View allAll Photos Tagged Truthseekers
I admit it, I love playing with light, as if that wasn't abundantly apparent by now?! This was two years with the D3400, and so I have come to realise that, sometimes it's worthwhile going back over old stock, seeing how far you have come and rediscovering old gems. People think revisable exercising is secular only for exams and tests, yet in life progress is always wanton for revision, essentially the retracing of one's steps as a more valuable an exercise than prevailing progress. As they say, it's not always the arriving at the destination but the experience of the journey itself, reliving it can be truly magical.
I hope everyone is well and so as always, thank you! :)
I was stood under a bridge when I took this, some solid ground gave some good support for the tripod right next to the pillar with some black graffiti adorning it. It was perfect to get a good urban view over the highway at ground level, it also represented a good point of reference to limit the angle and get some good stills and ICM.
I hope everyone had a great weekend and so as always, thank you!
Tragedy has struck, my beloved D5600 has developed several faults at once thus I have had to send it back, and it's refund or find another. The LV was completely distorted, the menu screen was faulty and the focus was no longer sharp. Seems the circuitry was starting to fall apart. It'll be at least a week before I hear back from the supplier but they were good enough to pay for the shipping as it was well within the 3 year guarantee.
Thus I decided to go a bit rhetoric 80's whilst digging through my archives, this one I took in 2019 with my old D3400 outside of a technical college in Berlin city. There were these multi coloured cuboids all slowly changing colour, so setting this to a longer exposure time wasn't working, the 1 second was to try and define all the alternative colours, without them blending into one.
I exploded the saturation and was greeted with, having originally tweaked the WB, with a colourful contradiction of dystopia and colours into one.
I hope everyone is well and so as always, thank you!
Another for the "Where the Wild Lights Are" project and again from the LE dashboard attempt from Berlin to Storkow. This is something I will look to attempt again when I get my camera back; unfortunately the issue with such an attempt is dust, vibration, focus and bug guts. What is also the challenge is getting the "triangle" right, that is of course, ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture; everything is in motion, the subject, the camera (albeit within a vehicle) plus the greatest problem is the differing lights conditions / intensity / angle / etc, that is encountered within each and every LE.
The best method I conjured is to set the Shutter Speed to BULB, put the ISO to 400, Aperture to 10f-stops and then say a little prayer to the universe, affix the camera with your hands to the dashboard, securing it as best as possible and go for it. This photo though was at 30 seconds as the environment was constantly changing so thus I decided to sit back and allow30 seconds to run through and then see what I had, this is it.
Think of it like this, it's a 3 course meal of differing cuisines whilst moving at top speed, you smell, eat and digest all in a matter seconds of which it all conglomerates not one singular experience / image.
So now, I hope everyone is well and so as always, thank you!
Back with the answer to the enquiry of "Where the Wild Lights Are" project, another one from the road back from Berlin to Storkow, this was a tricky and somewhat illegal (well, one would say more naughty than law breaking) shot to take, over a 21 second BULB exposure, utilising the wing mirror attachment as a resting point, both hands on the camera, with the additional hand grip, whilst Vera drove side to side from lane to lane, on a clear road with the exception of the truck ahead of us with red lights all over it. The result was almost a carousel looking light effect and we both love it!
It's great fun when two lover's beholden to our knowledge can merge our skills and go wild with it!
I hope everyone had a great weekend and so as always, thank you! :)
So my foot finally healed up and the weather improved enough for me to find the motivation to get out the door again, I had been itching for days to get another of the abstract project I am working on for "Where the Wild Lights Are" , I took a good few the other night and will post them up over time, some more extreme than others. Let's just see what works.
Oh and yes, my fancy ass titles as well!
I got these mad ideas from a book I read when I was a child called "Snigglets" now a Snigglet is any word not currently in the English dictionary but should be, usually used as an improvised adjective to describe odd and funny circumstance. When the internet came about a website was setup where people could send in their made up words, mine was "Frustrastab" which is for the moment when a device is not working fast enough or at all, so the user aggressively stabs repeatedly the function button in the vain hope, that'll make it work any faster, such the elevator or the lights at a pedestrian crossing and so on!
I hope everyone's week is off to a great start and so as always thank you! :)
Back in November I decided to push forward with the collection for "Where the Wild Lights Are" and went to a good spot full of traffic lights, trucks, lots of traffic and illuminated sign posts, for another words, just add lights! I want to carry on playing around with it but I have since moved to Storkow in Brandenburg outside of Berlin, so may have to do some serious walking to get to another highway to add some more. But I am used to covering long distances.
I hope everyone is well and so as always, thank you! :)
Back with more of "Where the Wild Lights Are" from the end of last year, this one was really insane, a concoction of traffic lights, cars, trucks, street lamps; everything at every conceivable angle and there's more madness to follow.
The name came from that blue streak in the centre, that looks like a sperm cell with lens flare, so hence there conjured the perspective of being within the uterus environment, along the birth canal that gave this a sense of, or an imagination of, a bioluminescent adoption in an artificial landscape of technology, lights as well as the synthetic and engineered apparatus, concluding with the time of the exposure and lens motion, creates in light, what one can do when seeing things in cloud formations.
Well, I hope everyone is well and so as always, thank you! :)
On the same road and same truck as...
...for "Where the Wild Lights Are", this truck ended up as a pareidolia phenomena which wasn't my original idea, simply following this truck with my camera, hooked to the side of the car on an LE, and this is the result. The name "Dragonemon" is the hybrid of Dragon and Demon as I couldn't decide what it was so I guess it's a play on word.
I hope everyone is well and so as always thank you! :)
" Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -Albert Einstein,
"Here and no further" is a quote from David Icke in concerns to the so called Alternative Media, it is much toward the truth that we live in a world of information, that goes deeper and deeper and deeper, but so often, the likes of Paul Joseph Watson, Russel Brand, Joe Rogan, barely scratch the surface toward what's really going on in the world, what's behind it and why.
Now, before anyone says, oh my god you believe in all that conspiracy crazy shit and politely inquire as to the location of my tin foil hat, well, this is my reply to that...
When it comes to the question of "Belief", I have a simple philosophy, I believe nothing, absolutely none of it, at least not to the point of absolute certainty, you be 98.9% certain that you can have truck this information, this data, what have you; but from that 98.9% always retain a 1.1% seed of doubt, as that will germinate into further inquiry, which leads to further answers, from that, extrapolate furtherance of the Rabbit Hole that you go, to greater information, experience and above all else, wisdom.
With all that said, do the bloody research, a black out / Black Swan Event is coming, you need to be prepared. If you live in a capital city, well, try to get out of it, however, you need to store food, buy a means to cook food without electricity, buy weapons, store water, locate a means of sanitation, hygiene and defence.
I hope everyone is well and so as always, thank you! :)
Just a couple of days ago Truthseeker gave me that extraordinary gift and last night I received another one such from Suzanne Graves!
"Cyclic Structure #3" is rezzed on the lowest platform on the southern shore of Syncretia, for all those that want to admire it in world.
Whoa, fantastically out-of-this-world.
Posted by Second Life Resident Torley Linden. Visit Rezzable Discover.
Beware evil-doers!
Sion is in town, and he's ready to kick some ass!
By day, he is a journalist, documentarian and photographer -- always seeking for the truth in everything.
By night, he continues his war on lies and corruption by donning the guise of The Hooded Avenger!!
Or, um....maybe he's just posing dramatically for the hell of it. ;-)
The memorial arch at Washington Square Park, NYC
Taken with a 1st gen. iPhone
Just a couple of days ago Truthseeker gave me that extraordinary gift and last night I received another one such from Suzanne Graves!
"Cyclic Structure #3" is rezzed on the lowest platform on the southern shore of Syncretia, for all those that want to admire it in world.
We are crouching on the rooftop in anticipation of any kind of "undesirable element" to creep up. In which case, I guess we will proceed to pour hot virtual oil on them or something?
As it turned out later, an emminently sensible strategy it was too. Recently the place was in fact taken over by a mother jet and her young brood:
Just a couple of days ago Truthseeker gave me that extraordinary gift and last night I received another one such from Suzanne Graves!
"Cyclic Structure #3" is rezzed on the lowest platform on the southern shore of Syncretia, for all those that want to admire it in world.
Just a couple of days ago Truthseeker gave me that extraordinary gift and last night I received another one such from Suzanne Graves!
"Cyclic Structure #3" is rezzed on the lowest platform on the southern shore of Syncretia, for all those that want to admire it in world.
The house is backgrounded here to a missile system (I think that's what it was anyway), shaped deceptively like an antropomorphic teapot...
Truthseeker Young... Loved the TP! Here's my blog piece about this place: npirl.blogspot.com/2008/02/tunas-trippy-textures.html
Other than lightening the image a bit to bring out detail this is pure default SL goodness.
Immersive Art by Truthseeker Young at Everfrost through July.
I am the zero point, the primal vibration, the one and the holy. I am the mirror and you are me. Ego sees the visible spectrum only, but the conscious mind embraces infinite space and eternity. Hear the tone, arise aware, you will recognise time is the illusion of solidity. You'll be the last poet, the truthseeker, the DNA of immortality. Youâll unravel your ghostly matter, have visions of alchemy. You will smile when you die. You will not name me, I am the prophet and you are me
-AĂŻsha Devi
I did this on C4D and Adobe Photoshop CS
He is one of a kind. I think him the don Quijote of virtual worlds... and his art is a lot like his avatar. So much going on in virtual worlds! The art world will someday discover TruthSeeker and other artists who work in this 3D pixelated environment and RUSH in. Till then, I have most of this world to myself and a smattering of art-loving tech-savvy friends.
