View allAll Photos Tagged LawsOfNature
Best Christian Song "The One Who Holds Sovereignty Over Everything" | Christian Documentary
www.holyspiritspeaks.org/videos/one-who-holds-sovereignty...
Throughout the vast universe, all celestial bodies move precisely within their own orbits. Under the heavens, mountains, rivers, and lakes all have their boundaries, and all creatures live and reproduce throughout the four seasons in accordance with the laws of life…. This is all so exquisitely designed—is there a Mighty One ruling and arranging all this? Since coming into this world crying we have begun playing different roles in life. We move from birth to old age to illness to death, we go between joy and sorrow…. Where does mankind really come from, and where will we really go? Who is ruling our fates? From ancient times to modern days, great nations have risen up, dynasties have come and gone, and countries and peoples have flourished and perished in the tides of history…. Just like the laws of nature, the laws of humanity's development contain infinite mysteries. Would you like to know the answers to them? The Christian musical documentary The One Who Holds Sovereignty Over Everything will guide you to get to the root of this, to unveil all of these mysteries!
Recommended for You: Best Christian Movie
Or is it a giant sunflower that attracts downy woodpeckers? LOL!
For this week's group challenge, I knew I was going to do something with one of my neighbor's beautiful sunflowers. I was going to grow it out of a chair or in a tree or ??? Finally, I decided on the woodpeckers I had gotten pictures of through my kitchen window. I did this on my phone, so the quality of the birds isn't as great as that of the camera. I love the look of the sunflower taken with the M Zuiko 60mm macro lens, so even with distant birds at an imperfect window angle, I'm pretty happy with the result.
This week worried me. Then I lucked upon a great group of teenagers in my neighborhood today and I had fortunately shot the moon earlier in the week.
52 weeks in 2022: defy the laws of nature
A "tongue in cheek" close-up Photomicrography view of a marble, where I illustrate that when you look at a spherical object close enough, it seems to be flat. If one subscribes to "Flat Earth Theory", it would mean that this photo proves that the Marble is flat!
How Eratosthenes calculated that the Earth was round in the 3rd Century BC already. Clip from Cosmos - Carl Sagan.
A lifetime of careful observation of the known Universe, and the basic laws of Physics disproves all claims that the Earth is flat. This simple experiment is aimed at getting people to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions, by observing the world around them.
View my Astrophotography Gallery, with some of my Astronomical observations on my journey of self-study and Lifelong learning.
Why is the marble on a turtle's back?
A short excerpt from: "A Brief History of Time" - “A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!” ― Stephen Hawking.
Earth's Line of Sight Curvature Calculations:
The Earth has a radius of approximately 3965 miles. Using the Pythagorean theorem, that calculates to an average curvature of 7.98 inches per mile or approximately 8 inches per mile (squared).
www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html
About this image:
The image consists of 24 x Focus Stacked photos, as the Depth of Field is very shallow when one photographs through a Microscope Objective Lens.
HD Live-Feed of Earth from the ISS:
Conclusion:
Richard Feynman's famous conclusion to his report on the shuttle Challenger accident sums it up. "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard P. Feynman.
Photo usage and Copyright:
Medium-resolution photograph licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Terms (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). For High-resolution Royalty Free (RF) licensing, contact me via my site: Contact.
Martin
-
[Website] [Photography Showcase] [eBook] [Facebook]
My kids and i went to our local Earth Day celebration on Saturday and came home with a bag of 50 or so lady bugs we collected in a booth of a company specializing in literature about organic gardening etc. Then we spent about an hour watching them crawl out of the bag and into the grass at home as we set them free. All was well until the dog started to eat them......it broke my daughters heart,.....tears ensued! ;-))
You never anticipate that lady bugs actually move at the speed of light until you try to photograph them! haha!
Christian Documentary | God rules | "The One Who Holds Sovereignty Over Everything" | Testimony of the Creator's Almightiness and Sovereignty
www.holyspiritspeaks.org/videos/one-who-holds-sovereignty...
Introduction
Throughout the vast universe, all celestial bodies move precisely within their own orbits. Under the heavens, mountains, rivers, and lakes all have their boundaries, and all creatures live and reproduce throughout the four seasons in accordance with the laws of life…. This is all so exquisitely designed—is there a Mighty One ruling and arranging all this? Since coming into this world crying we have begun playing different roles in life. We move from birth to old age to illness to death, we go between joy and sorrow…. Where does mankind really come from, and where will we really go? Who is ruling our fates? From ancient times to modern days, great nations have risen up, dynasties have come and gone, and countries and peoples have flourished and perished in the tides of history…. Just like the laws of nature, the laws of humanity's development contain infinite mysteries. Would you like to know the answers to them? The Christian musical documentary The One Who Holds Sovereignty Over Everything will guide you to get to the root of this, to unveil all of these mysteries!
AWARDS & NOMINATIONS
Best About the History of Mankind, Near Nazareth Festival, Israel, 2018
Bronze Award in Christian Documentary, Christian Family Film Festival, United States, 2018
Best Documentary Feature: Silver Award, Mindfield Film Festival - Albuquerque, United States, 2018
Best Documentary, Best Animation, Best Special Effects, Christian Online Film Festival, United States, 2018
Best Visual Effects, Barcelona Planet Film Festival, Spain, 2018
Best Visual Effects, Los Angeles Film Awards, United States, 2018
Best Documentary: Platinum Award, NYC Indie Film Awards, United States, 2018
Award of Recognition in Documentary Feature, Impact DOCS Awards, United States, 2018
Best FX in a Feature Film, South Film and Arts Academy Festival, Chile, 2018
Best Experimental Film, Portugal International Film Festival, Portugal, 2018
International Award of Outstanding Excellence, International Film Festival for Spirituality, Religion, and Visionary, Indonesia, 2018
Best Documentary Feature, Best Original Music Score, Los Angeles Independent Film Festival Awards, United States, 2018
Audience Award, Veritas Film Festival, United States, 2018
Nominee, Canadian International Faith & Family Film Festival, Canada, 2018
Finalist for Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Design, Oniros Film Awards, Italy, 2018
OFFICIAL SELECTIONS
Fest Cine Pedra Azul, Brazil, July 3, 2018
International Sound & Film Music Festival, Croatia, October 1, 2018
Recommended for You：Christian Music Video
Image Source: The Church of Almighty God
Terms of Use: en.godfootsteps.org/disclaimer.html
Nature is my medicine ~ Sara Moss-Wolfe
Original photography enhanced with inspiring or literary quotes.
Available for use under the creative commons license, please credit mkhmarketing and link to www.flickr.com/photos/mkhmarketing/8686686679/
IF, THEN, AND THE ATHEIST DILEMMA.
