View allAll Photos Tagged atheism
Are we, as Professor Richard Lewontin suggests, forced by an a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, or can we accept that some things are the result of intelligent design?
I was banned from the Flickr Christianity group, so here's my trophy I made from the ban notice. Here is the conversation that got me banned.
We welcome all truth seekers to contact us.
The Origin of Eastern Lightning’s Prosperity
.........
"Now, in these last days, God has once again become flesh in China—the staunch bastion of atheism, the very nest of the great red dragon—to carry out His work of judgment beginning from His house. God issues forth truths to judge and cleanse mankind, the purpose being to save man completely from the dark influence of Satan, and finally, the saved will be brought into God’s kingdom by Him and enter rest together with God. However, the historical tragedy of Jewish resistance to the Lord Jesus is being enacted once again. As God does His new work of the last days which strikes back against the notions of people from the various religious sects, they do not welcome the return of the Lord Jesus. Instead, they spread all manner of heresies and fallacies. They attack and slander God incarnate, condemning His work as an “evil cult” or “heresy.” They even go so far as to collude with the Chinese Communist government to persecute and arrest those who spread the gospel of God in the last days. Their deeds are no different than those of the Jewish religious community that once framed and persecuted the Lord Jesus. This fact has completely fulfilled the prophecy of the Lord Jesus, “For as the lightning, that lightens out of the one part under heaven, shines to the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation” (Luke 17:24-25). God has been incarnated twice amongst man to speak and work, to redeem mankind and save mankind, and both times has suffered the condemnation, blasphemy, and resistance of religious leaders and ruling regimes; this fact alone is enough to prove that the true way has been persecuted since ancient times. The more the way is true and the more it is the appearance and work of God, the more it suffers the rejection and condemnation of religious leaders and satanic regimes. The clever can determine from the unscrupulous persecution and condemnation of Almighty God and His work of the last days by the pastors and elders of the religious world and the CCP government whether or not it is the true way, and thereby make the wise choice."
..........
Terms of Use en.godfootsteps.org/disclaimer.html
“All this twaddle, the existence of God, atheism, determinism, liberation, societies, death, etc., are pieces of a chess game called language, and they are amusing only if one does not preoccupy oneself with winning or losing this ‘game of chess’.” ― Marcel Duchamp.
“Chess is life in miniature. Chess is a struggle, chess is battles.” – Garry Kasparov.
Benny Andersson, Tim Rice & Björn Ulvaeus – Chess (From Chess The Musical Soundtrack) ♫ youtu.be/Y-HXjvmcLa8
This photo was inspired by Ingmar Bergman’s ‘The Seventh Seal’ (Det sjunde inseglet) and edited with GIMP 2.
Narrator: And when the Lamb opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour... And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound. (The Bible, Revelation 8:1 and 8:6)
[Cut to Crusader Antonius Block, resting near crashing waves on the beach; silence abruptly descends, and a black-robed man with an unnaturally white face appears]
Block: Who are you?
Death: I am Death.
Block: Have you come for me?
Death: I have been walking by your side for a long time.
Block: That I know.
Death: Are you prepared?
Block: My body is, but I am not.
[Death approaches Block. The knight has risen to his feet. He shivers. DEATH opens his cloak to place it around the KNIGHT'S shoulders.]
Block: Wait a moment.
Death: You all say that. But I give no respite.
Block: You play chess, don’t you? …
[A gleam of interest kindles in DEATH'S eyes.]
DEATH: How did you know that?
Block: I have seen it in paintings and heard it sung in ballads.
DEATH: Yes, in fact I'm quite a good chess player.
Block: But you can't be better than I am.
[The knight rummages in the big black bag which he keeps beside him and takes out a small chessboard. He places it carefully on the ground and begins setting up the pieces.]
DEATH: Why do you want to play chess with me?
Block: I have my reasons.
DEATH: That is your privilege.
Block: The condition is that I may live as long as I hold out against you. If I win, you will release me. Is it agreed?
[Block holds out his two fists to DEATH, who smiles at him suddenly. DEATH points to one of the KNIGHT'S hands; it contains a black pawn.]
Block: You drew black!
DEATH: Very appropriate. Don't you think so?
[The knight and DEATH bend over the chessboard. After a moment of hesitation, Antonius Block opens with his king's pawn. DEATH moves, also using his king’s pawn.]
Scott Walker – The Seventh Seal ♫ youtu.be/jMUk1R_fKEA
Asheville, NC City Councilman Cecil Bothwell is an atheist. That bothers some other people, like bigot H.K. Edgerton:
“My father was a Baptist minister. I’m a Christian man. I have problems with people who don’t believe in God,” said Edgerton, a former local NAACP president and founder of Southern Heritage 411, an organization that promotes the interests of black southerners.
Indeed, he has such a problem with it Edgerton is threatening to file a lawsuit, claiming Bothwell isn’t qualified to hold office because of his atheism, citing the unconstitutional North Carolina Constitution that “disqualifies officeholders ‘who shall deny the being of Almighty God.’”
Bothwell’s response: “The question of whether or not God exists is not particularly interesting to me, and it’s certainly not relevant to public office.”
There was a time when people like Edgerton were denied office because of the color of their skin. Edgerton is fighting for the same bigotry — denying office to someone because of their religion, or lack there of. It’s shameful.
Check this out-- it's a spittin' image for St Basil's Cathedral at The Kremlin. What else could I call it? The old Trinity Church built in 1561 (long before the communists desecrated it into a museum of atheism), with its unique twisted domes, has a free-world counterpart in Arizona, made of sandstone. How about that!
This means America had it first! Let's call it an icon of freedom on this Memorial Day. Red Square-- red as in Republican? (No, I won't call it the Trump towers.) Democrats can claim the blue sky. So on this day, we have red, white and blue to celebrate our unity as Americans.
This is in a hidden amphitheater I call 'Secret Pocket' that is not visible from any road or trail. Looks like a fun place to explore and take pictures, doesn't it? The "Fractal Wave" I showed earlier is on the nearest dome. To get this angle, I had to scramble up steep rocky slopes into the "mezzanine" of Secret Pocket (about halfway up the amphitheater), where I enjoyed great views.
To protect these new discoveries, I'll only give out directions to those who ask on Flickrmail.
Check out all the new attractions in my Paria New Discoveries album... more to come!
"The Crucinaut of Overlapping Magisteria" (photograph #1) by 1CONOCLA5T. 1n this piece the artist seeks to show the contrast and conflict between science and religion. The title is a reference to the famous quote by american paleontologist Steven J Gould that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria". In this piece the suffering Christ is replaced on the cross by an Apollo astronaut to represent the way in which religion has for centuries persecuted science and rational thinkers while at the same time by using the iconic image of an Apollo astronaut, reminding the viewer of one of human kinds greatest achievements, the landing of humans on the moon. such an achievement was only possible once religion was forced thanks to the discovery's of science to loosen its grip on the human race as a whole. it should be noted that it didn't do so without a fight and continues to try to regain that lost ground.
Despite airplanes, automobiles, smartphones, heart transplants, the internet and lets not forget the moon landing, there are still people who want to teach creationism in public schools and think Noah's ark is a literal story about a real 600 year old man. As well as irrational lunatics who say we never even went to the moon and the earth is actually flat.
Independently of doctrinal atheism and cultural particularities, modern man moves through the world as if Existence were nothing or as if he had invented it; it is for him a commonplace thing like the dust beneath his feet (more especially as he is no longer aware of the Principle at once transcendent and immanent) and he makes use of it with assurance and inadvertence in a life that has lost its sacredness and thus become meaningless. Everything is conceived through a web of contingencies, relationships, prejudices; no phenomenon is any longer considered in itself, in its being, and grasped at its root; the contingent has usurped the rank of the absolute; man scarcely reasons any more except in terms of his imagination, which is falsified by ideologies on the one hand and by his artificial surroundings on the other. Now eschatological doctrines, however exaggerated they may appear to the sensibilities of those whose only gospel is their materialism and dissipation and whose life is nothing but a flight before God, provide the true measure for the cosmic situation of man; what the Revelations ask of us and what Heaven imposes or inflicts on us is what we are in reality, regardless of our own opinion; we know it in our heart of hearts, if only we can detach ourselves a little from the monstrous accumulation of false images that have become entrenched in our mind. What we need is to become once again capable of grasping the value of Existence and, amid the multitude of phenomena, the meaning of man; we must once again find the measure of the real. Our reactions to eschatological doctrines (or to the one that concerns us most) are the measure of our understanding of man.
There is something in man which is able to conceive the Absolute and even attain to it and which therefore is absolute. This being the case, one can assess the extent of the aberration of those for whom it seems perfectly natural to have the right or chance to be man, but who wish to be so without participating in the integral nature of man and the attitudes it implies. Needless to say, the paradoxical possibility of denying itself is also a part of this nature (for to be man is to be free in a “relatively absolute” sense) much in the same way as to accept error or throw oneself into an abyss is a human possibility.
We have already said that “unbelievers” no longer have the sense of either nothingness or existence, that they no longer know the value of existence and never look at it in relation to the nothingness from which it is miraculously detached. Miracles in the usual sense of the word are in effect only particular variants of the initial (and everywhere present) miracle that is the fact of existence; the miraculous and divine are everywhere; it is the human outlook that is absent.
Fundamentally there are only three miracles: existence, life, intelligence; with intelligence, the curve springing from God closes on itself like a ring that in reality has never been parted from the Infinite.
---
Frithjof Schuon: Light on the Ancient Worlds
PLEASE, NO invitations or self promotions, THEY WILL BE DELETED. My photos are FREE to use, just give me credit and it would be nice if you let me know, thanks.
It is also called Isaakievskiy Sobor and is the largest cathedral in the city of St. Petersburg and was the largest church in Russia when it was built (101.5 meters high). It is dedicated to Saint Isaac of Dalmatia, a patron saint of Peter the Great who had been born on the feast day of that saint. The cathedral took 40 years to construct, from 1818 to 1858. Under the Soviet government, the building was abandoned, then turned into a museum of atheism.
One of the large bronze doors at the entrance to the cathedral.
where do you draw the line?
an image having a related theme may be found here
- a discussion thread regarding this image at reddit.com
- a brief article regarding the use of flowcharts generally in art and specifically in this image at wrt.ucr.edu/wordpress
- a well thought out analysis of this image at wayofthemind.dehumanizer.com
- a discussion thread at community.livejournal.com/convert_me
- links to other blog discussions regarding this image: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
(improved image here)
Governs the generation of beings and phenomena of nature. Protects those who wish to progress spiritually. Distinguished by genius; one of the great lights of philosophy.
Correspondence to Astrology
15° to 20° Pisces - Alchemy/Transformation
Info below from: UNIVERSE/CITY MIKAEL www.ucm.ca/en/info/the-72-angels
Qualities
Alchemy
Transforms evil into good
Healing
Regenerates, revitalizes, re-establishes harmony
Transforms, transmutes into spiritual gold
Masters instincts
Guides the first steps of the deceased into the other world
Transforms society with enlightened ideas
Helps accompany the dying
Distortions
Blockage, retention Tendency to get bogged down Problems of obesity Incomprehension of good and evil Atheism, disbelief Conflict, confrontation Incurable disease Fear of change and death Outbursts, excessive reactions Heaviness, overflow Incapable of setting objectives
Situations
Accompanying the dying Cancer Death Digestion Intestines Kidney stones Liver Mother Stomach
Transformation, transformation of evil into good
www.karmicangelclearings.com/page/491335722
Lucifer Angel Genius Bartholdi is the result of the passage of the forbidden and decision Freedom of Man, results DEATH. This death is the beginning of transmutation cycle of creation of man and of God himself, not under guardianship and without freedom.Bartholdi itself carried the sculpture of the winged female genius that dominates the red porphyry obelisk on which is written "Author / Lion of Belfort / and the Statue of Liberty / Enlightening the World." I'll have .....
From the Analogy ("The Matrix") page you learned that certain alchemist's authors praise Lucifer. And it doesn't stop there. It extends to their symbolism as well. It is important to STRESS that not all Masons worship Lucifer, only the top 5% do. Most of these writings were kept secret. Biblical admonition has been taken carefully, comparing alchemics teachings to the Holy Bible. In I John 4:1, we read: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try (test) the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." We see that any religious teaching that does not conform to Scripture is from a "false prophet." Many people still do not understand the importance of studying this subject to its logical conclusion. Their spiritual freedom is at stake. Remember two things about alchemy: "Cut through the outer shell and find a meaning; cut through that meaning and find another; under it, if you dig deep enough, you may find a third, a fourth -- who shall say how many teachings?" Many who are in alchemy are not aware that they are lied to. Finally, remember Albert Pike's bold assertion in Morals & Dogma, that "Masonry is identical to the ancient Mysteries," which means that all their teachings in all their books are precisely the same as the Ancient, Pagan, Satanic Mysteries. [p. 624, teachings of the 28th Degree] Of course these top 5% call Jesus Christ an "inferior god," they never, ever mention Him in their teachings or their rituals. This shouldn't surprise you since the Pope carries a bent Satanic cross as seen on another page which shames Christ on the cross.
Alchemits used Luciferic symbols within the layout of government center Washington D.C. worship Lucifer, the Light-Bearer. Lucifer and Satan are biblically the same individual, alchemy is really the worship of Satan. By quoting their own sources and depicting the symbols in which they use, this claim is proven. Alchemy gives itself away more through its symbols than it does in its writings. You saw in the analogy page of "The Matrix" that high level. Alchemists praise Lucifer. It is within these writings the "smoking gun" will be found, proof that Masons worship Satan. Once this is comprehended, you will understand why "they" have been trying to keep this all secret. If people really understood that Alchemy is the worship of Satan, no one in their right mind would join. Not only that but people would demand that this organization be outlawed. You have a continuous public relations campaign promoting the lie that Alchemy is not a religion, and is just a "good works social organization." As quoted above, you have secrets within secrets. LUCIFER PRAISED AS THE LIGHT-BEARER OF FREEMASONRY "Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not!" [Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, p. 321, 19th Degree of Grand Pontiff; Red Emphasis added] Alchemists from the first initiation which is the first degree are urged to mightily "seek the Light!" The average Mason is continually saying that he is "seeking the Light," and will spend his entire life "moving toward the Light." People who haven't studied this subject would assume that this "Light" is the revelation of the God of the Bible. This statement is continuously held up to try to convince us that Masonry is Christian. In the above quote, Albert Pike is saying that Lucifer is the One who bears the Light of Alchemy. The sentence immediately preceding confirms not only that Lucifer is the Light-bearer, but that alchemys of previous degrees have been led to believe that the opposite was true. The wording of this sentence is difficut to understand unless you have special knowledge. Doc Marquis was asked for his explanation, lets look at what he had to say:, "The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God Alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer." [Ibid.] It seems to contradict the sentence first quoted above, It appears to contradict the quote above where Pike identifies Lucifer as the Masonic Light-bearer. However when you understand the esoteric explanation from Doc Marquis, your understanding clears up completely.