Seek Truth @ www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.wordpress.com
đđ Follow for more!!! Google geoengineering and chemtrails!! Weather modification is real and it is happening daily over your heads look up and wake up!!!! Question everything!
======================================= Seek Truth @ Facebook/wonderlandb3
đđđđ-âŽđâŻ- đ đđđ======================================= #truth #google #chemtrails #chemtrail #chemtrailspraying #geoengineering #truthseeker #googlechemtrails #research #wakeup #norm #notnormal #no #wakeuptothis #infowars #iwonderland #conspiracy #conspiracytheory #conspiracytheories #wonderland #tbt #insta #weathermodification #weather #weathergirl #gaintrick #geostorm #anonymousglobal #follow #activist =======================================
đâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽ
.www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.com.
âŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđ
=======================================
Government openly admits it here đ wakeup-world.com/2016/03/12/government-quietly-admits-to-...
Seek Truth @ www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.wordpress.com
đđ Follow for more!!! Google geoengineering and chemtrails!! Weather modification is real and it is happening daily over your heads look up and wake up!!!! Question everything!
======================================= Seek Truth @ Facebook/wonderlandb3
đđđđ-âŽđâŻ- đ đđđ======================================= #truth #google #chemtrails #chemtrail #chemtrailspraying #geoengineering #truthseeker #googlechemtrails #research #wakeup #norm #notnormal #no #wakeuptothis #infowars #iwonderland #conspiracy #conspiracytheory #conspiracytheories #wonderland #tbt #insta #weathermodification #weather #weathergirl #gaintrick #geostorm #anonymousglobal #follow #activist =======================================
đâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽ
.www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.com.
âŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđ
=======================================
Government openly admits it here đ wakeup-world.com/2016/03/12/government-quietly-admits-to-...
Seek Truth @ www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.wordpress.com
đđ Follow for more!!! Google geoengineering and chemtrails!! Weather modification is real and it is happening daily over your heads look up and wake up!!!! Question everything!
======================================= Seek Truth @ Facebook/wonderlandb3
đđđđ-âŽđâŻ- đ đđđ======================================= #truth #google #chemtrails #chemtrail #chemtrailspraying #geoengineering #truthseeker #googlechemtrails #research #wakeup #norm #notnormal #no #wakeuptothis #infowars #iwonderland #conspiracy #conspiracytheory #conspiracytheories #wonderland #tbt #insta #weathermodification #weather #weathergirl #gaintrick #geostorm #anonymousglobal #follow #activist =======================================
đâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽ
.www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.com.
âŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđ
=======================================
Government openly admits it here đ wakeup-world.com/2016/03/12/government-quietly-admits-to-...
Seek Truth @ www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.wordpress.com
đđ Follow for more!!! Google geoengineering and chemtrails!! Weather modification is real and it is happening daily over your heads look up and wake up!!!! Question everything!
======================================= Seek Truth @ Facebook/wonderlandb3
đđđđ-âŽđâŻ- đ đđđ======================================= #truth #google #chemtrails #chemtrail #chemtrailspraying #geoengineering #truthseeker #googlechemtrails #research #wakeup #norm #notnormal #no #wakeuptothis #infowars #iwonderland #conspiracy #conspiracytheory #conspiracytheories #wonderland #tbt #insta #weathermodification #weather #weathergirl #gaintrick #geostorm #anonymousglobal #follow #activist =======================================
đâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽ
.www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.com.
âŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđ
=======================================
Government openly admits it here đ wakeup-world.com/2016/03/12/government-quietly-admits-to-...
Below is a copy of an actual debate between myself (as Truth in science) and some militant atheists.
Is atheism exposed as bankrupt? Read the debate below, and judge for yourself .....
This debate took place in response to an image ridiculing Christians posted by militant atheist (Silly Deity) on his photostream. Anyone looking at his photostream can see it wholly consists of images insulting and ridiculing religion and religious people.
It commenced with a comment by another militant atheist (Badpenny) supporting the image posted by Silly Deity ...
The image posted by Silly Deity with the original debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/131599163@N05/18212093014
I have copied it all in this post to give it more public exposure, and also in case the original is deleted.
THE DEBATE FOLLOWS:
__________________________________________
Bad penny begins the debate by commenting on an image ridiculing Christians. It insinuates that Christians have no sensible argument, and that the only argument they have is to threaten people with Hell.
____________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
I reckon that neatly sums it up :)
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Wrong! Theists do have a VERY reasonable argument based on logic, natural law and fundamental scientific principles. Unlike atheists, who have no such logical argument,
Atheism revealed as false - why God MUST exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/18927764022
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Sorru #TruthinScience but you've pedalling that same old bollocks for ages now in the hope that the gullible or those with no understanding will buy your sciencey sounding shite as truth
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You obviously have no understanding.
Apparently, you have swallowed the ludicrous fable that the universe created itself from nothing, without any cause and for no reason - and you think that is 'science'.
If you disagree with my logical argument (based on natural law and scientific principles) let's see your point by point logical and scientific argument for your non-contingent, autonomous, self-creating, adequate, natural, first cause?
Or is it just the usual bluff, bluster and hot air that I get all the time from atheists? Who are very good at dishing out ridicule and abuse to anyone who refuses to swallow their naturalist ideology, but very poor at logically or scientifically justifying it.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
So basically there has to be a beginning,a prime mover,an initial cause for,well,everything so therefore it follows from the point of view of logic that this first cause is god.
Is that a fair summation of your proof and scientific evidene ???
How do you know this initial cause was god.
Perhaps there was a some event outside of our universe that set our universe into existence.Something non intelligent or sentient that pushed the plunger that ignited the big bang.
I am unable to determine in any realistic way what it was that started the ball rolling in exactly the same way you are unable to.
All you have done here is taken a logical argument and applied it to something that you know fine no one can verify or refute.
Your logical and scientific evidence is mere speculation in the same way all theories of what occured before the big bang are specualtion.Without being able to look back before the beginning to see if there is a cause or anything at all it's all just interesting notions.
If you are touting logic as the proof of your viewpoint then the same logic dictates that something came before god so what was that then ????
Presently cause and effect are deemed to be a universal rule,you're own explanation as I've understood it so far demands this particular order and progression of events but back beyond the big bang,the singularity the laws of physics appear to breakdown so can you definitively show that the time and the law of cause and effect alone remains in tact.
Of course,unless you're privvy to some special knowledge that no one else has ever know or knows today then in all truth you are stumbling around in the dark like everyone else .No ????
Also,you are doing the usual if not this then that juggle that people use all the time.
If there has to be an initial cause then that cause has to be god.
As I've said,yes cause and effect are the fundamental to our universe but until we can say that there is nothing outside or before our universe OR that there is then all bets are off.The laws that dictate here may hold no sway outside our universe and maybe they do but at this point in time we have no way of saying either way.
Obviously you are convinced you can so I'd love to hear how you think you are able beyond applying logic puzzles to that which we can neither see,measure or even state with confidence exists,existed or even possible
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Of course,you do realise logic is just a tool help you think objectively.It's not truth itself just like mathematics is just a language to describe reality not reality itself.
Putting something into a logical argument is just away to apply logic to something,it doesn't make that thing true or suddenly real....you do understand that don't you ???
I could make a logical argument to say that I could become the president of the US but that doesn't mean I will be.
Applying logic to anything at all you can imagine has no effect whatsoever on the real,physical world.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You wrote:
"So basically there has to be a beginning,a prime mover,an initial cause for,well,everything so therefore it follows from the point of view of logic that this first cause is god.
Is that a fair summation of your proof and scientific evidene ???
How do you know this initial cause was god.
Perhaps there was a some event outside of our universe that set our universe into existence.Something non intelligent or sentient that pushed the plunger that ignited the big bang."
The first cause cannot be a natural first cause, that is obvious because all natural events are contingent. There is no such thing as a non-contingent natural entity or event. Science is about looking for causes for every natural thing or occurrence. Every natural effect has to have a cause, and the effect cannot be greater than its cause/s. That is the fundamental principle behind ALL scientific enquiry. If you don't accept that principle you cannot practice science. A first cause has to be uncaused, or it wouldn't be first. If it is the very first cause in a chain of causes and effects it not only has to be uncaused it also has to be adequate to produce everything that follows it. Nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to that which ultimately caused it. So, the first cause has to be capable of creating every property and quality that exists in the universe. Which, of course, includes life, intelligence, information, consciousness etc.
If you think there can be such a thing as an uncaused, natural, first cause which is capable of creating all those attributes, please tell us what it is?
You wrote:
"The laws that dictate here may hold no sway outside our universe and maybe they do but at this point in time we have no way of saying either way"
Laws of nature are based on the properties of natural things, they describe those properties. contingency is a basic property of all natural things. That law is fundamental, it cannot be different elsewhere. If matter/energy was once some sort of non-contingent, autonomous being, why would it change its nature to an inferior one where it is subject to the limitations of causality? To claim that matter/energy is, or once was, an autonomous, non-contingent entity is to imbue it with the attributes of God. It is simply replacing the supernatural, first cause - God, with a natural deity.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Again you are making sweeping assumptions about the conditions previous to our universe and stating as fact that what's a natural law within the universe is both fundamental and natural outwith it or before it.
___________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Until you can categorically state what was before the big bang,that the universe is all there is where nothing exist beyond it.Until you can state what conditions prevailed before our universe began you cannot with certaintity make definitive claims what the first cause consist of because you cannot difinitively state what was natural and fundamental before the start of our universe.You cannot even do more than claim that the big bang was a result of a first cause.How do you know the there aren't entirely different laws that prevail in the time and/or space before/beyond our present universe.
