So, you think you are an atheist?

To be a genuine atheist, one of the things you MUST believe is - that life originated by entirely, natural processes.

The questions below should make you ask yourself whether your belief in atheism is intellectually tenable?

 

Question 1.

Do you believe that life can self-generate from sterile matter (so-called abiogenesis)?

Yes or No?

If you answer yes, please go to Question 2.

If you answer no, please go to the footnote at bottom of this questionnaire.

 

Question 2.

Do you believe that matter is inherently predisposed (programmed) to develop life whenever conditions are conducive (suitable)?

Yes or No?

If you answer yes, please go to question 3.

If you answer no, please go back to question 1 and reconsider it.

 

Question 3.

Can you explain how an inherent predisposition for life originated in matter?

Yes or No?

If you answer yes, please go to question 4.

If you answer no, please go back and reconsider question 1.

 

Question 4.

Do you believe there is purpose or design in the universe?

Yes or No?

If you answer no, please go to question 5.

If you answer yes, you are certainly not a genuine atheist. You need to have a rethink.

 

Question 5.

Can you explain how matter can be inherently predisposed to self-generate life, if there is no purpose or design in the universe?

Yes or No?

If you answer no, you are not a genuine atheist. You need to have a rethink.

If you answer yes, please give your explanation in the comments section. But, before doing so, please read "Background to why atheism is definitely wrong about life and purpose in the universe." which is written below the following footnote...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -

Footnote:

If your answer to question one is 'no', you are certainly not an atheist. Unlike atheists, you respect and agree with the following scientific laws and principles - so, well done!

 

The Law of Biogenesis. This well, established law has never been falsified, regardless of numerous attempts to do so. It tells us that life does not self-generate from sterile matter, under any circumstances.

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is regarded as one of the premier laws of the universe, it tells us that the universe is subject to entropy. That the universe is running down towards an ultimate demise in energy potential and order. The self-generation of life requires an increase in order and complexity which violates the second law. The only way entropy can be temporarily halted or reversed is through an input of GUIDED energy.

 

Information Theory.

Life requires complex instructional and constructional information (which is encoded in DNA). Information Theory tells us that such information cannot arise of its own accord by purely, natural processes.

 

The Law of Cause and Effect.

An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

Whatever produced life (its cause), must be entirely adequate to produce it. That means, the original cause of life should not be inferior to it in any way. The cause of life should be capable of producing every property we observe in living things.

A random, or chance, interaction of energy and matter (or a 'big bang' explosion) cannot produce self-replicating cells, genetic information, or any of the qualities which are uniquely attributed to living things, such as intelligence, consciousness, creativeness, purpose, decision making, ideas and ideals.

____________________________________

Background: ‘Why atheism is definitely wrong about life and purpose in the universe.’ (If you answered 'yes' to question 5, please make sure you read this before commenting).

 

Is matter inherently predisposed to produce life on Earth, and elsewhere in the universe, whenever conditions permit it?

And if it is, where does that predisposition come from?

 

Atheists and most evolutionists believe life originated by entirely, natural processes. They believe, and present to the public as a scientific fact, the discredited notion of abiogenesis - which is life arising of its own volition (by natural, chemical processes) from sterile matter. This is similar to the ancient idea of spontaneous generation of life, which was a fairly common belief before it was soundly refuted by scientists such as Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur.

 

Dedicated observational and experimental scientific research, over many centuries, resulted in the Law of Biogenesis. This law rules out the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis) as impossible, it says that life only comes from existing life. This well, established law has never been falsified, regardless of numerous attempts to do so. It is now universally trusted as the reliable basis of medical and food hygiene, and it is confirmed by other branches of science, such as Information Theory, the Law of Entropy (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the Laws of Probability and Law of Cause and Effect.

 

So, is it possible that chemistry or physics (the physical interaction of matter and energy) can produce biology?

The properties of biology and life are completely different to those of chemistry and physics. Life embodies, not just natural laws, as in physics and chemistry, but also complex, constructive information - stored and expressed through the DNA code. Biology has its own unique properties, such as self-replication, which chemistry and physics don’t possess.

The behaviour of natural things is entirely dependent on their inherent properties. They cannot behave in ways that exceed the limits dictated by their own properties. That is the essence of natural laws which describe the scope and limits of the behaviour of natural entities according to their intrinsic properties. For natural laws to change, or not be valid, the intrinsic properties of natural entities, on which they are based, would have to change.

 

It is a major problem for atheists to explain where natural laws came from, or why they exist?

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 that 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, as an effect cannot be greater than its cause, any proposed first, 'natural' cause, of the universe and life, would have to intrinsically embody the entire potential for the creation of natural laws, information, order, life, consciousness, intelligence etc.

What do atheists themselves say about this....

In a debate (available on youtube), the well known atheist, Richard Dawkins, while trying to describe the first cause (as being something coming from nothing), claimed, the something that he believed came from nothing, would have had to be something simple. Amazingly, he ignored the law of cause and effect which tells us the exact opposite, i.e. that the first cause could not be simple. It tells us that the first cause of everything HAD TO BE ADEQUATE (sufficient in every respect) to produce the effect. The effect, in this case the complex universe, life and intelligence, certainly isn't simple.

So, Dawkins believes the first cause can be inferior to the effect. Or, put more simply, he believes something, which came from nothing, can give what it doesn't possess - and he calls that science!

Atheist, Richard Dawkins tries to define 'nothing' as 'something'.

youtu.be/b6H9XirkhZY

 

If we consider the atheist belief; that matter is naturally predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), the question that arises is; where does that predisposition for life come from, and why does such a property exist in a purposeless universe?

 

The idea that the origin of life is just an inevitable consequence of the right conditions – the right chemistry or interaction of matter and energy - is routinely presented by atheists and evolutionists as a scientific fact. They believe that is how life on Earth originated – and, also that life is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe, for the very same reason.

For this to be true, matter/energy would have to be inherently predisposed for the potential production of life, whenever conditions are conducive and - therefore, some sort of natural law/plan/blueprint for the creation of life would have to be an intrinsic property of matter. A basic principle of science (and common sense) is that an effect can never be greater than that which causes it. In this case the effect - LIFE - could not be greater than that which atheists allege caused it, i.e. the random interaction of matter and raw energy and chemical processes. So, there must be a directive principle existing as an intrinsic property of matter that endows it with the ability to create life.

 

Thus, atheists are left with an impossible dilemma – if life originates as a natural result of the inherent properties of matter, i.e. a natural predisposition for life, they must explain how that predisposition for life originates?

It would not be possible for matter to have such a property in a purposeless universe. Therefore, the atheist belief in a natural origin of life, denotes purpose in the universe which atheists deny. This then, is a classic catch 22 situation for atheists.

Atheists cannot have it both ways, if there is no purpose in the universe, matter cannot possibly have an inherent predisposition to produce life.

Thus, the atheist belief in ‘no purpose’ also means there is no possibility of a natural origin of life.

The denial of purpose negates a natural origin of life.

 

So, if atheists insist on claiming a natural origin of life, they are also obliged to admit to the existence of 'purpose' in the universe.

 

Therefore, either the idea of a purposeless universe is effectively debunked, or the idea of a natural origin of life is debunked - which is it?

Atheists can take their choice?

Either way, atheism is effectively debunked.

To believe in abiogenesis means that atheism is wrong.

To not believe in abiogenesis also means atheism is wrong.

Conclusion: atheism is wrong – period.

 

Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart said, "The most famous atheist is the one who can say the greatest absurdity with the straightest face."

______________________________________________

The real theory of everything.

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/34295660211

Neo Darwinism - completely bonkers.

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...

____________________________________________

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

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

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

 

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

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

 

Famous atheists starring in the image: Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot.

___________________________________________

Video clip:

Famous, militant atheist, Richard Dawkins tries to define 'nothing' as 'something', and is surprised and shocked when the audience sensibly reacts with laughter.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6H9XirkhZYw

St Mary, East Walton, Norfolk

 

It was the long summer of 2016. I was out cycling fairly purposelessly in the backwaters of west Norfolk, following the narrowest, quietest lanes and occasionally remembering them from a decade before. I came to East Walton, which is well off the beaten track, a quiet village down a cul-de-sac off of the Gayton to Narborough road. We are miles away from West Walton here, and the names probably result from an early 19th Century attempt by the Post Office to tell the difference between them. St Mary is beautiful, a round tower with a pleasing, comfortable 14th century church attached. Beside it sits the ruin of the chapel of St Andrew, a couple of farmhouses, and the massive and lovely former rectory.

 

How idyllic the life of a minister of the Church of England must have been during the early years of the 20th century! Back in 2005, I met an old lady in the graveyard here who recalled the Rector when she was a child in the 1920s. He had just two churches in his care, this one and the similarly remote and lovely Gayton Thorpe. On a Sunday morning he'd cycle to his other church to celebrate an early communion, and then back to East Walton for Matins. Even in those days the villages weren't huge, but today there are barely a dozen people on the electoral roll here, and the Minister responsible for it has charge of five other churches.

 

The great round tower has a visible lean to the west, and has been bolstered and restored in the early years of the current century. The architect's drawings are on display inside. The windows are filled with lovely irregular panes of 18th century glass. And indeed, stepping into St Mary is to step into a different century, and not a medieval one, for here we have an interior which is almost entirely of the early 18th century, a time when the Church of England itself was a bit of a sleepy backwater. The brick floors are a setting for good quality box pews, which lead the eye to a three-decker pulpit in the south-east corner. It must have all looked very fine when it was first installed.

 

Perhaps less happily, the chancel arch, which must have been a beautiful one judging by the quality of the Decorated foliage in the bits that are visible, was filled in. A wooden archway was put in its place, and low, flat ceilings were installed. It may be that these ceilings were partly practical, to keep the heat in; but the open porch was also given one, and so it seems more likely that someone here didn't like medieval roofs.

 

As you may imagine, this all gives St Mary a character of its own, and I like it a lot. A sprinkling of medieval survivals - wild, grinning corbel heads, the quatrefoiled font, the flowered tympanum above the priest door in the chancel, a brass which asks us to pray for the souls of William Bacar and Margaret his wife - are adornments to this simple, lovely space. It was good to come back.

The Atheist Bus Campaign, set out to convince you that a loving creator God does not exist, that you have no prospect of eternal life and that all you can look forward to is eternal oblivion.

 

Atheists have no evidence to back up that assertion. In fact logic, natural law and the basic principles of the scientific method rule out their naturalistic alternative to a creator as impossible.

 

They invent all sort of bizarre scenarios to replace a supernatural first cause (God), they even try to present their fantastical, naturalistic replacements for God as 'scientific'. Please don't be taken in by it.

Their naturalistic replacements for God are illogical, they all violate natural laws and the basic principles of science.

 

Atheism is rightly referred to as the no-hope philosophy.

Their ultimate goal and pinnacle of their short life is - eternal oblivion.

And, quite perversely, they want to convince you that is all you can look forward to.

Please don't be dragged down with them into that depressing pit of hopelessness.

The Good News is that they are entirely wrong, and furthermore, it is not just an opinion. It can be satisfactorily demonstrated by logic, natural law, and the basic principle of the scientific method ......

 

Read on .... and you will understand, why atheists can never replace God, however much they try.

 

Their Atheist Bus Campaign is deceitful because atheists have no logical or scientific grounds for claiming "There's Probably No God", in fact, the evidence of applied logic and natural law, is completely the contrary. The atheist claim that there's probably no God is just an unsubstantiated opinion based only on their own ideological beliefs.