The Apocalypse is identified first by Pike as being the Book of Revelation written by the Apostle John. Pike then states that similar books from other religions are just as 'inspired' as Revelation, mentioning Plato, Philo, the Sephar Yezirah, and the Sohar. Pike says all three of these books -- Apocalypse [Revelation], the Sephar Yezirah, and the Sohar, are all identically "inspired." And since the last two books are of non-Christian faiths, Albert Pike is saying that the contents of Revelation are no big deal. Therefore, it is no big deal that the Book of Revelation denigrates the "pomp and works" of Satan, since the God of that book is known to hate Satan.
Pike then says that these three books "are the completest embodiment of Occultism." [Ibid.] Now, we understand that Pike views the God of the Apocalypse as being the opposite but equal to Satan just as typical Occultists believe and teach!
Secondly, Doc Marquis provides the esoteric, occultic, explanation. Pike is also saying in this sentence that, in the previous 18 degrees, alchemists believed that God was the Light-bearer, but now, in this 19th Degree, Pike is giving them new revelation. This insight completely squares with stated Masonic policy of deliberately misleading alchemists in the lower degrees until they were really ready for the "truth." This is the truth -- MasonLucifer: A must to Knowledge.ry worships Lucifer. PIKE'S TYPICAL SATANIC PHRASE -- OUT WHERE EVERYONE CAN SEE Concrete evidence is then given by Pike of alchemist's worship of Satan/Lucifer on the very front of the cover of Morals and Dogma. Pike writes a Latin phrase just below the round seal of "God," this is a phrase proven to be Satanic. Any "Satanic brother" looking at this phrase would know that the contents of this book are Satanic. They would also understand that the entire religion of alchemy is Satanic. "DEUS MEUMQUE JUS" is this phrase. The literal meaning is "God and My Right" Doc Marquis says this statement is a typical one within Satanism. There is one meaning within another with this statement. The first meaning is that the Freemason can depend upon their God to determine their Right and Justice. The second meaning is, since the God of Freemasonry is Lucifer, Achemitss are saying that they are "using occult methods," through Lucifer, to achieve their Rights and Justice. This phrase is very powerful and dangerous within Saanism says Marquis. A Satanist knows the content within Pike's book is Satanism just by reading, "DEUS MEUMQUE JUS." They don't even have to read the book, just the phrase to know.
"SEETHING ENERGIES OF LUCIFER WITHIN YOUR HANDS!"
"The day has come when Fellow Craftsman must know and apply their knowledge. The lost key to their grade is the mastery of emotion , which places the energy of the universe at their disposal. Man can only expect to be entrusted with great power by proving his ability to use it constructively and selflessly. When the Alchemists learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands, and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy. He must follow in the footsteps of his forefather, Tubal-Cain, who with the mighty strength of the war god hammered his sword into a plowshare."
Once the Alchemists learns to control his emotion and to apply the "dynamo of living power," the Mason can be assured of being able to control the "seething energies of Lucifer" in his hands. He makes the admission that Alchemy is the Craft, which is an old name for Witchcraft. Satanists are assured that, if they will join the coven and learn the Craft, he will control the supernatural power of Satan, just as Manly P. Hall promises here. As you can see, they have exposed themselves. Powerful proof that Alchemy is Satanism. The language is direct and clear. It is not cluttered with deliberately confusing arcane language that only an insider can understand.
REVELATIONS OF TUBAL-CAIN Please take note that Hall makes reference to Tubal-Cain, above. We need to review this sentence because it too reveals Satanism. The Alchemist must "follow in the footsteps of his forefather, Tubal-Cain, who with the mighty strength of the war god hammered his sword into a plowshare." In the Alchemic Quiz Book, the candidate is asked this question: "Who was Tubal Cain?" Answer: "He is the Vulcan of the pagans." William P. Peterson. The Arcane Schools: A Review of their Origin and Antiquity: With a General History of Alchemy and Its Relation to the Theosophic Scientific and Philosophic Mysteries, Belfast, Ireland, William Tait, 1909, p. 30; also found in A. R. Chambers, Editor, Questions and Tubal-Cain is the password given in the Third Degree of Master Alchemist . You can identify Alchemy with paganism within this sentence. But what is the meaning of the Vulcan of the pagans? A very important question because Manly P. Hall advises the Mason that, once he has the seething energies of Lucifer in his hands, he is to walk in Tubal-Cain's footsteps.
Hall makes it sound like Tubal-Cain is one of the Greek gods, does he not? And, we know conclusively that Tubal-Cain is Vulcan of the Pagans. Let us review who Vulcan of the pagans is, by looking within occult sources. "Vulcan was a sun deity who was associated with fire, thunderbolts and light. The festival in honor of him was called the Vulcania in which human sacrifices were offered." [Percival George Woodcock, Short Dictionary of Mythology, New York, Philosophical Library, p. 152]. "According to Diel, he bears a family relationship to the Christian devil." [J.E. Cirlot, translated by Jack Sage, A Dictionary of Symbols , New York, Dorset Press, 1991, p. 362]. "It is fascinating to know that he married Venus, another name for Lucifer or the devil ." [Woodcock, op. cit., p. 150-151; Emphasis added] Manly P. Hall tells the Mason that he can have the seething energies of Lucifer in his hands, and then tells him to follow in the footsteps of the "Christian devil," to whom "human sacrifices" are offered. THE INFERNAL NAMES There may be some people who have read up to this point and still might be skeptical. Masonry cleverly masks its references to Satan. There are 77 names which pagans have used to refer to Satan over the centuries and they are in the Satanic Bible. We'll review some of these "Infernal Names" of Satanism found within Alchemy [Satanic Bible, Anton LaVey, p. 144-46]
We shall list the Freemason teaching on each of these names, and then the explanation. Baphomet -- "The Gnostics held that it [universal agent] composed the igneous [pertaining to fire] body of the Holy Spirit, and it was adored in the secret rites of the Sabbat or the Temple under the hieroglyphic figure of Baphomet or the hermaphroditic goat of Mendes ." [Pike, op. cit., p. 734, teaching of the 28th Degree; Emphasis added] It find absolutely incredible that the Freemasons should portray the Holy Spirit with the Satanic symbol, Baphomet.
Eliphas Levi created this symbol, one of the foremost Satanists and Alchemists of all time. The Baphomet is one of the most evil of all symbols. Looking closely at the Baphomet(left) you will see that the emphasis is on sex. This Being is androgynous -- both male and female -- you can see it has the breasts of a woman, and an erect phallus. You'll notice that the erect phallus has two serpents coiled around it. The Baphomet has the head of a "Horned Goat," another title for Satan.Alchemic and Occult Symbols Illustrated is a book in which Dr. Burns says, "In a book on witchcraft, The Complete Book of Witchcraft and Demonology ... the caption states that he is 'the horned god of the witches, symbol of sex incarnate'." [p. 51] And if you look at his right hand you will see Baphomet making the sign of the Devil's triad. "Baphomet is also known as the Sabbatic goat, in whose form Satan is to be worshipped at the Witches' Sabbath." [Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Mysticism, New York, Philosophical Library, 1953, p. 24]. Then, we discovered that Baphomet is officially approved as a symbol of the Church of Satan [The Occult Emporium, Winter , 1993-1994, p. 54] and that it is worn by the Priest of Satan [Ibid., 1990-1991, p. 26]. Since Albert Pike linked Baphomet with the Goat of Mendes , we will show this obviously Satanic symbol, as well. It should also be noted that from the way a pentagram is normally seen(one point up, two down), rotating the pentagram 33 degrees you get a Satanic Pentagram. 33 is the highest degree there is in Alchemy.
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/symbology/1o5.htm
Lucifer :Passage obligé vers la Connaissance
« Comment es-tu tombé des Cieux
Astre du Matin, fils de l’Aurore
Comment as-tu été jeté par terre
Toi qui vassalisais toutes les Nations
Toi qui disais en ton cœur :
J’escaladerai les Cieux par-dessus les étoiles de Dieu
J’érigerai mon trône, je siégerai sur la montagne de l’assemblée, dans les profondeurs du Nord,
Je monterai au sommet des nuages noirs
Je ressemblerai au Très Haut
Comment ! Te voila tombé au Schéol, dans les profondeurs de l’abîme »
ISAÏE XIV : 12-15
Dieu a prévu que l’Homme est appelé à jouir de la Connaissance, à l’acquérir et à accéder à la toute puissance sur la création que lui confère la Connaissance (ce qu’il n’a pas oublié de faire depuis). Mais le résultat du passage de l’interdit et de la prise de Liberté de l’Homme, a pour conséquence la MORT. Cette mort qui est le début du cycle de transmutation de la création de l’Homme et de Dieu lui-même, impossible sous tutelle et sans liberté. Cette mort acquise par transgression, devient un élément de la mise en marche du cycle cosmique, VIE-MORT, et donc de la possibilité de changement. L’Homme doit passer d’un état passif, jouir de la Connaissance, à un état actif, Connaître, en passant par la prise de possession de la Connaissance. Le but à atteindre est la divinité de l’Homme, qui ayant cueilli les fruits de la Connaissance, doit en transmuter la substance afin de s’en approprier les principes avant que d’accéder à l’Immortalité que lui confèrera l’état de Connaissant. En fait, le Serpent « LUCIFER » l’Homme et la Femme, participent à l’Unité en nous ramenant à l’UN. L’acte de rébellion consenti par Dieu, permet à l’Homme une amélioration sous forme de réintégration de sa propre divinité. Les égrégores Dieu et Lucifer, sont les inconscients de l’Homme. La Connaissance a offert la liberté de choisir entre le Bien et le Mal et donc d’évoluer sur l’arbre de Vie. LUCIFER libère l’homme de la tutelle de Dieu parce que Dieu l’a voulu. Il est un Dionysos judéo chrétien, génie de l’incarnation humaine, de l’individualité libre, expression visible de la vérité. Il est l’autre Verbe de Dieu, Archange déchu qui remonte et entraîne avec lui toute l’évolution humaine. Dans sa chute il aurait perdu une émeraude fixée à son front et dans laquelle aurait été taillé un vase qui ne serait autre que le GRAAL lequel aurait servi à récupérer « le sang du Christ » dont le symbole représente la Connaissance suprême qui procure l’illumination spirituelle, la montée des Ténèbres de la foi vers la Lumière de la GNOSE. Le terme est lâché : GNOSE
Cette Connaissance mystique des anciens Initiés (Isis, Eleusis, Dionysos, Pythagore) qui évoque la conception de la présence, en l’Homme, d’une étincelle divine dans le Monde soumis au destin, à la naissance et à la mort, et qui doit être réveillée par la contrepartie du Soi pour être finalement réintégrée dans le Tout Universel.
L’Homme se doit d’évoluer selon un schéma sur lequel se base quasiment l’intégralité des Ordres Initiatiques :
Niveau de la Matière : les Hyliques , esclaves prisonniers de la grotte de Platon, retenus par les chaînes de l’ignorance, incapables d’aller au delà de l’apparence et dont la pensée reste au niveau du geste et du rite confondant le mot et l’esprit.
Niveau de l’Esprit : les Psychiques, qui ont fait évoluer leur intellect et leur affectif, mais leurs mots n’aboutissent pas à l’idée claire et juste car l’intolérance, les passions et la peur, les aveuglent.
Niveau de l’Ame ou du Spirituel : les Pneumatiques qui sont les mystiques éclairés et initiés, ayant abandonné les préjugés, les fausses certitudes et valeurs, libres de la pesanteur de la matière. Ils sont capables de retrouver le sens perdu de la Parole et ont accès à la Gnose en s’élevant au niveau du spirituel.
Cette Gnose permet d’opérer la métamorphose de l’Homme et sa mutation interne.
Lorsque le profane se trouve dans le cabinet de réflexion, il lit ce mot : VITRIOL mais il ne sait pas encore qu’en inversant deux de ces lettres, le I et le R, il pourra écrire plus tard « L’OR I VIT « L’or, ce métal pur et précieux , qui pour les Alchimistes représente bien plus que cela, il est cette étincelle de Divinité que l’homme doit rechercher par la transmutation de ce métal vil et impur, le Mercure qui n’est autre que le symbole alchimique de LUCIFER.
Il s’avère que l’Alchimie assimile LUCIFER à l’œuvre au noir, la Putréfaction, sous une forme non démoniaque mais rédemptrice. Il représente la Pierre Brute, matière initiale de l’œuvre, qui sous son aspect vil et repoussant, n’en demeure pas moins le pilier de toute l’œuvre, car recelant en son sein, la lumière à suivre, l’étoile que suivirent les mages pour parvenir à l’Enfant philosophal.
LUCIFER représente des forces immenses qui travaillent en nous obscurément, à la réalisation du parangon humain. Les deux natures chez l’Homme sont Mortelle, être de chair, et Originelle Immortelle, être de lumière.
Deux voies différentes s’ouvrent à la prise de conscience :
L’Involution (VITRIOL) qui est la matérialisation progressive de l’esprit
L’Evolution qui est la réapparition de l’Esprit émergeant au sein de la Matière qu’il a fécondée, animée, évertuée.
Comme l’Alchimiste, l’Homme peut engager la transformation, la transmutation de sa propre nature existentielle.
« Lumière et vie, voilà ce qu’est le Dieu et Père de qui est né l’Homme. Si donc tu apprends à te connaître comme étant fait de vie et de lumière et que ce sont là les éléments qui te constituent, tu retourneras à la Vie. » (Hermès Trismégiste)
La poursuite du grand Œuvre est le symbole du chemin nécessaire à la réalisation de la transfiguration de l’âme, prélude à la résurrection de la figure divine originelle : l’Homme véritable, l’Adam Kadmon.