All scientific theories are based on ‘if’ and ‘then’. The proposition being; IF such a thing is so, THEN we can expect certain effects to be evident.
For example: there are only two competing alternatives for the origin/first cause of everything.
A natural, first cause, OR a supernatural, first cause.
Atheists believe in a natural, first cause.
Theists believe in a supernatural, first cause.
IF the first cause is natural, THEN progressive evolution of the universe (cosmos) and life are deemed to be expected, even essential.
Conversely, IF the first cause is supernatural, THEN an evolutionary scenario of the cosmos and/or life is not required, not probable, but not impossible.
In other words, while evolution, and an enormous, time frame are perceived as absolutely essential for atheist naturalism, theism could (perhaps reluctantly) accept evolution and/or a long, time frame as possible in a creation scenario.
Crucially, if the evidence doesn’t stack up for cosmic evolution, biological evolution, and a long evolutionary time frame, atheist naturalism is perceived to fail.
For atheism, evolution is an Achilles heel. Atheists have an ideological commitment to a natural origin of everything from nothing - which, if it were possible, would essentially require both cosmic and biological evolution and a vast timescale.
Consequently, atheist scientists can never be genuinely objective in assessing evidence. Only theist scientists can be truly objective.
However, the primary Achilles heel for atheist naturalism is its starting proposition.
Because the ‘IF’ proposal of a natural, first cause, is fatally flawed, the subsequent ‘THEN’ is a non sequitur.
The atheist ‘IF’ (a natural, first cause) is logically impossible according to the laws of nature, because all natural entities are contingent, temporal and temporary.
In other words:
All natural entities depend on an adequate cause.
All natural entities have a beginning.
And all natural entities are subject to entropy.
Whereas a first cause MUST be non-contingent, infinite and eternal.
But, just suppose we ignore this insurmountable obstacle and, for the sake of argument, assume that the ‘THEN’ which follows from the atheist ‘IF’ proposition of a natural, first cause is worth considering.
We realise that both cosmic and biological evolution are still not possible as NATURAL occurrences.
The law of cause and effect tells us that whatever caused the universe (whether it evolved or not) could not be inferior, in any way, to the sum total of the universe.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So, we know that cosmic evolution from nothing could not happen naturally.
That traps atheists in an impossible, catch 22 situation, by supporting cosmic evolution, they are supporting something which could not happen naturally, according to natural laws.
It doesn’t get any better with biological evolution, in fact it gets worse. The Law of Biogenesis (which has never been falsified) rules out the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. Atheists choose to ignore this firmly established law and have, perversely, invented their own law (abiogenesis), which says the exact opposite. However, their cynical disregard for laws of nature, ironically, fails to solve their problem.
Crucially ...
An origin of life, arising of its own volition from sterile matter, conditions permitting (abiogenesis), would require an inherent predisposition/potential of matter to automatically develop life.
The atheist dilemma here is; where does such an inherent predisposition to automatically produce life come from? In a purposeless universe, which arose from nothing, how could matter have acquired such a potential or property?
A predisposed potential for spontaneous generation of life would require a purposeful creation (some sort of blueprint/plan for life intrinsic to matter). So, by advocating abiogenesis, atheists are unintentionally supporting a purposeful creation.
Following on from that, we also realise that abiogenesis requires an initial input of constructive, genetic information. Information Theory tells us; there is no NATURAL means by which such information can arise of its own accord in matter.
Then there is the problem of the law of entropy (which derives from the Second Law of Thermodynamics). How can abiogenesis defy that law? The only way that order can increase is by an input of guided energy. Raw energy has the opposite effect. What could possibly direct or guide the energy to counter the natural effects of entropy?
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
Suppose we are stupid enough to ignore all this and we carry on speculating further by proposing a progressive, microbes-to-human evolution (Darwinism).
Starting with the limited, genetic information in the first cell (which originated how, and from where? nobody knows). The only method of increasing that original information is through a long, incremental series of beneficial mutations (genetic, copying MISTAKES). Natural selection cannot produce new information, it simply selects from existing information.
Proposing mistakes as a mechanism for improvement is not sensible. In fact, it is completely bonkers. Billions of such beneficial mutations would be required to transform microbes into humans and every other living thing.
Once again, it would need help from a purposeful creator.
So, we can conclude that the atheist ‘IF’, of a natural, first cause, is not only a non-starter, but also every ‘THEN’, which would essentially arise from that proposal, ironically supports the theist ‘IF’.
Consequently ...
If you don't believe in cosmic evolution you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in cosmic evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
And...
If you don’t believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution, you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
Conclusion:
The inevitable and amazing conclusion is that everyone (intentionally or unintentionally) supports the existence of a creator, whatever scenario they propose for the origin of the universe.
No one can devise an origin scenario for the universe that doesn’t require a Creator. That is a fact, whether you like it or not!
The Bible correctly declares:
Only the fool in his heart says there is no God.
Theists have no ideological need to be dogmatic. Unlike atheists, they can assess all the available scientific evidence objectively. Because a long timescale, and even an evolutionary scenario, in no way disproves a creator. In fact, as I have already explained, a creator would still be essential to enable: cosmic evolution, the origin of life, and microbes-to-human evolution. Whereas, both a long timescale and biological evolution are deemed essential to (but are no evidence for) the beliefs of atheist naturalism.
Atheist scientists are hamstrung by their own preconceptions.
It is impossible for atheists to be objective regarding any evidence. They are forced by their own ideological commitment to make dogmatic assumptions. It is unthinkable that atheists would even consider any interpretation of the evidence, other than that which they perceive (albeit erroneously) to support naturalism. They force science into a straitjacket of their own making.
All scientific hypotheses/theories about past events, that no one witnessed, rely on assumptions. None can be claimed as FACT.
The biggest assumption of all, and one that is logically and scientifically unsustainable, is the idea of a natural, first cause. If this is your starting assumption, then everything that follows is flawed.
The new atheist nonsense, is simply the old, pagan nonsense of naturalism in a new guise.
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
The poison in our midst - progressive politics.
FACT.
ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe scenarios are false. The conclusive proof is presented here.
The proof is categorised as follows:
1. Contingent
2. Temporal
3. Temporary
The fact that EVERY natural entity or event is all three
(contingent, temporal and temporary) definitively rules out a natural entity as the origin or first cause of the universe.
The universe cannot possibly be the result of purely natural processes as atheism requires.
_________________________________________
Contingent.
All, natural entities/events are contingent.
They all require causes, and the scope, extent and potential of their properties/abilities relies entirely on their cause/s.