You may wonder why they inserted the word 'probably'? Obviously, they knew that if they were challenged to present evidence for the truth of their advertisement and had to defend it in court, they would be unable to do so. Science and logic can be used to prove they have no alternative to a supernatural first cause, and they know it.

 

For atheists to propose that believing there is no God, is somehow a reason to stop worrying and the recipe for an enjoyable life, is perverse in the extreme.

For most sane people it would be the opposite - a road to depression, hopelessness, and a feeling that this short existence is worthless. It will all end in oblivion, and you might as well never have lived.

 

Thankfully, atheists are demonstrably wrong, there is every reason for hope - as we will show - a loving Creator definitely does exist. Your life is not a few short, stressful and worthless years leading to eternal oblivion. You are a unique, valuable, person, specially created out of supreme love, every human life is of infinite value right from the moment of conception. Humans really are special and not just intelligent apes, or a mere collection of atoms, as atheists would have you believe You can live forever in eternal bliss - that is the gift of life the loving Creator of the universe offers you, and it is all offered for free.

 

Please don't be fooled ... people who think for themselves (the REAL freethinkers), are able to see right through the atheist hype and propaganda. Ignore the relentless bombardment of atheist propaganda, such as the atheist bus campaign. Seek out and learn the real truth and the truth will set you free.

 

Please read on and you will understand ......

 

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

 

Consider this ....

A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?

Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.

Why do they say that?

Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

 

The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

 

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.

The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.

 

So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?

And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

 

Shall we analyse it?

"Because there is a law of gravity ....

 

So,

1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?

AND -

2) Where did the law of gravity come from?

AND -

3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?

 

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

 

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?

(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

 

5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?

AND -

6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?

Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.

 

So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.

 

The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.

The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".

However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.

We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.

The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.

 

And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).

Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?

Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..

 

Here it is again ...

‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.

 

So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.

AMAZING!

 

Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?

 

Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!

 

That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.

Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.

 

So now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.

IMPRESSED? I think not!

 

Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?

 

According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.

Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?

That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.

 

Why is the law of cause and effect so important?

Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.

They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.

That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.

Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.

 

What about the first cause of the universe and everything?

How does that fit in?

 

Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.

The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.

The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.

So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.

 

We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.

That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.

Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.

 

An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.

So is it a valid solution?

 

Firstly .....

Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).

Why?

Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.

Secondly ....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

 

A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?

Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.

In addition ....

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.

So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?

Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.

It can only be one of two options,

an uncaused, natural first cause

OR

an uncaused, supernatural first cause.

An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.

Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

SO ....

Is the law of cause and effect really universal?

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.

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

 

Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.

Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …

 

1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?

 

2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?

 

Which one would you choose?

 

Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?

The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.

So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.

 

To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?

OR,

the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Andrew Denton etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?

No contest!

 

We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

 

The question of purpose ....

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

 

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

The development of order requires an organizational element.

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

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

The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.

Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

 

Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.

So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.

 

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

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

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

Bogus science indeed!

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Atheists say the exact opposite.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.

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

 

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

Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.

 

What about Christianity and pagan gods?

 

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

 

Do they have a good point?

 

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….

Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.

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

They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.

They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.

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

For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

 

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.

Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.

There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

 

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.

The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.

If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

 

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

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

 

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

How true is that?

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?

This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.

There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.

Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.

What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.

What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.

The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.

So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?

No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

 

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

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

They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

 

So to sum up .....

The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.

Science is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism is the real enemy of science.

 

So please ignore the atheist bus slogans, they are not worth the ink the are printed with.

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

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

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

 

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

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

first posted photograph that was shot in 2010. the statue stands at the corner of queen and st. paul street in front of one of those odd, purposeless buildings for which i have no use. the sky was gorgeous that day.

A variety of looks here, but to my eye these are six of the most handsomely styled 35mm SLRs (eye of the beholder and all that).

 

Coincidentally, they also happen to be milestones, or near-milestones: Exakta was the first successful 35mm SLR, the Contax was the first with an eye level pentaprism, Nikon F was the first SLR to displace the rangefinder as the professional's choice, the Pentax Spotmatic almost the first with a TTL light meter, the Auto Sensorex among the first with auto exposure, and the OM-1 triggered the compact revolution of the 1970s.

 

Visually, the Exakta stands alone, like the work of an 18th century silversmith. They were all handsome, but this VXIIa with its embossed and polished script is the finest of them all.

 

The layout of the 1949 Contax S established the pattern for the entire industry for decades to come, and its long, low proportions were more pleasing than most of those that followed. Nicest of all of the series was the last, the Contax (Pentacon) F, with larger wind and rewind knobs and the larger diameter auto-aperture lens (yet another milestone).

 

The Nikon F's crisp lines give the impression of having been machined from billet. It stands out above even the Nikon rangefinders for its visual solidity.

 

The Pentax Spotmatic's main virtue is its cleanness and simplicity in an era when the general trend involved tacking on random details and decorations. TTL metering provided a light meter without a visible external light cell, and the details were cleaner and more integrated than they had been in the earlier meterless Pentax models.

 

The Miranda's virtue is also in its simplicity and symmetry. Writers at the time lamented the absence of the large front decorative panel that had graced the original Sensorex (an artifact from the large light cell of the earlier Automex), but I found the purposeless decoration garish. The Auto Sensorex and Sensorex II, by contrast, were very clean and uncluttered designs - one of the best integrated implementations of a removable prism of the era.

 

And finally my overall favorite, the Olympus OM-1. The smaller size of the camera body makes the lens appear more prominent for what would seem to be nearly perfect proportions, and the quality of finish and detailing are among the finest anywhere. This, and the Exakta, are cameras that might be worn purely as jewelry without any photographic purpose.

Christmas Is upon us

around us and inside us.

Resistance is useless

fighting is purposeless.

There us but one simple aid

to simple start cheering one self.

 

Piet Hein (©)

  

Holistic design is a design approach which sees a design as an interconnected whole that is part of the larger world. It goes beyond problem solving to incorporate all aspects of the ecosystem in which a product is used. The focus of holistic design is context dependent; even so, among other things, it considers aesthetics, sustainability, and spirituality.

 

While it is most commonly employed in architecture, with a little thought, holistic design can be adapted to any form of product or service design. Designer Yves Behar offers seven key principles for designers to incorporate holistic design in their work:

 

Begin with questions rather than answers. Instead of acting on a brief which already dictates the answers, asking questions which put the problem in its holistic context is far more important.

Deliver more, not less. Don’t reduce functionality to meet holistic goals – improve the functionality and meet holistic goals.

Create your own theories. Borrow shamelessly from disciplines other than design, and adapt theories from those disciplines so as to deliver greater designs.

Use 360-degree design. Look at the whole customer lifecycle of a product and design from marketing to disposal.

Consider alternative business models. Behar’s business recognizes how hard it can be for clients to trust the iterative holistic design process and often trades royalties or equities rather than charging traditional fees.

Do better. Look at projects which seem impossible, and then aim to deliver them anyway.

Find what you want that everyone else wants. Create change, and meet unmet needs.

Holistic design may appear avant-garde and ambitious, but what it demands of a designer’s imagination is the same creativity that can pay dividends far into the future. Designing for sustainability is key to future-proofing a product; adopting a holistic approach addresses that sustainability.

 

www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/holistic-design

 

Introduction

I am a lecturer at the Bezalel Academy of Art & Design Architectural Department, Jerusalem and a practicing architect working in Israel for the last 20 years.

My work has focused both on practice & theory.

My on going search for what is behind the order of human environment, had been developed gradually by me since my studies at the Architectural Association (AA) school of Architecture in London (Dip 1973), through research work with Prof. Christopher Alexander at the "Center for Environmental Structure" Berkeley California, my post graduate studies in Architecture & Buddhist studies at U.C. Berkeley (1979-81), and along my teachings and practice in Israel in the last 25 years.

When religion and nationalism are cynically used by fundamentalists and by extremist right and left groups to cause cultural conflicts, and when architects are prompted by aggressive political motives, there is a real existential threat to the physical and human environment we live in.

There is no doubt, that the great art (and architecture) creations throughout history evolved in societies that drew their strength from their cultural and spiritual traditions and from the places they belonged to. These sources, which one might take as the factor that separates cultures and peoples, are exactly the ones that link them together in harmony.

The same tree that symbolizes life in the Cabala appears in Tantra Asana art; the same red thread the people of Tibet wear on their wrist for good luck are put on baby's pram in the Jewish tradition. In present state of affairs there is a need for a new worldview that by its very nature crosses cultures, replacing current conceptions and approaches.

The first part of the essay will present the holistic worldview, a school of thought that has been at the forefront of science for many years in which my architectural work belong, and the way this approach got interpretated by me both in theory and in the design process, a process fundamentally different from customary ones.

 

The second part will be a presentation of two selected projects built by me in Israel forming a clear implementation and interpretation of the concepts described before, in relation to their cultural and physical (urban and rural) reality.

The first project is the Music Centre and Library at the historic heart of Tel-Aviv forming a unique dialogue between a new building and the historical environment, an environment being a unique interface between the orient and the west (completed 1997).

The second project is a Residential Neighborhood in the Kibbutz forming a new concept of housing related to the recent structural changes in the kibbutz life, giving a new definition to the conception of equality.

ARCHITECTURE IS MADE FOR PEOPLE

A phenomenological approach to architecture

The purpose of architecture, as I see it, is first and foremost to create a humanenvironment for human beings. Buildings affect our lives and the fate of the physical environment in which we live over the course of many years, and therefore their real test is the test of time. The fine, old buildings and places we always want to return to ‚ those with timeless relevance‚are the ones that touch our heart, and have the power to create a deep and direct emotional experience.

Contemporary architecture as well as conceptual art sought to dissociate themselves from the world of emotions and connect the design process to the world of ideas, thus creating a rational relation between building and man, devoid of any emotion.

There are different ways to describe buildings that have this timeless quality, buildings that convey an inherent spiritual experience. Frank Lloyd Wright called them "the ones which take you beyond words". Quoted by Stephen Grabow, (Grabow, 1983) Christopher Alexander says: "The buildings that have spiritual value are a diagram of the inner universe, or the picture of the inner soul." And in The Timeless Way of Building (Alexander, 1979), Alexander writes, "There is one timeless way of building. It is thousands of years old, and the same today as it has always been. The great traditional buildings of the past, the villages and tents and temples in which man feels at home, have always been made by people who were very close to the center of this way. And as you will see, this way will lead anyone who looks for it to buildings which are themselves as ancient in their form as the trees and hills, and as our faces are."

His Holiness the Dalai Lama calls this quality: "the great self, the such ness or the nature of reality... The state of mind which brings us close to that quality is a state of knowledge and awareness detached from extraneous factors as the mere clarity of the mind".

 

Although this timeless quality exists in buildings rooted in different cultures and traditions, the experience they generate is common to all people, no matter where or from what culture they come from. Thus Alexander's basic assumption was that behind this quality, which he calls "The quality without a name", lies auniversal and eternal element common to us as human beings.

It seems to me that the real challenge of current architectural practice is to make the best use of the potential inherent in the modern technological age we live in while fulfilling the timeless needs common to us all as human beings - needs that modern architecture in general has knowingly denied for the past 60 years, in order to create a friendly and human environment.

The basic argument presented here is that in order to change the feeling of the environment and create places and buildings that we really feel part of and want to live in, the issue here is not a change of style, but a transformation of theworldview underlying current thought and approaches.

 

THE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO ARCHITECTURE

THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTS AND THE WHOLE

 

The dissociation created in our time between man and his environment is a clear expression of the change that occurred in the concept that man is part of nature and not superior to it. Comparing planning processes which resulted in dissociating man from his environment to planning processes that make him feel part of the physical world he lives in, emphasizes the difference between the mechanistic-fragmentary worldview and the holistic-organic one, which guides the holistic school of thought to which my own work belongs.

