature etc. was demonstrated by science to be nonsense. Regardless of this, modern atheists are intent on reviving pagan naturalism in a different guise. We have to wonder why?

The law of cause and effect is the basis of science. If you deny it, you step outside of science into the realm of metaphysics or magic. That is why atheist naturalism (which credits nature/matter/energy with autonomous powers, unfettered by the restraints and limitations of the law of cause and effect and other natural laws, which are intrinsic to nature) is really a religion. Even worse, it is not a rational religion, it is one which defies logic, science and reason.

The law of cause and effect (which is the fundamental basis of the scientific method) tells us that EVERY natural effect/event/entity has to have an adequate cause. The material universe as a whole is no exception. It had to have a beginning and a cause - it is a contingent thing, it cannot exist without causes. Therefore, it cannot possibly be UNCAUSED. It had to have a sufficient cause to bring it into existence). That is the verdict of science. Science can only look for adequate causes, not non-causes. That is the fundamental principle behind all scientific enquiry. Whereas, if we go back far enough, the very first cause of everything material had to be UNCAUSED (i.e. non-contingent and thus non-material) because it is the FIRST cause. No other cause could have preceded it. If another cause preceded it - it would not be the first cause, it would be only a secondary cause and not FIRST. So the first cause of the material realm couldn't be a natural, contingent entity. That would violate the law of cause and effect. Hence for anyone to propose that the first cause could be a natural thing is illogical, unscientific nonsense.

Atheists are very fond of repeating the claim that the idea of a creator God/religion is just a human invention.

Christians would say that the existence of a creator God is revealed and confirmed by His revelation to mankind. But whether you accept the revelation argument or not, the claim that God is a human invention is clearly wrong and silly. Because, regardless of revelation, the existence of God is an inevitable conclusion reached by logic and the application of natural laws and principles of science.

So rather than God being a human invention, the existence of God should be described as a discovery. Revelation, scriptures or religious texts are not essential for the knowledge that a creator God must exist. That is a true discovery that can be reached independently of revelation by any sensible, rational, objective person through simple logic and respect for natural laws and science.

What about the idea that our knowledge is limited, that we cannot know what took place at the beginning of the universe, we cannot know what laws existed? And therefore to propose a supernatural, first cause (God) as the Creator is just a desperate or lazy way of filling a gap in our knowledge? This is the so-called God-of-the-gaps argument.

If we trust science, we simply cannot propose a natural, first cause of the universe as a logical or scientific possibility. We do KNOW that for certain. There is no gap in knowledge as far as that fact is concerned. Our present knowledge is sufficient to rule out a natural, first cause of the universe as impossible according to well established, scientific principles.

The law of cause and effect makes scientific research possible. It is only possible because we trust the scientific principle that we can expect to find an adequate cause or causes for EVERY natural occurrence.

If, like atheists, we want to claim we don't or cannot know whether the universe had an adequate cause - or to claim that a natural first cause could be possible, we are ignoring science and stepping outside of science into fantasy.

That is ALL we need to know, in order to conclude that the atheist paradigm is fatally flawed.

The law of cause and effect is exactly that which, as the basic founding principle of modern science, demolished all pagan, naturalist religions, it demolished belief in the autonomous, creative powers of material things. Atheists apparently want to resurrect that belief.

Science is: 'knowledge' through seeking and discovering causes. If anyone claims a natural event happened without an adequate cause - they are anti-science.

Therefore, to say "we don't know" what laws existed at the origin of the material universe, as some atheists do, is utter nonsense. The law of cause and effect pertains to matter/energy and ALL natural occurrences - wherever they may be.

All natural events whether inside or outside of the universe are governed by the law of cause and effect. Just like gravity (which is an inherent property of matter), so the principle of causality is an inherent property of everything in the natural world. . Everything ... means all natural entities, events and effects. All natural things, by their very nature, are contingent, that is a fact, and they can't be anything else.

They can never act independently of causes, to say they can is to invoke magic, it is definitely not science.

That then, is our understanding of science, it is not just an opinion or assumption. It is the very basis of the scientific method that we can expect to find an adequate cause of every natural occurrence. To say that there may be some natural occurrences that are not subject to the law of cause and effect is to dispute the scientific method. So atheism has no valid, scientific argument, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

Is it possible to know the attributes (or character) of God - the Supernatural, First Cause?