Their effects/properties are limited to the adequacy of their cause/s. They cannot exceed, in any respect, the abilities or properties of that which causes them.
This is supported by the Law of Cause and Effect.
'Every natural effect requires a cause' AND ‘An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s’.
A first cause of everything cannot be contingent, it must be entirely autonomous and non-contingent. Not reliant on, nor limited by, any preceding cause or causes. It cannot be inferior, in any respect, to anything else that ultimately exists (entirely self-sufficient & self-reliant).
Therefore, the first cause of everything cannot be a natural entity or event. This rules out every, proposed, natural origin of the universe scenario as a possible, first cause.
Logically, by virtue of the first cause being FIRST, it had to be uncaused (non-contingent). If it was caused it couldn't be FIRST, as it would be preceded by another cause..
_________________________________________
Temporal.
All, natural entities/events are temporal. They all have a beginning within a physical, time frame. They all begin to exist at some point in time. That which is temporal requires a cause. Therefore, a first cause of everything cannot be a natural entity of event.
A first cause of everything cannot be temporal, it cannot have had a beginning and cannot be subject to time. If any proposed, first cause began to exist at some time in the past, it would have required a preceding cause for its own existence, and therefore could not be the 'FIRST' cause. This rules out all natural scenarios, such as as a Big Bang explosion or a singularity, as possible, first causes. They are all temporal, and that is a fact.
The first cause has to be eternally and infinitely, self-existent, not temporal.
_________________________________________
Temporary.
All, natural entities/events are temporary.
As well as having a beginning within a physical time frame, they also face an eventual demise at some point in time.
This is enshrined in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or more specifically, the law of entropy.
All, natural things deteriorate, and will ultimately come to an end.
Therefore, the first cause of everything cannot be a natural, entity or event. That is a fact.
The first cause of everything cannot be temporary, it cannot be subject to entropy and deterioration through the passage of time, because its powers and potential would have diminished and ultimately ceased to exist at some point in an eternal past. It could not have survived, or have had the sustained power, to be the first cause.
And an infinitely, long chain of natural causes and effects is impossible. Because, as each cause in the chain is subject to entropy, the chain as a whole would also be subject to entropy, thus deteriorating and diminishing in potential, over time.
_________________________________________
Conclusion:
Logic, supported by science, reveals that the first cause of everything cannot possibly be a natural entity or event. Therefore, ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe scenarios are patently false. That is a fact.
The first cause of everything HAD to be a supernatural entity (a Creator God). There is no other logical or credible option.
The Biblical claim; the fool hath said in his heart “there is no God” (Psalm 14:1) is wholly justified and true.
Only a fool would attempt to claim otherwise.
_________________________________________
The implications of the Law of Cause and Effect clarified.
Consider this short chain of causes and effects:
A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.
'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.
Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C, D & E would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.
We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.
We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.
So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, without any deterioration, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-sufficient, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists).
It must be non-contingent, non-temporal and non-temporary. No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.
_________________________________________
Polytheism? Why only one God?
What about polytheism, can there be more than one God or Creator.
It is obvious there can only be one, supernatural, first cause.
The first cause is infinite - and logically, there cannot be more than one infinite entity.
If there were two infinite entities, for example, A and B. The qualities and perfections that are the property of B would be a limitation on the qualities and perfections of A. and vice versa, so neither would be infinite.
If A & B had identical qualities and perfections they would not be two different entities, they would be identical and therefore the same entity, i.e. a single, infinite, first cause. So there can be only one infinite being or entity, only one supernatural, first cause and creator of the universe.
So when atheists keep repeating the claim - that there is no reason to believe the monotheistic, Christian God is any different from the multiple, gods of pagan religions, it simply displays their ignorance and lack of reasoning.
For this reason the Christian Trinity is not 3 gods, but rather 3 aspects or facets of the same, single God:
"I am in the Father and the Father is in me" John:14-20
_______________________________________
Supernaturalism, naturalism or magic?
Does the first cause of everything have to be a supernatural one? Or is this idea (as atheists claim) just a desperate attempt by ignorant people to fill a gap in scientific knowledge, by saying - God did it?
What does 'supernatural' mean? It means something outside of nature. Something which cannot be explained by science or by natural processes.
The origin of the Universe must be a supernatural event.
The origin of the universe cannot be explained by genuine science, natural laws or by natural processes. And that is an undeniable FACT.
Why?
Because EVERY possible explanation by natural processes (naturalism) violates both the fundamental principle of the scientific method - the Law of Cause and Effect - and other natural laws.
Hence, the first cause, by virtue of the fact that it cannot be explained by science or natural processes, automatically qualifies as a supernatural entity/event (supernaturalism).
To insist that the first cause must be a natural entity or event is to invoke a magical explanation, not a scientific one. The only choice, therefore is between a supernatural first cause or a magical one? A natural event that is purported to defy natural laws and scientific principles can only be described as MAGIC. And that is exactly what atheists propose. They cynically dress up their belief - that nature can evade natural laws - as science, but genuine science certainly cannot contemplate a causeless, natural event or entity, genuine scientists do not look for non-causes.
_______________________________________
Is atheist naturalism science or just paganism naturalism re-invented?
No one has ever proposed a natural explanation for the origin of the universe that does not violate the law of cause and effect and other natural laws. But, whenever atheists are challenged about this fact, they always make the excuse that the laws of nature/physics somehow DID NOT APPLY to their proposed, natural origin scenario.
The most, well known case of this excuse is the alleged 'Singularity' which, it has been claimed, preceded the Big Bang. Remember, it is claimed to be a "one-off event where the laws of physics did not apply." A natural event that defied natural laws! - That used to be called 'magic', before atheist, so-called 'scientists' hi-jacked science with their religion of naturalism - the worship of an All Powerful, autonomous, Mother Nature.
Excuses aren't science. A natural event that violates natural laws is by definition, not possible. There are no ifs, buts or maybes, natural things are bound by natural laws, without question.
Natural laws describe the inherent properties of natural entities and how they react according to those properties. They cannot exceed, in any way, the scope of behaviour dictated and limited by their properties. The whole basis of science is that every natural entity/event is contingent - has to have an ADEQUATE CAUSE.
The idea of 'laws not applying' to a natural event, is not science. It is just fantasy.
The Law of Cause and Effect is more than just an ordinary law, it is an overriding, fundamental principle of existence, not just a property of matter/energy like the Law of Gravity. It has been called the law of laws, because it applies to everything temporal; i.e. everything which begins to exist. Which means it applies to everything, except the single, first cause of everything.
If the origin of the universe is inexplicable to science, within the accepted framework of normal, natural processes and natural laws, then it is a supernatural event.