There could be an infinite number of universe that all have different laws prevailing within them.
Until you fully know the nature of our universe,whether it's all there is,the first and only one to exist you cannot say with certainty that laws the govern how ours work our the same laws outwith and therefore all statements pertaining to the conditons before our universe are equally uncertain.
How exactly does the quantum world relate to your ever regressing complexity of causes as much of what is observed there does necessarily conform strictly to your natural laws of cause and effect.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Fundamentally what you are doing is the ultimate example of the god of the gaps.Everything that has happened since the big bang is natural therefore what came before cannot be natural or contingent because that is the natural law ever since.You cannot and don't know what came before so it has to be god because the big bang was the first event.The first event that created the conditions we exist in so.........
Yes it was the beginning of our universe but perhaps there's a continous cycle where the universe begins,has it's life cycle before collapsing in on itself down to an infinite point where it begins all over again so on and so on.
Until it is possible to observe back beyond/before the big bang which it seems likely is impossible you cannot apply the laws that govern here.
You would have to know for sure these fundamental laws were created in the event that created the universe or that they existed before,beyond and outwith the universe all together .Again you cannot make such categorical statements while knowing nothing of what was before it.How can you even be sure time existed before the big bang.
Without time,without entropy and the conservation of energy there may be no order the governs cause and effect.There may even be a god or there may not be,with no knowledge what came before the beginning of our universe you cannot be certain what laws are a product of the universe and what are laws outwith it.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
So you want to indulge in fantasy and still claim it is science.
If you want to evade the Law of Causality, and other natural laws that destroy your naturalist argument, you step outside of science.
Nevertheless, you still pretend to be working within a scientific framework by proposing causes which are actually non-causes.
You seem to think you can glibly dismiss natural laws as irrelevant to the argument, when they are absolutely crucial to any âscientificâ argument.
There is NO god of the gaps.
The so-called gaps are created by your own, unscientific fantasies.
The universe was CAUSED - there are no gaps, there is only the question â was the CAUSE natural or supernatural?
If you claim it was ânaturalâ but at the same time you want to claim that natural laws did not apply, you are simply contradicting yourself. You are effectively claiming supernatural abilities for a natural cause, which cannot possibly have supernatural abilities. In other words, you are endowing nature with godlike abilities and attributes, which science tells us nature certainly does not possess.
The god of the gaps argument is stupid. We can only deal in known facts, not a never ending, stream of what ifâs or maybes, conjured up by fertile imaginations working overtime.
And all your - âwhat ifâs?â can be easily debunked.
For example - a cyclical universe, is similar to applying the scientifically, discredited idea of perpetual motion on a grand scale to the universe. Firstly, matter/energy is contingent, it always is, and always has been, contingent. It is not, and cannot be, autonomously, self-existent.
Secondly, the universe is running down from a peak of initial, energy potential at its creation. It cannot rewind itself any more than a clock can â there is no such thing as a free lunch, to suggest otherwise is fantastical nonsense, not credible science or logic.
âWhat ifâsâ or maybes are not logical arguments, they are just a way of evading definitive conclusions which are uncomfortable.
That is the whole basis of the god of the gaps argument, they are just fantasy gaps which can never be filled by anything, because as one gap is filled another can be immediately invented.
Anyone can attempt to destroy any logical conclusions by creating their own âgapsâ with endless, bizarre - what ifâs and maybes?
Well how about this - What if I donât actually exist? âWhat ifâ you think you are having this discussion with a person, but really, I am just a clever, robotic, word generator in cyberspace? It would mean you are wasting your time, because I can just generate answers and âwhat ifâsâ until the cows come home â and âwhat ifâ the cows donât ever come home? â It means all your arguments are just gaps in my â endless stream of - what ifâs? And if you manage to fill one gap and answer one of my - what ifâs?, I can just keep creating more and more, so your argument is, and always will be, useless. It is just an argument of never-ending gaps.
As for time â time is a physical thing, which theists knew long before Einstein confirmed it.
Theists have always known that where physical things exist, time MUST exist. Put simply, time is the chronology of physical events.
Matter/energy cannot exist in a timeless state. Only non-physical entities can be timeless.
2 + 2 = 4 is both statistical information and a true fact. Information and truth are both non-physical entities which (unlike physical entities) can exist independently of time. They are, in effect, eternal. Time does not in any way affect them. Only the tangible expression of information and truth in physical media can be eroded by time, but not the essence of their existence.
Truth and information exist whether they are made tangible in physical form or not.
If any physical thing or cause existed before the alleged Big Bang, it had to be subject to time.
Which, means - that which existed in a timeless state before the creation event of a physical universe (the first cause) had to be a non-physical entity. There is no other option.
Your claim that we can have no knowledge of anything before the material universe or the alleged Big Bang is completely spurious. Logic and science are tools that help us to make predictions and sensible and reasonable assessments and conclusions. They help us to know what is possible and likely - and especially, in this instance, to know what is IMPOSSIBLE. We do KNOW that a self-created, autonomous, NATURAL, first cause is IMPOSSIBLE. There are no ifs and buts about it, that is what science, logic, reason and common sense tells us.
And that is enough to debunk the atheist belief in an all-powerful, self-creative, non-contingent, Mother Nature.
To dispute that is not only irrational, it is the hallmark of a dogmatic, illogical and unscientific ideology.
As for quantum effects, they may appear random and uncaused, but they are most definitely not. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED physical universe.
So, the idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous.
As for a direct cause of quantum effects, it can be compared to the randomness of a particular number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isnât. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved â 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, causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the end result, doesnât mean there are ever no causes.
You wrote:
"There could be an infinite number of universe that all have different laws prevailing within them."
No there couldn't.
The 'Multiverse' idea is as nonsensical as it sounds, and has been soundly debunked.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/15897203833
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Since the bizarrely named "Truth in science" is so fond of repeating the fallacy that his drivel is based on "the principles of science" let's look at the principles of science shall we?
There are five basic components to the scientific method:
1) From observations of the natural world, determine the nature of the phenomenon that is interesting to you (i.e. ask a question or identify a problem).
2) Develop one or more hypotheses, or educated guesses, to explain this phenomenon. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome.
3) Devise experiments to test the hypotheses. ( All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable.)
4) Analyze the experimental results and determine to what degree do the results fit the predictions of the hypothesis.
5) Further modify and repeat the experiments.
"Truth in science" fails to get beyond step 2.
He is also repeatedly pedalling the notions so succinctly described earlier as "bollocks" otherwise termed logical fallacies.
This is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.
So.........."Truth in science" fails the Principles of Science test and also uses logical fallacies as a means to deceive.
Yep!! Bollocks just about sums it up!
____________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Ah no way my latest reply written last night has gone astray.
It was very much along the lines of your response Silly Diety although I'd hasten to admit not as eloquently put.
Basically,if you live by the sword then you will die by the sword.Or more aptly if TruthinScience is going to continously invoke science to frame his argument in a manner that appears both authoritative and beyond argument then he has to remain within the bounds of science.
As I think I said in an earlier reply science,much like critical thinking,logic and reason,is not a particular set of complex or technological subjects but a tool and a framework for the study and advancement of knowledge that is based on observation,analysis,hypothesis,prediction,experimentation to tthe predictions,divising similarly or more liable explanations...i.e falsification and then ongoing refining ofyour hypothesis even if it is fully accepted and becomes a scientific theory.....as Newton's work on gravity gave way to Einstein centuries later.There are NO sacred cows in science as Newton would attest if he were alive today and the day may come when Einstein is proven to have got relativity completely upside down if the evidence is stong enough to prove it.
Now why doesn't TruthinScience's claims bear any resemblence to science ???
Quite simply he is making definitive statements that he knows and can prove what happened before our universe began.
His arguments about causality and contingent and natural causes sound very compelling at first glance,science certainly does seem to confirm cause and effect and certainly seems at first to support time as a river that only flows one way but the point is that these natural laws as he puts it,these fundamental laws that govern our universe have as he suggests been observed to apply across the entire universe from the moment of the big bang forwards until this second.
But we CANNOT look further back in time than the big bang,our science and laws of physics can alliw us to model and imply what happened millionths of a second after the big band but note AFTER not before.
We have no way of observing back before the big bang and can only see as far as light has travelled since then giving us a horizon beyond which we can not see and therefore cannot make observations of,about,from either.
Therefore the science cannot say anything at all about either what occured,what was there,the potential cause,whethee time and space existwd in any sense we could understand or even if such fundamental laws like causality applied.If everything started with the big bang i.e time and space,then seeing as causality (cause and effect) are contingent on time then is there any reason at all to imagine causality meant anything pre big bang ???
The real answer is,the scientific answer absolutely,is there is simply no way of knowing,there may never be a way of see back before the big bang so the probability is we may never know though every time such statements have been made,that some knowledge is beyond science it's eventually been discovered and understood by science but.......
TruthinScience is clearly taking laws of physics that are well established and seemingly understood amd applying them to an area that isn't.That is a sound logical and reasoned approach but to apply them to something that is so far beyond our knowledge we don't even know if it can ever be observed or how that could happen is completely unscientific......it's what's known as psuedoscience.If it had any true grounding in logic or reason it may be a form of philosophy but it's too ad hock and cobbled together to be that.
At the very best and most generous his claims could be said to amount to an hypothosis but when they are based on a fog of reason like they are that's being too kind.