Créé par Dieu, l’ange devenu Homme par la chair doit de son vivant et dans ses actes opérer une mue pour ressusciter en toute conscience et librement sa grandeur angélique.
LUCIFER : PASSAGE OBLIGE VERS LA CONNAISSANCE
La quête Luciférienne est la quête du Graal, nous sommes tous des enfants de LUCIFER, ceux qui font des efforts vers la Connaissance et la Sagesse. En loge, nous venons chercher la lumière que nous dispense « notre Lucifer », notre très Vénérable Maître car c’est par lui que se transmet la Lumière qui ouvre nos travaux, qui nous fait passer des Ténèbres à la Lumière, du monde profane au Macrocosme, de Lucifer au GADLU.
Dieu et LUCIFER, lumière et obscurité sont les deux facettes de cette réalité suprême qui n’est qu’un.LUCIFER est la réflexion de Dieu à l’intérieur de nous même, l’ombre de notre Etre Divin en nous même. L’influx Luciférien est une force sans laquelle la Terre n’aurait pu poursuivre son évolution. La chute du grain de blé et son implantation en cette Terre, lui donnent une particulière chance d’éclosion : celle de devenir Dieu. Celui qui veut monter doit d’abord descendre, la chute hors du Monde de Lumière, l’exil et le combat dans le Monde de l’Aveuglement et de l’Ignorance, permet la triomphale rédemption finale.
LUCIFER et CHRIST sont complémentaires, ils sont les Ténèbres et la Lumière, le Pentagramme pointe en bas évoquant la Connaissance transcendante qui renvoie à la quête d’immortalité et d’absolu pour LUCIFER et pointe en haut pour CHRIST dont la rédemption lui permet l’accès au Divin.
Mais alors, lorsque le Compagnon voit pour la première fois l’Etoile Flamboyante, celle-ci ne devrait elle pas être pointe vers le bas et ne se redresser que lorsqu’il passe des Ténèbres à la Lumière, qu’il renaît HIRAM ?
Le sceau de Salomon est explicite, un Triangle vers le haut et un Triangle vers le bas ce qui permet à l’Homme Luciférien de se positionner au centre, pas encore pneumatique mais plus du tout Hylique. Un peu comme le positionnement du Maître maçon qui, une fois la transmutation opérée, est passé de l’Equerre au compas mais revient se positionner au centre pour parfaire son évolution spirituelle.
Albert Pike Maître alchimiste du XIX ème Siècle avait déjà largement compris la nécessité du passage obligé par l’instruction Luciférienne et avait dit à ce propos, je cite : « Pour les F :. M :. Gnostiques, le G.A.D.L.U est Lucifer, »le porteur de Lumière ». L'Alchimie devrait être maintenue dans la pureté de la doctrine luciférienne « (sic).
Mais le Connaissant n’en est pas pour autant un Sage. Le savoir pouvant donner le pouvoir, l’évolution spirituelle de l’Homme se fera en fonction de la bonne ou mauvaise utilisation qu’il en fera. Il se doit de dompter son savoir et de le faire évoluer de la Matière vers l’Esprit, de l’Equerre vers le Compas en faisant que le Compas reste ouvert sur l’Equerre, de LUCIFER vers le DIVIN.
« Il est de la nature de la Lumière de ne pouvoir paraître à nos yeux sans être revêtue de quelque corps et il faut que ce corps soit propre aussi à recevoir la Lumière.
Là où donc est la Lumière, là doit être aussi nécessairement le véhicule de cette lumière. Voila le moyen le plus facile pour ne point errer. Cherche donc la Lumière de ton Esprit, la Lumière qui est enveloppée dans les Ténèbres et apprends de là que le sujet le plus vil de tous les ignorants est le plus noble selon les Sages » (BOUDDHA)
Gnôthi Seauton (Connais toi toi-même)
J’ai dit Très Vénérable Maître.
His Holiness Younus AlGohar answers viewer-submitted questions about the rise of atheism in the United Kingdom and properly raising children.
Transcript: www.theawaitedone.com/articles...
Main points:
-People are no longer religious because the religion is not able to connect people to God. When they call upon God, they do not receive help from God and the practice of religion is not benefiting them at all.
⁃Religion has been dragged through the mire by the actions of religious people. The practice of religion is not benefiting anybody; rather it is polluting hearts of people and making divisions among human beings.
⁃If Christianity in contemporary times had the calibre to connect people with God, and they would have felt God’s presence in their heart www.theawaitedone.com/teaching..., they would have never rejected God or said that God does not exist.
⁃The filth will stay in this world as long as the ideology of filth is there. Any philosophy or ideology that generates violence, hatred, killing, turns you against humanity or motivates you to kill people is unholy. It cannot come from God.
⁃Teach your children tolerance; tell them that all the religion are good and that nobody is their enemy.
Watch the video by clicking the link below:
University College, Oxford
The Shelley Memorial
"Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass,
Stains the white radiance of Eternity."
Shelley, "Adonais".
Percy Bysshe Shelley was born in 1792 in Sussex and came from a prominent family being the son of the MP for Horsham.
The Shelley memorial was erected at University College in 1892-3 it lies in the west front quad of the college under a dome painted with stars and is close to The High Street, yet it seems another world. The domed memorial was intended for the Protestant Cemetery in Rome. Curiously Shelley’s memorial is placed in the college from which he was sent down from in 1811 for publishing a “scandalous” document “The Necessity of Atheism”, this had be co-written with his friend Jefferson Hogg. Lady Shelley presented the memorial to University College, who by 1894 had undoubtedly forgiven Shelley’s earlier misdemeanour. Following the disgrace of the pamphlet Shelley eloped with sixteen year old Harriet Westbrook to Scotland, this marriage like Shelley’s tempestuous life was doomed, and Harriet drowned herself in the Serpentine (Hyde Park.) Drowning was to be the romantic poet’s own fate eleven years later when he too was lost, his yacht was sunk in a storm in the Bay of Lerici following a visit to Lord Byron . Onslow Ford’s monument is very “fin de siècle” it was designed to appear as if the muse of poetry and two lions support the drowned poet on a slab of Conemara marble as if floating on an invisible sea. The cold marble of his naked body contrasts with the heavy bronze of its support. The whole edifice is behind a grille and is locked so one usually observes it from eye level. The monument and its architectural surround was described by Pevsner as “extremely lush.” (P.211 Oxfordshire The Buildings of England , Yale Press) The memorial is an intriguing piece of work and is not generally open to public view. Basil Champneys (1842-1920) who was the architect was also responsible for Newham College Cambridge and Mansfield College Oxford. His work is often cited as late gothic, however in this case his influences appear more classical in keeping with the mausoleum.
It is worth comparing the University College monument with Weekes’ 1854 one of Shelley (In Christchurch Abbey). This monument was intended for St Peter’s Bournemouth where the poet’s heart is buried. (NT)
*Autonomy of Mankind
(auto portrait)
††† † †† †††† † †† †
Copyright © 2009 - 2014 Tomitheos Photography - All Rights Reserved
Perhaps because we 'anthropomorphize' God (meaning when we perceive God in a human image) that confuses the nature of His existence as the belief that God is the 'spark' that created all that is. Scientists theorize that even the Big Bang Theory which explains the creation of our known Universe must have had a 'spark' that started it all.
Was is this 'spark' that all cultures in the world refer to as God?
Atheists say that religion is constructed to meet deep psychological needs.
If we turn the tables it appears that atheism's vested interest is in rejecting God or the 'faith in the unknown' altogether. The issue is not as much moral as it is intellectual.
Does mankind suppress the belief about God's existence deeming our reason of being here as accidental so that we can live with unbounded moral and sexual freedom?
My hands are tied on this one..
(hey! today is the 100th day of 2009 ; )
flickr today
*Autonomy: auto - meaning "self" and nomy / nomos - meaning "law":
Definition: one who gives oneself his/her own law).
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical philosophy.
Deriving from Ancient Greek: αυτονόμος autonomos, modern Greek: αυτονομία autonomia.
.
Stanhoe, Norfolk
19th Century stained glass by Ward & Hughes.
"There are two ways of responding to mystery. The scientist’s way is to see it as a challenge, something they’ve got to work on, we’re really going to try to crack it. But there are others who revel in mystery, and who think we were not meant to understand. They say there’s something sacred about mystery that positively should not be tackled. Religion encourages you to believe falsehoods, to be satisfied with inadequate explanations which really aren't explanations at all. And this is particularly bad because the real explanations, the scientific explanations, are so beautiful and so elegant. Plenty of people never get exposed to the beauties of the scientific explanation for the world and for life. And that's very sad."
- Richard Dawkins, right-wing guru of scientific atheism, interviewed by Salon.com
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”
- Albert Einstein, formulator of the general theory of relativity, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, 1921
Let all mortal flesh keep silence,
and with fear and trembling stand;
ponder nothing earthly minded,
for with blessing in his hand
Christ our God to earth descendeth,
our full homage to demand.
King of kings, yet born of Mary,
as of old on earth he stood,
Lord of lords in human vesture,
in the Body and the Blood
he will give to all the faithful
his own self for heavenly food.
Rank on rank the host of heaven
spreads its vanguard on the way,
as the Light of Light descendeth
from the realms of endless day,
that the powers of hell may vanish
as the darkness clears away."
- Liturgy of St James (5th Century)
Translated by Gerald Moultrie for The English Hymnal, 1864
more from Stanhoe here
i had pre-ordered the greatest show on earth by richard dawkins a while back and it got delivered on the same day as a little pin from the out campaign i'd ordered on a whim.
so, naturally, i thought -- shoot now, read later.
the combination of the two objects are great for illustrating the question 'does the study of evolution lead to atheism?'
dawkins has famously said that he should not testify in a trial concerning intelligent design, because if he were asked 'did your study of evolution lead you to be an atheist?' he would have to answer 'yes'.
the whole point of the theory of the evolution of species by the process of natural selection is that it works without necessitating anyone's conscious planning, designing or manipulating. so, if anyone asked me, which they have, my answer is yes.
on the blog: toomanytribbles.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-copy-of-greatest-...
Born in the City of London, 21 February, 1801, the eldest of six children, three boys and three girls; died at Edgbaston, Birmingham, 11 August, 1890.
His father was John Newman, a banker, his mother Jemima Fourdrinier, of a Huguenot family settled in London as engravers and paper-makers. His French pedigree is undoubted. It accounts for his religious training, a modified Calvinism, which he received at his mother's knees; and perhaps it helped towards the "lucid concision" of his phrase when dealing with abstruse subjects. His brother Francis William, also a writer, but wanting in literary charm, turned from the English Church to Deism; Charles Robert, the second son, was very erratic, and professed Atheism. One sister, Mary, died young; Jemima has a place in the cardinal's biography during the crisis of his Anglican career; and to a daughter of Harriet, Anne Mozley, we are indebted for his "Letters and Correspondence" down to 1845, which contains a sequel from his own hand to the "Apologia."
A classic from the day it was completed, the "Apologia" will ever be the chief authority for Newman's early thoughts, and for his judgment on the great religious revival known as the Oxford Movement, of which he was the guide, the philosopher, and the martyr. His immense correspondence, the larger portion of which still awaits publication, cannot essentially change our estimate of one who, though subtle to a degree bordering on refinement, was also impulsive and open with his friends, as well as bold in his confidences to the public. From all that is thus known of him we may infer that Newman's greatness consisted in the union of originality, amounting to genius of the first rank, with a deep spiritual temper, the whole manifesting itself in language of perfect poise and rhythm, in energy such as often has created sects or Churches, and in a personality no less winning than sensitive. Among the literary stars of his time Newman is distinguished by the pure Christian radiance that shines in his life and writings. He is the one Englishman of that era who upheld the ancient creed with a knowledge that only theologians possess, a Shakespearean force of style, and a fervour worthy of the saints. It is this unique combination that raises him above lay preachers de vanitate mundi like Thackeray, and which gives him a place apart from Tennyson and Browning. In comparison with him Keble is a light of the sixth magnitude, Pusey but a devout professor, Liddon a less eloquent Lacordaire. Newman occupies in the nineteenth century a position recalling that of Bishop Butler in the eighteenth. As Butler was the Christian champion against Deism, so Newman is the Catholic apologist in an epoch of Agnosticism, and amid the theories of evolution. He is, moreover, a poet, and his "Dream of Gerontius" far excels the meditative verse of modern singers by its happy shadowing forth in symbol and dramatic scenes of the world behind the veil.
He was brought up from a child to take great delight in reading the Bible; but he had no formed religious convictions until he was fifteen. He used to wish the Arabian tales were true; his mind ran on unknown influences; he thought life possibly a dream, himself an angel, and that his fellow-angels might be deceiving him with the semblance of a material world. He was "very superstitious" and would cross himself on going into the dark. At fifteen he underwent "conversion", though not quite as Evangelicals practise it; from works of the school of Calvin he gained definite dogmatic ideas; and as he rested "in the thought of two and two only absolute and luminously self-evident beings, myself and my Creator." In other words, personality became the primal truth in his philosophy; not matter, law, reason, or the experience of the senses. Henceforth, Newman was a Christian mystic, and such he remained. From the writings of Thomas Scott of Aston Sandford, "to whom, humanly speaking", he says, "I almost owe my soul", he learned the doctrine of the Trinity, supporting each verse of the Athanasian Creed with texts from Scripture. Scott's aphorisms were constantly on his lips for years, "Holiness rather than peace", and "Growth is the only evidence of life." Law's "Serious Call" had on the youth a Catholic or ascetic influence; he was born to be a missionary; thought it was God's will that he should lead a single life; was enamoured of quotations from the Fathers given in Milner's "Church History", and, reading Newton on the Prophecies, felt convinced that the pope was Antichrist. He had been at school at Ealing near London from the age of seven. Always thoughtful, shy, and affectionate, he took no part in boys' games, began to exercise his pen early, read the Waverley Novels, imitated Gibbon and Johnson, matriculated at Trinity College, Oxford, December, 1816, and in 1818 won a scholarship of 60 pounds tenable for nine years. In 1819 his father's bank suspended payment, but soon discharged its liabilities in full. Working too hard for his degree, Newman broke down, and gained in 1821 only third-class honors. But his powers could not be hidden. Oriel was then first in reputation and intellect among the Oxford Colleges, and of Oriel he was elected a fellow, 12 April, 1822. He ever felt this to be "the turning point in his life, and of all days most memorable."