The evidence that a natural, first cause is IMPOSSIBLE (because it violates natural laws) should be sufficient for any rational person to conclude that the first cause could not be a natural entity, and therefore has to be supernatural. Furthermore, the first cause HAS to be adequate for the effect.

If an effect of the first cause is the universe, then that cause has to embody the potential and power to produce everything that exists in the universe. Nothing in the universe can be superior to that which ultimately caused the universe.

AN EFFECT CANNOT BE GREATER THAN ITS CAUSE.

Therefore - if there is life in the universe - the first cause or the universe MUST have life.

If there is intelligence in the universe - the first cause MUST have intelligence.

If there is consciousness in the universe - the first cause MUST be conscious.

If there is law in the universe - the first cause MUST be a lawmaker.

If there are morals in the universe - the first cause MUST be moral.

If there is justice in the universe - the first cause MUST be just.

If there is love in the universe - the first cause MUST be loving.

And so on ...

All the powers, properties and qualities that exist in the universe were created by the first cause, so the first cause must possess the ability to create those attributes. None of those attributes can be greater in any respect than the attributes possessed by that which created them. There is no conceivable natural, origins scenario that is adequate to account for every quality that exist in the universe. Which shows that the so-called big bang, singularity or any other proposed, natural, origins scenario is not possible as a first cause.

The Bible says we were made in the image of a Creator God who is the first cause of everything material, including us. The Bible thus reveals and confirms the SCIENTIFIC principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. We cannot have any properties or powers that are superior to that which caused the universe, we have inherited all our attributes from the first cause and are therefore made in the image of that cause (the Creator God, as described in the Bible).

Atheism revealed as false - why God MUST exist.

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/18927764022

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that quantum mechanics or a so-called god-particle are the answer to the origin of the universe and of everything from nothing without the need for any cause?

We can say quite categorically that quantum effects haven't got anything to do with an origin of the universe from nothing.

Why?

It is common sense that something CANNOT come from nothing and that EVERY natural occurrence needs an adequate cause, micro or sub-atomic particles are not an exception. There are NO exceptions.

However, the atheist mentality seems to be that if something is impossible, just propose that it could happen - little by little -and that makes it plausible to a credulous public.

Just make it as small, make it sound as simple, and as less complex as you can, and then people will believe anything is possible.

This is exactly the same little-by-little criteria that atheists apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution.

What makes them think that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?

Is it any easier or more credible for a grain of sand to come from nothing than it would be for a boulder?

Of course it isn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.

Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.

Size or lack of complexity doesn’t alter that.

Atheists obviously think …. OK, people might realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, but what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?

What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?

That should sound much more plausible.

What if we could find such a particle - a sort of ‘god’ particle (a substitute for God)? A supernatural, first cause (a creator God) would then be made redundant.

Problem solved - apparently!

People will think that, even if the problem of the origin of everything without a cause hasn’t been solved completely, at least 'science' is well on the way to solving it.

Of course, if anyone stubbornly insists that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t possibly come from nothing, we can always propose that nothing isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’, i.e. space/time.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to get a scientifically illiterate and gullible public, in awe of anything claimed to be scientific, to swallow that.

However, the idea of a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but militant atheists loved it and, predictably, the popular, secularist, media hacks also loved it.

What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing, as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.

A simple, sub-atomic particle CANNOT possibly be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God because, not only is it impossible for it to be uncaused, it is also clearly not adequate for the effect/result.

So, atheists, while trying to fool people into thinking that it is easier for something to come from nothing, if it is simple and microscopic, actually shot themselves in the foot....

The little by little approach which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.

An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause.

The very first cause of the universe, as well as not being a contingent entity, cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe itself.

The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means every property and quality it contains.

Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, any more than any of the other natural, first causes proposed by atheists.

So atheists are flogging a dead horse by thinking they can replace God with quantum mechanics, which may be interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is absolutely certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.

Wikipedia …

“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.

While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe."

____________________________________________

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"

"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"

Lord William Kelvin.

Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.

Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”

Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.

An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible.

So is it a valid solution?

It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.

It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.

Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.

The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.

Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?

If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.

The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.