I know what it is he objects too so strongly and that's other hypothoses by real scientist about possible causes or ways that the universe could have come about without the necessity for a FIRST SUPERNATURAL INTENTION CONTINGENT CAUSE i.e god.Personally,the only one I've really read and have an understanding of is Laurence Kraus and his 'A Universe from Nothing' which I highly recommend anyone to read.
The one thing to note though is as he takes great pains to stress throughout the book it's a hypothosis that COULD explain how a universe can be created from seemingly nothing (although it would appear nothing is the operative word as empty space devoid of matter of any kind still has mass and energy).What TrurhinScience and many,many other theists fail to grasp os he's offering an expanation that remains within the bounds of science yet he freely admits that doesn't mean it's what happened,that there is no way of knowing what happened for all the reasons I've stated.
Shit,who knows there may be something extremely bizarre behind it all like some big,old bearded man who waved his hand and 7 days later
.......lol
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
As Bertrand Russell so eloquently stated:
âIf I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.â
The reliance on logic alone to "prove" something fails because logic is not empiricism (which is fundamental to science). It fails to provide EVIDENCE..........something sorely lacking in "Truth in science's" rants. His presumption that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other is simply an example of false cause. To make such presumptions with no evidence means that his argument falls flat on its face.
So he fails on the scientific principles (miserably) and he fails on logic too.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity
Nice try, but I am afraid it is another gigantic fail. You have simply hoisted yourself on your own petard.
None of the proposed, fantasy, natural, origin scenarios invented by atheists in order to get around natural laws and scientific principles are testable - none are observable - none are subject to experiment and - none are repeatable.
So NONE of them have got anything whatsoever to do with genuine science.
For example, tell us how a âsingularityâ or a âmultiverseâ can be tested, observed, or demonstrated by repeated experiment?
The Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws which atheists glibly dismiss, and which definitively rule out a natural, first cause - ARE testable - ARE observable and - ARE subject to repeatable experiment.
We can only deal in FACTS, not atheist myths and fantasy.
The existence and veracity of the law of cause and effect and other natural laws IS A FACT.
The idea that natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method didnât apply to the origin of the universe or of matter/energy is NOT a fact, it is no better and no more credible than a fairy story or Bertrand Russellâs, flying teapot.
I donât claim that a supernatural first cause can be proven by science, it canât, because it is outside the remit of science, which can only deal with natural events and entities.
But the atheist idea of a natural, first cause can also never be proven by science.
However, science CAN DISPROVE a natural, first cause of the universe - and that is exactly what it does.
Science tells us that a natural first cause is impossible. Science can only look for adequate causes, that is the fundamental principle and raison dâetre of the scientific method.
Science cannot look for non-causes â or for inadequate causes â or for non-contingency â or for natural things self-creating themselves from nothing.
Therefore, the claim that atheist naturalism has anything to do with science is completely bogus.
In fact, atheism is anti-science - because it seeks to contradict the verdict of the scientific method and natural law.
If we apply the scientific method to the origin of the universe/matter - science tells us that it had to have an adequate cause, but atheists say no! We can't accept that, science must be wrong, we propose that the universe was causeless.
If that is what atheists want to believe, then fair enough, but they should stop calling it 'science', it is anti-science.
As for Mr Krauss and - his universe from the ânothingâ that isnât really nothing, but âsomethingâ - space/time, you would need to be extremely gullible to fall for that load of nonsense.
It is just another desperate, atheist attempt to get around the Law of Cause and Effect.
Presumably he thinks that if he can fool people into believing that something, which is an integral part of the material realm is â no different from nothing (i.e. no thing). Then he can avoid having to explain what caused it?
Nothing (that which doesnât exist) obviously doesnât need a cause. However, Mr Kraussâ nothing is a bogus ânothingâ ⌠so, unfortunately for him, it certainly does require an adequate cause, just like everything else in the material realm. So the whole exercise is spurious and devious nonsense. One thing is certain, it is not science, it is just fantasy.
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science
Getting a bit desparate eh?
Can't refute the issue that you don't understand the science or scientific principles?
Can't deny that you use logical fallacies?
So you pepper your response with a few more of the latter, ignoring the self-same scientific principles you claim to espouse, while introducing the odd red-herring and conflating theories of the origin of the universe with atheism.
A bit of a messy really.
Desparate too.
_______________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Truth in PsuedoScience I honestly cannot be bothered trying to refute your nonsense anymore I'm losing interest and the will to continue by going over and over it ad infinitum .....of course you,like all theists will claim it as your victory but you don't get it,you refuse to contemplate anyrhing that doesn't fit you particular beliefs and you won't be remotely swayed from your abslotue certainty despite the fact you're making a fool.of your self by firmly clinging to the label scientific....even a high school kid just starting out in basic science could see the gaping fallacy at the heart of your bullshit but you blythely ignore it making you dishonest or you just don't see it making you not exactly the sharpest tool.
Either way m8 I have to respect the law of free speech (the most important and fundamental of laws lol) which afterall allows you to talk whatever pigs swill you like and be judged by it.
Can I just add with science observations,results,evidence are what determines the theory the outcome if you like.You DON'T start with a confirmed conviction and shape the evidence to fit it.
____________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
Is that the best either of you can do?
In other words, like every other atheist I have encountered, you don't have a credible answer or response.
Of course, you bluff it out and pretend that you have refuted my argument.
But I have shown that it is science and logic that you are trying to refute, not me. And that is why you are doomed to failure.
Atheists masquerade as the champions of science but, all the while, they hate the verdict that science has for their cherished ideology.
The only arguments they ever present to justify belief in their religion of naturalism are based on fantasies which seek to undermine natural laws and basic scientific principles. Such as; a universe self-creating from some sort of bogus 'nothing' or a magical, so-called singularity where no laws apply. They are clearly nothing to do with genuine science, they are just devices to fool people into thinking atheist naturalism is credible.
Atheist naturalism is a completely blind faith, one that has no support from natural law, logic or science.
You obviously can't answer the question I posed: tell us how a âsingularityâ or a âmultiverseâ can be tested, observed, or demonstrated by repeated experiment?
I will leave people reading through my arguments and your responses to judge who has won the argument - but they can be sure of one thing that I have demonstrated, that the point presented in the image is completely erroneous. It is not theists, who don't have a reasonable rebuttal of any arguments, but atheists.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
Bob
He's the one making the claims here...........no one else. He can't provide evidence to support those claims so resorts to flim-flam.
As I said earlier................just a bit desparate.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Come on PsuedoScience now you are throwing out scientific method as if you were applying it all along.
A multiverse ???
Have you not read my main arguement over umpteen replys now I have stated that we are unable to observe back before thw big bang and the 'birth' of our universe.That means no observations of god with a match,a multiverse,a continueing cycle of big bangs or any other hypothesis rational or batshit crazy you can possibly suggest.
Do you not get this fundamental basic fact,i cannot prove,observe or test or take a fucking stroll in a multiverse.I thought that point was self evident any more than you can prove,observe or state what came before either.The point is neither of us can say anymore than the other but science which you claim is your master can at best just hypothosise it cannot state fact,prove,observe,test anything pre big bang either so your claims being proven by science are as disingenuos as any claim I decided to state as fact.
Do you not understand that yet.No obsevations,no way to test or experiment,predict etc,etc means science has nothing definitive to say about it as yet nor can it prove what happened.......do you not get this genuinely straight forward premise.
As for singularitys.......observe the centre of almost any galaxy you wish to study.You'll find a super massive black hole or all the predicted effects of one.Isn't a black hole a singularity then ????
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
I know Silly Deity that he's the one making spurious claims but seriously beginning to piss me off.....not because of his pure unshackelled belief that he's cracked it and won't listen but because people may actually believe he's based his claims in sound science
___________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Oh yes and Psuedo you do realise that simply 'defeating' the multiverse or singularity idea in your own mind doesn't mean your claims are true.
I cannot prove of make statements of fact about the origin of the universe but that doesn't mean that you in that case must be right.It's not either or.
Your whole premise of calling something bogus or demanding that everyone else's suggestions must withstand scientific rigour you don't apply to your claim is basically a straw man.As if the best argument against your beliefs is the multiverse hypothesis so if you can show it cannot be proven therefore you win.No it doesn't work that way.
How have you made observations of your first cause god then,how did you measure,quantify his existence and that he was responsible for putting it all into action.Experiments and test ???
Come on,just banging on about natural laws and causality does nothing whatsoever to observe,analyse,test,experiment on god.
Come on,you're the real,true scientist here......explain how first before you can expect anyone to take you seriously
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You wrote:
"Do you not get this fundamental basic fact,i cannot prove,observe or test or take a fucking stroll in a multiverse.I thought that point was self evident any more than you can prove,observe or state what came before either.The point is neither of us can say anymore than the other but science which you claim is your master can at best just hypothosise it cannot state fact,prove,observe,test anything pre big bang either so your claims being proven by science are as disingenuos as any claim I decided to state as fact."
So why do atheists continuously present such unscientific nonsense as a 'multiverse', or the universe from nothing without a cause, as 'science'? It doesn't even make logical or common sense, let alone scientific sense.
It is all sheer, magical fantasy.
If you are going to frame a scientific hypothesis, then you should do so according to the facts we know - and within the framework of natural laws and the principle of causality which lies behind the scientific method.
You should not just dream up any old, imaginative nonsense, which tramples on natural laws and the basic principle of science, and then present it as the latest, greatest, scientific explanation of how the universe originated and/or a so-called 'Theory of Everything' which effectively makes a supernatural, first cause redundant. When, in fact, it is a Theory of absolutely Nothing,
it doesn't even deserve to be called a theory.