These are two different sets of orders.

 

The mechanistic worldview underlying contemporary architecture separates elements and creates an environment of autonomous fragments. The result is cities like Brasilia in Brazil,

 

Chandigarth in India, the satellite towns in England and the new neighborhoods around Jerusalem, where the structured disconnection between the house and the street, the street and the neighborhood, the neighborhood and the city arouses a feeling of detachment and alienation.

The holistic-organic approach that has been for many years at the forefront of science in general and as implemented in my architecture work in particular regards the socio-physical environment as a system or a dynamic whole, the existence of which depends on the proper, ever-changing interrelations among the parts. Moreover, the creation and existence of each part depend on the interrelations between that part and the system.

In his book The Joy of Living and Dying in Peace (Dalai Lama, 1997) His Holiness the Dalai Lama refers to this concept of cause and effect by saying: "Nowadays in the field of science there are many disciplines like cosmology, neurobiology, psychology, and particle physics, disciplines that are the result of generations of scientific investigations. Their findings are closely related to Buddhist teachings. The foundation of all Buddhist teaching and practice is the principle of dependent arising. Since things arise in dependence of other causes and conditions, they are naturally free from independent and autonomous existence. Everything that is composed from parts, or conditioned by causes and conditions, is impermanent and fleeting. These things do not stay forever. They continually disintegrate. This kind of subtle impermanence is confirmed by scientific findings".

In any organic system, each element has its own uniqueness and power, but always acts as part of a larger entity to which it belongs and which it complements. vHaving adopted this concept, I do not regard urban design, architecture, interior design and landscape design as independent disciplines removed from each other, but asone continuous and dynamic system. Thus the building is not perceived as a collection of designed fragments, but asone hierarchical language, in which every design detail, on any level of scale, is derived from the larger whole to which it belongs, which it seeks to enhance, and for whose existence it is responsible. The overall feeling of inner wholeness-unity in a building thus stems from the proper interrelations among its parts.

The same idea is found in the Mandala, a model that represents processes occurring in nature, where there is always a center of energy feeding the parts around it. However, the very existence of this center of energy is dependent on the existence of the parts around it.

 

This concept of interdependence and continuity was presented in a public talk given by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, in which he noted: "The construction of the whole is caused continually by the disintegration of its parts. For example, the butter lamp as a whole is a source of light due to the melting of the butter. The melting of the butter is caused due to the heat produced by the lamp".

THE PLANNING PROCESS ITSELF

1.Choosing A Pattern Language for The Project

Based on the assumption that beauty and harmony are objective properties related to the geometrical properties inherent in the structure itself, and that feelings have to do with facts, Alexander states in his book The Timeless Way of Building (Alexander, 1979) that all places of organic order that seem unplanned and orderless are a clear expression of order on a deep and complex level. This order is based on absolute rules that have always determined the quality and beauty of a place, and is the source of the good feeling in it. In other words, there is a direct connection between the patterns of events that occur in a place and the physical patterns - patterns of space in his terminology ‚ that constitute it.

The fact that places that share a common pattern of events (for example, Piazza San Marco in Venice and Piazza Mayor in Madrid), although different in form, all create the same emotional pleasant experience, gave rise to the hypothesis, that beyond what appears different, there is something else, common to them all.

 

Let's take for example the pattern called Arcade – an archetype of a structure that relates to the transition area between a building and the open space around it. Although the arcade in the Hadera synagogue is different from the one in the Assisi cloister or the one in the Tel-Aviv Senior Citizens Day Center, there is one superstructurecommon to them all, a superstructure that defines therelationship between the building and its surroundings.

Since the environment consists of patterns that produce a common experience, the relevant question was, what lies behind the specific patterns that produce the samecomfortable feeling we all share in that environment. The explanation was, that as in the various spoken languages there is, according to Chomsky, a common structural element he calls the

 

language of languages or the underlying patterns, an element that is innate in human beings and therefore common to us all (which explains why children can so easily learn a foreign language), so in the physical space there are patterns that reflect an innate pattern structured in our brain.

The first step in the planning process is to determine the patterns of space that are relevant to the project. Some of them will stem from the specific context of the project and the cultural reality of the place, patterns that vary from place to place, and some from the more basic needs common to us all as human beings wherever we are, as presented in A Pattern Language (Alexander, Ishikawa, Silverstein, 1977).

Once the list of patterns relevant to a specific project has been decided, a set of interrelations between them is automatically created between them, organically defining the scheme of the project. This scheme is than translated into a plan.

2. Planning on the Site Itself

A transformational Planning Process

The plan of the building that is finally created is actually a structure of balance between the abstract pattern language chosen for the project and the living reality of the actual site, a reality that differs from site to site.

The planning process proposed here is fundamentally different from the common planning processes, a process introduced to by Alexander while I was working with him on the site plan of Shorashim Community Village in Israel, and adopted in all my work since than.

 

Once the list of patterns for the project is set, all planning decisions concerning the physical structure of the project are taken literally only on the site itself. Unlike the common planning process, where planning takes place in the office and then transferred to the site, here the drawings are merely the recordingof planning decisions that have been taken currently on the site itself.

The process of creation has to be inspired by what is already there, and our task as artists or architects is to discover, identify and revive those visible and hidden forces.

 

The creative process which feeds on what is apparently already there, is definitely not a passive one. Unlike common planning process, where everything is predetermined, this is a process whereby the plan of the building develops gradually from the interaction of the abstract planning patterns and the unpredictabledeveloping situation on the site.

In his book Zen in the Art of Archery (Herrigel, 1964) Eugene Herrigel describes the state of mind in which the process of creation must take place, noting, 'Drawing the bow and loosing the shot happens independently of the Archer. The hands must open like the skin of a ripe fruit. The Archer must let himself go, to the point that the only thing that is left of him is a purposeless tension. At this state of mind, being released from all attachments, art should be practiced'.

The order according to which the planning decisions are taken on the site is determined by the hierarchical order in which the planning patterns appear on my list governed by the rules of the pattern language itself. Decisions are first made on issues that affect the larger scale we have to confront at any given moment along the development of the plan, moving to other decisions generating from them.

Moreover, the planning process is not conceived as an additive, but rather as adifferentiating one, where each new element of the plan is differentiatedgradually from previous ones.

Each decision taken on the site and marked on the ground actually changes the configuration of the site as a whole. That new whole (configuration) that has been created and can be fully visualized on the site forms the basis for the next decision. Since each stage is based on the previous one, a wrong decision creates a faulty system that cannot serve as a basis for the next decision.

The final 'layout' that emerges on the site is measured and recorded by a surveyor. That moment when all the markers suddenly become a whole, a visible plan, is a moment of surprise and excitement.

 

Experience has taught me that decisions that sometimes appear irregular and strange on paper often make sense in reality (where it comes from), and vice versa, a plan that appears perfect on paper (where it was created) does not make sense on the site. So, if when looking at the 'stakes plan' doubts arise concerning one or more of the decisions taken on the site, the correction is not made on paper in the office, but checked again on the site itself. The final "stakes plan" forms the basis for the final plan.

      

CHOOSING THE COLORS FOR THE BUILDING

Choosing the colors for the building is one of the more difficult decisions in the design process. The choice of colors has an overwhelming effect on the feeling of the building. Colors have the power to give life and enhance the qualities inherent originally in a building or to suppress them. The choice of color is made intuitively on the site when the building is completed, when I can fully sense its mass as part of the overall environment. I try to envision the colors (hues) that practically reveal themselves naturally from the building. Only then do I experiment with applications of those colors in order to arrive at the final tones.

As in the planning of the building, so at this stage of choosing the colors, the process is a gradual one. First I determine the color of the walls ‚ the big mass, and then deriving from that, follows the decision about the colors of the window frames, the rails, the gates and all the other details, to the smallest one, so as to complement, enhance and enlighten previously chosen colors.

 

A DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE QUALITIES OF

TRADITION AND MODERN TECHNOLOGY

Modern technology available today should not be conceived as an aim or a value in itself, but as a tool to create a human and friendly environment that will satisfy the basic needs that are common to all of us as human beings. Despite the unlimited possibilities it opens to us, that should be used in a controlled, value-oriented and moral way.

 

One of the immediate questions I am asked in reaction to the buildings I design is whether it is a new design that tries to reconstruct an architectural language of the past. My answer to that is that I do not attempt or aim to reconstruct the past or to nostalgically trace this or that style. The similarity and the association created between the buildings I design and those we know from the past, and the similar experience and feeling they create, originate in my use of the same fundamentalpatterns and planning codes that guided in the past and will be guide in the future in any culture and tradition, those who aspire to give a building a spirit and soul, codes that have been brutally ignored (in general) by contemporary architecture, and which I try to revive and implement in the buildings I design, in relation to the physical and social context of the place I am working in.

MUSIC CENTER AND LIBRARY

A UNIQUE DIALOGUE BETWEEN A NEW BUILDING AND THE HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT

Tel-Aviv, Israel

 

Completion Date 1997

Preserving the spirit of a historical environment does not necessarily mean a fanatic repetition of its language. The Bialik district at the heart of Tel-Aviv, with Bialik Square at its center, is a micro-document of the architectural history of Tel-Aviv from the 19201⁄4s, the "Eclectic period", when European architecture was brought to Israel and integrated with the local oriental architecture, to the 19301⁄4s and the new 'International Style' somewhat later.

The new Music Center and Library built at Bialik Square (1997) is located on the site of a three-story residential house built in 1931 and demolished in 1994. My commission was to design a new building integrating a reconstructed part of the façade of the old one.

My conception was that once you demolish a building and reconstruct just one isolated architectural element of it, it would become a meaningless fragment, for it would no longer be an organic part of the whole, and thus would not serve the initial purpose of preserving the old. Thus, what I tried to do was to treat the reconstructed part as an environmental element that has to be naturally integrated with the newly designed building, to form one coherent functional-visual entity.

The intention was to design the new center as an integral part of the square.

The key question I asked myself was, what is the right thing to do in order to preserve and enhance the spirit of what still exists around there, which is so human and right.

Standing in the square I adopted none of the classical approaches. I aimed neither to reconstruct the past nor to dissociate myself from it by enforcing a completely new order. I was looking for a language that at that point in time in Bialik Square would create a meaningful dialogue between a new, contemporary building and the historical environment.

  

The Interrelation Between The Building And The Square

 

The powerful presence of the building in the square emanates from its being an integral part of it, and not from the efforts to distinguish it from its environment.

This intimate and organic integration was created by several basic means:

The dimensions of the building were in harmony with the human scale of the square.

The façade of the building defines the boundaries of the square, and therefore determines the feeling it inspires. The orange paint of the building1⁄4s faÁade, apparently expected to disturb the tranquility of the square, was the element that complemented the blue color of the sky and the green color of the trees to create a harmony that inspired peace and serenity in the square.

The cornices that jut out at the faÁade belong morphologically both to the building and to the space next to it, uniting them together.

The dialogue between the building and the square continues through the high windows behind which all the indoor 'public' areas are located, as well as from the roof terrace overlooking the square.

The crown on top of the building provides a graduated link to the sky. Its shape was derived from the same language that determined the pattern of the cement tiles of the porch and the reliefs on the railing wall.

At the front, where the building touches the square, an entrance porch was designed for the orchestra to play to the audience sitting in the square, thus creating a physical and human connection between the building and the square.