You cannot claim something as a natural event that violates natural laws, (i.e. exceeds the scope of its potential based on its own intrinsic properties). For that reason it is inexplicable to science.
In fact. to claim that something natural can defy natural laws is anti-science.
Those who promote such nonsense are enemies of science.
ALL NATURAL explanations for the origin of the universe violate the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws.
Conclusion: the atheist belief in a natural explanation for the origin of the universe (i.e. that Mother Nature did it) is impossible - according to science.
______________________________________
Did natural laws exist at the beginning?
An argument, often used by atheists, that we don’t know what natural laws existed at the beginning of the universe is a desperate attempt to evade the fact that natural laws are fatal to a natural origin (or natural, first cause) of the universe.
It is a nonsensical argument because, as I have already stated, natural laws describe the operation/behaviour of natural entities, according to their inherent properties, those properties don’t change.
The Law of Cause and Effect is exceptional. Nothing can evade the law of cause and effect.
Even if we accept the bizarre possibility that some natural laws could have been different at (or prior to) the beginning of the universe, it is irrelevant to the Law of Cause and Effect. That law is an exception.
Why?
Because, as previously explained, the Law of Cause and Effect is in a different category from all other laws, which are based solely on the inherent properties of natural things.
It would be better described as an eternal truth and fundamental principle, rather than just a law.
It is a unique and overriding principle of existence, different from other physical laws which are just pertinent to, and properties of, natural entities. It has rightly been called the ‘law of laws’.
Science (which deals exclusively with natural things), quite rightly, accepts the principle of causality as a natural law, and the scientific method itself is dependent on it being true.
We know the Law of Cause and Effect cannot be different, or non-operational, under any circumstances. That is a fact, because it necessarily applies to ALL temporal things.
Unlike other laws, it is not based on any particular, physical properties of nature, it is based only on the temporal character of nature.
Natural things are all temporal and nothing that is temporal can ever escape from that overriding principle. That would also include any temporal, spiritual entities, such as angels or demons.
Everything with a temporal character, wherever and whenever it exists, is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect, . There cannot be any exception to this, and that is why we can rely 100% on the scientific method, which depends on seeking and exploring causes.
Everything that has a beginning is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So, even if the argument that "we don't know what laws existed at the beginning of the universe" is correct, it cannot apply to the principle of causality.
The principle of causality had to exist at the beginning. It is an eternal principle and truth, which can never be different, under any circumstances.
FACT: To reiterate; if something is temporal, then it is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So, it is not possible to propose a natural, origin scenario that can escape the Law of Cause and Effect. All natural entities and occurrences are temporal and, therefore, are all subject to cause and effect.
The only thing not subject to causality is the first cause, because the first cause is not temporal, it has to be non-contingent, that is - infinite and eternally self-existent.
The first cause is the ONLY exception to causality, nothing else can be an exception, everything else (including other supernatural entities, such as angels) is contingent and owes its existence to a cause, which ultimately originates with the uncaused, first cause (God).
Conclusion: A Creator God MUST exist. It is not sensible, and certainly not scientific, to deny that fact.
The poison in our midst - progressive politics.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/47971464278/in/pho...
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
Plants were grown Kratky style, however several top offs (to about 50 percent reservoir capacity) were performed. Some refills were fresh tap water and some were nutrient solution (depending on appearance of new growth in plants).
Gardener Ignores the Laws of Nature!
Jeb Gardener Published on May 18, 2017
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mqg8Af5U8A
Can a complete hydroponic salad be grown in one tote?
Watch the violation the laws of hydroponics and find out.
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...
"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."
christian documentary | "The One Who Holds Sovereignty Over Everything" | Testimony of the Creator's Almightiness and Sovereignty
Introduction
Throughout the vast universe, all celestial bodies move precisely within their own orbits. Under the heavens, mountains, rivers, and lakes all have their boundaries, and all creatures live and reproduce throughout the four seasons in accordance with the laws of life…. This is all so exquisitely designed—is there a Mighty One ruling and arranging all this? Since coming into this world crying we have begun playing different roles in life. We move from birth to old age to illness to death, we go between joy and sorrow…. Where does mankind really come from, and where will we really go? Who is ruling our fates? From ancient times to modern days, great nations have risen up, dynasties have come and gone, and countries and peoples have flourished and perished in the tides of history…. Just like the laws of nature, the laws of humanity's development contain infinite mysteries. Would you like to know the answers to them? The christian musical documentary The One Who Holds Sovereignty Over Everything will guide you to get to the root of this, to unveil all of these mysteries!
Recommended for You: English Christian Songs With Lyrics
Image Source: The Church of Almighty God
I have actually decided to post my series of Lily shots one after another as they really are ALL different.
This one is my particular favourite because the petals have taken on the sheen of satin (ohhh the joys of twiddling and tweaking!).
I mentioned the creature in the lagoon in the throat of the lily in the previous shot, well its still there lol. But there was another little casuality trapped under a rain drop and because I believe in the Laws of Nature, again, no BabeWatch routine on this one either.
Besides, I don't even OWN a swimming costume!!!
DO TRY AND HAVE A LOOK IN THE LARGER SIZE
Atheist myths debunked.
The development of order.
One of many questions’ atheists are unable to answer is:
Why is there order in the universe?
Order denotes purpose. Purpose requires a purposeful creation, which atheists deny.
There are several laws of nature and principles of science that atheists dearly wish would not exist.
Among these are:
The Law of Cause and Effect, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis.
These laws frustrate all attempts by atheists to replace God with ‘naturalism’ - their extraordinary belief that everything arose from nothing of its own volition, progressively increasing in order and potential, by entirely, natural processes.
Every natural, origin scenario (naturalism) defies explanation of the existence of order in the universe.
The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the building blocks of the universe, matter and energy, cannot be created by natural means.
The Second Law tells us matter/energy does not increase in order and potential. It tells us that, over time, the natural tendency is towards disorder and decreasing potential, from an obvious, original peak. There cannot be any natural, ongoing, development of order. This is an inconvenient fact for all atheist, natural, origin scenarios, which require the exact opposite; a simple, natural origin of matter/energy from nothing, progressively increasing in order and potential.
In addition to this inconvenient truth is the fact that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. A simple, random, chaotic, or disordered origin cannot naturally lead to a complex, ordered result. This causality principle endorses the Second Law.
The Second Law tells us order/complexity/potential does not increase naturally, but tends to decrease, and the Law of Cause and Effect tells us the result of a process cannot be superior to the totality of its original cause or causes. There cannot subsequently be more potential or order in an effect/entity than that which was intrinsic to its origin. Furthermore, the tendency, over time, is for this potential to decrease.