And then why have the barefaced cheek to accuse anyone who challenges atheist, naturalist fantasies or questions the scientific credibility of abandoning natural laws and scientific principles with such airy fairy, mythological fables, as indulging in pseudoscience and advocating a "god of the gaps?"
The ONLY motivation atheists have for dismissing and opposing natural laws and scientific principles, concerning origins, is an ideological one. It is nothing whatsoever to do with science or logic. It is ONLY to do with trying to preserve their religious devotion to naturalism. So, stop pretending it is science.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. The fact that atheists deliberately abandon natural laws and scientific principles in ALL of their proposed origin scenarios, just because they are inconvenient to their naturalist ideology, actually makes atheism - anti-science.
Put simply - I respect natural laws and the fundamental principle of the scientific method. And I present a logical argument for the origin of everything, simply on that basis.
Whereas - you reject and hate natural laws and the fundamental principle of the scientific method as far as they relate to origins.
And you live in the vain and contradictory hope that somehow, someday, someone will present a 'scientific' argument for the origin of everything which can ignore or refute natural laws and basic scientific principles. In the meantime, you are quite willing to consider any hair-brained unscientific idea or fantasy that supports your naturalistic beliefs, regardless of whether they violate natural laws, in preference to any logical argument that respects them.
And you refer to my logical argument based on natural laws and scientific principles as the 'god of the gaps'. The 'gaps' are only created by your fantastical belief and wishful thinking that natural laws will someday be shown not to apply.
So who is indulging in pseudoscience? I think the answer to that is obvious.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science
So......................................back to familiar territory yet again with strawman arguments and ad hominem atttacks.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) did NOT present the multiverse as a cause. If you actually bothered to read his response you would have realised that he was saying nothing of the sort.
You plainly DON'T respect the scientific method otherwise you would present evidence to support your claims. You consistently fail to do that.
Your rant simply confirms the caricature in my image. Talk about life imitating art!
___________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
"Life imitating art!" He, he. Love it!!!!
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity
If you had actually bothered to read my comment properly you would know that I didn't accuse him of presenting the multiverse as a âcause'.
I asked: "So why do atheists continuously present such unscientific nonsense as a 'multiverse', or the universe from nothing without a cause, as 'science'?"
In fact, the only reason that atheists invent such bizarre, origin scenarios as; a multiverse - or a universe from nothing, is to avoid having to explain a cause.
They think they can hoodwink the public into believing they are credible explanations of how everything could come into existence from nothing, without needing an adequate cause.
The scientific fact that every natural occurrence and entity requires an adequate cause is absolutely fatal to atheist, naturalist beliefs. So, atheists are compelled to waste their lives trying to devise origin scenarios which they think can fool people into believing that everything CAN come from nothing without a cause. Unfortunately for them, every sensible person, who is not indoctrinated with atheist pseudoscience, knows it CAN'T.
The amazing thing is, that you and the other 2 stooges, on here actually fall for such nonsense and think it is credible science.
Atheists even have the cheek to rip off theist arguments to try to silence any opposition. Such as the theist argument that ("to ask what caused God? is an invalid question, because the first cause - by virtue of being first - could have no preceding cause"). Atheists cynically apply a similar concept (in disguise) to their naturalistic fantasies - i.e. "to ask what caused the universe to arise from nothing? is an invalid question. It is like asking what is north of the North Pole?" Which of course anyone with any sense knows it isn't. To ask - what caused any and every natural occurrence or entity? Is not only a valid question, it is also an essential question. A question which true science demands we ask.
The only way atheist, naturalist beliefs can be true, is if natural laws and the basic principle behind the scientific method are not true and valid.
So, there is a straight choice between supporting atheism - OR supporting science and natural law. You can't do both...
Which do you choose?
________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science
Let me translate what you've just stated:
I've repeatedly dodged providing evidence to support the initial claim that I made.
Instead I've quoted one of the individuals who questioned the validity of my claim and then turned that into a straw man argument by distorting his question to give the impression I was refuting his argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by him in the first place.
I know that this was pointed out to me but I flatly deny that I've done this and will now repeat that self-same straw man (incorporating sweeping generalisations).
Now having tried to wriggle out of that I'll make some bizarre and inaccurate statements about science and throw in some ad hominem attacks for good measure as that's something I like to do.
I'll round it off with a false dichotomy which results in me once more dodging the fact that I've no evidence to support my original claim and tries to hide that I'm talking absolute bullshit.
Yes. Life imitating art it most certainly is. I posted that image little realising how accurate it was but true to form "Truth in pseudoscience" you have repeatedly confirmed its accuracy.
__________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You have produced no logical or scientific justification for atheism. Whereas I have presented a logical argument based on natural law and scientific principles for theism which should satisfy any reasonable person. Furthermore, I have presented a logical argument as to why atheist naturalism is unscientific nonsense. I donât expect you, or any other died-in-the-wool atheist to accept it, because atheism is an insidious and deceptive cult, which attempts to indoctrinate the public through relentless hype and propaganda.
Here is some good news for any theists reading this. All atheist arguments are easily demolished. Not because I, or any other theist, is exceptionally clever, but because atheism is based on lies and deceit. Once people realise that, it becomes obvious that there will be major flaws in EVERY atheist argument. It is then a simple matter, for anyone interested in truth, to expose them.
Atheism is claimed to be the scientific viewpoint and supporter of science. That is the great deception of the modern age.
What is the truth?
Science is based on looking for adequate causes of EVERY natural happening or entity AND on making predictions and assessments about the natural world, based on the validity of natural laws.
Atheism is based on ignoring the fact that EVERY natural happening or entity requires an adequate cause, not just ignoring it, but even actively opposing it. Atheism is about looking for, and hoping to find, non-causes and inadequate causes.
Atheism is also against the scientific method, of making assessments and predictions based on the validity of natural laws, and in favour of rejecting and challenging the validity of natural laws.
Your argument that we just donât know whether causality or any other natural laws existed before the start of the universe, is not a valid argument for atheism. Even if it was a sensible argument, the very best that could be said of it, is that it is an argument for agnosticism. Not knowing (agnosticism) is a neutral position, it is not an argument for or against theism or for or against atheism. If you claim to be in the âdonât knowâ camp and are a genuine agnostic, you have to sit firmly on the fence - you have no right to ridicule and lambast theists who believe that causality and natural laws are universally valid and by the same token you cannot ridicule atheism. You are clearly not a genuine agnostic, because you come down firmly on the side of atheism made evident by the fact that you support âsilly deitiesâ posts and photostream which attacks theism. That is not a âdonât knowâ (agnostic) position.
The argument for atheism cannot be simply based on ânot knowingâ whether the law of cause and effect and other natural laws existed prior to the universe. Atheism depends on a definite rejection of causality and natural laws at the beginning of the material realm.
And that argument also reveals atheists as gross hypocrites.
When Stephen Hawking declared to the world: âBecause there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothingâ atheists applauded and crowed about âscienceâ making God redundant. How come they didnât criticise him for claiming he knew the law of gravity pre-existed the universe? Apparently, Hawking KNEW the law of gravity existed, but decided that the law of cause and effect and other natural laws didnât exist. What happened to the: âwe just donât know what laws existed before the universe or Big Bangâ argument on that occasion? Unbelievable hypocrisy! Which effectively demolishes the bogus atheist argument that âwe donât know what laws existedâ. What atheists actually mean to say is that: âwe know that laws which support our argument did exist, but we donât know that laws which destroy our argument existedâ.
As I said before:
The only way atheist, naturalist beliefs can be true, is if natural laws and the basic principle behind the scientific method are not true and valid.
So there is a straight choice between supporting atheism - OR supporting the universal validity of science and natural law. You can't do both...
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science
I'll make this very simple "Truth in pseudoscience"
You made a claim.
The scientific method requires that you provide evidence for your claim. That is a fundamental scientific principle.
Logical argument is not evidence. Particularly when such arguments are logical fallacies. For example I could state the following:
1. Some men are doctors.
2. Some doctors are women.
3. Therefore, some men are women.
Logically that is correct, however it is patently wrong. In order to prove it true I would have to provide evidence. That is the problem with your arguments. Arguments are not evidence. You may think they are logical but they fail because they are logical fallacies and because you provide no EVIDENCE to support your claim.
Everything else you've stated (the straw man arguments, the reversal of burden of proof, the ad hominem attacks, the quoting the phrase "natural laws" ad nauseum) is merely you dodging for the umpteenth time the fact that you have no evidence to support your claim.
I'll repeat, the scientific method requires that you provide evidence for your claim. That is a fundamental scientific principle.
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE
Your failure to grasp this and the nature of your responses simply reinforces the satire contained in the original image.
________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity
Your comments are as pathetic as your original image.
Your ridiculous image, which you seem to be so proud of, is a straw man portrayal of a Christian, which bears no relationship whatsoever to any Christian I know, or know of. It is nothing more than a crude and offensive stereotype which exists only in the imagination of atheist ideologues and zealots. I have shown it to be entirely false. I have shown that theism is based on eminently reasonable arguments and that it is atheism that is unreasonable nonsense with NO credible, logical or scientific argument Furthermore I have not mentioned, nor have I needed to mention, anyone being condemned to hell.
As for your stupid example of a logical argument, it bears no comparison to my logical argument.
Science uses natural laws to predict and assess the answers to questions, that is all science can do. It cannot make predictions or assessments based on the idea that natural laws are not valid. My logical argument is the ONLY possible assessment based on the validity of natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method. if you think that is wrong, once again, I challenge you to give a logical or scientific argument against it?