 

The interior of the building

 

Past the main lobby, at the entrance to the building, is the auditorium, separated from it by a glass wall, through which the back garden at the far end can be seen.

 

At the side of the lobby there is a wide-open staircase, which is an identified beautiful space by itself. It leads to the upper floors, providing a view to all the floors open to it.

The first floor houses the lending library with the catalogues and librarian counter at the entrance. The rear areas are reserved for the notes, scores and books, with access to staff only.

The second floor accommodates the museum of musical instruments and contemporary exhibitions related to music. Further along, past glass partitions are a study and periodicals room and an archive. These three spaces make one visual continuum while preserving the identity and uniqueness of each space.

  

The top floor houses the audiovisual library that lends discs, videotapes, and records. Further along, beyond the glass partition, is an audiovisual room with a view of the sea.

  

Extending from this floor, overlooking the square, is a roof terrace that has also a view of the sea.

The secret enfolded in the beauty of a building (or of any artifact) as a whole lies in its spatial order and in the nature of its details. The details like the furniture, lighting accessories, materials and colors, are regarded as an inherent part of the building and therefore are inseparable part of my planning process.

The similarity in form between the details stems from the common whole to which they belong.

In modern society, beauty has become a term of abuse, often associated with inefficiency, impracticality, lack of functionalism and high costs. That notion of beauty is true when it relates to details as decorative elements and ornamentationfor its own sake.

The Shakers, a religious sect that created an abundance of useful furniture and utensils in the mideighteenth century, noted that the wholeness and beauty of form are products of pure functionalism, and that there is no room for beautiful forms that do not flow from a functional need. Take, for example the gold leaves capital of the iron column, which connects it to the beam. This part is functionally separate from the other parts of the column and was therefore given a different form and color.

At the same time, however, the Shakers did not interpret the term 'pure functionalism' in the narrow sense of the word, as did the modernists, for whom the expression 'form follows function' was semantically connected only to thephysical body of the building, but in the broad sense that connects it both to the physical and spiritual experience in a building. This is the experience I want to create for the users of the buildings I design.

This concept is manifested, for example, in the following design details:

The wall between the lobby and the auditorium, which normally would be solid, is a glass wall that allows a view to the depth of the building immediately upon entrance.

The six steel columns that rise to the top of the building are structural, but at the same time their placement helps to define and distinguish the public areas of each floor.

The capital of the column, a functional entity that both separates it from the beam and connects it to it, is distinguished from other parts of the column by its leave-like shape and its gold color.

The textured gold color of the walls in the public areas is different from the color of other spaces.

The seams between the stone tiles and the carpets are made of cherry wood, a third material that both joins and separates the two.

The soft reflection of the light when it touches the gold, silver and redish colors in the space creates a unique feeling that envelops all parts of the building.

All parts of the audiovisual library are visually connected, all have a view to the roof terrace and the sea at the far distance.

     

RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE KIBBUTZ

Kibbutz Maagan Michael, Israel

Completion Date

Stage 1 2001

Stage 2 2004

STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN KIBBUTZ LIFE REQUIRE A NEW CONCEPT OF HOUSING

From Quantitive Uniformity to Qualitative Equality

 

The social, economic and physical structure of the collective known as a 'kibbutz' was founded in Israel in the early 20th century.

Its uppermost value since its very beginning was equality, translated in most realms of community life not as equality of opportunities, in its qualitative sense, but rather in itsquantitative sense, as formal uniformity. This dogmatic equality obliterated the self-identity and uniqueness of the individual and saw him only as part of the collective.

In recent years, however, this old conception of equality has been redefined in many respects. The social structure reverted back to the nuclear family, with children raised at home, and no longer in a communal house where they were regarded as the possession of the community as

a whole. Wages, previously based on the notion that every member contributed according to his or her own ability, but was supported according to his or her needs, have now become differential, based on one's contribution. Housing in the kibbutz is perhaps the last fortress of the old and simplistic conception of equality, a conception that now more than ever can change.

According to this conception, houses are regarded as static models ofpredetermined uniform shape, arbitrarily positioned on the building site. All houses with no regard to any environmental factors such as the direction of light or the angle open to the view on any specific plot, resulted in having all identical plan and elevations. Thus a tenant whose window happens to face the orchard has the advantage on the one whose window faces the cow shed.

 

This approach created a qualitative inequality between the houses and inequality of opportunities among the tenants.

Moreover, the outcome of this dogmatic approach was that houses built in the desert environment of the Negev or the hilly Galilean environment were exactly the same.

The new model I implemented in the design of the new houses in Kibbutz Maagan Michael was fundamentally different. The planning process adopted was based on patterns that were common to all the houses, patterns that grew out both of the social structure of the kibbutz and the geographic location facing the sea. When these common patterns were used in different site conditions, a variety of houses emerged, sharing one architectural language.

 

Planning the neighborhood on the site

Kibbutz Ma'agan is situated on a hill, with the new neighborhood on the western side that faces the sea. Each planning decision, from the positioning of the house on the site, through the determination of the direction of its entrance in relation to the path, and unto the location of each window, was taken on the site of each plot.

 

First the position of each house in relation to the others was determined, so as to ensure that each one has an open view to the water and can enjoy the breeze coming from the sea.

To determine the level of each house so that one could see the sea while sitting on the terrace, I used a crane that lifted me up to where I could see the sea. This height was measured and the level of the house was determined accordingly.

   

At the center of the neighborhood, a path was planned connecting the promenade that runs along the water and the path that runs from the

communal dining hall at the heart of the kibbutz to the neighborhood.

What dictated the course of the path was the wish to see the water from every spot along the path.

The houses were arranged in small clusters, sharing a communal open space. Unlike the traditional pattern in the kibbutz, where all open spaces, called 'the lawn', are communal and the buildings are dispersed arbitrarily in between, here the secondary paths running between the houses defined in a non-formal way, with no fences, the 'private' zone of each family.

This sense of 'private territory' unexpectedly created a new reality in which each family started to grow its own garden. This new pattern of behavior could not have developed in the traditional model, where the common open spaces were planned as the property of everyone, and therefore of no one.

 

At this stage the site plan was completed. The position of each house in the neighborhood in relation to the paths and its position in relation to the sea produced different types of house plans. On plots where the entrance from the path was in the same direction as the sea view, type A plans emerged. Here the entrance was through the main garden to the living-dining area that faced the view.

On plots where the entrance was from the opposite direction of the sea view, type B plans developed, and the entrance was through the opposite side of the garden and living areas.

In front of each house there is a bicycle rack (the only means of transport allowed within the boundaries of the kibbutz). Next to the entrance door a place for muddy boots was allocated, a prominent symbol of the kibbutz.

The walls are all whitewashed light blue, complemented by regionally quarried sandstone characterizing the construction details.

The implementation of a conceptually new model in a very rigid social framework became possible now, as a result of an overall change in the reality of the kibbutz communities, a change that was inevitable in the twenty-first century.

 

Nili Portugali

© 2005

Nili Portugali is an architect based in Tel-Aviv, Israel and has just published a new book, "The Act of Creation and the Spirit of a Place: A Holistic-Phenomenological Approach to Architecture", Edition Axel Menges, Stuttgart & London 2006. See www.niliportugali.com for more details.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

His Holiness the Dalai Lama, The Joy of Living and Dying in Peace, Harper Collins, India, 1997

Christopher Alexander, S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, A Pattern Language, Oxford University Press, 1977

 

Christopher Alexander, The Timeless Way of Building, Oxford University Press, 1979

Stephen Grabow, Christopher Alexander, The Search for a New Paradigm in Architecture, Oriel Press, 1983

Eugene Herrigel, Zen and the Art of Archery, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964

Views expressed on this page are those of the writer and are not necessarily shared by those involved in INTBAU.

  

intbau.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/AHolisticApproachto...

Birkenhead has some attractive spots: Hamilton Square, with its pleasingly-proprotioned architecture, or Woodside where one can gaze at the Mersey and the view of Liverpool. A less celebrated architectural offering is seen here.

 

This house is the sole remaining dwelling in the area known as the 'River Streets', a quarter which was almost entirely demolished at the start of the 21st century. The plan was that new industry would move in and build on the space, but financial and political developments stymied that scheme, and what remains now is a weed-grown network of decaying roads, presided over by orphaned lamposts and purposeless speed-bumps.

 

One resident however resisted every attempt to entice him to leave his home, and while all around was consigned to hardcore, he stood firm. He now inhabits the solitary remaining house, with union flags flying in the front and back gardens.

 

He also enjoys convenient access to Birkenhead North station, just round the corner, and a handy half-hourly bus service, as shown here in the shape of Avon Buses Dennis Dart / East Lancs 841 (T841 CCK), which was new to Express of Speke.

 

More of the story of the River Streets in general and this house in particular can be found in this article.

Contrary to what we are lead to believe by the popular media, science is not the enemy of Christianity.

Genuine science is completely compatible with the belief in the creator God of Christianity.

Most of the world's greatest scientists, who were the pioneers and founders of modern science recognised this.

It is only fairly recently with the rise of militant atheism that science has been portrayed, through propaganda, as being in conflict with Christianity.

 

"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.

 

So why were so many great scientists convinced that the principles of science were in perfect harmony with belief in the Christian God?

 

Consider this ....

A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?

Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.

Why do they say that?

Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

 

The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

 

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.

The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.

 

So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?

And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

 

Shall we analyse it?

"Because there is a law of gravity ....

 

So,

1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?

AND -

2) Where did the law of gravity come from?

AND -

3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?

 

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

 

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?

(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

 

5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?

AND -

6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?

Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.

 

So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.

 

The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, adequate, 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, if you choose 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) it 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, Bill Nye, Bill Maher etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?

Methinks, there is no contest!

 

We can thus 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 are 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, just as they cannot change their own inherent properties.

 

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. Not just bizarre, but impossible, unscientific fantasies.

  

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 (the ancient Egyptian god 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, that is the atheist religion of naturalism.

There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

 

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.

The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.

If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

 

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

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

 

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

How true is that?

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?

This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.

There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.

Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.

What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.

What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.

The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.

So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?

No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

 

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

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

They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

 

So to sum up .....

The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.

Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism, not religion, is the real enemy of science.

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

  

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

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

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

 

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

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Best Seen in Size Large-There is always somewhere to hit golf balls into the air, here in the middle of the Great Basin between somewhere and nowhere.

 

Best Large-

 

The Desert Has a Voice (James Watkins)

 

The desert has a voice that calls

In dry, dirt dreams-

Warm, wind-washed wonders

In wingless, soulless flight.

 

Cold, moonlit masquerades

Through long level years,

Crying out with countless cares on deafened ears-

Drowned in measured, motor-muffled madness,

And child-chattered, purposeless flight.

 

Quietly, calmly calling-

Darkened, deepening desert-

Star-filled with stumbling stalkers

And wounded warriors in fevered nights.

 

Dreams-peaceful, persistent, dreams-

As wheeled sky turns

Eternal turning, evening eyes-

And thoughts of morning colored light.

 

Millennial seas-

Doomed and dusty years-

Row upon heaping row of years-

Tears-

Caked, covered

And desolate.

 

The desert has a voice-

That calls and halts

And peers with perfect perspective-

Stopping us in our way.

 

“I have seen blood-stained battles!

I have seen despot desires!

I have seen prophets come and go,

And ages pass with shallow…glancing blows!

I have seen civilizations crumble…

Tumbling, heavy-handed

Into pagan pasts!”

 

The desert has a voice-

And every grain of sand has a name-

Every wind-blown grain of sand.

And someone-somewhere-knows the names.