In 1821 he had given up the intention of studying for the Bar, and resolved to take orders. As tutor of Oriel, he considered that he had a cure of souls; he was ordained on 13 June, 1824; and at Pusey's suggestion became curate of St. Clement's, Oxford, where he spent two years in parochial activity. And here the views in which he had been brought up disappointed him; Calvinism was not a key to the phenomena of human nature as they occur in the world. It would not work. He wrote articles on Cicero, etc., and his first "Essay on Miracles", which takes a strictly Protestant attitude, to the prejudice of those alleged outside Scripture. But he also fell under the influence of Whateley, afterwards Anglican Archbishop of Dublin, who, in 1825, made him his vice-principal at St. Mary's Hall. Whateley stimulated him by discussion, taught him the notion of Christianity as a social and sovereign organism distinct from the State, but led him in the direction of "liberal" ideas and nominalistic logic. To Whateley's once famous book on that subject Newman contributed. From Hawkins, whom his casting vote made Provost of Oriel, he gained the Catholic doctrines of tradition and baptismal regeneration, as well as a certain precision of terms which, long afterwards, gave rise to Kingsley's misunderstanding of Newman's methods in writing. By another Oxford clergyman he was taught to believe in the Apostolic succession. And Butler's "Analogy", read in 1823, made an era in his religious opinions. It is probably not too much to say that this deep and searching book became Newman's guide in life, and gave rise not only to the "Essay on Development" but to the "Grammar of Assent." In particular it offered a rejective account of ethics and conscience which confirmed his earliest beliefs in a lawgiver and judge intimately present to the soul. On another line it suggested the sacramental system, or the "Economy", of which the Alexandrians Clement and St. Athanasius are exponents. To sum up, at this formative period the sources whence Newman derived his principles as well as his doctrines were Anglican and Greek, not Roman or German. His Calvinism dropped away; in time he withdrew from the Bible Society. He was growing fiercely anti-Erastian; and Whateley saw the elements of a fresh party in the Church gathering round one whom Oriel had chosen for his intellectual promise, but whom Oxford was to know as a critic and antagonist of the "March of Mind."
His college in 1828 made him Vicar of St. Mary's (which was also the university church), and in its pulpit he delivered the "Parochial Sermons", without eloquence or gesture, for he had no popular gifts, but with a thrilling earnestness and a knowledge of human nature seldom equalled. When published, it was said of them that they "beat all other sermons out of the market as Scott's tales beat all other stories." They were not controversial; and there is little in them to which Catholic theology would object. Their chastened style, fertility of illustration, and short sharp energy, have lost nothing by age. In tone they are severe and often melancholy, as if the utterance of an isolated spirit. Though gracious and even tenderhearted, Newman's peculiar temper included deep reserve. He had not in his composition, as he says, a grain of conviviality. He was always the Oxford scholar, no democrat, suspicious of popular movements; but keenly interested in political studies as bearing on the fortunes of the Church. This disposition was intensified by his friendship with Keble, whose "Christian Year" came out in 1827, and with R. Hurrell Froude, a man of impetuous thought and self-denying practice. In 1832 he quarrelled with Dr. Hawkins, who would not endure the pastoral idea which Newman cherished of his college work. He resigned his tutorship, went on a long voyage round the Mediterranean with Froude, and came back to Oxford, where on 14 July, 1833, Keble preached the Assize sermon on "National Apostasy." That day, the anniversary of the French Revolution, gave birth to the Oxford Movement.
Newman's voyage to the coasts of North Africa, Italy, Western Greece, and Sicily (December, 1832-July, 1833) was a romantic episode, of which his diaries have preserved the incidents and the colour. In Rome he saw Wiseman at the English College; the city, as mother of religion to his native land, laid a spell on him never more to be undone. He felt called to some high mission; and when fever took him at Leonforte in Sicily (where he was wandering alone) he cried out, "I shall not die, I have not sinned against the light." But during the earlier stages of that journey it was not clear, even to the leader himself, in what direction they were moving — away from the Revolution, certainly. Reform was in the air; ten Irish bishoprics had been suppressed; disestablishment might not be far off. There was need of resistance to the enemies without, and of a second, but a Catholic, reformation within. The primitive Church must somehow be restored in England. He took his motto from the Iliad: "They shall know the difference now." Achilles went down into battle, fought for eight years, won victory upon victory, but was defeated by his own weapons when "Tract 90" appeared, and retired to his tent at Littlemore, a broken champion. Nevertheless, he had done a lasting work, greater than Laud's and likely to overthrow Cranmer's in the end. He had resuscitated the Fathers, brought into relief the sacramental system, paved the way for an astonishing revival of long-forgotten ritual, and given the clergy a hold upon thousands at the moment when Erastian principles were on the eve of triumph. "It was soon after 1830", says Pattison grimly, "that the Tracts desolated Oxford life." Newman's position was designated the Via Media. The English Church, he maintained, lay at an equal distance from Rome and Geneva. It was Catholic in origin and doctrine; it anathematized as heresies the peculiar tenets whether of Calvin or Luther; it could not but protest against "Roman corruptions", which were excrescences on primitive truth. Hence England stood by the Fathers, whose teaching the Prayer Book handed down; it appealed to antiquity, and its norm was the undivided Church.
Meanwhile, Oxford was shaken like Medicean Florence by a new Savonarola, who made disciples on every hand; who stirred up sleepy Conservatives when Hampden, a commonplace don, subjected Christian verities to the dissolving influence of Nominalism; and who multiplied books and lectures dealing with all religious parties at once. "The Prophetic Office" was a formal apology of the Laudian type; the obscure, but often beautiful "Treatise on Justification" made an effort "to show that there is little difference but what is verbal in the various views, found whether among Catholic or Protestant divines" on this subject. Döllinger called it "the greatest masterpiece in theology that England had produced in a hundred years", and it contains the true answer to Puritanism. The "University Sermons", profound as their theme, aimed at determining the powers and limits of reason, the methods of revelation, the possibilities of a real theology. Newman wrote so much that his hand almost failed him. Among a crowd of admirers only one perhaps, Hurrell Froude, could meet him in thought on fairly equal terms, and Froude passed away at Dartington in 1836. The pioneer went his road alone. He made a bad party-leader, being liable to sudden gusts and personal resolutions which ended in catastrophe. But from 1839, when he reigned at Oxford without a rival, he was already faltering. In his own language, he had seen a ghost; the shadow of Rome overclouding his Anglican compromise. Two names are associated with a change so momentous — Wiseman and Ward. The "Apologia" does full justice to Wiseman; it scarcely mentions Ward. Those who were looking on might have predicted a collision between the Tractarians and Protestant England, which had forgotten the Caroline divines. This came about on occasion of "Tract 90" — in itself the least interesting of all Newman's publications. The tract was intended to keep stragglers from Rome by distinguishing the corruptions against which the Thirty-Nine Articles were directed, from the doctrines of Trent which they did not assail. A furious and universal agitation broke out in consequence (Feb., 1841), Newman was denounced as a traitor, a Guy Fawkes at Oxford; the University intervened with academic maladroitness and called the tract "an evasion." Dr. Bagot, Bishop of Oxford, mildly censured it, but required that the tracts should cease. For three years condemnations from the bench of bishops were scattered broadcast. To a mind constituted like Newman's, imbued with Ignatian ideas of episcopacy, and unwilling to perceive that they did not avail in the English Establishment, this was an ex cathedra judgment against him. He stopped the tracts, resigned his editorship of "The British Critic", by and by gave up St. Mary's, and retired at Littlemore into lay communion. Nothing is clearer than that, if he had held on quietly, he would have won the day. "Tract 90" does not go so far as many Anglican attempts at reconciliation have gone since. The bishops did not dream of coercing him into submission. But he had lost faith in himself.
From 1841 Newman was on his death-bed as regarded the Anglican Church. He and some friends lived together at Littlemore in monastic seclusion, under a hard rule which did not improve his delicate health. In February, 1843, he retracted in a local newspaper his severe language towards Rome; in September he resigned his living. With immense labour he composed the "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine", in which the apparent variations of dogma, formerly objected by him against the Catholic Church, were explained on a theory of evolution, curiously anticipating on certain points the great work of Darwin. It has many most original passages, but remains a fragment. On 9 October, 1845, during a period of excited action at Oxford, Newman was received into the Church by Father Dominic, an Italian Passionist, three days after Renan had broken with Saint-Sulpice and Catholicism. The event, although long in prospect, irritated and distressed his countrymen, who did not forgive it until many years had gone by. Its importance was felt; its causes were not known. Hence an estrangement which only the exquisite candour of Newman's self-delineation in the "Apologia" could entirely heal.
His conversion divides a life of almost ninety years into equal parts — the first more dramatic and its perspective ascertained; the second as yet imperfectly told, but spent for a quarter of a century sub luce maligna, under suspicion from one side or another, his plans thwarted, his motives misconstrued. Called by Wiseman to Oscott, near Birmingham, in 1846, he proceeded in October to Rome, and was there ordained by Cardinal Fransoni. The pope approved of his scheme for establishing in England the Oratory of St. Philip Neri; in 1847 he came back, and, besides setting up the London house, took mission work in Birmingham. Thence he moved out to Edgbaston, where the community still resides. A large school was added in 1859. The spacious Renaissance church, consecrated in 1909, is a memorial of the forty years during which Newman made his home in that place. After his "Sermons to Mixed Congregations", which exceed in vigour and irony all other published by him, the Oratorian recluse did not strive to gain a footing in the capital of the Midlands. He always felt "paucorum hominum sum"; his charm was not for the multitude. As a Catholic he began enthusiastically. His "Lectures on Anglican Difficulties" were heard in London by large audiences; "Loss and Gain", though not much of a story, abounds in happy strokes and personal touches; "Callista" recalls his voyage in the Mediterranean by many delightful pages; the sermon at the Synod of Oscott entitled "The Second Spring" has a rare an delicate beauty. It is said that Macaulay knew it by heart. "When Newman made up his mind to join the Church of Rome", observes R. H. Hutton, "his genius bloomed out with a force and freedom such as it never displayed in the Anglican communion." And again, "In irony, in humour, in eloquence, in imaginative force, the writings of the later and, as we may call it, emancipated portion of his career far surpass the writings of his theological apprenticeship." But English Catholic literature also gained a persuasive voice and a classic dignity of which hitherto there had been no example.
During the interval between 1854 and 1860 Newman had passed from the convert's golden fervours into a state which resembled criticism of prevailing methods in church government and education. His friends included some of a type known to history as "Liberal Catholics." Of Montalembert and Lacordaire he wrote in 1864: "In their general line of thought and conduct I enthusiastically concur and consider them to be before their age." He speaks of "the unselfish aims, the thwarted projects, the unrequited toils, the grand and tender resignation of Lacordaire." That moving description might be applied to Newman himself. He was intent on the problems of the time and not alarmed at Darwin's "Origin of Species." He had been made aware by German scholars, like Acton, of the views entertained at Munich; and he was keenly sensitive to the difference between North and South in debatable questions of policy or discipline. He looked beyond the immediate future; in a lecture at Dublin on "A Form of Infidelity of the Day" he seems to have anticipated what is now termed "Modernism", condemning it as the ruin of dogma. It is distressing to imagine what Newman's horror would have been, had his intuition availed to tell him that, in little more than half a century, a "form of infidelity" so much like what he had predicted would claim him as its originator; on the other hand, he would surely have taken comfort, could he also have foreseen that the soundness of his faith was to be so vindicated as it has been by Bishop O'Dwyer, of Limerick, and above all, the vindication so approved and confirmed as it is in Pius X's letter of 10 March, 1908, to that bishop. In another lecture, on "Christianity and Scientific Investigation", he provides for a concordat which would spare the world a second case of Galileo. He held that Christian theology was a deductive science, but physics and the like were inductive; therefore collision between them need not, and in fact did not really occur. He resisted in principle the notion that historical evidence could do away with the necessity of faith as regarded creeds and definitions. He deprecated the intrusions of amateurs into divinity; but he was anxious that laymen should take their part in the movement of intellect. This led him to encourage J. M. Capes in founding the "Rambler", and H. Wilberforce in editing the "Weekly Register." But likewise it brought him face to face with a strong reaction from the earlier liberal policy of Pius IX. This new movement, powerful especially in France, was eagerly taken up by Ward and Manning, who now influenced Wiseman as he sank under a fatal disease. Their quarrel with J.H.N. (as he was familiarly called) did not break out in open war; but much embittered correspondence is left which proves that, while no point of faith divided the parties, their dissensions threw back English Catholic education for thirty years.
For twenty years Newman lay under imputations at Rome, which misconstrued his teaching and his character. This, which has been called the ostracism of a saintly genius, undoubtedly was due to his former friends, Ward and Manning. In February, 1878, Pius IX died; and, by a strange conjuncture, in that same month Newman returned to Oxford as Honorary Fellow of Trinity College, "dear to him from undergraduate days." The event provoked Catholics to emulation. Moreover, the new pope, Leo XIII, had also lived in exile from the Curia since 1846, and the Virgilian sentiment, "Haud ignara mali", would come home to him. The Duke of Norfolk and other English peers approached Cardinal Manning, who submitted their strong representation to the Holy See. Pope Leo, it is alleged, was already considering how he might distinguish the aged Oratorian. He intimated, accordingly, in February, 1879, his intention of bestowing on Newman the cardinal's hat. The message affected him to tears, and he exclaimed that the cloud was lifted from him forever. By singular ill-fortune, Manning understood certain delicate phrases in Newman's reply as declining the purple; he allowed that statement to appear in "The Times", much to everyone's confusion. However, the end was come. After a hazardous journey, and in broken health, Newman arrived in Rome. He was created Cardinal-Deacon of the Title of St. George, on 12 May, 1879. His biglietto speech, equal to the occasion in grace and wisdom, declared that he had been the life-long enemy of Liberalism, or "the doctrine that there is no truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another", and that Christianity is "but a sentiment and a taste, not an objective fact, not miraculous."