My evidence is that natural laws can be observed, and tested by repeated experiment and have been shown to be valid in all known circumstances - AND that scientific research cannot even be carried out without an acknowledgement that we can expect every natural occurrence to have an adequate cause. I cite the known and tested universality of natural laws and scientific principles as my evidence.
My evidence is the fact that science and natural law supports my logical argument for a supernatural, first cause and definitively rejects the notion of a natural, first cause. It couldn't be clearer than that.
My argument is based on things we know, ALL atheist arguments are based on fantasy - what ifs, maybes, what we don't know and are never likely to know.
_________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
So your evidence is...........just a repeat of you saying you're right and everyone else is wrong? You don't seem to get what the scientific method requires of those who make claims.
A central theme of science and scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or at least empirically based, that is, it should depend on evidence or results that can be observed by our senses. Scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experience or observations and empirical data is based on both observations and experiment results.
Not one of your statements refers to empirical evidence of a supernatural being.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Aimless Alliterations
Thanks for that. It saves me the trouble of having to explain the concept of evidence yet again to our scientifically-challenged "friend".
"Truth in pseudoscience" The example of flawed logic I provided you with was just that - an example. You appear to have some difficulty understanding that trying to prove an argument through the use of logic is always going to fail if you use flawed logic. Your repeated use logical fallacies simply illustrates this.
Your constant ad hominem attacks when you are accused of such behavour are further examples of logical fallacies. So my comments are far from pathetic......they are an uncannily accurate reflection of the satire contained in the original image.
If you can't see that, then that's your problem and I think we can safely say this debate is at an end.
___________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
Yes. For someone who claims to use science to supposedly support his claims there appears to be some pretty fundamental gaps in "Truth in pseudoscience's" knowledge of science and scientific principles.
Something that's reflected in all of his bizarre claims.
__________________________________________
Mark 2y
@"Truth in science" and pretty much everyone too..
1. Your wish thinking does not work as advertised. (unlikely headline: prayer meeting ends world hunger)
2. Your convoluted blathering is only a neon sign to the above.
3. As a person raised on the secular ideals of the U.S. I can not support any leader who is not answerable to the rest of us, so "worship" is totally out of the question.
(even the "inalienable rights" line proves the plastic nature of a simple deist assumption of a god's nature, let alone one who takes more license)
4. I'm disappointed that anyone gives you the time of day, as your kind need not be eliminated but simply left to wither away.
____________________________________________
The debate ended with the comment by atheist 'Mark' above.
I didn't think there was any point in continuing, as the arguments were already becoming repetitive.
I think I am justified in concluding that this debate (as many others) demonstrated that the atheist belief in naturalism - and the belief that there was no adequate, infinite, first cause of everything temporal - is bankrupt. It is bankrupt because it relies completely on natural laws not being universally valid. Atheist HAVE TO dismiss natural laws, because they are fatal to their ideology of naturalism. To dismiss natural laws is not scientific, we depend on the reliability of natural laws to make scientific predictions. We cannot practice science without trusting in natural laws. So, atheism, in seeking to debunk natural laws, is exposed as ANTI-SCIENCE.
The image posted by Silly Deity with the original debate can be seen here:
Full article @ wonderlandbyrussellstrand.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/fracki...
đđ Follow us for more!!! Will you join the resistance and stand up against fracking in the U.K??? This affects us all!!! So many of us are with Standing rock when the same level of protest is needed in Britain!!! People that get to the Blackpool area can help put a stop to this!!!!!! đâď¸đđŻđ¨.
=========================================
đ See more on our Facebook page đ=========================================
Seek Truth @ Facebook.com/wonderlandb3
đđđđ-âŽđâŻ- đ đđđ =========================================
#frack #frackoff #fracking #nofracking #frackfree #frack #frackingnightmare #fräck #frackingsucks #nodapl #nodaplđŤđâď¸ #nodaplđŤ #Standing rock #activism #activist #politics #lawfulrebellion #new #news #activists #protest #protests #protesting #protesters #wonderland #truth #rawtruth #realtruth #iwonderland #research #researching =========================================
đâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽ
.www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.com.
âŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđ
=========================================
wonderlandbyrussellstrand.wordpress.com/2017/03/11/fracki...
đđ Follow for more!!! Google geoengineering!! đđŻđđ¨ ======âď¸đâ======
========================================
đđđ -đ-âđâ¤ď¸-đđđđ youtu.be/CWJ4x5RqMc4:clapper: đđđđ-âŽđâŻ- đ đđđ
=========================================
============================ Seek Truth @ Facebook/wonderlandb3 đđđđ-âŽđâŻ- đ đđđ ============================ #truth #geoengineering #truthseeker #geostorm #researching #wakeup #weather #weathercontrol #research #chemtrails #wakeuptothis #lookup #iwonderland #conspiracy #tbs #conspiracytheory #study #research #wonderland #insta #agenda21 #researcher #weather #nwo #lines #weathermodification #instadaily #new #insta #instagood #activism #newworldorder #activist ============================
đâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽ
.www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.com.
âŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđâŽđâŻđ
============================
Is nature a god?
Apparently, atheists think so.
Atheists believe that nature is the first cause (creator) of everything, including itself.
Atheists believe that nature created itself from nothing ....
âA Universe from Nothingâ Lawrence Krauss.
âThe universe can and will create itself from nothingâ Stephen Hawking.
They believe that (Mother) nature has all the creative powers and abilities that monotheistic religions attribute to a creator God.
Just how credible is the atheist belief in nature as a godlike entity?
AND - Do atheists have any logical, scientific or rational argument to support the belief that nature has such incredible, creative powers?
The answer to that is NO!
Atheist's religious-like devotion to naturalism is a completely blind faith. It is a faith that cannot be supported by any rational argument because it contradicts logic and scientific laws, as explained below:
Something or nothing?
There are only two alternatives, something or nothing. Existence or non-existence?
Existence is a fact!
We know something exists (the physical universe),
but why?
Two questions arise âŚwhy is there something rather than nothing?
And where did that something come from?
Obviously, something cannot arise from nothing, no sane person would entertain such an impossible concept. However, an incredible fantasy that the universe created itself from nothing, is being proposed by some, high profile atheists, and presented to the public as though it is science. A sort of âtheory of everythingâ that purports to eliminate a creator. For example, the campaigning, militant atheist Lawrence Krauss has written a book which claims the universe can come from nothing, âA Universe from Nothingâ.
Anyone who is silly enough to spend money on a book which makes such a wild, impossible claim, soon realises that Kraussâs ânothingâ is not nothing at all, but an exercise in âsmoke and mirrorsâ. His ânothingâ involves the pre-existence of certain, natural laws and quantum effects. That is certainly not 'nothing'. And his book, with the deceptive title, simply kicks the problem of - why there is something rather than nothing? into the long grass.
A well, publicised example of the universe allegedly being able to arise from nothing was one presented by Professor Stephen Hawking, and summed up in a single sentence:
âBecause there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothingâ
It is not intelligent, sensible or scientific to believe that everything created itself from nothing.
In a state of infinite and eternal nothingness, nothing exists and nothing happens - EVER.
Nothing means absolutely ânothingâ. Nothing tangible and no physical laws, no information, not even abstract things, like mathematics. If nothing exists there can be no numbers or anything based on numbers.
Furthermore, you donât need to be a genius, or a scientist, to understand that something CANNOT create itself.
Put simply, it is self-evident that - to create itself, a thing would have to pre-exist its own creation to carry out the act of creating itself. In which case, it already exists.
And, if anything at all exists, i.e. in this example âgravityâ, it cannot be called 'nothing'.
Furthermore, âgravityâ cannot be a creative agent, it is merely an inherent property of matter â it is obvious that a property of something cannot create that which it is a property of. And also, How can something pre-exist that which it is a property of?
Thus, we are obliged to conclude that nonsense remains nonsense, even when presented by highly regarded scientists.
âFallacies remain fallacies, even when they become fashionable.â GK Chesterton.
Such nonsensical propositions are vain attempts to undermine the well, established, law of cause and effect, which is fatal to atheist ideology.
Incredibly, Hawking's so-called replacement for God completely ignores this law of cause and effect, which applies to ALL temporal (natural) entities, without exception.
Therefore, Stephen Hawking's natural, 'theory of everything' which he summed up in a single sentence can, similarly, be debunked in a single sentence:
Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.
Religion?
Once we admit the obvious fact that the universe cannot arise of its own accord from nothing (nothing will remain nothing forever), the only alternative is that âsomethingâ has always existed â an infinite âsomethingâ. For anything to happen, such as the origin of the universe, the infinite something, cannot just exist in a state of eternal, passive inactivity, it must be capable of positive activity.
If we examine the characteristics, powers, qualities and attributes which exist now, we must conclude that the âsomethingâ, that has always existed, must have amazing (godlike) powers to be able to produce all the wonderful qualities we see in the universe, including: information, natural laws, life, intelligence, consciousness, etc.
This means we need to believe in some sort of âgodlike entityâ. The only remaining question is - which god?
Is the godlike entity a creator, or simply nature or natural forces as atheists claim? Seeking an answer to that question is the essential role of religion, which essentially utilises logic and reason, rather than just relying on blind faith.
Why God MUST exist ...
There are only two states of being (existence) â temporal and infinite. That. which has a beginning, is âtemporalâ. That which has no beginning is âinfiniteâ.
Everything that exists must be one or the other.
The temporal (unlike the infinite) is not autonomous or non-contingent, it essentially relies on something else for its beginning (its cause) and its continued existence.