Such ridiculous atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.

Atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ”.

Sorry, atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible …. And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.

Atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, while they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.

Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.

The development of order requires an organizational element.

To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.

Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.

The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA. Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup.

Natural laws are a type of information pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it.

They describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws based on their own properties. They cannot exceed the parameters of those laws.

The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.

If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.

Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!

Bogus science indeed!

Order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.

A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?

In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.

Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.

Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and we would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.

This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.

Atheists say the exact opposite.

Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.

There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.

It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.

Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.

Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.

However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.

Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific notions:

A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.

A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).

That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.

That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.

That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).

That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.

That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.

That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.

The claim of Dawkins and other atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.

They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.

However, when challenged, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.

Whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.

That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Dawkins.

Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins needs to face is that he is in no position to attack what he considers are the bizarre beliefs of others, when his own beliefs (which he fails to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.

Christianity and pagan gods?

Atheists frequently try to dismiss the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.

Do they have a good point?

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….

Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.

An idol of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.

In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity. The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists. If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.

This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.

Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?

How true is that?

The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.

The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?

If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.

That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.

All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.

That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.

Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.

Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.

So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.

The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.

In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...

The effect cannot be greater than the cause....

So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.

If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,

If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.

If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.

If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.

That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.

The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.

This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.

That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.

But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.

A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.

Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.

Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.

Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

My first time seeing the all Mighty wind farm, Green energy. I thought "Wow those things are Huge and awesome. Yet Ugly, Well there're good for the environment". After further research, I think not. No storage for when they turn and no energy when they don't. But they do light up the night sky with red flashing lights and kill bats and birds quite often, that's something I guess........What I'm not sure of.......Maybe fix the road and build Nuclear power plants??? We gotta do better than this, that's all I know! Bird/bat blenders and wasted money ain't gonna keep the electricity on in Your house....Think People.

Today a candle was lit and prayers were said for...

John and Mary

John, Marvelle, Zita, Joel and Manuel

Jeanette, John and Staceye

John, Robin, Roddy and John

Monique, Michele and Brian

Andrianna

Lakeisha and Dion

Aniya Denae

John, Juana, Mia and John Micheal

Treasure and Jean

James, Francis, Angus, Renee, Alexis, Andre, Darnell, Alyscia, Margaret, Cheronne, Selina, Liz, Sarah, Aunnette, Lori, Renee, Lewis, Gloria, Melvin, Theresa, Sarah,

Jacquil, Edward, Jackie and Shirley.

All of my friends that are my family...l

Newton's First Law of Motion:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Newton's Second Law of Motion:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

Newton's Third Law of Motion:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

♥♥♥

Random question: Is there a law-ve physics?

(Explored)

"Among other changes, the revisions to our Privacy Policy may have changed your preferences for receiving postal mailings from Alaska Airlines and its partners."

So let me get this straight. Their changes to their Privacy Policy may have changed my stated, resolute preferences for not getting dead tree spam and not having my address resold? Without me ever knowing about it? I think there's some quantum phenomenon going on here. Can this prove string theory?

(Alaska has provided great customer support by phone everytime I've used it, so they're not fully customer-unfriendly, but wow.)

Overweight man buying an ice cream from a vintage ice cream van on holiday www.redbubble.com/people/timconstable/works/10651752-ice-...

2018 - iPhone SE

Elephant Cocktail at Cause & Effect cocktail bar in Cape Town. It was orangey flavour with candy floss on top. (The straw is a reusable one - yay!)

Overweight man buying an ice cream from a vintage ice cream van on holiday www.redbubble.com/people/timconstable/works/10651749-wish...

Overweight man buying an ice cream from a vintage ice cream van on holiday www.redbubble.com/people/timconstable/works/10651749-wish...

I'm hot blooded

Check it and see

I've got a fever of a hundred and three

Photo credit: James Boyd, Production Still Photography (www.6161.com)

“If the atoms never swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snap the bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect—what is the source of the free will possessed by living things throughout the earth?”—Titus Lucretius Carus, Roman philosopher and poet, 99–55 BC.

I saw this one night, and this quote came into my mind.

i102708 376

Miniature World depicting a fat man with a jelly belly walking through some jelly bean sweets www.redbubble.com/people/timconstable/works/10646278-jell...