 

They have perfect place and purpose-

Rocks cry out! Rocks….sing!

Some soaring angelic scribe somewhere

Records the history of rocks, and sands, and deserts.

 

Drab, dull, drifting desert distances and plans.

Ragged, jagged, craggy-edged

Mountain spine explosions and

Dry, desert sand.

 

The desert has voice and future-

With lifted hill-high green valley-

And clear bright stream winding

To cool, crystalline sea.

 

They wait….silently…

Almost… forever waiting-

But I know the secret of deserts-

And –

Dreams.

 

James Watkins-April 2006

  

Best Large-

 

The Desert Has a Voice (James Watkins)

 

The desert has a voice that calls

In dry, dirt dreams-

Warm, wind-washed wonders

In wingless, soulless flight.

 

Cold, moonlit masquerades

Through long level years,

Crying out with countless cares on deafened ears-

Drowned in measured, motor-muffled madness,

And child-chattered, purposeless flight.

 

Quietly, calmly calling-

Darkened, deepening desert-

Star-filled with stumbling stalkers

And wounded warriors in fevered nights.

 

Dreams-peaceful, persistent, dreams-

As wheeled sky turns

Eternal turning, evening eyes-

And thoughts of morning colored light.

 

Millennial seas-

Doomed and dusty years-

Row upon heaping row of years-

Tears-

Caked, covered

And desolate.

 

The desert has a voice-

That calls and halts

And peers with perfect perspective-

Stopping us in our way.

 

“I have seen blood-stained battles!

I have seen despot desires!

I have seen prophets come and go,

And ages pass with shallow…glancing blows!

I have seen civilizations crumble…

Tumbling, heavy-handed

Into pagan pasts!”

 

The desert has a voice-

And every grain of sand has a name-

Every wind-blown grain of sand.

And someone-somewhere-knows the names.

 

They have perfect place and purpose-

Rocks cry out! Rocks….sing!

Some soaring angelic scribe somewhere

Records the history of rocks, and sands, and deserts.

 

Drab, dull, drifting desert distances and plans.

Ragged, jagged, craggy-edged

Mountain spine explosions and

Dry, desert sand.

 

The desert has voice and future-

With lifted hill-high green valley-

And clear bright stream winding

To cool, crystalline sea.

 

They wait….silently…

Almost… forever waiting-

But I know the secret of deserts-

And –

Dreams.

 

James Watkins-April 2006

  

Is matter inherently predisposed to produce life on Earth, and elsewhere in the universe, whenever conditions permit it?

And if it is, where does that predisposition come from?

 

Atheists and most evolutionists believe life originated by entirely natural processes. They believe, and present to the public as a scientific fact, the discredited notion of abiogenesis - which is life arising of its own volition (by natural, chemical processes) from sterile matter. This is similar to the ancient idea of the spontaneous generation of life, which was a fairly common belief before it was soundly refuted by scientists such as Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur.

 

Dedicated observational and experimental scientific research, over many centuries, resulted in the Law of Biogenesis. This law, which has never been falsified, rules out the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis) as impossible, it says that life only comes from existing life. This is now the reliable basis of medical and food hygiene, and is confirmed by other branches of science, such as Information Theory, the Law of Entropy (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the Laws of Probability and Law of Cause and Effect.

 

So, is it possible that chemistry or physics (the physical interaction of matter and energy) can produce biology?

The properties of biology and life are completely different to those of chemistry and physics. Life embodies, not just natural laws, as in physics and chemistry, but also complex, constructive information - stored and expressed through the DNA code. Biology has its own unique properties, such as self-replication, which chemistry and physics don’t possess.

The behaviour of natural things is entirely dependent on their inherent properties. They cannot behave in ways that exceed the limits dictated by their own properties. That is the essence of natural laws which describe the scope and limits of the behaviour of natural entities according to their intrinsic properties. For natural laws to change, or not be valid, the intrinsic properties of natural entities, on which they are based, would have to change.

 

It is a major problem for atheists to explain where natural laws came from, or why they exist?

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 that 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.

 

If we consider the atheist belief; that matter is naturally predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), the question arises of where that predisposition for life comes from, and why does such a property exist in a purposeless universe?

 

The idea that the origin of life is just an inevitable consequence of the right conditions – the right chemistry or interaction of matter and energy - is routinely presented by atheists and evolutionists as a scientific fact. They believe that is how life on Earth originated - and also that life is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe, for the very same reason.

For this to be true, matter/energy would have to be inherently predisposed for the potential production of life, whenever conditions are conducive and - therefore, some sort of natural law/plan/blueprint for the creation of life would have to be an intrinsic property of matter. A basic principle of science (and common sense) is that an effect can never be greater than that which causes it. In this case the effect - LIFE - could not be greater than that which atheists allege caused it, i.e. the random interaction of matter and raw energy and chemical processes. So, there has to be a directive principle existing as an intrinsic property of matter that endows it with the ability to create life.

 

Thus, atheists are left with an impossible dilemma – if life originates as a natural result of the inherent properties of matter, i.e. a natural predisposition for life, they have to explain where that predisposition for life comes from?

It would not be possible for matter to have such a property in a purposeless universe. Therefore, the atheist belief in a natural origin of life, denotes purpose in the universe which atheists deny. This then, is a classic catch 22 situation for atheists.

Atheists cannot have it both ways, if there is no purpose in the universe, matter cannot possibly have an inherent predisposition to produce life.

Thus the atheist belief in ‘no purpose’ also means there is no possibility of a natural origin of life.

The denial of purpose negates a natural origin of life.

 

Therefore, if atheists insist on claiming a natural origin of life, they are also obliged to admit to the existence of 'purpose' in the universe.

 

This means, either the idea of a purposeless universe is effectively debunked, or the idea of a natural origin of life is debunked - which is it?

Atheists can take their choice?

Either way, atheism is effectively debunked.

To believe in abiogenesis means that atheism is wrong.

To not believe in abiogenesis also means atheism is wrong.

Conclusion: atheism is wrong - period.

 

Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...

______________________________________________

____________________________________________

"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.

 

The law of Cause and Effect is unlike other natural laws, it is a fundamental principle of the universe and everything in the natural realm. It does not rely on any particular properties of nature/matter/energy, other than the fact that it applies (without exception) to everything which is temporal, i.e. everything that has a beginning.

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

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

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

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

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

 

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

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Atheism died with the demise of the brutal, atheist regimes of the 20th century.

The promised atheist/communist utopia ... the idea of an atheist Heaven on Earth resulted in a diabolical Hell on Earth.

 

"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Mao Tse-tung (1893 – 1976). Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)

 

Atheism proved to be the most horrendous, barbaric, murderous and criminal ideology the world has ever experienced. Many millions suffered and died at the hands of this hideous ideology, they must never be forgotten.

 

Who, but a complete idiot would want to resurrect such a monstrous, no-hope philosophy?

The so-called 'new' (improved?) atheists try to disassociate themselves from the disastrous record of the world's first ever, official, atheist states of the 20th century's, great, atheist experiment. But there is no other example to go by.

The atheist experiment has been tried and, from beginning to end, was a diabolical failure. The new atheists may say: it's nothing to do with us gov.

But who wants to risk such devastation again, by giving atheism another chance? Only an idiot would want to take that gamble.

 

However, it was only to be expected and could easily have been predicted beforehand, that the inevitable result of atheism's lack of an absolute ethical or moral yardstick would be to wreak havoc on the world - and that is exactly what it did.

Atheism hasn't changed at all in that respect, because it can't. The ephemeral values, moral relativism and situational ethics of atheism is the ideal recipe for abuse.

We can see from the aggressive, intolerant, rabble rousing rhetoric and ranting of today's militant, new atheist zealots, that the leopard hasn't really changed its spots. Let no one doubt it - atheism has a hideous, barbaric history, ... we must never let it happen again.

 

Moreover, it is a singularly perverse ideology that motivates its adherents to waste so much time of the only life they believe they have, trying to convince everyone else that they are doomed to eternal oblivion. The ultimate reward for atheists is to never know if they got it right, only if they got it wrong.

 

There is no moral or rational defence for the atheist cult, past or present.

 

But what do atheists themselves say about their ethical and moral values?

 

They claim that they DO have an ethical and moral yardstick, and cite the Humanist Manifesto as representing the ethics and moral code of atheism.

So is it really true?

 

The Humanist Manifesto looks good at first glance, but like most proposals atheists come up with, when examined closely, it is full of holes.

 

Problems ....

1. You don’t have to sign up to the Humanist Manifesto to be an atheist.

 

2. Even if you do sign up to it, there is no incentive to follow it. No reward for following it, and no penalty for not following it. You are not going to be barred from being an atheist because you reject or break the rules of the Humanist Manifesto. It is not enforced in any way.

 

3. It borrows its desirable ethics from Judeo-Christian values, there is no atheist, moral code per se.

Genuine, naturalist ethics is basically the Darwinian law of the jungle, the ethics of the Humanist Manifesto are actually a contradiction of social Darwinism. The ethics of the H.M. are not consistant with atheist materialist and evolutionist beliefs.

 

4. By far the biggest flaw in the Humanist Manifesto is the fact that it is entirely ephemeral. It advocates 'situational ethics' and 'moral relativism'. And that major flaw makes it a worthless scrap of paper.

Why?

Because .....

Situational ethics is based on what people want or find desirable, not on any adherence to what is intrinsically right or wrong.

 

A good, example of humanist style, situational ethics in practice, is the gender selection abortions now being blatantly carried out in abortion clinics in Britain. It primarily discriminates against female babies, who are especially targeted for killing, because most of the parents who want it, prefer to have boys for cultural reasons.

The abortion clinics openly admit to it happening, and claim it is legal.

The abortion act of 1967 certainly did not intend that, and the Government admits it was not intended.

So we have a Government that knows it is going on, it also knows it is not what the abortion law intended, yet it is still reluctant to do anything about it.

Why? Because it is wedded to the secularist concept of situational ethics, i.e. whatever people want, people get. Any concept of intrinsic right and wrong has to take a back seat, to whatever is the spirit of the times. And that is an example happening right now, in a so-called democracy.

 

The Nazi persecution of the Jews became popular through brainwashing of the public, and was eventually supported by a good proportion of the public.

So Hitler cleverly used situational ethics to do what he had persuaded people was right and good.

 

So, all in all, the Humanist Manifesto is a very dangerous document.

It gives carte blanche to any so-called ethical values, as long they become the fashionable or consensus opinion. Whatever people want, people get, or what a government can claim people want, they are justified in giving to them.

And for that reason it would not stop; a Lenin, a Stalin, a Hitler, or a Pol Pot, even if they had signed up 100% to abide by the Humanist Manifesto.

 

In fact, the 20th century, atheist tyrants even called their regimes ... Democratic People's Republics. They claimed they were representing people's wishes, and thus carried out their 'situational ethics' on behalf of the people.

 

What about the common, atheist tactic of highlighting alleged crimes and wrongdoing committed by Christians?

 

The point is ....

Christians who do wrong, go against the teachings of Christianity.

And, without sincere repentance, they don't get to go to the Christian Heaven.

End of story!

 

Atheists who do wrong, go against nothing, unless it is against the law of the land.

The atheist 'heaven' is right here on earth, and far from being a 'heaven' it is an horrendous nightmare. Anyone with any sense would call it a hell.

 

And even the law of the land need not stop them .....

Whenever, atheists get into a position of power they change the law to suit their situational ethics. Then they can do whatever they want.

That is what Stalin and all the other atheist tyrants did in their people's DEMOCRATIC republics.