The universe and all natural things are temporal. Hence, they ALL require a cause or causes.
They could NOT exist without a cause to bring them into being. This is a FACT accepted by science, and enshrined in the Law of Cause and Effect.
The Law of Cause and Effect tells us that every, natural effect requires a cause. And that - an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
This is a fundamental principle, essential to the scientific method.
âAll natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all eventsâ Dr Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
No temporal effect can be greater than (superior to) the sum-total of its cause or causes
It is obvious that - something cannot give what it doesnât possess.
A temporal entity can be a subsidiary cause of another temporal entity, but cannot be the initial (first) cause of the entire, temporal realm - which includes ALL natural effects and entities.
Consider this simple chain of causes and effects:
A causes B
B causes C
C causes D
D causes E
âA, B, C & Dâ 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 doesnât 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 âAâ 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 must 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 itself everything necessary to produce E.
The same applies to D, it cannot be superior to C. 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 wholly 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.
Conclusion âŚ
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.
Entropy
The initial (first) cause of the temporal realm had to be something non-temporal (uncaused), i.e. something infinite.
The word âtemporalâ is derived from tempus, Latin for time. - All temporal things are subject to time - and, as well as having a beginning in time, natural things can also expect to naturally degenerate, with the passage of time, towards a decline in function, order and existence. The material universe is slowly in decline and dying.
The natural realm is not just temporal, but also temporary (finite). Science acknowledges this with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy).
As all natural things are temporal, we know that the initial (first), infinite cause of everything temporal cannot be a natural agent or entity.
The infinite, first cause of everything natural can also be regarded as âsupernaturalâ, in the sense that it is not subject to natural laws that are intrinsic only to natural things, which it caused.
This fact is verified by science, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that there is no ânaturalâ means by which matter/energy can be created.
However, as the first cause existed before the natural realm (which is subject to natural laws, without exception), the issue of the first cause being exempt from natural laws (supernatural) is not something extraordinary or magical. It is the original and normal default state of the infinite.
If the material universe was infinite, entropy wouldnât exist. Entropy is a characteristic only of natural entities.
The infinite cannot be subject to entropy, it does not deteriorate, it remains the same forever.
Entropy can apply only to temporal, natural entities.
Therefore, we know that the material universe, as a temporal entity, had to have a beginning and, being subject to entropy, will have an end.
That which existed before the universe, as an original cause of everything material, had to be infinite, because you cannot have an infinite chain of temporal (material) events. The temporal can only exist if it is sustained by the infinite.
As all natural entities are temporal, the (infinite) first cause could not possibly be a natural entity.
So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports and confirms the only logical conclusion we can reach from the Law of Cause and Effect, that a natural, first cause is impossible, according to science.
This is fatal to the atheist ideology of naturalism because it means there is no alternative to an infinite, supernatural, first cause (a Creator God).
The Bible explains that the universe was created perfect, without the effects of entropy such as decay, corruption and degeneration. It was the sin of humankind that corrupted the physical creation, resulting in physical death and universal entropy ...
Scripture: Romans 8:18â25
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience."
Can there be multiple infinite, first causes? It is evident that there can be only one âinfiniteâ entity. If, for example, there are two infinite entities, neither could have its own, unique properties.
Why?
Because, unless they possessed identical properties, neither would be infinite. However, if they both possessed the very same properties, there would be no distinction between them, they would be identical and thus a single entity.
To put it another way âŚ
God, as an infinite being, can only be a single entity, if He was not, and there was another infinite being, the properties which were pertinent to the other infinite being would be a limitation on His infinite character, and vice versa. So, neither entity would be infinite.
Creation - an act of will?
For an infinite cause to produce a temporal effect, such as the universe, an active character and an act of will must be involved. If the first cause was just a blind, mechanistic, natural thing, the universe would just be a continuation of the infinite nature of the first cause, not temporal (subject to time). For example, if the nature of water in infinite time was to be frozen, it would continue its frozen nature infinitely. There must be an active agent involved.
Time applies to the temporal, not the infinite. The infinite is omnipresent, it always was, it always is, and it always will be. It is the âAlpha and the Omegaâ as the Bible explains.
Jesus claimed to be omnipresent, when referred to Himself as âI amâ. He was revealing that His spirit was the infinite, Divine spirit (the infinite, first cause of everything temporal).
Therefore, what we know about the characteristics of this supernatural entity, are as follows:
The single, supernatural entity:
1. Has always existed, has no cause, and is not subject to time. (is infinite, eternally self-existent, autonomous and non-contingent).
2. Is the first, original and deliberate cause of everything temporal (including the universe and every natural entity and effect).
3. Cannot be, in any way, inferior to any temporal or natural thing that exists.
In simple terms, this means that the single, infinite, supernatural, first cause of everything that exists in the temporal realm, has the capability of creating everything that exists, and cannot be inferior in any powers and attributes to anything that exists. This is the entity we recognise as the creator God.
The Bible tells us that we were made in the image of this God. This is logical because it is obvious, we cannot be superior to this God (an effect cannot be greater than its cause).
So, all our qualities and attributes must be possessed by the God in whose image we were made.
All our attributes come from the creator, or supernatural, first cause.
Remember, the logic that something cannot give what it doesnât possess.
We have life. Thus, our creator must be alive.
We are intelligent. Thus, our creator must be intelligent.
We are conscious. Thus, our creator must be conscious.
We can love. Thus, our creator must love.
We understand justice. Thus, our creator must be just, etc. etc.
Therefore, we can logically discern the character and attributes of the creator from what is seen in His creation.
This FACT - that an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s, is recognised as a basic principle of science, and is it crucial to understanding the nature and attributes of the first cause.
It means nothing in the universe that exists, resulting from the action of the first cause, can be in anyway superior to the first cause. We must conclude that, at least, some attributes of the first cause can be seen in the universe.
Atheists frequently ask how can we possibly know what God is like?
The Bible (which is inspired by God) tells us many things about the character of God, but regardless of scripture, the universe itself gives us evidence of Godâs nature.
For example: can the properties of human beings, in any way, be superior to the first cause?
To suggest they are, would be to violate the scientific principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.
All the powers, properties, qualities and attributes we observe in the universe, including all human qualities, must be also evident in the first cause.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have life.
If there is intelligence in the universe the first cause must have intelligence.
The same applies to consciousness, skill, design, purpose, justice, love, beauty, forgiveness, mercy etc.
Therefore, we must conclude that the eternally, self-existent, non-natural (supernatural), first cause, has life, is conscious, has intelligence and created the temporal as an act of will.
We know, from the law of cause and effect, that the first cause cannot possibly be any of the natural processes frequently proposed by atheists, such as: the so-called, big bang explosion, singularity or quantum mechanics.
They are all temporal, moreover, it is obvious that none of them are adequate to produce the effect. They are all grossly inferior to the result.
To sum up:
Using impeccable logic and reason, supported by our understanding of established, natural, physical laws (which apply to everything of a natural, temporal nature) acknowledged by science, humans have been able to discover the existence of a single, infinite, supernatural, living, intelligent, loving and just creator God.
God discovered, not invented!
Contrary to the narrative perpetuated by atheists, a personal, creator God is not a âhuman inventionâ, and He is certainly not a backward substitute for reason or science, but rather, He is an enlightened, human discovery, based on unimpeachable logic, reason, rationality, natural laws and scientific understanding.
The real character of atheism unmasked.
Is belief in God just superstitious, backward thinking, suitable only for the uneducated or scientific illiterates, as atheists would have us believe?
Stephen Hawking is widely acknowledged as the best brain in modern atheism, his natural explanation for the origin of the universe "Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" was claimed by some, to have made belief in a creator God redundant. This is an atheistic, natural, creation story, summed up in a single sentence.
When we realise what atheists actually believe, it doesnât take a genius to understand that it is atheism, not monotheism, which is a throwback to an unenlightened period in human history. It is a throwback to a time when Mother Nature or other natural or material, temporal entities were regarded by some as having autonomous, godlike, creative powers â
âthe universe can and will create itself from nothingâ
The discredited concept of worshipping nature itself (naturalism) or various material things (Sun, Moon, idols etc.) as some sort of autonomous, non-contingent, creative, or self-creative agents, used to be called paganism. Now it has been re-invented as 21st century atheism ...
The truth about modern atheism is it is just pagan naturalist beliefs repackaged.
âIt is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.â - G.K. Chesterton.
Godâs power.
Everything that exists is dependent on the original and ultimate cause (God) for its origin, continued existence and operation.
This means God affords everything all the power it needs to function. Everything operates only with Godâs power. We couldnât even lift a little finger, if the power to do so was not permitted by God.
What caused God?
Ever since the 18th century, atheist philosophers such as David Hume, Bertrand Russell etc. have attempted to debunk the logical evidence for a creator God, as the infinite, first cause and creator of the universe.
The basic premise of their argument is that a long chain of causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (no first cause, but rather an infinite regress). And that, if every effect requires an adequate cause (as the Law of Cause and Effect states), then God (a first cause) could no more exist without a cause, than anything else.
This latter point is summed up in the what many atheists regard as the killer question:
âWhat caused God then?â
This question wasnât sensible in the 18th century, and is not sensible today, but incredibly, many atheists still think it is a good argument against the Law of Cause and Effect and continue to use it.
As explained previously, the Law of Cause and Effect applies to all temporal entities.
Temporal entities have a beginning, and therefore need a cause. They are all contingent and dependent on a cause or causes for their beginning and existence, without exception.
It is obvious to any sensible person that the very first cause, because it is FIRST, had nothing preceding it.