Hitherto, in modern times, no simple priest, without duties in the Roman Curia, had been raised to the Sacred College. Newman's elevation, hailed by the English nation and by Catholics everywhere with unexampled enthusiasm, was rightly compared to that of Bessarion after the Council of Florence. It broke down the wall of partition between Rome and England. To the many addresses which poured in upon him the cardinal replied with such point and felicity as often made his words gems of literature. He had revised all his writings, the last of which dealt somewhat tentatively with Scripture problems. Now his hand would serve him no more, but his mind kept its clearness always. In "The Dream of Gerontius" (1865), which had been nearly a lost masterpiece, he anticipated his dying hours, threw into concentrated, almost Dantean, verse and imagery his own beliefs as suggested by the Offices of Requiem, and looked forward to his final pilgrimage, "alone with the Alone." Death came with little suffering, on 11 August, 1890. His funeral was a great public event. He lies in the same grave with Ambrose St. John, whom he called his "life under God for thirty-two years." His device as cardinal, taken from St. Francis de Sales, was Cor ad cor loquitor (Heart speaketh to heart); it reveals the secret of his eloquence, unaffected, graceful, tender, and penetrating. On his epitaph we read: Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem (From shadows and symbols goes the truth); it is the doctrine of the Economy, which goes back to Plato's "Republic" and which passed thence by way of Christian Alexandria into the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, the poetry of the Florentine, and the schools of Oxford. John Henry Newman thus continues in modern literature the Catholic tradition of East and West, sealing it with a martyr's faith and suffering, steadfast in loyalty to the truth, while discerning with a prophet's vision the task of the future.
They were libertarians - Sie waren Libertäre
Discrimination against Atheism, freethinkers, has a long tradition and is still going on.
Freedom of Thought Report 2013:
"The non religious are discriminated against, or outright persecuted in most countries of the world.
In 13 countries you can be put to death for expressing atheism.
In 39 countries the law mandates a prison sentence for blasphemy."
Because of a kiss a lesbian couple was thrown out of a well known traditional coffeehouse in Vienna.
In 10 countries: death penalty for homosexuality.
In many more countries homosexuality is illegal.
Interesting point: in some of these countries it is not illegal for women, only for men.
T-shirt inside out, selfportrait on transparent paper upside down, newspaper clips, cotton self dyed
Auif dem blauen Boden in der blauen Spiegelküche: Innenseite Baumwoll T-Shirt, Rückseite Selbstporträt auf Transparentpapier, Baumwolle selbstgefärbt rot, Zeitungsausschnitte. Stofffarben, Nähnadel
#CharlieHebdo #charlie #hebdo #JeSuisCharlie #jesuischarlie #ParisShooting #atheism #freethinker #homosexuality #lgbt #lesbian
Part of: "an apple a day keeps the doctor away - An ENSO (Japanese: circle, Japanisch: Kreis) a day .... " Aktion Kreis Tagebuch A circle diary - Start of the 365-days Project: 1. September / 12. Jänner 2015 - Tag 3 der 6 Tage Aktion mit einem getragenen T-Shirt // Procrustes, Prokrustes
DMC-G2 - P1870879 - 2015-01-12
Mutations = genetic, copying mistakes.
The progressive, evolution story
is one huge MISTAKE
which, ironically,
depends on MISTAKES
as its mechanism ...
Mistake
- upon mistake
- upon mistake
- upon mistake
So that the entire, human genome
is created from billions of mistakes.
If, after reading this, you still believe in the progressive evolution story - you will believe anything.
EVOLUTION .....
What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....
the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.
So what was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?
Put simply ...
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all living things, which would enable the transformation of the first, self-replicating, living cell, through many years of natural selection, into every living thing, including humans.
However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.
This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).
Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale. Natural selection can only select from what is available, i.e. what is already in the gene pool.
That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated.
But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.
Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history.
Darwin's idea that a single, celled microbe could transform itself into a human and every other living thing, through natural selection over millions of years, had always been totally bonkers. That it is, or ever could have been, regarded as a great 'scientific' theory, beggars belief.
However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.
The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment. Ideology and vested interests took precedence over common sense and proper science.
The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.
A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.
This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.
So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?
Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the incredible idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected and preserved by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, accumulated over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.
Mutations are not good, they are something to be feared, not celebrated as an agent of improvement or progression.
The vast majority of mutations are harmful, they cause illness, cancer and deformities, which is not at all surprising. It is precisely what we would expect from mistakes.
If you throw a spanner into the works of a machine, you would be daft to expect it to improve the operation of the machine. However, evolutionists ignore such common sense and propose that something (which, similarly, would be expected to cause damage) caused billions of constructive improvements in complexity, design and function, ultimately transforming microbes into men, and every other, living thing.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating ....
Ironically, evolutionists fear mutations just as much as everyone else. You can bet your bottom dollar that you won't get evolutionists volunteering to subject themselves or their families to mutagenic agents in order to 'improve' humanity. You certainly won't get evolutionists deliberately going to live near chemical or nuclear plants - in order to give their idea of progressive evolution by mutations a helping hand. No way!
Evolutionists know perfectly well that mutations are very risky and are most likely to be harmful, certainly not something anyone should desire.
Yet, perversely, they still present them as the (magical) agent responsible for creating the constructive, genetic information which, they claim, progressively transformed the first living cells into every living thing that has ever lived, including humans. They present and teach that extraordinary belief as though it is an irrefutable fact.
If we don't believe the progressive evolution fantasy, or dare to question it, we are branded as unscientific, ignorant, uneducated, backward thinking cranks or fanatics.
Incredible!
I suppose, one way to try to stifle opposition to a crazy idea, is to insult or ridicule those who oppose it. The story of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' comes to mind.
It is understandable that people are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. Evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new, anatomical structures, organs etc. and that really is a fact.
It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.
Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool (existing, genetic information). Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.
A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know that.
To clarify further ...
Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ludicrous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of an accumulation of billions of random, genetic copying mistakes..... mutations accruing upon previous mutations .... on and on - and on.
In other words ...
Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing, or that has ever lived, was created by an incredibly, long series of random mistakes added to previous, random mistakes.
If we look at the whole picture ...
we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, complementary sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated and randomly, occurring mistakes ... i.e. a random mistake accruing upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - over and over again, billions of times.
This notion is so incredible, we must emphasise once again what it actually means -
It means that all the body parts, systems and biological processes of all living things are the result of literally billions of random, genetic MISTAKES, accumulated over many (alleged) millions of years. This amazing thing occurred from one, original, living cell, which, it is claimed (without any evidence), spontaneously arose, entirely of its own volition, from sterile matter, in some imagined, primordial, soup scenario (contrary to the well established and unfalsified Law of Biogenesis).
Consider this ...
If, for example, there is no genetic information (constructional instructions) for bones (or any other body part) in the alleged, original, living cell, how could copying mistakes of the limited information in such a single cell produce such entirely, new constructive information? That's right, it simply couldn't, it is sheer fantasy.
Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Utterly incredible!
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.
Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations.
Conclusion:
Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The progressive, evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.
However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question the new 'improved', neo-Darwinian version of progressive evolution are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
Want to join the club?
What about the fossil record?
The formation of fossils...
Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
So, it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.
Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/
You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
What about the idea that radiometric dating confirms vast ages for the fossil record:
Carbon dating cannot be used for the claimed, long timescale assigned to fossils by evolutionists as the maximum age it can be used for is less than 50.000 years. Sedimentary rocks also cannot be dated radiometrically. Evolutionists have to rely on the odd occasion where there is an igneous rock intrusion into a sedimentary deposit to which they apply radiometric dating. However, the dates obtained this way are not reliable, for the reason outlined below:
"As regards radiometric dating, I refer to Prof. Aubouin, who says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.
When no evidence is cited as evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658
The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.
See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...
Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:
Piltdown Man (a fake),
Nebraska Man (a pig),
South West Colorado Man (a horse),
Orce man (a donkey),
Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
Archaeoraptor (a fake),
Java Man (a giant gibbon),
Peking Man (a monkey),
Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)
The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
Ida - the newly discovered (2009), hominid, 'missing link' (an extinct lemur),
Etc. etc.
Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.
All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.
Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
Want to publish a science paper?
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...
www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...
Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of evidence of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
Is that 'science'?
The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps followed by long periods of stasis) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.
The Piltdown Man fake... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was claimed as irrefutable, scientific evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
A pig, a horse and a donkey saga...
The pig ...
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary (a type of pig). It was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans, and highly imaginative, artist's impressions of an complete, ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. All based on a single tooth. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, scientist weep.
The horse ....
South West Colorado Man, was based on another single tooth ... of a horse this time! ... also proclaimed as 'scientific' evidence for human evolution.
The donkey ...
The Orce Man saga - a tiny fragment of skullcap was presented to the media as a human ancestor, accompanied by the familiar hype and hullaballoo. Embarrassingly, a symposium planned to discuss this supposed, ape-man had to be cancelled at short notice when it was 'discovered' that it was most likely from a donkey!
But, even if it was human, such a tiny fragment of skull is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as had been claimed.
Embryonic Recapitulation - The 19th century, evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who inspired Hitler's, Darwinian, master race policies) published fraudulent drawings of embryos, and his theory was enthusiastically accepted by evolutionists as proof of progressive evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.
Archaeoraptor - A so-called, feathered dinosaur from the Chinese, fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.
Java Man - Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... eventually admitted that it was actually a giant gibbon. However, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it. So, evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it and still maintained it was a human ancestor. It later turned out that Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention he had found the bones of modern humans at the same site.
Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient, limestone burning, industrial site, where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So, that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.
The Horse Series - fossils of unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.
Peppered Moth - moths were glued to trees in order to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing, gene pool, is NOT progressive evolution. It is just an example of normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.
The Orgueil meteorite, organic material, and even plant seeds, were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis), which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there. And hence, abiogenesis could be declared by evolutionists as a scientific fact.
'Missing link' Ida - Hyped up by evolutionists (including the renowned, wildlife documentary, presenter Sir David Attenborough) in 2009 as a newly discovered, “missing link” of human evolution. This allegedly, 47-million-year-old fossil was discovered in Germany. However, it is now obvious that Ida is not evidence of primate (or human) evolution at all, it is simply an extinct type of lemur.
Is macro evolution even science? The honest answer to that question has to be an emphatic - NO!
The accepted definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Progressive evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief, based primarily on preconceptions.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes-to-man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter (so-called abiogenesis). They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Progressive evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.
You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.
However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?
Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering
"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.
Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"
And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:
"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229
“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”
Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'
"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."
"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."
"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11
Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”
DNA.
The discovery of DNA should have been the death knell for evolution. It is only because evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.
It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.
Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.
Do evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?
Of course they don't, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.
However, a fact, it certainly isn't .... and good science it certainly isn't.
Even though evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.
Evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.
That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit,
Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.
For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.
You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.
The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.
So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.
Next time you hear evolutionists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won't be able to do so.
It is true to say - the evolution cupboard is bare when it come to real, tangible evidence.
For example:
1. The origin of life is still a mystery, evolutionists have failed to demonstrate that the Law of Biogenesis (which rules out the spontaneous generation of life), and has never been falsified, is not universally valid.
2. They have no explanation of where the first, genetic information came from. Information Theory rules out an orign of such, constructive information by natural processes.
3. They assume (without any evidence) that matter is somehow intrinsically predisposed to produce life whenever the environmental conditions for life permit.
4. They deny that there is any purpose in the universe, yet completely contradict that premise by assuming the above intrinsic predisposition of matter to produce life, as though matter is somehow endowed with a 'blueprint' for the creation of life.
5. They have no credible mechanism for the increase of genetic information required for progressive evolution and increasing complexity.
6. They have failed to produce any credible, intermediate, fossil examples, in spite of searching for over 150 years. There should be millions of examples, yet there is not a single one which is a watertight example.
7. They regularly publish so-called evidence which, when properly examined, is discovered to be nothing of the sort: Example ... Orce Man (the skullcap of a donkey!).
8. They use dubious dating techniques, such as circular reasoning in the dating of fossils and rocks.
9. They discard any evidence - radiocarbon dating, sedimentation experiments, fossils etc. that doesn't fit the preconceptions.
10. They frequently make the claim that there has to be life on other planets, simply on the assumption (without evidence) that life spontaneously generated and evolved on Earth which they take it for granted is a proven fact.
11. They cannot produce a single, credible example of a genuinely, beneficial mutation, yet billions would be required for microbes to human evolution.
There is much more, but that should suffice to debunk the incessant hype and propaganda that microbes-to-human evolution is an established, irrefutable fact.
It should be enough to put an end to the greatest fraud that has been foisted on the public in scientific history.
Evolutionism is not science.
Science is the method through which theories are tested and re-tested. However, today evolution is guarded against such scrutiny and taught uncritically in our public schools. This pervasive defense of naturalism has led students to view Darwinism as the only accepted explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. This presentation will encourage critical thinking of scientific interpretations, and examine the bedrock evidence for the theory of evolution. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE6hm2kpYiY&list=TLGGI4E1iBi7...
We are constantly told by evolutionists that the majority of scientists accept progressive evolution (as though that gives it credence) ... but most scientists, don't actually study evolution in any depth, because it is outside their field of expertise. They simply trust what they are taught in school, and mistakenly trust the integrity of evolutionists to present evidence objectively.
That is another great MISTAKE!
Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
I received a great deal of hate mail and angry messages over my piece on atheism being an “Intellectual luxury.”
One line of argument went, “Well atheists aren’t exactly going around telling the homeless they are dumb for their religious thoughts.”
As someone who has spent a lot of time in neighborhoods afflicted with drugs my answer is, “Well there are not a lot of atheists going around doing much of anything for the homeless.”
Yes, there are plenty of secular people who are dedicating their lives to helping the poor, the addicted. (I guess I would count myself one of them)
There are just a lot lot more religious groups working with the poor.
Every blighted block, every empty field, has a church of some type offering help. Maybe it really is just a cold attempt to find more followers. I doubt it though. I have spoken to many nuns, priests, ministers, and followers who just deeply care, at a core personal level, for helping those at their lowest point.
For many its because they themselves once were at their own personal low and found religion "saved their lives."
I still count myself an atheist. I don’t attend church. I do however have huge respect for the religious who offer their time and energy to helping others.