 

And the atheist thirst for blood does not cease when they live in the so-called 'real' democracies, it is simply sanitised by atheist inspired, situational ethics.

They use their 'humanist' ethics to change the law, accompanied by 'newspeak' and propaganda.

So that what was once considered evil, is not only made legal, it is actually turned around so it is considered a virtue.

 

The wholesale and brutal slaughter, of the most vulnerable in society ... millions of unborn babies, is callously shrugged off as necessary, for 'free choice'.

Of course murder is always a free choice for the killer, only the dangerous, warped, atheist style, situational ethics could value a killer's free choice to kill, above the victim's right not to be killed, and make murder legal.

 

The callous slaughter of the unborn, which in most cases, was not even put to the people democratically (it was imposed on them by a handful of secularist politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats), is accompanied by the usual atheist lies and devious propaganda.

 

So the secularists simply laugh off democracy, it doesn't stop them, if it gets in the way of their ideology, they just ignore it, like they do with science.

 

"Democratic societies" what are they?

Why ask the people? They are apparently not qualified to consider such difficult matters of right and wrong, like whether babies should live or die? You can't give those ignorant peasants, plebs and rednecks a vote on it, ... leave it to the secularist EXPERTS and their wonderful, situational ethics based on 'reason' and 'science'.

 

We are told by atheist moralists that the unborn baby is not fully human, it is only a blob of jelly, which has, and deserves, NO rights.

And we are also told, anyone who supports the rights of the unborn babies not to be brutally ripped limb from limb is evil, because they are interfering with free CHOICE.

 

So the atheist leopard certainly hasn't changed its lying, devious, brutal and murderous spots, even in so-called 'real' democratic societies. It simply legalises and sanitises evil and murder and makes it appear good.

Then it can claim atheism is extremely ethical and virtuous, with its own, beautiful code of morals and conduct .... Yeah Right!

Remind you of anyone?

 

That, then ... is the atheist Heaven on earth, and the shining stars of that Heaven are those in the picture who have exemplified atheist, situational ethics - par excellance.

 

Is atheism credible, logically or scientifically?

..If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.

Atheism is anti-logic ......

 

Atheism = NOTHING created Everything, for NO REASON.

Makes perfect sense .... NOT!

 

www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existen...

 

Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.

The only two options are:

1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.

2. An uncaused, natural first cause.

Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.

Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.

 

Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.

All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.

A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.

A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.

So atheism is a set of beliefs which violates the scientific method, ignores logic and defies natural laws.

 

In addition, the fact that there are natural laws and an ordered structure to atoms is not conducive to the idea of a purposeless universe.

 

Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the unguided development of order of its own accord. The application of raw energy, without a directive agent, results in entropy, not increasing complexity and order, which atheists propose.

 

And the First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that there is no 'natural' mechanism for the creation of matter/energy. Yet atheists insist that matter (along with natural law and information) arose naturally of its own accord.

 

It is evident that, while pretending to be scientific, the atheist dogma is actually anti-science, it manipulates science to fit its own agenda, regardless of the violation of natural laws, logic and the scientific method.

 

Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God. It is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.

 

To clarify further:

If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.

 

Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.

An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.

If someone was to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.

However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.

So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.

In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose.

 

Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.

That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, sense of beauty, justice etc.

All proposed, natural, first causes/so-called theories of 'everything' - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics, multiverses etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events/entities, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.

 

To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.

Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.

If we have intelligence then, that which ultimately caused us cannot be non-intelligent.

Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law.

 

What about infinite time?

Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.

 

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

 

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 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. There has to be an existing, inherent potential for future development and everything else that follows the 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 behave only within the limits dictated by the potential of their pre-ordained properties, composition or structure. Those pre-ordained properties are determined by the ability, powers and adequacy of the first cause, which brought them into being.

Lighting blue touch paper achieves absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it. Chance or randomness is not an answer.

 

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

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

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

Incredible!

 

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

― G.K. Chesterton ..... HOW TRUE THAT IS PROVING TO BE!

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

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

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

 

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

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

 

 

 

Once again trying to improve my photoshop skills. Sorry you guys have to suffer through my over-processed learning photos. However, I can't think of a better group to learn with.

 

Lately, inactivity and general feelings of purposelessness (not even a word, is it?) born of being in that in between school and work phase are really getting me down. I'm hoping to be more deliberate in the next week in trying to use that in my photography instead of letting it limit me. We'll see how it goes.

When the day starts dreaming, that's when my heart's in the right place. No more sun to be stealing, I watch the petals closing against the coming chill. I see eye to eye with unblinking nature, lidless and staring, taking everything in. There's a hunger out here that's never filled, an endless energy that swallows every second of every day, and asks for more in the morning. What's wild is chaotic, you shouldn't mistake it for peaceful just because it's slow. I am too, but I feel the steady beating inside me, the pulse pounding a reminder that my heart is always in a hurry. I've gotten happy about being in a rush, feels all the more honest when I finally relax. I spent my teens and early twenties being frustrated with feeling purposeless. Now I never complain about waking up with something to do. It's worse in every way to be aimless. Light was all I needed all along.

 

May 28, 2020

Beaconsfield, Nova Scotia

 

facebook | instagram | twitter | tumblr | youtube | etsy

 

You can support my work

get things in the mail

and see everything

first on Patreon

A naturalistic 'theory of everything' is it feasible?

Or is it just a revival of pagan naturalism in a new guise - an atheistic device to explain the universe in terms of the creative powers and godlike attributes of nature?

 

Contrary to what we are lead to believe by the popular media, science is not the enemy of Christianity.

Genuine science is completely compatible with the belief in the creator God of Christianity.

Most of the world's greatest scientists, who were the pioneers and founders of modern science recognised this.

It is only fairly recently with the rise of militant (evangelistic) atheism that science has been portrayed, through relentless propaganda, as being in conflict with Christianity.

 

So why were so many great scientists convinced that the principles of science were in perfect harmony with belief in the Christian God?

 

Consider this ....

A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?

Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.

Why do they say that?

Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

 

The atheist replacement for God was 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.

In fact, it is true to say that the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion - and the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion.

 

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 in the material realm?

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 atheists 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 Denton etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?

No contest!

 

We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

 

The question of purpose ....

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

 

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

The development of order requires an organizational element.

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

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

The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.

Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

 

Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.

So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.

 

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

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

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

Bogus science indeed!

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Atheists say the exact opposite.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.

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

 

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

Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.

  

What about Christianity and pagan gods?

 

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

 

Do they have a good point?

 

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….

Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.

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

They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.

They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.

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

For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

 

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.

Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.

There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

 

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.

The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.

If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

 

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

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

 

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

How true is that?

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Essential characteristics of the first cause.

 

Consider this short chain of causes and effects:

A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.

'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.

Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.

Why?

Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.

Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.

So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.

We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.

We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.

Why?

Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.

Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.

As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.

Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

 

So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist

 

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

 

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

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

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?

This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.

There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.

Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.

What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.

What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.

The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.

So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?

No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

 

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

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

They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

 

So to sum up .....

The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.

Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism, not religion, is the real enemy of science.

  

The garden path of lies

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/14829503672

Chrysler Building (William Van Alen, 1928-1930). Probably the best of New York's convoluted wedding cakes, and certainly the best of its Art Deco skyscrapers, with a fine play between horizontals and verticals and a joyously purposeless crown.

St Mary, East Walton, Norfolk

 

It was the long summer of 2016. I was out cycling fairly purposelessly in the backwaters of west Norfolk, following the narrowest, quietest lanes and occasionally remembering them from a decade before. I came to East Walton, which is well off the beaten track, a quiet village down a cul-de-sac off of the Gayton to Narborough road. We are miles away from West Walton here, and the names probably result from an early 19th Century attempt by the Post Office to tell the difference between them. St Mary is beautiful, a round tower with a pleasing, comfortable 14th century church attached. Beside it sits the ruin of the chapel of St Andrew, a couple of farmhouses, and the massive and lovely former rectory.

 

How idyllic the life of a minister of the Church of England must have been during the early years of the 20th century! Back in 2005, I met an old lady in the graveyard here who recalled the Rector when she was a child in the 1920s. He had just two churches in his care, this one and the similarly remote and lovely Gayton Thorpe. On a Sunday morning he'd cycle to his other church to celebrate an early communion, and then back to East Walton for Matins. Even in those days the villages weren't huge, but today there are barely a dozen people on the electoral roll here, and the Minister responsible for it has charge of five other churches.

 

The great round tower has a visible lean to the west, and has been bolstered and restored in the early years of the current century. The architect's drawings are on display inside. The windows are filled with lovely irregular panes of 18th century glass. And indeed, stepping into St Mary is to step into a different century, and not a medieval one, for here we have an interior which is almost entirely of the early 18th century, a time when the Church of England itself was a bit of a sleepy backwater. The brick floors are a setting for good quality box pews, which lead the eye to a three-decker pulpit in the south-east corner. It must have all looked very fine when it was first installed.

 

Perhaps less happily, the chancel arch, which must have been a beautiful one judging by the quality of the Decorated foliage in the bits that are visible, was filled in. A wooden archway was put in its place, and low, flat ceilings were installed. It may be that these ceilings were partly practical, to keep the heat in; but the open porch was also given one, and so it seems more likely that someone here didn't like medieval roofs.

 

As you may imagine, this all gives St Mary a character of its own, and I like it a lot. A sprinkling of medieval survivals - wild, grinning corbel heads, the quatrefoiled font, the flowered tympanum above the priest door in the chancel, a brass which asks us to pray for the souls of William Bacar and Margaret his wife - are adornments to this simple, lovely space. It was good to come back.

Welcome to our channel see the new natok of Bangla comedy natok-City Bus 2 -HD NAtok enjoy the funny natok .. this is a very funny natok . Fun is the enjoyment of pleasure, particularly in leisure activities. Fun is an experience — short-term, often unexpected, informal, not cerebral and generally purposeless. It is an enjoyable distraction, diverting the mind and body from any serious task or contributing an extra dimension to it. Although particularly associated with recreation and play, fun may be encountered during work, social functions, and even seemingly mundane activities of daily living. It may often have little to no logical basis, and opinions on whether or not an activity is fun may differ. A distinction between enjoyment and fun is difficult but possible to articulate, fun being a more spontaneous, playful, or active event. There are psychological and physiological implications to the experience of fun. Hope you enjoyed this video of Bangla comedy natok-City Bus 2 -HD NAtok. ► Subscribe and join funny videos :: bit.ly/24MMkab ► Follow Me on Twitter :: bit.ly/1Up2167 ► Previous video :: www.youtube.com/watch?v=j76PEMKv1Ng ►Top funny videos : bit.ly/24MMkab ► Google Plus :: goo.gl/6gnoPB KEYWORDS: bangla natok 2014,bangla natok 2015,bangla hd natok,eid ul fitr,Eid Ul Adha,Eid Natok,new natok,mossaruf karim natok,tahsan natok,mithila natok,mim natok,tisha natok,nobel natok,funny natok,Chanchal Chowdhury,Jeni natok,safa kabir natok,2014 natok,2015 natok,Mehjabin natok,comedy natok,best natok,good natok,latest best bangla natok,bangla super natok,super hit natok,bangla hit natok,Eid Ul Azha Natok,2015 bangla natok,2014 bangla natok

A naturalistic 'theory of everything' is it feasible?

Or is it just a revival of pagan naturalism in a new guise - an atheistic device to explain the universe in terms of the creative powers and godlike attributes of nature?

 

Contrary to what we are lead to believe by the popular media, science is not the enemy of Christianity.

Genuine science is completely compatible with the belief in the creator God of Christianity.