The absolute killer for atheist, origins mythology is that: even if progressively increasing order/potential in the universe was possible, it would still denote purpose.
What inherent principle could support increasing order/improvement as a likely outcome of purely, natural processes?
For example: If, as atheists are compelled to believe, matter/energy automatically progressed, of its own volition, from its origin, to acquire an inherent predisposition for the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis), which (incidentally) violates the Law of Biogenesis, they have to explain how such a predisposition/blueprint for life originated in an unconscious, unplanned, purposeless universe?
They may argue that the origin of life is a just a chance event, but the mechanism/constituents of any chance event must have the intrinsic capacity or capability to produce the chance outcome. A random, number generator may generate an unlikely combination of numbers by chance, but it cannot generate any numbers at all unless it is devised/constructed with the ability to do so. An unlikely event may happen by chance, but only if such an event is intrinsically possible. The atheist ploy, of just ignoring laws of nature, spectacularly fails.
How could the potential for constructive improvement develop autonomously in unplanned, unconscious, purposeless, dumb matter, which originated from nothing? The obvious, rational answer is that it couldn’t.
Atheists often employ bizarre arguments to justify their denial of the universality of laws which refute their beliefs. One of these, which has attained common currency among atheists, is the idea that snowflakes and crystals are examples of natural development of order. And that they somehow contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Here is an exchange I had with an atheist which illustrates this:
An atheist (Aimless Alliterations) in answer to part of my original post where I cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics, wrote this:
“Oh, goodness gracious. You tied yourself up in all sorts of knots a while back with this one . You really need to read the science and understand it before making statements like this.
Quoting me:
"The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. "
“Really? Where does it state this?”
Quoting me again:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered."
“Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system”.
My reply:
You wrote:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered." Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system."
I am afraid it is you who doesn’t understand the Second Law. What I said is perfectly correct.
There are only 2 ways the effects of entropy can be temporarily decreased, halted or reversed by an input of energy. Either by a directive means or agent guiding the energy input, OR a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way.
Raw (unguided) energy (such as random heat) tends to increase entropy and time makes it worse.
Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings, rather than the opposite, which evolutionists require for abiogenesis.
Regarding the grading of sediment, I am surprised you mention that, because we know that is how most strata are formed, which effectively demolishes the uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column and the fossil record. In this case, the grading is guided by the physical properties of the particles (size, shape, weight etc.) obeying physical laws. And, it will in time, be eroded and disorganised by the same forces that created it.
Abiogenesis (life arising of its own accord by natural processes from sterile matter) certainly does violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it requires a reversal of the effects of entropy.
Atheists and evolutionists often argue that abiogenesis doesn’t violate the Second Law because the Earth is an ‘open system’ which allows an input of energy from outside itself, namely the Sun.
They claim that the law of entropy only applies to ‘closed systems. This claim is obviously spurious, because firstly, we can observe entropy happening all around us. We are in the open system of the Earth, and yet we are well aware of entropy. We see that the Sun does not halt or reverse entropy, in fact we see the opposite. The raw energy and heat from the Sun, unless harnessed, does damage, things all around us obey the law - they deteriorate, rot, erode and decay, they do not naturally improve. If you paint your house, the Sun, and the weather effects caused by the Sun, will eventually damage the paintwork, it will crack and peel after a few years. The hotter the Sun (the greater the energy input) the quicker it will happen.
Secondly, even if it were true that in an open system, things can defy the law of entropy, natural laws are laws for the whole universe, and the universe, as a whole, is a closed system.
So, what can we deduce from this?
Can the effects of entropy ever be reversed of halted?
Obviously, when you paint your house, you are reversing the bad effects of entropy for a short period, but you have to keep doing it, it is not permanent. Moreover, the energy you are using to repair and temporarily reverse the effects of entropy, is directed and guided by your skill and intelligence.
So, the atheist argument about the Earth being an open system is clearly not a valid one.
To conclude: We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life.
Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?
We certainly don't see abiogenesis happening naturally today, it doesn't even happen artificially in contrived experiments. To claim it happened long ago as a one-off phenomenon in some imagined scenario is not science, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.
Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
“Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings...”
“So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?”
My reply:
“You wrote:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?"
Oh, for goodness sake! I warned you about scouring the internet searching for answers from quack, atheist websites. They are presented by people as clueless and gullible as the people they are trying to convince, or by people who are deliberately trying to deceive the public for ideological reasons.
Atheists should know that snowflakes, crystals etc. are not examples of the development of order. By regularly presenting them as such, they reveal either their deceitfulness or their complete misunderstanding of science.
There is NO reduction in entropy, the Second Law is NOT, and CANNOT be, violated, as you claim. If you knew even the basics of the Second Law, you would not make a fool of yourself by saying it is.
Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the increase in complexity/order required for the origin of life.
Snowflakes, crystals etc. are simply reverting to the natural state dictated by their atomic structure as they cool. If you knew anything about the Second Law you would know that the natural, intrinsic order of matter is highest at lower temperatures. You would know that the application of raw (undirected) heat/energy increases entropy.
The natural, intrinsic order of substances is greatest at absolute zero.
That does not mean cooling causes a decrease in entropy overall, the heat/energy is transferred from one substance to its surroundings and the entropy is increased in the surroundings.
Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance to abiogenesis, because there is no increase in order above or beyond that which is intrinsic to the inherent, atomic properties of water. By lowering the temperature, the apparent increase in order is not an actual increase in, or the development of order, but simply a restoration at the atomic level to the original, natural, ordered state of water at the lower temperature.
If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed, and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?
According to the ridiculous, atheist analogy of snowflakes and crystals it would be. It only goes to show that atheists will clutch at any straw, however silly, to justify their ideology. They have the audacity to challenge and attempt to undermine natural laws with their nonsense and then accuse those who uphold them of being unscientific and ignorant. Their barefaced cheek never ceases to amaze me.
I repeat my question, which you have failed to answer:
We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life. Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?
The basic, inherent, atomic structure of water, and of all matter, along with natural law, is part of the initial order of the universe which became present at the moment of its creation. It is not developing order, such as that which would be required for abiogenesis or cosmic and biological evolution.”
Atheist reply:
“You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.
Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance.
But I'll tell you what .........rather than carry on with this nonsense I'll refer you to a very useful site that you (and anyone else) can access and it'll tell you what entropy is and how it relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't talk about origin of life or anything like that. It uses quite simple language and you need to read it and UNDERSTAND it.
entropysimple.oxy.edu/”
My reply:
You wrote:
"You asked for references to self-replicating information. There are many to choose from but here you go. Enjoy the bed-time reading."