Here is my original article on Atheism: The people who challenged my atheism most were drug addicts and prostitutes
More on Addiction: Faces of Addiction
EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...
In recent years there has been a relentless and vociferous campaign by militant atheists intent on attacking and ridiculing religion. Numerous books have been written on the subject and, it seems, at every opportunity the secular establishment and media seeks out atheists or secular humanists to give what amounts to a jaundiced attack on religion.
For the most part, the opinions they express are the same old, worn out slogans we have heard over and over again, and can only be described as ideological propaganda.
We are all familiar with the atheist slogans such as: 'religion is irrational nonsense'.
Or that: 'believing in God is no different from believing in Santa or fairies.'
Or that: 'there is no evidence for God'.
Or that: 'religion is just a crutch for weak-minded people'
Or that: 'religion is outdated, superstitious nonsense',
Or that: 'religion is just for ignorant, unintelligent, backward people who know nothing about science'
Or that: belief in God is 'just a lazy way of filling gaps in knowledge'.
Or that: believing in God is 'like believing the Earth is flat'.
Or that: Christians 'believe in an old man in the sky with a beard'
Or that: Christians 'believe in a sky fairy'.
Or that: Christianity/the Bible was 'invented by ignorant, bronze age, goat herders'.
Or that: Belief in a God 'is just a delusion'.
Or that: Christians have 'an imaginary, invisable friend'.
Etc. etc.
As we will show later, such slogans are either ignorant nonsense, or devised as deliberate, ideological propaganda.
If you remember, several years ago, atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, decided to ramp up their anti-religious propaganda effort with slogans on buses. It originated in Britain, but spread to several other countries.
It was known as the Atheist Bus Campaign.
The Atheist Bus Campaign, set out to convince you that a loving creator God does not exist, that you have no prospect of eternal life and that all you can look forward to is eternal oblivion.
Atheists have no evidence to back up that assertion. In fact logic, natural law and the basic principles of the scientific method rule out their naturalistic alternative to a creator as impossible.
They invent all sort of bizarre scenarios to replace a supernatural first cause (God), they even try to present their fantastical, naturalistic replacements for God as 'scientific'. Please don't be taken in by it.
Their naturalistic replacements for God are illogical, they all violate natural laws and the basic principles of science.
Atheism is rightly referred to as the no-hope philosophy.
Their ultimate goal and pinnacle of their short life is - eternal oblivion.
And, quite perversely, they want to convince you that is all you can look forward to.
Please don't be dragged down with them into that depressing pit of hopelessness.
The Good News is that they are entirely wrong, and furthermore, it is not just an opinion. It can be satisfactorily demonstrated by logic, natural law, and the basic principle of the scientific method ......
Read on .... and you will understand, why atheists can never replace God, however much they try.
Their Atheist Bus Campaign is deceitful because atheists have no logical or scientific grounds for claiming "There's Probably No God", in fact, the evidence of applied logic and natural law, is completely the contrary. The atheist claim that there's probably no God is just an unsubstantiated opinion based only on their own ideological beliefs.
You may wonder why they inserted the word 'probably'? Obviously, they knew that if they were challenged to present evidence for the truth of their advertisement and had to defend it in court, they would be unable to do so. Science and logic can be used to prove they have no alternative to a supernatural first cause, and they know it.
For atheists to propose that believing there is no God, is somehow a reason to stop worrying and the recipe for an enjoyable life, is perverse in the extreme.
For most sane people it would be the opposite - a road to depression, hopelessness, and a feeling that this short existence is worthless. It will all end in oblivion, and you might as well never have lived.
Thankfully, atheists are demonstrably wrong, there is every reason for hope - as we will show - a loving Creator definitely does exist. Your life is not a few short, stressful and worthless years leading to eternal oblivion. You are a unique, valuable, person, specially created out of supreme love, every human life is of infinite value right from the moment of conception. Humans really are special and not just intelligent apes, or a mere collection of atoms, as atheists would have you believe You can live forever in eternal bliss - that is the gift of life the loving Creator of the universe offers you, and it is all offered for free.
Please don't be fooled ... people who think for themselves (the REAL freethinkers), are able to see right through the atheist hype and propaganda. Ignore the relentless bombardment of atheist propaganda, such as the atheist bus campaign. Seek out and learn the real truth and the truth will set you free.
Please read on and you will understand ......
Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.
Consider this ....
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.
The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!
The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.
So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?
Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....
So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?
"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.
5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND -
6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.
So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.
The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.
And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..
Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.
So, atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!
Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?
Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!
That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.
So, now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.
IMPRESSED? I think not!
Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?
According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?
That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.
Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.
That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.
What about the first cause of the universe and everything?
How does that fit in?
Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.
We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.
An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.
So is it a valid solution?
Firstly .....
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
Secondly ....
It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous, atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.
A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?
Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.
In addition ....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?
Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.
It can only be one of two options,
an uncaused, natural first cause
OR
an uncaused, supernatural first cause.
An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.
Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.
Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.
Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….
And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. if the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg. or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties, and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.
The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.
The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.
SO ....
Is the law of cause and effect really universal?
Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.
In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.
ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.
Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.
Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere.
If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?
Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?
If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.
Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?
Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?
To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.
That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.
By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.
Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.
Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …
1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?
2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?
Which one would you choose?
Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?
The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.
So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.
To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural, first cause?
OR,
the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Daniel Dennett etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural, first cause?
No contest!
We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.
The question of purpose ....
A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.
Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element.
To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.
Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?
Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.
So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.
The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.
If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.
Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!
Bogus science indeed!
This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.
A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?
In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.
It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.
Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific propositions:
1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.
2. A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).
3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.
4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
5. That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
6. That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.
7. That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.
8. That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).
9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.
10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.
11. That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.
12. That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.
The claim of atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.
They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.
However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Of course, whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.
That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.
What about Christianity and pagan gods?
Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.
Do they have a good point?
Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….
Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.
Idols of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.
They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.
They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.
In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.
For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.
So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.
Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.
There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.
The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.
The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.
If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.
The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But apparently, atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.
This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.
Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?
How true is that?
The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.
The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?
If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.
That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.
All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.
That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.
Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.
Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.
The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.
In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...
The effect cannot be greater than the cause....
So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,
If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.
If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.
If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.
That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.
Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?
Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.
What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?
This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.
There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.
Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.
What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.
What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.
The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.
Continued in next comment.
God Presides Over the Fate of All Mankind
📜 📜 📜 📜 📜 📜 📜
As members of the human race and devout christians, it is the responsibility and obligation of us all to offer up our mind and body for the fulfillment of God’s commission, for our entire being came from God, and it exists thanks to the sovereignty of God. If our minds and bodies are not for God’s commission and not for the righteous cause of mankind, then our souls will be unworthy of those who were martyred for God’s commission, much more unworthy of God, who has provided us with everything.
🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈
God created this world, He created this mankind, and moreover He was the architect of ancient Greek culture and human civilization. Only God consoles this mankind, and only God cares for this mankind night and day. Human development and progress is inseparable from the sovereignty of God, and the history and future of mankind are inextricable from the designs of God. If you are a true Christian, then you will surely believe that the rise and fall of any country or nation occurs according to the designs of God. God alone knows the fate of a country or nation, and God alone controls the course of this mankind. If mankind wishes to have a good fate, if a country wishes to have a good fate, then man must bow down to God in worship, repent and confess before God, or else the fate and destination of man will unavoidably end in catastrophe.
🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈 🌈
Today, God has returned to the world to do His work. His first stop is the grand assemblage of dictatorial rulers: China, the staunch bastion of atheism. God has gained a group of people by His wisdom and power. During the period, He is hunted by China’s ruling party in every means and subjected to great suffering, with no place to rest His head and unable to find a shelter. Despite this, God still continues the work He intends to do: He utters His voice and spreads the gospel . None can fathom the almightiness of God. In China, a country that regards God as an enemy, God has never ceased His work. Instead, more people have accepted His work and word, for God does all He can to save each and every member of mankind. We trust that no country or power can stand in the way of what God wishes to achieve. Those that obstruct God’s work, resist the word of God, disturb and impair the plan of God shall ultimately be punished by God. He who defies the work of God shall be sent to hell; any country that defies the work of God shall be destroyed; any nation that rises up to oppose the work of God shall be wiped from this earth, and shall cease to exist. I urge the people of all nations, countries, and even industries to listen to the voice of God , to behold the work of God, to pay attention to the fate of mankind, thus making God the most holy, the most honorable, the highest, and the only object of worship among mankind, and allowing the whole of mankind to live under the blessing of God, just as the descendants of Abraham lived under the promise of Jehovah, and just as Adam and Eve, who were originally made by God, lived in the Garden of Eden.
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.” President John F. Kennedy, in his address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961
'The New World Order' - a book by A. Ralph Epperson. Exposes the globalist plot for world domination.
Sinister Sites, The EU Parliament Strasbourg - Return to Babel
vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-the-eu-p...
Globalist agenda - World government.
The return to Babel.
thewildvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/the-wild-voic...
The European Union - the return to Babel
The irrefutable evidence in plain sight.
Also see:
AND:
EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...
Empty seat number 666
www.jesus-is-savior.com/End of the World/seat_666.htm
the-reason-the-elite-hate-trump-so-much-is-because-he-is-opposed-to-the-one-world-agenda-of-the-globalists
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...
‘Imagine there’s no Heaven, it’s easy if you try
No Hell below us, above us only sky”
John Lennon.
‘Imagine’ a nightmare, world dictatorship.
European Union project, undemocratic, expansionist empire. Prototype and fledgling, World Government.
Brexit - The anti-globalist struggle against the NWO globalists.
Aaron Banks:
Asked if he would back the Leave side in a rerun of the 2016 referendum, Mr Banks said: “The corruption I have seen in British politics, the sewer that exists and the disgraceful behaviour of the Government over what they are doing with Brexit and how they are selling out, means that if I had my time again I think we would have been better to probably remain and not unleash these demons.”
Maybe Mr Banks didn't realise that he hit the nail squarely on the head when he described the incredibly fierce opposition to Brexit as the unleashing of "demons". The globalist agenda is truly demonic. It is no surprise that the globalists, and their puppets in the media and liberal establishment, are so desperate to stop Brexit interfering with their diabolical plans for world domination.
See: ‘Brexit, The Movie’ - available on YouTube.
The EU, mystery Babylon. www.biblelight.net/tower-painting-parliament.jpg
The EU parliament in Strasbourg is modelled on the Tower of Babel.
thewildvoice.org/mystery-babylon-european-union/#comment-...
The symbolism of the EU in plain sight, is the desire of its advocates to return to the spirit of Babel.
The Council of Europe's poster produced to promote the European Union and the EU Parliament building in Strasbourg grandmageri422.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/europe-many-to... is filled with occult symbolism: a tower of Babel, 11 inverted stars (pentagrams),, the 12th pentagram is behind the top (head) of the tower. This is a Satanic parody of the 12 stars surrounding the head of the Woman (Church/Mary) in the book of Revelation. The inverted pentagram is an occult symbol designed to represent the head of Baphomet (Satan or the Goat of Mendes), illuminati pyramids are also evident in the background (since when have Egyptian pyramids been part of Europe? Square, blockheaded (indoctrinated) people (useful idiots) are featured, building a tower designed for their own enslavement and suppression, with a round-headed baby, who is too young to have been indoctrinated.
The dangerous, climate change scam:
A high level of Co2 is essential for our survival. The exact opposite of what we a led to believe by the popular, eco- fanatic narrative which is designed to convince people of the necessity for globalist control.
See the truth here:
The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda globalists.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-10/reason-elite-hate-trump...
Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...