Most of the world's greatest scientists, who were the pioneers and founders of modern science recognised this.

It is only fairly recently with the rise of militant (evangelistic) atheism that science has been portrayed, through relentless propaganda, as being in conflict with Christianity.

 

So why were so many great scientists convinced that the principles of science were in perfect harmony with belief in the Christian God?

 

Consider this ....

A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?

Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.

Why do they say that?

Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

 

The atheist replacement for God was 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 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!

Something cannot give what it doesn’t possess. Nothing possesses nothing.

The effect cannot be greater than its cause.

If the cause is nothing the effect is 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.

In fact, it is true to say that the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion - and the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion.

 

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 in the material realm?

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 atheists 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 Denton etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?

No contest!

 

We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

 

The question of purpose ....

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

 

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

The development of order requires an organizational element.

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

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

The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.

Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

 

Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.

So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.

 

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

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

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

Bogus science indeed!

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Atheists say the exact opposite.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.

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

 

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

Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.

  

What about Christianity and pagan gods?

 

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

 

Do they have a good point?

 

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….

Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.

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

They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.

They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.

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

For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

 

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.

Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.

There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

 

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.

The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.

If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

 

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

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

 

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

How true is that?

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Essential characteristics of the first cause.

 

Consider this short chain of causes and effects:

A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.

'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.

Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.

Why?

Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.

Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.

So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.

We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.

We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.

Why?

Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.

Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.

As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.

Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

 

So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist

 

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

 

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

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

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?

This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.

There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.

Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.

What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.

What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.

The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.

So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?

No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

 

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

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

They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

 

So to sum up .....

The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.

Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism, not religion, is the real enemy of science.

  

The garden path of lies

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/14829503672

There is a continuing debate among theoretical physicists about how the stuff (matter/energy) of the universe could have originated of its own accord, out of 'nothing' (the elusive, so-called ‘theory of everything’). However, the most important question in this debate: Where did information come from? Has been largely ignored, but this is absolutely CRUCIAL - because the universe, as we know it, could not exist without information. The laws of nature, are indicative of order, they govern and control the whole material universe, and extremely complex information is essential for all life.

Information is rightly called the third fundamental property of the universe.

So we have to wonder why the crucial question of the origin of information is excluded from the 'theory of everything' debate?

Without a credible explanation of the origin of information - any proposed theory of 'everything' would, in fact, be a theory of 'nothing' ... and absolutely useless.

 

Life requires information from the very outset, even the tiniest, most primitive cell is packed with complex information (coded in DNA), and the means of interpreting it.

Life could not exist without information. The first life on earth (regardless of how you believe it originated) needed complex information right from the very start, this is certain and beyond any dispute.

So how did information arise in the first life? Was the information for life just floating about in the ether waiting to alight on the right mixture of chemicals in some primordial soup? I think not! (but atheists have not yet proposed any better explanation).

However, even if such an incredible thing were possible, the question would still remain as to how this information originated within the universe? Where did it come from, and why? Hence for any atheist, the origin of DNA code itself, and the information it contains, is an impossible dilemma.

The unanswerable question for atheism is, which came first, information or matter?

Information cannot possibly create itself, but neither can matter. To suggest that either of them originated, of their own accord, from nothing, is self-evidently, utter nonsense and completely unscientific.

(Atheists will never be able to answer this question because the only logical option is - - a non-contingent first cause of all the material realm, which is eternally pre-existent, intelligent, non-material and therefore not subject to natural laws which govern all natural entities, i.e. a Supernatural Creator God).

 

Amazingly, we were told by ‘experts’ in 2004 that the discovery of the simple sugar glycoldehide in a gas cloud (known as Sagittarius B2 allegedly detected light years away in the middle of our galaxy) could explain the origin of DNA & life. (Daily Mirror newspaper, UK, 22/9/2004)

This is comparable to claiming that, if a component for making ink were to be discovered in outer space, it would explain how the complete works of Shakespeare could have originated spontaneously, of their own accord - and some people call that science - - incredible!

 

Make no mistake, atheism is just another religion.

Atheists are very fond of telling us what they don’t believe, but just what do they believe?

 

Because they reject an eternal, pre-existent, non-material first cause, every atheist is obliged to believe the preposterous notion that, the potential and information for life, as well as all the laws of nature, must have been an intrinsic property of the first matter/energy, when this matter/energy arose by its own power, and of its own volition, out of absolutely nothing, at the beginning of everything!!!! (albeit contrary to logic, common sense, and the laws of nature that govern all matter).

Surely this must be the ultimate miracle to outdo all other miracles.

Supporters of this bizarre, magical belief are very fond of describing atheism as “the only rational viewpoint,” - - -

They call such a belief rational? - - -

What do you think?

 

Atheists cannot accept that any information pre-existed the material. Therefore, matter not only had to create itself, but also its own governing laws & information, from nothing, and so the god of the atheist religion of naturalism is credited with even more creative powers than those usually attributed to an eternally pre-existing, Supernatural God.

In other words, ‘matter’ is automatically ascribed by atheist belief as a self-created, intelligent entity.

(This is completely contrary to logic, and to natural laws which describe the inherent properties and behaviour of matter and all natural occurrences, without exception).

 

“It’s just unbelievable what unbelievers are willing to believe, in order to be unbelievers” (Dr. Duane Gish)

 

Consider this ...

Long, long, long ago, in an eternal void of nothingness, a tiny cosmic egg arose of its own volition. Then, all of a sudden, the egg accidentally exploded and proceeded to expand until it became the whole universe and everything within it. 

(This is the atheistic, ‘Big Bang’, fairy story of creation in a nutshell - - - or should that be eggshell?). But where could this cosmic egg have come from? - - - who knows? - - - perhaps a cosmic chicken laid it? - - - if so - - - where did the cosmic chicken come from? - - - don’t even ask! - - - because the only thing we are absolutely sure of is that we are still waiting for any ‘Big Bang’ supporter to propose a better solution. - - - Please don’t hold your breath!

The best they have come up with so far, is that the 'nothing' in which the cosmic egg emerged, wasn't really nothing, but 'something', i.e. SPACE. But, any fool can see that this is just a device to make a ridiculous belief sound plausible. It is obviously not plausible, because they then have to explain how space (which is not nothing, but just a part of the contingent, material realm) originated, which takes the whole ridiculous idea back to square one.

 

Since information is not a physical element (and as information is a fundamental constituent of the universe and an essential feature of all life) to assert that the universe is composed solely of matter and energy is clearly wrong.

The speculated ‘Big Bang’ explosion is an accidental, purposeless and destructive event, with no directing, informational component whatsoever. As it is not possible for such a ‘Big Bang’ or any other undirected release of energy to create useful information (or any sort of order) it is patently obvious that this ‘Big Bang’ story of creation is erroneous.

 

Where has wisdom gone?

For all our modern knowledge and technology, ancient man had a wisdom in these matters which far surpasses modern ideas.

It is now almost 2 thousand years ago that Christ's Apostle John delivered the ultimate ‘theory of everything’. He understood (like many of his predecessors) that the most important factor in the question of origins is information: “In the beginning was the word” [(word: logos) = information]. John 1; 1. (the 'Word' is applied by John to Jesus Christ as true God and true man - meaning the universe was created by the Word (Jesus), by means of God's word - intelligent, constructive information).

 

All sensible people realise that information just had to come first, nothing constructive or creative can occur without information. Science tells us that, any input of raw energy alone, tends to increase entropy. Only organised or directed energy (energy with an informational component) can temporarily reverse or reduce the effects of entropy.

Without information, nothing material could exist in its present form.

Information derives only from an intelligent source, so only information from a pre-existing, supernatural, intelligent source could bring everything material into being, organise and control its construction and behaviour, and maintain its continued existence.

So the essential, single, first cause had to be both uncaused and intelligent.

There is no other logical option.

 

Belief in God did not just evolve (as some atheists keep telling us) as a means for ‘ignorant’, ‘primitive’, ‘superstitious’ humans to explain things they could not understand.

On the contrary, ancient man (from the time of Adam) fully understood (better than many of the so-called experts today) that the material universe does not contain within itself any possible means of creating itself and its essential, regulatory information, out of nothing.

A non-contingent, pre-existing, supernatural (non-material), eternal, infinite and omnipotent force had to be responsible for creating it. An essential element of that force is a supreme intelligence which has to be the original source of all information.

 

“ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE. IN HIM WAS LIFE

AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN” John 1: 3-4.

 

In this computer age, people are again beginning to understand the particular relevance of information.

A computer (the hardware) processes and stores information (the software). Without any software programming, the hardware would be useless.

As Chuck Missler points out in his book ‘Cosmic Codes; “software has no mass. (its embodiment may have weight, but the software doesn’t. It simply codes information)”.

A computer disk loaded with a million bytes of software will weigh no more than a blank disk and the information it contains can be sent invisibly through the airwaves from one point to another.

To quote Chuck Missler again “if you and I were meeting face-to-face, I would still not be able to see the real you. I would only see the temporary residence you are occupying. The real you, your personality - - call it soul, spirit, whatever - - is not visible. It is software not hardware. The codes - - your history, your accumulated responses to the events of your life, your attitudes - - are all simply informational, not physical. It is software only and software has no mass”. According to Einstein, time is a physical property - - - “that which has no mass has no time. You are eternal, that is what the Bible has declared all along. You are eternal whether you like it or not” Chuck Missler, Cosmic Codes. 1999. Koinonia house.

 

The information for life ....

Atheists and evolutionists have no idea how the first, genetic information originated. They claim 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.

 

Atheists and evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code originated. However that is not the major problem. The impression is given to the public, that evolutionists 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. It is far from the truth, as they very well know.

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. Therefore, 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 atheists 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 atheist or evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means?

 

Why God must exist.

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15818838060

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

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

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

 

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

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

View On Black

The Butterfly's Day

 

From cocoon forth a butterfly

As lady from her door

Emerged - a summer afternoon -

Repairing everywhere,

 

Without design, that I could trace,

Except to stray abroad

On miscellaneous enterprise

The clovers understood.

 

Her pretty parasol was seen

Contracting in a field

Where men made hay, then struggling hard

With an opposing cloud,

 

Where parties, phantom as herself,

To Nowhere seemed to go

In purposeless circumference,

As 't were a tropic show.

 

And notwithstanding bee that worked,

And flower that zealous blew,

This audience of idleness

Disdained them, from the sky,

 

Till sundown crept, a steady tide,

And men that made the hay,

And afternoon, and butterfly,

Extinguished in its sea.

 

...Emily Dickinson

This is a collaborative art collection where writers use my portraits to explore individual characters. As a long term project, I am hoping to publish a book containing the photographs and accompanying stories. Art, in both forms, has wonderfully varied interpretations and these are (hopefully) paired examples of how artists can work together to form more complex pieces.

 

As with my photographs, all stories published here are copyrighted.

 

Hope you enjoy and, as always, email me if you have questions, feedback, or wish to contribute.

 

Below is the first combined effort.

  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Photography by, Cassandra M. Kammerer

Short story written by, S.J.L.

   

You will never learn my real name. Some of your predecessors have asked, one even pleaded, but boundaries exist and I am quite particular. You lost all freedom when you told me your name Douglas, even if the loss was not immediately perceptible, and only by extension of my own gracious nature are you able to make these self-indulgent inquiries now. Your struggling questions are amusing, but as fruitless as the group counseling sessions to overcome your substance addiction. My confidence in your ability to fail is complete, but I offer one last recommendation: accept the vast weakness within yourself before I finish my latte and our time is up. Already shaking with confusion? Lamentable, but thankfully this is not really about you.