There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun. So please stop insulting my intelligence, I have seen all this stuff before. I asked you to give me examples yourself, a simple enough request. I don't want links to internet sites (or long copy and pasted tracts) which can be found on the internet to justify virtually anything. What is your problem with actually answering questions yourself?
You wrote:
"You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.
Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance."
You accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law, after your astonishing, earlier statement:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible."
You, who wants to claim that (what Einstein called the premier law in science) can be violated have the audacity to accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law. Unbelievable!
The reason I used the word 'chance' is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject, which obviously doesn't include you.
Only DIRECTED energy can enable a temporary decrease in entropy, it does NOT HAPPEN by CHANCE. There has to be a guiding principle or agent either: 1) acting directly on the energy source - or: 2) a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy. A decrease in entropy doesn't happen randomly or as a 'chance' event.
You believe the atheist nonsense that snowflakes/crystals are an example of an increase in order, which demonstrates your dire knowledge of the subject.
If you knew anything about the Second Law you would not have cited such a spurious example, apparently you are willing to believe anything you read on atheist/evolutionist websites as though it is gospel.
Perhaps you can address the question I asked in my last post: If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape? But I doubt it, answering questions is not exactly your forte. You would rather nit pick about the qualifications of anyone who disagrees with atheist pseudoscience.
Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
“There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun."
“Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself.
If you were aware of such research would you have written the nonsense you pour forth? ............Probably.
You also appear to have some sort of cognitive dissonance as far as the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy. I provide you with an excellent resource and you fail to take advantage of it to understand the subject matter properly.
That really is astonishing!
All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy.”
My reply:
You wrote:
"Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself."
No! You are either too lazy to answer any questions yourself, or you are unable to. I suspect it is the latter, because you have already demonstrated from previous remarks that your knowledge of the subject is absolutely dire. Yet you insist on continuing to try to bluff it out, by either copying or pasting other people's work or posting links to anything you think supports your argument.
I'm afraid you have been sussed.
You have already put your foot in it - big time, by citing snowflakes and crystals as an example of developing order.
You mistakenly thought all you had to do to win an argument was to parrot stuff direct from an atheist/evolutionist website. When, in fact, parroting the sort of pseudoscientific rubbish that atheist/evolutionist websites are filled with, is a sure way of making yourself look extremely foolish.
You wrote:
"All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy"
What sort of damn-fool answer is that?
I asked: "If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?"
IS IT AN INCREASE IN ORDER OR NOT?
Please answer the question.
Because if it isn't an increase in order, it completely demolishes both your snowflake/crystal argument and the credibility of atheist/evolutionist so-called 'science'.
No wonder you don't want to answer.
**************************************************
Four and a half years later.
I am still waiting for any atheist to answer the rubber ball question?
The full debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/16208667768
___________________________________
Another argument employed by atheists to justify their denial of the Law of Cause and Effect is ‘quantum mechanics’.
Their claim being; because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused.
This is complete nonsense, quantum effects may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED, physical universe.
The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous, because whatever caused the whole universe, is the original cause of everything within it.
Furthermore, just because directly traceable causes cannot be determined, doesn’t mean a direct cause doesn’t exist.
For example:
It can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance.
So, just because, in some instances, direct causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesn’t mean there is no cause.
Quantum effects - The smoke and mirrors trick.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35908166441
Evolution, multi-million year timescale refured.
Rapid strata formation - field evidence.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/albums/72157635944...
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
Contrary to what we are lead to believe by the popular media, science is not the enemy of Christianity.
Genuine science is completely compatible with the belief in the creator God of Christianity.
Most of the world's greatest scientists, who were the pioneers and founders of modern science recognised this.
It is only fairly recently with the rise of militant atheism that science has been portrayed, through propaganda, as being in conflict with Christianity.
So why were so many great scientists convinced that the principles of science were in perfect harmony with belief in the Christian God?
Consider this ....
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.
The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!
The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.
So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?
Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....
So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?
"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.
5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND -
6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.
So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.
The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.
And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..
Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.
So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!
Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?
Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!
That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.
So now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.
IMPRESSED? I think not!
Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?
According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?
That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.
Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.
That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.
What about the first cause of the universe and everything?
How does that fit in?
Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.
We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.
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. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.
So is it a valid solution?
Firstly .....
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
Secondly ....
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.
Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.
A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?
Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.
In addition ....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?
Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.
It can only be one of two options,
an uncaused, natural first cause
OR
an uncaused, supernatural first cause.
An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.
Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.
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.
If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the 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 revamped 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.
Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.
Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …
1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?
2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?
Which one would you choose?
Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?
The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.
So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.
To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?
OR,
the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Andrew Denton etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?
No contest!
We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.
The question of purpose ....
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 pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.
So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never 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!
This tells us that 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 no laws based on that ordered structure. 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 (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, 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 propositions:
1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.
2. 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).
3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.
4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.).
9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.
10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.
11. 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.
12. 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 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 seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Of course, 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 Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.
What about Christianity and pagan gods?
Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule 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.
Idols 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.
They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.
They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.
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.
For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.
So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.
Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.
There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.
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 apparently, 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.
Essential characteristics of the first cause.
Consider this short chain of causes and effects:
A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.
'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.
Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.
We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.
We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.
So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist
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.
What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?
This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.
There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.
Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.
What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.
What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.
The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.
So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?
No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.
Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as 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!
They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.
So to sum up .....
The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.
Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism, not religion, is the real enemy of science.
The garden path of lies
The Atheist Bus Campaign, set out to convince you that a loving creator God does not exist, that you have no prospect of eternal life and that all you can look forward to is eternal oblivion.
Atheists have no evidence to back up that assertion. In fact logic, natural law and the basic principles of the scientific method rule out their naturalistic alternative to a creator as impossible.
They invent all sort of bizarre scenarios to replace a supernatural first cause (God), they even try to present their fantastical, naturalistic replacements for God as 'scientific'. Please don't be taken in by it.
Their naturalistic replacements for God are illogical, they all violate natural laws and the basic principles of science.
Atheism is rightly referred to as the no-hope philosophy.
Their ultimate goal and pinnacle of their short life is - eternal oblivion.
And, quite perversely, they want to convince you that is all you can look forward to.
Please don't be dragged down with them into that depressing pit of hopelessness.
The Good News is that they are entirely wrong, and furthermore, it is not just an opinion. It can be satisfactorily demonstrated by logic, natural law, and the basic principle of the scientific method ......
Read on .... and you will understand, why atheists can never replace God, however much they try.
Their Atheist Bus Campaign is deceitful because atheists have no logical or scientific grounds for claiming "There's Probably No God", in fact, the evidence of applied logic and natural law, is completely the contrary. The atheist claim that there's probably no God is just an unsubstantiated opinion based only on their own ideological beliefs.