Common Purpose, Extinction Rebellion, Agenda 2030, sustainable development, WEF, Davos, Google Camp, World Economic Forum, ‘fiat’ money, SWIFT, World Governance Council, G7, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, Bank of International Settlements, Institute of International Affairs, New World Order, Globalism, European Union, EU Commission, ECJ, European Empire, evil empire, global conspiracy, United Nations, League of Nations, NAFTA, Freemasonry, Edward Mandal House, Thule Society, Kabbala, Kaaba, fractional reserve banking, Company Interbank Financial Telecommunication, internationalism, IMF, World Bank, ECB, European Central Bank, usury, Ruling Elite, Liberal fascism, Euro, EU cartel, EU empire, EU single currency, federalism, EUSSR, global elite, Federal Reserve, Paul Warburg, globalists, world government, WGS, World Government Summit, liberalism, Situational ethics, moral relativism, cultural imperialism, Bribery, Corruption, blackmail, slander, assassination, Moral relativism, Propaganda, project fear, fake news, Liberty, National Council for Civil Liberties, selective democracy, Illuminati, Bilderbergers, False religion, Maitreya, false ecumenism, World Council of Churches, Cultural Marxism, Censorship, Ted Turner, Timothy Wirth, Hilary Clinton, Club of Rome, Treaty of Rome, Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, climate change scam, global warming, EU federalism, liberal establishment, Multiculturalism, EU Army, Palmera Arch, Temple of Baal, Nazis, National Socialism, Red Flag, hammer and sickle, useful idiots, globalist puppets, quislings, internationalism, Internationale, anti-Brexit, anti-Putin, FBI, people’s vote, EU army, Islamisation, Multinationals, multinational conglomerates, nationalisation, Fake News, Bellingcat, Bureaucracy, Climategate, chemtrails, Deep State, Council on Foreign Relations, CFR, Trilateral Commission, GM seed, GM food, quantitive easing, Bilderbergers, Eco-fanaticism, Greenpeace, eco warriors, Chatham House, Bohemian Grove, New Age, Illiberal Undemocrats, EU, Open Society, Open Britain, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Clinton foundation, John Podesta, John Dewey, Socialism, Humanists UK, Young Humanists, National Secular Society, British Humanist Association, neo Darwinism, Darwinism, evolution scam, CNN, New York Times, NBC news, PBS, MSNBC, BBC, liberal media, Drug legalisation, Money manipulation, IG Farben, quantitative easing, punitive taxation, Green taxes, progressives, Transgenderism, Social engineering, Communism, arch capitalism, Social Darwinism, Marxism, neo Darwinism, Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Bertrand Russell, James Hutton, David Hume, National Socialism (Nazism), Racism, international socialism, Gay mafia, gay adoption, rainbow alliance, UFOLOGY, global warming, Yakov Sverdlovsk, Red Terror, new age, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Jacob Schiff, Adam Weishaupt, Alistair Crowley. Albert Pike, Theosophy, Antichrist, Abortion, Population control, Karl Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, Euthanasia, Eugenics, Atheism, Soviet Union, USSR, People’s Democratic Republics, ‘People’s Vote’, Secularism, Andrew Copson, False science, Scientism, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Nye, Gary Kasparov, Pussy Riot, radical left, atheist naturalism, pagan naturalism, A C Grayling, militant atheism, secular humanism, atheist pseudoscience, Cloning, Surrogacy, Fabianism, Central Banking, Fiat Currencies, banking cartels, LGBTQ agenda, Political correctness, liberal establishment, propaganda, progressive evolution, Hollywood, State control, Labour Party, Democratic Party, Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Fabian society, Secular Society, Antifa, BHA, FFRF, RDFRS, ACLU, gay priests, gay Bishops, gay pride, child abuse, gay fascism, sodomites, Stonewall, indoctrination, LGTB, LGBT, left wing feminism, lesbianism, homosexual agenda, Redefined marriage, Gender fanaticism, transgenderism, gay marriage, political correctness, hedonism, false equality, gender reassignment, surrogacy, Gay adoption, perverted sex education, Embryo experimentation, sperm banks, IVF, cloning, useful idiots, globalist puppets, UN, snowflakes, quislings, internationalism, liberal media, pornography, quislings, fifth column, Trojan horses, Sankt Galen Mafia, infiltrators, modernism, amnesty international, UNICEF, CIA, cyber surveillance, CCTV, Neo Darwinism, cultural Marxism, social Darwinism, atheist naturalism, paganism, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Christianophobia, Secular Humanism, Militant atheism, abortion, Margaret Sanger, Moloch, Planned Parenthood, pro choice, Klu Klux Klan, Southern Poverty Law Centre, progressives, Christophobia, Newspeak, Satanism, Hate speech, political correctness, women’s march, False Ecumenism, election rigging, mass migration, Green taxes, climate change scam, global warming scam, carbon credits scam, debt enslavement, international bankers, Arch capitalism, Kuhn Loeb, Goldman Sachs, John D Rockefeller, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan, Max Warburg, Order of the Skull and Bones, Extortionate taxation, class war, gender war, ageism, divide and rule, centralisation, climate change scam, mass migrations, cultural imperialism, Marie Stopes, Cultural war. human trafficking. Liberal Democrats, liberal media, Socialist Workers Party, Morning Star, Emmanuel Macron, Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International, BPAS, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Satanism, Wicca, Witchcraft, Luciferian. Lunar Society, secret societies, Annie Besant, Helena Blavatsky. Alice Bailey, Marxist Social Democratic Federation. Alliance for Global Justice, Malthusian League. House of Sulzberger-Ochs, House of Meyer-Graham, Mike Bloomberg, Pierre Omidyar, Sheldon Adelson, Brzezinski, Benjamin Creme, George Kennan, James Baker, Carroll Quigley, Strobe Talbott, Lev Dobriansky, PNAC, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Walfowitz, Robert Kagan, Professor Joseph Nye, Lester Mondale, American atheists, British Humanist Association, Outright Action International, National Secular Society. Abolition of nation states, NWO. World dictatorship, Tower of Babel, European Parliament. European Commission.
The war against anti-globalist Putin, and the globalist demonising of Russia.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/43042520105
The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda of the globalists.
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...
Ending the crime of abortion is crucial in curbing the power, of Satan.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/43172544140
Ending the crime of abortion is crucial in curbing the power, of Satan.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/43172544140
IF and THEN, the atheist dilemma
The universe from nothing?
The law of cause and effect tells us that every natural entity/event/effect requires an adequate cause. Which means an uncaused, ‘natural’ first cause is impossible, according to this fundamental principle of science.
Of course, this fact is fatal to atheist beliefs, because it rules out every conceivable, naturalistic, origin scenario.
One of the ways atheists try to get round the problem of a first cause is by saying - that the universe created itself from ‘nothing’ by natural processes.
If you think the notion that something could arise from nothing, by natural processes, is a crazy idea which defies logic and common sense, you are perfectly correct.
But atheists become extremely indignant at that accusation, and usually retort that anyone who thinks the idea is crazy is just plain ignorant. They accuse them of not understanding science, or what is really meant by 'nothing'.
So just what do atheists mean by their idea of nothing?
Incredibly, it turns out that the ‘nothing’ that atheists call nothing, isn't really nothing at all, but a definite ‘something’, i.e. space/time.
Confused or what?
So we have to ask - why do atheists perversely insist on referring to SOMETHING (i.e. space and time) which clearly ISN'T nothing - as NOTHING? They could, for example, just say that the universe created itself from a pre-existing, natural entity.
The answer is plain and simple … it is an obvious smokescreen.
Why would they need such a smokescreen?
Atheists know that people can easily accept the idea of an eternal nothingness, because ‘nothing’ in its true sense of the word (meaning NO - THING) doesn’t need a first cause. It simply means non-existence of everything.
And that which doesn’t exist, doesn’t need a cause.
Therefore, for atheists to claim the universe arose from 'nothing' means they can avoid having to explain ... what caused that which they believe existed before the universe?
However, the atheist’s ‘nothing’ actually turns out to be part of the existing material realm.
The atheist’s nothing is … ‘space’, and space is NOT nothing. Space is the medium which is around and between cosmic bodies in the existing universe.
In our universe, there is no such thing as empty space, even though it may look empty. We know that ‘space’ contains light, radio waves, gravitational forces, cosmic rays etc. Space is an integral part of the material universe, and is just as dependant on a first cause as the cosmic bodies it surrounds.
Therefore it is evident that the confusion between ‘space’ and ‘nothing’ is deliberate. The real nothing, that every sensible person understands as nothing, is totally different to the atheist idea of 'nothing'.
The space/time that atheists refer to as ‘nothing’ in their “UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING” scenario, apparently also contains energy and gravity.
Hence, the atheist ‘nothing’ turns out to be - not nothing at all, but a definite SOMETHING … And furthermore, it is an integral part of the material realm.
This means that, like all material things, – space (the atheist's 'nothing') cannot be non-contingent or eternally self-existent.
And that is the absolute crux of the matter.
It means that atheists are back to square one with the impossible problem of explaining a 'natural' first cause, because they still need to explain what CAUSED their 'nothing' (space) to exist, which is exactly what they were trying to avoid?
So there is no such thing as ... the universe from nothing. When you hear atheists proposing the universe arising from nothing, you will know what they are really proposing is the universe arising from 'something' which is itself already an integral part of the universe. In other words, it doesn't explain anything at all about a first cause of the universe. It is useless as a credible explanation of origins. It is just another atheist myth that has been debunked.
Why God must exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@
THE QUANTUM EFFECTS, SMOKE AND MIRRORS TRICK ...
What about the idea presented by some atheists that the answer to the origin of the universe lies in quantum mechanics and the so-called 'God' particle?
It is common sense that quantum effects cannot have anything to do with the origin of the universe.
The reasoning of those who propose quantum effects as a possible origin of the universe seems to be that, if something is impossible, just propose that it could happen - little by little -and that makes it plausible. If you make something as small, as simple, and as less complex as you can, people will believe anything is possible.
It is a similar reasoning to that applied to the origin of life and progressive evolution.
But what makes anyone think it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Is it any easier or more credible for a grain of sand to come from nothing than it would be for a boulder?
Of course it isn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size or lack of complexity doesn’t alter that.
Nevertheless, some atheists apparently still think …. that, although people might realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?-
What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?
That should sound much more plausible to the public.
We could even find a particle which we could nickname the ‘God’ particle. Problem solved - apparently!
People will at least think that, even if we haven’t solved it completely, we are well on the way to solving it.
And, of course, if anyone still stubbornly insists that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t come from nothing, we can always propose that nothing isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to get a scientifically illiterate and gullible public, in awe of anything claimed to be scientific, to swallow that.
However, the idea of a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but some atheists loved it and, predictably, the secular, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing, as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
A simple, sub-atomic particle CANNOT possibly be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God, because it is clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So those atheists who try to persuade people that it is easier for something to come from nothing, if it is simple and microscopic, actually shoot themselves in the foot....
The little by little approach which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.
An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause.
The very first cause of the universe cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe itself.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means every property and quality it contains. The end result - the universe - cannot be greater in any respect than that which ultimately caused it. The properties of the first cause of the universe must at the very least, be equal to every property that exists in the universe.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, any more than any of the other natural, first causes proposed by atheists.
Furthermore, quantum effects are not uncaused. They are part of a caused, contingent universe and are just as reliant on causes as the universe itself.
So those atheists who think they can replace God with quantum mechanics are entirely wrong, they are interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is absolutely certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.
The nickname the God particle actually originates from a book by Lederman.
Wikipedia …
“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe. Higgs, an atheist, was reported to be displeased and stated in a 2008 interview that he found it "embarrassing" because it was "the kind of misuse... which I think might offend some people” Science writer Ian Sample stated in his 2010 book on the search that the nickname is "universally hate[d]" by physicists and perhaps the "worst derided" in the history of physics, but that (according to Lederman) the publisher rejected all titles mentioning "Higgs" as unimaginative and too unknown.”
____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.
The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
Independently of doctrinal atheism and cultural particularities,
modern man moves through the world as if Existence were nothing or as if he had invented it; it is for him a commonplace thing like the dust beneath his feet—more especially as he is no longer aware of the Principle at once transcendent and immanent—and he makes use of it with assurance and inadvertence in a life that has lost its sacredness and thus become meaningless. Everything is conceived through a web of contingencies, relationships, prejudices; no phenomenon is any longer considered in itself, in its being, and grasped at its root; the contingent has usurped the rank of the absolute; man scarcely reasons any more except in terms of his imagination, which is falsified by ideologies on the one hand and by his artificial surroundings on the other. Now eschatological doctrines, however exaggerated they may appear to the sensibilities of those whose only gospel is their materialism and dissipation and whose life is nothing but a flight before God, provide the true measure for the cosmic situation of man; what the Revelations ask of us and what Heaven imposes or inflicts on us is what we are in reality, regardless of our own opinion; we know it in our heart of hearts, if only we can detach ourselves a little from the monstrous accumulation of false images that have become entrenched in our mind. What we need is to become once again capable of grasping the value of Existence and, amid the multitude of phenomena, the meaning of man; we must once again find the measure of the real. Our reactions to eschatological doctrines—or to the one that concerns us most—are the measure of our understanding of man.
There is something in man which is able to conceive the Absolute and even attain to it and which therefore is absolute. This being the case, one can assess the extent of the aberration of those for whom it seems perfectly natural to have the right or chance to be man, but who wish to be so without participating in the integral nature of man and the attitudes it implies. Needless to say, the paradoxical possibility of denying itself is also a part of this nature—for to be man is to be free in a “relatively absolute” sense—much in the same way as to accept error or throw oneself into an abyss is a human possibility.
We have already said that “unbelievers” no longer have the
sense of either nothingness or existence, that they no longer know the value of existence and never look at it in relation to the nothingness from which it is miraculously detached. Miracles in the usual sense of the word are in effect only particular variants of the initial— and everywhere present—miracle that is the fact of existence; the miraculous and divine are everywhere; it is the human outlook that is absent.
Fundamentally there are only three miracles: existence, life,
intelligence; with intelligence, the curve springing from God closes on itself like a ring that in reality has never been parted from the Infinite.
---
Frithjof Schuon: Light on the Ancient Worlds
The secular society - progressive evolution, social Darwinism, liberalism, situational ethics, moral relativism, secularism, humanism, atheism.
Worshipping nature - the belief that blind, natural forces created the universe, life and humanity.
REAPING THE WHIRLWIND.
If society worships nature, by refusing to acknowledge God as the creator, it acknowledges nature as the dominant power in the universe, and therby unleashes the unrestrained, blind forces of nature on the world.
God made a perfect creation, but original sin damaged the whole creation ... instigating, entropy, death, decay, corruption, mutations, illness, extreme weather, natural and cosmic disasters.
Only God, if we trust in in His mercy, can restrain and mitigate the dire consequences sin has on nature, which is groaning in its damaged, corrupted state of entropy.
Sin and denial of God have automatic consequences - they are made manifest in the vagaries of unrestrained, natural forces.
God gives the world exactly what it chooses.
If societies choose to worship nature, instead of God, is it surprising if He permits natural forces to do what they will, in all their intensity?
We get what we choose - chose nature and we will inherit the physical storms of nature, as well as the other dire consequences of denying the true Creator and the rules He has made for our benefit, resulting in violence, murder, wars, suicide, abortion, rape etc.
_______________________________________________
Progressive evolution... the erroneous belief that blind, natural forces created life and humanity and all living things.
The neo-Darwinian idea - that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183
EUbabel. The evil empire. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...
Quantum effects, the smoke and mirrors trick ….
Atheists would dearly love to debunk the Law of Cause and Effect, and all the other natural laws that are fatal to their ideology of naturalism.
(The atheist 'religion' of naturalism requires a NATURAL, first cause of the universe, which the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws definitively rule out as impossible).
Of course, they know they can never succeed, because by undermining the Law of Cause and Effect, they effectively undermine science itself. The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of scientific research. The scientific method relies on seeking and discovering causes for EVERY natural event. The concept of an uncaused, natural event or entity is an anathema to genuine science.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said the Law of Cause and Effect is the "law of laws".
Although intelligent atheists are well aware that they can never debunk laws, which definitively rule out a natural origin of the universe as impossible - nevertheless, they attempt to give the impression, to the public, that a natural, first cause of everything is scientifically feasible, and that laws of nature are not a serious obstacle.
One way atheists try to convince the public to accept their naturalist ideology, is by proposing that the quantum world is very different from the world we see around us. And in that mysterious, quantum world virtually anything can occur, regardless of natural laws which generally describe what is possible in the universe.
This apparent air of mystery gives atheists carte blanche to propose various, bizarre, origin scenarios, which would normally be ruled out as impossible or as just crackpot fantasies.
If challenged, to scientifically justify such imaginative scenarios, they usually reply; ‘with quantum effects, no one knows what is possible’. In this way, opposition to any extraordinary hypothesis can be effectlively silenced. And to dispute, whatever origin scenario they choose to invent, may seem pointless.