First means 'first', it doesnât mean second or third. If we could go back far enough with a chain of causes and effects, however long the chain, at some stage we must reach an ultimate beginning, i.e. the cause which is first, having no previous cause. This first cause must have always existed with no beginning. It is essentially self-existent from an infinite past and for an infinite future. It must be completely autonomous and non-contingent, not relying on any cause or anything else for its existence. Not temporal, but infinite.
So, the answer to the question is that - God was not caused, only temporal entities (such as ALL natural things) essentially require a cause.
God is the eternally, self-existent, ultimate, non-contingent, supernatural, first. infinite cause of everything temporal.
As explained earlier, the first cause could not be a natural entity, it had to be supernatural, as ALL natural entities are temporal and contingent (they all require causes).
Is the atheist, infinite regress argument sensible?
This is the argument against the need for a first cause of the universe. The proposition is that; a long chain of natural causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (an infinite regress). This proposition is nonsensical.
Why?
It is self-evident that you cannot have a chain of temporal effects going backwards in time, forever. It is the inherent nature of all temporal things to have a beginning. Likewise, for a long chain of temporal causes and effects, there must be a beginning at some point in time. Contingent things do not become non-contingent, simply by being in a long chain.
Temporal + temporal can never equal infinite.
Moreover, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that everything physical is subject to entropy.
Therefore, it is an absurd notion that there could be a long chain of temporal elements in which, although every individual link in the chain requires a beginning, the complete chain does not. And, although every individual link in the chain is subject to the law of entropy, the chain as a whole is not, and is miraculously unaffected by the effects of entropy, throughout an infinite past, which would have caused its demise.
What about the idea that infinite regress is acceptable in maths?
Maths is a type of information - and information, like truth, is not purely physical.
It can require physical media to make it tangible, but while the physical media is always subject to entropy, information is not. 1+1 = 2 will always be true, it is unaffected by time, or even whether there are any humans left to do mathematical calculations.
Jesus said; Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will go on forever. Jesus is pointing out that truth and information are unaffected by entropy.
For example: historical truths, such as the fact that Henry VIII had six wives, will always be true. Time cannot erode or change that truth. Even if all human records of this truth were destroyed, it would never cease to be true.
As the Christian, apologist Peter Keeft has made clear, maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number one. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible. Two is 2 ones, three is 3 ones, etc.
The concept of the number one also exists as a characteristic of the one, infinite, first cause. - God is one. - God embodies that positive integer (number one/first cause), essential for the operation of maths. Without the number one, there could be no number two or three, etc. etc. There could be no positive numbers, no negative numbers and no fractions.
The fact that an infinite âfirstâ cause exists, means that number one is bound to exist. In a state of eternal and infinite nothingness, there would be no information and no numbers and nothing would be âfirstâ. So, like everything else, maths is made possible only by the existence of the one, infinite, first cause (God).
Atheism is an insidious and deceptive cult, which attempts to indoctrinate the public through relentless hype and propaganda.
Here is some good news for any theists reading this. All atheist arguments are easily demolished. Not because I, or any other theist, is exceptionally clever, but because atheism is based on lies and deceit. Once people realise that, it becomes obvious that there will be major flaws in EVERY atheist argument. It is then a simple matter, for anyone interested in truth, to expose them.
Atheism is claimed to be the scientific viewpoint and supporter of science. That is the great deception of the modern age.
What is the truth?
Science is based on looking for adequate causes of EVERY natural happening or entity AND on making predictions and assessments about the natural world, based on the validity of natural laws.
Atheism is based on ignoring the fact that EVERY natural happening or entity requires an adequate cause, not just ignoring it, but even actively opposing it.
Unbelievably, atheism is about looking for, and hoping to find, non-causes and inadequate causes.
Atheism is also against the scientific method, of making assessments and predictions based on the validity of natural laws, and in favour of rejecting and challenging the validity of natural laws.
Because the existence of natural laws which support the necessity of an adequate, first cause is fatal to the atheist cult.
The often repeated atheist argument that we just donât know whether causality or any other natural laws existed before the start of the universe, is not a valid argument for atheism. Even if it was a sensible argument, the very best that could be said of it, is that it is an argument for agnosticism.
'Not knowing' (agnosticism) is a neutral position, it is not an argument for or against theism or for or against atheism. If you claim to be in the âdonât knowâ camp and are a genuine agnostic, you have to sit firmly on the fence - you have no right to ridicule and lambast theists who believe that causality and natural laws are universally valid and by the same token you cannot ridicule atheism. Those who ridicule and attack theism are not genuine agnostics, because they come down firmly on the side of atheism. That is not a âdonât knowâ (agnostic) position.
The argument for atheism cannot be simply based on ânot knowingâ whether the law of cause and effect and other natural laws existed prior to the universe. Atheism depends on a definite rejection of causality and natural laws at the beginning of the material realm.
And that argument also reveals atheists as gross hypocrites.
When Stephen Hawking declared to the world: âBecause there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothingâ atheists applauded and crowed about âscienceâ making God redundant. How come they didnât criticise him for claiming he knew the law of gravity pre-existed the universe? Apparently, Hawking KNEW the law of gravity existed, but decided that the law of cause and effect and other natural laws didnât exist. What happened to the: âwe just donât know what laws existed before the universe or Big Bangâ argument on that occasion? Unbelievable hypocrisy! Which effectively demolishes the bogus atheist argument that âwe donât know what laws existedâ. What atheists actually mean to say is that: âwe know that laws which support our argument did exist, but we donât know that laws which destroy our argument existedâ.
The only way atheist, naturalist beliefs can be true, is if natural laws and the basic principle behind the scientific method are not true and valid.
So there is a straight choice between supporting atheism - OR supporting the universal validity of science and natural law. You can't do both...
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
_____________________________________________
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."
Itâs always at night.
When the house goes still, and the email pings go silent, and thereâs nothing left to distract me from the hum in my chest. That same question always finds its way back, whispering with a voice that sounds exactly like mine.
How i wish i would have leave all behind, pack my vest, grab my cameras, and hit the road.
âWhat if I just went?â
And I never answer right away.
Because I know what comes next.
âGo where?â
Anywhere.
Ukraine? - âYouâre too Brown for that!â
Gaza? - âYouâre Jewish!â
Back to a place where your camera actually mattered.
Where stories still needed telling.
Where truth wasnât buried under spreadsheets.
Go back to conflict? You already survived it once, thatâs more than most get.
Go back to what? You canât even breathe right anymore.
I want to help give voice to muted mouths.
âAnd in the progress, destory what is left of your mental capacity, and your life.â
âYouâre 34 now. Youâre not 22. Youâll die there.â
Maybe. But at least Iâd die doing something that mattered.
âYou already did. You already bled. You already ran. You already burned. Isnât that enough?â
But it never is.
Not when the ghost of the old life follows me into bed.
I turn over. I stare at the ceiling. The light from the hallway spills under the door,
just enough to remind me: Youâre not there anymore.
No broken glass underfoot. No crowds roaring. No boots. No bullets.
Just carpet. A soft pillow. Quiet.
âYou miss it?!â
No. I miss purpose. Thereâs a difference.
I miss being needed. Being essential. Being the one who told the story.
âAnd what would that change now? You think going back would fix you? You think thereâs redemption in one more warzone?â
I get up. Walk to the closet. Pull the chair.
Reach for the suitcase. Open it.
The vest is still there. Same one I cleaned by hand after it had soaked through with blood, mine and othersâ.
The one I promised Iâd never put on again.
But still, I think about it.
Every day.
And tonight, I touched it.
âYou idiot. Youâre safe now. You have a salary, a company, a damn ergonomic chair and electric standing desk.â
So what? Iâm empty. I sleep alone in a king-sized bed that feels like a solitary confinement.
âWhat are you but an adrenaline junkie who wants to leave a job millions would kill for!
A country thatâs one of the safest in the world, to go chase a ghost from the past?
That same ghost that broke you, nearly killed you, more times than you can count.
And you do know. You donât need to remember. Just look at your bodyâcount the holes, the burn marks.
Donât forget the ones that missed but wouldâve been fatal. Best not forget thoseâŚâ
Maybe Iâm just an adrenaline junkie with survivorâs guilt. Maybe I want to leave comfort not for a cause, but for a fix. Maybe Iâm still trying to prove something to a version of myself that no longer exists.
I donât miss the danger. I miss what the danger meant. That I mattered. That someone needed to tell the truth. That I had something real to say.
And yes, this life I have now is a dream. And the more I live it, the more I feel like a coward for enjoying it. Every luxury feels like betrayal.
Every comfort feels like forgetting, Iâve survived more than I ever should have.
And yet I dread losing this life, this plush, protected, capitalist cocoon. Because I know the second I lose it, Iâll run. Back to stories. Back to risk. Back to meaning.
Isnât that twisted?
âSo youâd throw away all of this?
The warm apartment. The luxury. The team who respects me.
The passive income. The safety. The future.
Youâd throw all of it away for what? A story? A body bag?â
I sit in silence
The vest across my lap. Maybe I wonât go.
Maybe I will. Maybe itâs not about going anywhere at all.
Thereâs a story from Passover that haunts me.
We focus on the Israelites who reached the Promised Land.
But I think about the others. The ones who never made it. The ones stuck in the desert.
The ones whose trauma kept them from crossing over. They wandered for 40 years.
not because they were lost, but because they were still carrying slavery inside them.
Maybe Iâm just one of those who were never meant to cross over.
Thatâs me.
Iâm not the one who enters the land. Iâm the one stuck in the sand.
Fragments - 09