You may wonder why they inserted the word 'probably'? Obviously, they knew that if they were challenged to present evidence for the truth of their advertisement and had to defend it in court, they would be unable to do so. Science and logic can be used to prove they have no alternative to a supernatural first cause, and they know it.
For atheists to propose that believing there is no God, is somehow a reason to stop worrying and the recipe for an enjoyable life, is perverse in the extreme.
For most sane people it would be the opposite - a road to depression, hopelessness, and a feeling that this short existence is worthless. It will all end in oblivion, and you might as well never have lived.
Thankfully, atheists are demonstrably wrong, there is every reason for hope - as we will show - a loving Creator definitely does exist. Your life is not a few short, stressful and worthless years leading to eternal oblivion. You are a unique, valuable, person, specially created out of supreme love, every human life is of infinite value right from the moment of conception. Humans really are special and not just intelligent apes, or a mere collection of atoms, as atheists would have you believe You can live forever in eternal bliss - that is the gift of life the loving Creator of the universe offers you, and it is all offered for free.
Please don't be fooled ... people who think for themselves (the REAL freethinkers), are able to see right through the atheist hype and propaganda. Ignore the relentless bombardment of atheist propaganda, such as the atheist bus campaign. Seek out and learn the real truth and the truth will set you free.
Please read on and you will understand ......
Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.
Consider this ....
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.
The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!
The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.
So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?
Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....
So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?
"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.
5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND -
6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.
So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.
The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.
And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..
Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.
So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!
Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?
Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!
That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.
So now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.
IMPRESSED? I think not!
Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?
According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?
That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.
Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.
That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.
What about the first cause of the universe and everything?
How does that fit in?
Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.
We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.
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. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.
So is it a valid solution?
Firstly .....
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
Secondly ....
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.
Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.
A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?
Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.
In addition ....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?
Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.
It can only be one of two options,
an uncaused, natural first cause
OR
an uncaused, supernatural first cause.
An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.
Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.
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.
If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the 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 revamped 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.
Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.
Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …
1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?
2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?
Which one would you choose?
Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?
The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.
So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.
To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?
OR,
the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Andrew Denton etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?
No contest!
We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.
The question of purpose ....
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 pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.
So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never 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!
This tells us that 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 no laws based on that ordered structure. 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 (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, 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 propositions:
1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.
2. 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).
3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.
4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.).
9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.
10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.
11. 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.
12. 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 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 seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Of course, 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 Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.
What about Christianity and pagan gods?
Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule 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.
Idols 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.
They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.
They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.
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.
For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.
So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.
Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.
There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.
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 apparently, 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.
What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?
This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.
There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.
Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.
What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.
What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.
The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.
So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?
No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.
Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as 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!
They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.
So to sum up .....
The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.
Science is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism is the real enemy of science.
So please ignore the atheist bus slogans, they are not worth the ink the are printed with.
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."
The universe from nothing?
The law of cause and effect tells us that every natural entity/event/effect requires an adequate cause. Which means an uncaused, ‘natural’ first cause is impossible, according to this fundamental principle of science.
Of course, this fact is fatal to atheist beliefs, because it rules out every conceivable, naturalistic, origin scenario.
One of the ways atheists try to get round the problem of a first cause is by saying - that the universe created itself from ‘nothing’ by natural processes.
If you think the notion that something could arise from nothing, by natural processes, is a crazy idea which defies logic and common sense, you are perfectly correct.
But atheists become extremely indignant at that accusation, and usually retort that anyone who thinks the idea is crazy is just plain ignorant. They accuse them of not understanding science, or what is really meant by 'nothing'.
So just what do atheists mean by their idea of nothing?
Incredibly, it turns out that the ‘nothing’ that atheists call nothing, isn't really nothing at all, but a definite ‘something’, i.e. space/time.
Confused or what?
So we have to ask - why do atheists perversely insist on referring to SOMETHING (i.e. space and time) which clearly ISN'T nothing - as NOTHING? They could, for example, just say that the universe created itself from a pre-existing, natural entity.
The answer is plain and simple … it is an obvious smokescreen.
Why would they need such a smokescreen?
Atheists know that people can easily accept the idea of an eternal nothingness, because ‘nothing’ in its true sense of the word (meaning NO - THING) doesn’t need a first cause. It simply means non-existence of everything.
And that which doesn’t exist, doesn’t need a cause.
Therefore, for atheists to claim the universe arose from 'nothing' means they can avoid having to explain ... what caused that which they believe existed before the universe?
However, the atheist’s ‘nothing’ actually turns out to be part of the existing material realm.
The atheist’s nothing is … ‘space’, and space is NOT nothing. Space is the medium which is around and between cosmic bodies in the existing universe.
In our universe, there is no such thing as empty space, even though it may look empty. We know that ‘space’ contains light, radio waves, gravitational forces, cosmic rays etc. Space is an integral part of the material universe, and is just as dependant on a first cause as the cosmic bodies it surrounds.
Therefore it is evident that the confusion between ‘space’ and ‘nothing’ is deliberate. The real nothing, that every sensible person understands as nothing, is totally different to the atheist idea of 'nothing'.
The space/time that atheists refer to as ‘nothing’ in their “UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING” scenario, apparently also contains energy and gravity.
Hence, the atheist ‘nothing’ turns out to be - not nothing at all, but a definite SOMETHING … And furthermore, it is an integral part of the material realm.
This means that, like all material things, – space (the atheist's 'nothing') cannot be non-contingent or eternally self-existent.
And that is the absolute crux or the matter.
It means that atheists are back to square one with the impossible problem of explaining a 'natural' first cause, because they still need to explain what CAUSED their 'nothing' (space) to exist, which is exactly what they were trying to avoid?
So there is no such thing as ... the universe from nothing. When you hear atheists proposing the universe arising from nothing, you will know what they are really proposing is the universe arising from 'something' which is itself already an integral part of the universe. In other words, it doesn't explain anything at all about a first cause of the universe. It is useless as a credible explanation of origins. It is just another atheist myth that has been debunked.
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."
Why God must exist.
32/52
thought I'd stick with the same theme as last week's image and see where it takes me, even though the meaning of this one is very different.
The residence built on a radical slope shows construction angles that defy gravity and coincidently the yard decorations of the trained and manicured topiaries also defy the laws of nature. San Pedro, CA, USA
These re-mixed, Creative Commons, images are samples that I created to illustrate how K-12 students might be encouraged to create "Images with a Message". Instructional details for this activity/project, together with a student handout, can be found on my "Life-Long-Learners.com" blog at: Images with a Message.