However, it would be entirely wrong to accept this.
Science does not progress in a straightjacket, especially one imposed for ideological reasons. We are perfectly justified in rigorously challenging the idea that quantum mechanics or effects are a possible, natural answer to the origin of the universe. And that quantum effects can give credence to the belief that everything naturally arose from nothing, without an adequate cause, or purpose.
So, what is the truth?
We can state quite categorically that quantum effects cannot have anything to do with an origin of the universe from nothing.
Why?
It is common sense that something CANNOT come from nothing, and that EVERY natural occurrence needs an adequate cause. Micro or sub-atomic particles are not an exception. There are NO exceptions.
Atheist, Richard Dawkins tries to define 'nothing' as 'something'.
The atheist mentality seems to be that, if something is deemed impossible, just propose it could happen; little-by-little, and it becomes plausible, especially to a credulous public.
Presumably, if you make it as small, make it sound as simple, and as less complex as you can, people will believe anything is possible.
This is a similar, little-by-little approach that atheists have applied to the origin of life, and it is precisely how they have managed to get most people to accept microbes-to-human evolution, through beneficial mutations.
However, we need to ask ...
What makes atheists think that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Would it be easier, or more credible, for a grain of sand to come from nothing than for a boulder?
Of course, it wouldn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size, or lack of complexity, doesn’t alter that.
It seems that atheist thinking is something like the following:
Although people may realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?
What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?
That could seem much more plausible.
What if we could even find such a particle - a sort of ‘god’ particle?
We could claim a supernatural, first cause (God) has been made redundant.
The first cause problem would be solved - apparently!
At least, people would believe that; even if the problem of everything coming from nothing, without a cause, hasn’t been solved completely, 'science' is well on the way to solving it.
If anyone suggests this is nonsense; that the first cause must an infinite Creator. We can accuse them of trying to fill gaps in 'scientific' knowledge with a god. The good old, the god-of-the-gaps argument.
Finally, if anyone is stubborn enough to insist that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t come from absolutely nothing, we can retort that the ‘nothing, we are referring to, is not the same ‘nothing’ that the scientifically illiterate think of as nothing, but ‘something’ which only appears to be nothing, i.e. space/time.
Physicist Michio Kaku wrote:
"In quantum physics, it was a Higgs-like particle that sparked the cosmic explosion [the Big Bang]. In other words, everything we see around us, including galaxies, stars, planets and us, owes its existence to the Higgs boson."
Kaku, M. The Spark That Caused the Big Bang. The Wall Street Journal. Posted on online.wsj.com July 5, 2012.
However, a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but militant atheists loved the idea, and predictably, the popular, secularist, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that, not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
Why?
A simple, sub-atomic particle simply CANNOT be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God because, not only is it impossible for it to be uncaused, it is also clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So, atheists, while trying to fool people into thinking that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is simple and microscopic, have shot themselves in the foot....
The little-by-little approach, which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution, also doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.
FACT!
An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause (the Law of Cause and Effect).
The very first cause of the universe, as well as not being a contingent entity, cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means EVERY property and quality it contains, including: information, life, intelligence, consciousness, design, love, justice, etc. etc.
Always remember this very important, and common sense, fact:
Something cannot give what it doesn't possess.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, they are definitely NOT an adequate cause of the universe. And, neither are any of the other natural, origin scenarios proposed by atheists. They all fail in this regard.
What about the atheist claim that, because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused?
Quantum effects, may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED physical universe.
The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous.
As for a direct cause of quantum effects, it can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance. So just because, in some instances, causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesn’t mean there are ever no causes.
So, atheists are flogging a dead horse by thinking they can replace God with quantum mechanics, which may be interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.
To give the impression to the public that they could be, is just a smoke and mirrors trick deliberately intended to deceive.
The 'God particle', Wikipedia …
“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers, the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe."
Why are laws of nature so important in this debate?
Laws of nature are both descriptive and prescriptive.
Laws of nature describe the behaviour, operation, potential and LIMITATIONS of natural things based on their inherent properties. They enable us to make predictions based on those properties. The only way that laws of nature could ever be invalid is, if the inherent properties of natural things they apply to, are changed.
The insurmountable problem for atheists is that, although they might try to invent fantasy scenarios where the properties of nature are different, and therefore not subject to most established laws. There is no possible, fantasy scenario which can negate the law of cause and effect. The law which is most fatal to atheist naturalism is the very law that cannot possibly be negated, under any circumstances.
Why?
Because the law of cause and effect is in a unique category, different from all other laws of nature. It is not just a fundamental principle of science, it can also be regarded as the premier law of the universe and creation, because it applies to ALL temporal things, not just nature or natural entities. It doesn’t matter what different properties natural things may have, they can never evade the law of cause and effect. It isn't based on the properties of things, it doesn't depend on any particular properties, only on a temporal character, nothing more.
And that is a FACT, which cannot be denied.
The ONLY exception to the first part of this law – every effect must have a cause – is that which is not temporal (that which has no beginning), i.e. INFINITE, not subject to time (time is a chronology of temporal/temporary events).
The second part of this law – an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s – applies to everything that exists, even to an infinite entity. An infinite entity cannot cause an effect greater than itself.
Thus, the law of cause and effect definitively rules out ALL natural or temporal entities as a possible, first cause.
The first cause of everything natural/temporal, MUST BE a single, infinite (uncaused, eternally self-existent and omnipresent), entirely autonomous, supernatural cause which is greater, in every respect, than everything else that exists (which it has caused).
That is the first cause we call the Creator or God.
What about a singularity?
Is a 'Singularity' the first cause of everything, as some atheists maintain?
A singularity (meaning single event) is described by atheists as a one-off event where the laws of nature didn't apply.
A natural event, not subject to laws of nature, used to be called – magic! Until, atheists started calling it ‘science’.
Quote:
"This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there." Stephen Hawking, The Beginning of Time.
However, even if you want to believe in the fantasy of a 'singularity', it makes no difference to the fact that a natural cause of the universe is impossible.
A singularity doesn't negate the law of cause and effect, because, as I have already explained, that law pertains to ALL temporal entities. And it always applies, even if the laws of physics don't apply.
Conclusion:
It doesn't matter what natural, origin scenarios are proposed, none of them can ever qualify as the first cause of the universe. An origin of the universe by purely, natural processes is ruled out as IMPOSSIBLE.
The Bible rightly tells us to worship and honour the Creator, and not to worship the created.
Pagans honour and worship the created by crediting nature/material entities with godlike powers.
Atheists honour the created, rather than the Creator, because they elevate the effects (nature, matter/energy) to a godlike status and deny their cause.
The new, atheist naturalism nonsense is simply the old, pagan naturalism nonsense re-invented.
____________________________________________
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."
Why do we believe what we do? There is a real objective world that exists outside our perception - that is the left most tree outside the leftmost (outer) arc. In the objective world, things do or do not exist and things operate in a rational way. We can observe the objective world to create a partial image of the world within our minds (to the right of the leftmost arc). However, the image is often incomplete. Either due to lack of experience or the constraints of our observational abilities, our understanding of the objective world is not total, and thus there are gaps or holes (white circles) in our understanding of the objective world. That incomplete understanding is represented by the middle tree. Finally, to function in the world, we must always attempt to understand the world - we must continually make predictions about what will happen next, so we interpret the image and attempt to fill in the gaps of knowledge (the white holes again), based on our experience. Further, we feel fear when we cannot create a complete image of the world - because the incompleteness leads to risk and danger from the decisions we make. In the cynical view of this image, we often attempt to fill the gaps of knowledge and assuage our fear with "faith" in supernatural or religious explanations. Thus, the "evil" pitchfork image and the "good" angel wings images represent good and evil forces that we ascribe to portions of the world that we don't understand.
This is a picture of an outmodel. Read more about outmodels here and here.
Исаа́киевский Собо́р
It is the largest orthodox basilica and the fourth largest cathedral in the world. It is dedicated to Saint Isaac of Dalmatia, a patron saint of Peter the Great.
The cathedral took 40 years to construct from 1818 to 1858. The cathedral's foundation was strengthened by driving 25000 piles into the ground. Under the Soviet government, the building was stripped of religious trappings. In 1931, it was turned into the Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism, the dove sculpture was removed, and replaced by a Foucault pendulum.
The cathedral's main dome rises 101.5 meters and is plated with pure gold.
IF, THEN, AND THE ATHEIST DILEMMA.
All scientific theories are based on ‘if’ and ‘then’. The proposition being; IF such a thing is so, THEN we can expect certain effects to be evident.
For example: there are only two competing alternatives for the origin/first cause of everything.
A natural, first cause, OR a supernatural, first cause.
Atheists believe in a natural, first cause.
Theists believe in a supernatural, first cause.
IF the first cause is natural, THEN progressive evolution of the universe (cosmos) and life are deemed to be expected, even essential.
Conversely, IF the first cause is supernatural, THEN an evolutionary scenario of the cosmos and/or life is not required, not probable, but not impossible.
In other words, while evolution, and an enormous, time frame are perceived as absolutely essential for atheist naturalism, theism could (perhaps reluctantly) accept evolution and/or a long, time frame as possible in a creation scenario.
Crucially, if the evidence doesn’t stack up for cosmic evolution, biological evolution, and a long evolutionary time frame, atheist naturalism is perceived to fail.
For atheism, evolution is an Achilles heel. Atheists have an ideological commitment to a natural origin of everything from nothing - which, if it were possible, would essentially require both cosmic and biological evolution and a vast timescale.
Consequently, atheist scientists can never be genuinely objective in assessing evidence. Only theist scientists can be truly objective.
However, the primary Achilles heel for atheist naturalism is its starting proposition.
Because the ‘IF’ proposal of a natural, first cause, is fatally flawed, the subsequent ‘THEN’ is a non sequitur.
The atheist ‘IF’ (a natural, first cause) is logically impossible according to the laws of nature, because all natural entities are contingent, temporal and temporary.
In other words:
All natural entities depend on an adequate cause.
All natural entities have a beginning.
And all natural entities are subject to entropy.
Whereas a first cause MUST be non-contingent, infinite and eternal.
But, just suppose we ignore this insurmountable obstacle and, for the sake of argument, assume that the ‘THEN’ which follows from the atheist ‘IF’ proposition of a natural, first cause is worth considering.
We realise that both cosmic and biological evolution are still not possible as NATURAL occurrences.
The law of cause and effect tells us that whatever caused the universe (whether it evolved or not) could not be inferior, in any way, to the sum total of the universe.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So, we know that cosmic evolution from nothing could not happen naturally.
That traps atheists in an impossible, catch 22 situation, by supporting cosmic evolution, they are supporting something which could not happen naturally, according to natural laws.
It doesn’t get any better with biological evolution, in fact it gets worse. The Law of Biogenesis (which has never been falsified) rules out the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. Atheists choose to ignore this firmly established law and have, perversely, invented their own law (abiogenesis), which says the exact opposite. However, their cynical disregard for laws of nature, ironically, fails to solve their problem.
Crucially ...
An origin of life, arising of its own volition from sterile matter, conditions permitting (abiogenesis), would require an inherent predisposition/potential of matter to automatically develop life.
The atheist dilemma here is; where does such an inherent predisposition to automatically produce life come from? In a purposeless universe, which arose from nothing, how could matter have acquired such a potential or property?
A predisposed potential for spontaneous generation of life would require a purposeful creation (some sort of blueprint/plan for life intrinsic to matter). So, by advocating abiogenesis, atheists are unintentionally supporting a purposeful creation.
Following on from that, we also realise that abiogenesis requires an initial input of constructive, genetic information. Information Theory tells us; there is no NATURAL means by which such information can arise of its own accord in matter.
Then there is the problem of the law of entropy (which derives from the Second Law of Thermodynamics). How can abiogenesis defy that law? The only way that order can increase is by an input of guided energy. Raw energy has the opposite effect. What could possibly direct or guide the energy to counter the natural effects of entropy?
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
Suppose we are stupid enough to ignore all this and we carry on speculating further by proposing a progressive, microbes-to-human evolution (Darwinism).
Starting with the limited, genetic information in the first cell (which originated how, and from where? nobody knows). The only method of increasing that original information is through a long, incremental series of beneficial mutations (genetic, copying MISTAKES). Natural selection cannot produce new information, it simply selects from existing information.
Proposing mistakes as a mechanism for improvement is not sensible. In fact, it is completely bonkers. Billions of such beneficial mutations would be required to transform microbes into humans and every other living thing.
Once again, it would need help from a purposeful creator.
So, we can conclude that the atheist ‘IF’, of a natural, first cause, is not only a non-starter, but also every ‘THEN’, which would essentially arise from that proposal, ironically supports the theist ‘IF’.
Consequently ...
If you don't believe in cosmic evolution you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in cosmic evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
And...
If you don’t believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution, you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
Conclusion:
The inevitable and amazing conclusion is that everyone (intentionally or unintentionally) supports the existence of a creator, whatever scenario they propose for the origin of the universe.
No one can devise an origin scenario for the universe that doesn’t require a Creator. That is a fact, whether you like it or not!
The Bible correctly declares:
Only the fool in his heart says there is no God.
Theists have no ideological need to be dogmatic. Unlike atheists, they can assess all the available scientific evidence objectively. Because a long timescale, and even an evolutionary scenario, in no way disproves a creator. In fact, as I have already explained, a creator would still be essential to enable: cosmic evolution, the origin of life, and microbes-to-human evolution. Whereas, both a long timescale and biological evolution are deemed essential to (but are no evidence for) the beliefs of atheist naturalism.
Atheist scientists are hamstrung by their own preconceptions.
It is impossible for atheists to be objective regarding any evidence. They are forced by their own ideological commitment to make dogmatic assumptions. It is unthinkable that atheists would even consider any interpretation of the evidence, other than that which they perceive (albeit erroneously) to support naturalism. They force science into a straitjacket of their own making.
All scientific hypotheses/theories about past events, that no one witnessed, rely on assumptions. None can be claimed as FACT.
The biggest assumption of all, and one that is logically and scientifically unsustainable, is the idea of a natural, first cause. If this is your starting assumption, then everything that follows is flawed.
The new atheist nonsense, is simply the old, pagan nonsense of naturalism in a new guise.
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
The poison in our midst - progressive politics.