Unless we can love and respect ourselves by basically accepting ourselves with kindness, there is no way we can love anyone else how much so ever we may claim it. Low self -esteem is the reason why we get angry with others, distrust them, judge them and belittle them. Relationships cannot thrive when even one of the partners is low on self-esteem.
To book an appointment for RELATIONSHIP COUNSELING with me, send WhatsApp message on 8446229088 from anywhere in the world.
#DrSapnaSharma #SpiritualCounseling #Author #OnlineCounseling #RelationshipCounseling #RelationshipAdvice #RelationshipProblems #RelationshipCoaching #RelationshipTips #Love #Husband #Wife #RelationshipPost #Partner #RelationshipQuotes #Men #Women #LawsOfNature #WomenRole #Children #Family #Respect #RespectMyself
All this is a dream. Still, examine it by a few experiments. Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
— Michael Faraday, 1849
From opening pages of The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama by Pico Iyer as rendered on the Amazon Kindle. (Check out audio of Pico's recent dialogue with Robert Thurman on the pursuit of happiness at Stanford at dalailamamatters.com)
The Laws of Nature, Vena Vandora
www.sculptureatscenicworld.com.au/artwork/vena-vandora/
Video - youtu.be/PI5p6NXutVE
I debated whether or not to include this image in my Kenya set....
and I really hope that it doesn't offend you in its graphic detail~
We all know the laws of nature, but do we want to see them unfold before our eyes?
I knew when we went on a safari we were bound to see carnivores’ hunting and perhaps see the kill......and fortunately (for me) it only occurred once and because my husband gave me a heads up on the situation I had time to close my eyes and plug my ears~
The rest of the time, as in this image we saw lions, leopards and cheetahs with remains long after the hunt was over~
Once again, I'm sorry if this offends any of you...and I hope you will forgive me!
Have a great day, see you later~
The description of life on the hellish planets & life after death! There are thousands of hellish planets meant for punishing human beings according to their sins; Hell is described as one of the hellish planet where sinners are taken for punishment! Detailed information at www.bhagavad-gita.ws/laws_of_nature.html
The Laws of Nature, Vena Vandora
www.sculptureatscenicworld.com.au/artwork/vena-vandora/
Video - youtu.be/PI5p6NXutVE
Alexander Ngu presents a possible solution to the theory of everything. This solution is explored in his paper "Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency".
Alexander Ngu is a Cameroonian-born philosopher-polymath. He was the first person to formulate a complete and consistent Equation of General Intelligence.
Alexander Ngu is the founder of Ngu Energy™, an intelligence-driven research organization, developing systems for navigating complexity, and serves as Chairman of the Innovation Management Company The Kosso Ngu Group (KNG).
Alexander Ngu is founder of New Globe Utopia™, is an intelligence-driven research organization, developing systems for navigating complexity.
Alexander Ngu is founder of The Ngu School of General Intelligence
Works:
Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency
Genesis Algorithm: Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency
Intelligent Systems: A Unified Intelligence Theory
The Ngu theory
Intelligence for the African Child
Websites:
www.instagram.com/newglobeutopia/
www.instagram.com/thenguschool/
Alexander Odilon Kosso Ngu
Alexander Ngu
Alexander Odilon Ngu
Odilon Ngu
New Globe Utopia
The Ngu Show
The Ngu School
NewGlobe Utopia
New Globe Utopia
Alexander Ngu presents a possible solution to the theory of everything. This solution is explored in his paper "Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency".
Alexander Ngu is a Cameroonian-born philosopher-polymath. He was the first person to formulate a complete and consistent Equation of General Intelligence.
Alexander Ngu is the founder of Ngu Energy™, an intelligence-driven research organization, developing systems for navigating complexity, and serves as Chairman of the Innovation Management Company The Kosso Ngu Group (KNG).
Alexander Ngu is founder of New Globe Utopia™, is an intelligence-driven research organization, developing systems for navigating complexity.
Alexander Ngu is founder of The Ngu School of General Intelligence
Works:
Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency
Genesis Algorithm: Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency
Intelligent Systems: A Unified Intelligence Theory
The Ngu theory
Intelligence for the African Child
Websites:
www.instagram.com/newglobeutopia/
www.instagram.com/thenguschool/
Alexander Odilon Kosso Ngu
Alexander Ngu
Alexander Odilon Ngu
Odilon Ngu
New Globe Utopia
The Ngu Show
The Ngu School
NewGlobe Utopia
New Globe Utopia
Alexander Ngu presents a possible solution to the theory of everything. This solution is explored in his paper "Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency".
Alexander Ngu is a Cameroonian-born philosopher-polymath. He was the first person to formulate a complete and consistent Equation of General Intelligence.
Alexander Ngu is the founder of Ngu Energy™, an intelligence-driven research organization, developing systems for navigating complexity, and serves as Chairman of the Innovation Management Company The Kosso Ngu Group (KNG).
Alexander Ngu is founder of New Globe Utopia™, is an intelligence-driven research organization, developing systems for navigating complexity.
Alexander Ngu is founder of The Ngu School of General Intelligence
Works:
Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency
Genesis Algorithm: Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency
Intelligent Systems: A Unified Intelligence Theory
The Ngu theory
Intelligence for the African Child
Websites:
www.instagram.com/newglobeutopia/
www.instagram.com/thenguschool/
Alexander Odilon Kosso Ngu
Alexander Ngu
Alexander Odilon Ngu
Odilon Ngu
New Globe Utopia
The Ngu Show
The Ngu School
NewGlobe Utopia
New Globe Utopia
Alexander Ngu presents a possible solution to the theory of everything. This solution is explored in his paper "Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency".
Alexander Ngu is a Cameroonian-born philosopher-polymath. He was the first person to formulate a complete and consistent Equation of General Intelligence.
Alexander Ngu is the founder of Ngu Energy™, an intelligence-driven research organization, developing systems for navigating complexity, and serves as Chairman of the Innovation Management Company The Kosso Ngu Group (KNG).
Alexander Ngu is founder of New Globe Utopia™, is an intelligence-driven research organization, developing systems for navigating complexity.
Alexander Ngu is founder of The Ngu School of General Intelligence
Works:
Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency
Genesis Algorithm: Dimensional Complexity and Algorithmic Efficiency
Intelligent Systems: A Unified Intelligence Theory
The Ngu theory
Intelligence for the African Child
Websites:
www.instagram.com/newglobeutopia/
www.instagram.com/thenguschool/
Alexander Odilon Kosso Ngu
Alexander Ngu
Alexander Odilon Ngu
Odilon Ngu
New Globe Utopia
The Ngu Show
The Ngu School
NewGlobe Utopia
New Globe Utopia