 

Hollow. That is the description I first wrote on my notepad about you. I see your skepticism, but here is where I circled it. Right at the top, what does it read? Page One. It took less than one minute to fully diagnose you and I have, on several occasions, encapsulated you to my colleagues as such: hollow. We are professionals and the sharing of such information was done under strict ethical code, of course. They had similar men as patients, celebrities like yourself, and needed comparative data. It is what we do, you see, we aggregate data from the weak to bolster our understanding of how not to be. Then we publish articles and books, creating our canon of behavioral norms and expectations. I choose the word canon carefully, Douglas. Your mother, who was also a patient of mine before she took her own life, was deeply fixated on a canon of her own, the Catholic worldview of her youth: heaven and hell – or, perhaps more simplified, good and evil. It was the great pendulum swinging through the landscape of her mind. Have you ever glimpsed away from yourself to ponder what it might take for a Catholic to commit suicide? How fractured she needed to be?

 

Are you actually displaying emotions for her suddenly? Where were you when she took the hatchet to her arm? Incidentally, I have always respected her choice in tools. If the magazines are to be believed, you were in Monaco, halfway through a month-long binge. You denied the veracity of those photographs, even to me; but, looking at you now, I think you are ready to admit you left the country knowing she was crumbling before your eyes. You were too weak even to try.

 

As I was saying, my colleagues and I do not see the evil or good of men. We identify weakness and prescribe strength. People like your mother, taught to worship a collapsed god, cannot be helped because their foundation is based on the archaic treatises of goatherds. Centuries of reinterpretation cannot change the simple fact her savior committed suicide, paving the way for her own. Taught to emulate weakness, and unable to locate conviction, she crawls to me, expecting her terrors and self-hate to disappear – which is not how therapy works, as you now fully appreciate.

 

How long did you wait after learning of her death before seeking my guidance? Three weeks? I remember you wore a disguise when you came through my office door. Yes, of course it was a disguise. Even in your deepest alcoholic engorgement, you never allowed yourself to be unshaven, let alone wear an Orioles ball cap. Please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming it was grief. Your girlfriend, who you may not realize has been on my weekly itinerary for over a year, told me what you said enroute to the funeral. Do you remember? No? You said, “Mom was a deranged lunatic. I am leaving this sideshow early because La Traviata opens tonight.” And you did.

 

Why am I saying these things? This is our last session, Douglas, and soon you will have found the cure to your hate-filled anxieties and the logical conclusion to your addiction. No, this is not tough love, for at least two reasons: first, a doctor cannot love her patient and remain objective; second, as previously stated, you are merely the thin shell of a human being and unworthy of anyone’s love. Hollow, remember? I am not passing judgment; I am treating you for an illness, one you have carried since you were eight years old. We have discussed the incident several times, so it should come as no shock the genesis was with the wagon, your friend Christine, and those two boys. She begged for your help when they were chasing her, but the boys threatened to take your wagon. She had even kissed you at the roller rink three weeks prior and you had exchanged valentine’s cards. For such a young age, the two of you had shared much. But you did not get out of your wagon for Christine, and those two boys brutalized her. Her parents moved to Florida shortly thereafter and you never saw her after that day. Your mother told me once she prayed desperately for that girl to pull through her surgeries, but what help did you offer?

 

You understood the ramifications of sticks and stones, right? Did their yells of victory or her screams of pain hurt you? Did you cry for her or only for yourself? You did not become feeble that day, for all children are; rather, it was the day you learned about the connection between cowardice and survival. Your addiction is the outward manifestation of the fear and weakness permeating your mind – it is the gaseous cloud filling the empty space normal people lack.

 

No, I don’t mind if you have a drink. I anticipated you might and had my secretary ensure the mini-bar was properly stocked. We are celebrating, after all – me with my latte and you with your bourbon. There is no need to bark obscenities, Douglas. You cannot visit a surgeon and become agitated when her delicate scalpel technique causes tissue to swell. The pain is natural and expected and the disease you have coruscating through your system has had twenty-nine years to fester.

 

Yes, I am a surgeon. I carve apart the minds and experiences of my patients and remove desiccation when I am allowed. Therapy is artfully complex in this way – regulatory and behavioral obstacles at every turn. Your girlfriend, Evelyn, understands this, but your mother did not. She needed me to cut her, wept for me to do so, but never once gave me permission. You are miserably similar to her in this way, refusing to sign the necessary paperwork. I am, in a sense, your five hundred dollar an hour barfly; or was, since our relationship is now over.

 

Time, nipping at your ankles, has caught hold finally. You have run dry on individuals to blame and the fiasco of your life will be reprinted for the slathering masses to devour. I know it can be heartbreaking to learn the thoughts you labeled as hope in your mind are false; however, you simply must appreciate those thoughts were never true. You would never consent to hope, not Douglas Clarion. Yes, you may have another drink; in fact, consider all three of those bottles a gift.

 

Now why would you ask me such a question? Vain until your last breath, Douglas. I grasp why women adore you, but it would be inappropriate for me to officially comment on your attractiveness. No, you may not kiss me, but it was sweet of you to ask. It lets me know you recognize I am in control. Control is the bedrock of civilized life, be it social or technological. Let’s examine your own civility: even now, knowing you will die soon if you continue, you are unable to prevent your own hand from raising that glass to your mouth; your life is chronicled for you by a professional mob armed with telescoping lenses and legally sanctioned deceit; food, clothing, and transportation is handled by servants, much like a toddler; and Evelyn counts herself fortunate if you can manage an erection more than once a month. Has there ever been anything more pathetic than a sagging philanderer?

 

No need to scowl, Douglas – it makes you seem ill-tempered and foul. I am explaining something critical, if you would pay attention. For all your wealth and luxury, you are remarkably uncivilized. By extension, I cannot in good conscience grant you the rights and privileges I do normal human beings. It is one of the fundamental reasons you are no longer my patient – I am not a veterinarian, after all.

 

There are tissues on the end-table if you wish to dry up your face, but it is time to stand up from the couch. No, I do not find you contemptible because you are crying. Everyone cries, Douglas, even me. No, I will never cry over you because you are a disgrace, filled with purposeless and unguided shame.

 

Which brings our session to its inevitable close. My latte is finished and you have managed, amazingly, to consume the entire bottle of bourbon. Be sure to try my other gifts after you arrive home tonight. I pronounce you cured. Yes, just like that. Please, Douglas, do not ruin the moment with more obscenities. I want to remember you exactly as you are right now. My secretary will collect the final payment on your way out.

 

* * * *

 

Good Morning, Jenny. Who is my nine o’clock? Mrs. Garnier? Are her files on my desk already? Very well. No, I was running late today and did not read the newspaper, what happened? Mr. Clarion was found dead in his penthouse? Was it an overdose? My my, the paparazzi will have a field day with this tragic story. Call Evelyn Wilson and schedule her tomorrow morning and cancel Garnier and my other morning appointments. I am feeling exultant today, Jenny, and will be at Linney’s having a spa facial – care to join me? My treat… Excellent. I have wanted to pick your brain for ages and this is the perfect opportunity.

EDIT:

Come HERE to download them. Enjoy!

======================

  

As you can see, most of my MOCs start in the LDD screen. Having all the Lego catalog at your disposition is a real bliss!! X-D

 

Now, all these LDD files are accumulating dust in the hard drive, which is quite purposeless. So... why not share them?

 

None of them may be particularly groundbreaking, some are old, but I would recommend checking Mladen Pejic's Discus Multipode & and the updated version of his MTP Multipode.

If you are an anime fan (like I am X-D), you may also like the Moko-style characters.

 

Please note that some of the MOCs require parts that are not yet available in LDD. Specifically, bricks 18649 and 18677

 

Note also that Dasnewten's MOCs (Lord of the Harbor and Prometheus) are not the official versions, but modified versions. For the Lord of the Harbor, check also this previously posted photo

  

Many of my MOCs are versions of other people's work. Credits to everybody!

 

Moko, dasnewten, Red Spacecat, Ewok in Disguise, Mladen Pejic, Arctic`Fox, Legohaulic and Ryan Kessler

large

 

The universe is ancient, vast, and ever-expanding. But yet, all our tiring years of evolution, accumulated knowledge, mistakes, perfections and imperfections, and inexplicable love for one another -- all will come to a dead end. The universe will contract, matter will decay, and all our existence will have been for naught. The universe will restart again, for yet another intelligent civilization to attempt to escape the inevitable.

 

Are we purposeless? Why are we here? What's the point of it all?

 

Why even bother to ask. The Creator has given us the remarkable ability to both love and be loved, and that's all that matters.

 

Black Milk.

 

Daifuku Daily Dose - a new photo (almost) every day | Portfolio | Bokehrama tutorial

This sight looked sort of nostalgic to me. I thought back to seeing 1970's concept art about giant ring cities floating above the earth, or what our future space-station colonies would look like. Bright vibrant colours, pure blue skies without cloud, and people all enjoying classic leisurely activities with the spare time that automation has provided them.

 

Marx spoke of automation being a sort of pinnacle in human evolution, a point where the most mundane of tasks were completed by machines, and where humans were free to pursue their hopes and dreams unencumbered by purposeless work. This doesn't remove work, as there will always be work that fulfills the worker, but the work that does not would be already done by automation.

 

The only thing Marx didn't see was the death-grip of capitalism. If everyone shared in the abundance of automation, Utopia becomes a reality. When only a select few control the abundance of automation, Dystopia grows closer to an inevitability.

[Soundtrack: Muse - Shrinking Universe]

 

Cast your eye

tears on to me

And I'll show you what you really need

Give too much attention

And I'll reflect your imperfections

 

Can't you see it's over

Because you're the god of a shrinking Universe

 

Purposeless survival

Now there's nothing left to die for

So don't struggle to recognize

Now the cruelly heart-felt suicide

 

Can't you see it's over

Because you're the god of a shrinking Universe

 

Can't you see it's over

Because you're the god of a shrinking Universe

- for some people, it's merely a boundary between purposeless days and restless nights.

Is matter inherently predisposed to produce life, on Earth and elsewhere in the universe, whenever conditions permit it?

And if it is, where does that predisposition come from?

 

Atheists and most evolutionists believe life originated by entirely, natural processes. They believe, and present to the public as a scientific fact, the discredited notion of abiogenesis - which is life arising of its own volition (by natural, chemical processes) from sterile matter. This is similar to the ancient idea of the spontaneous generation of life, which was a fairly common belief before it was soundly refuted by scientists such as Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur.

 

Dedicated observational and experimental scientific research, over many centuries, resulted in the Law of Biogenesis. This law rules out the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis) as impossible, it says that life only comes from existing life. This is now the reliable basis of medical and food hygiene, and is confirmed by other branches of science, such as Information Theory, the Law of Entropy (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the Laws of Probability and Law of Cause and Effect. The Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.

 

So is it possible that chemistry or physics (the physical interaction of matter and energy) can produce biology?

The properties of biology and life are completely different to those of chemistry and physics. Life embodies, not just natural laws, as in physics and chemistry, but also complex, constructive information - stored and expressed through the DNA code. Biology has its own unique properties, such as self-replication, which chemistry and physics don’t possess.

The behaviour of natural things is entirely dependent on their inherent properties. They cannot behave in ways that exceed the limits dictated by their own properties. That is the essence of natural laws which describe the scope and limits of the behaviour of natural entities according to their intrinsic properties. For natural laws to change, or not be valid, the intrinsic properties of natural entities, on which they are based, would have to change.

 

It is a major problem for atheists to explain where natural laws came from, or why they exist?

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 that 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.

 

If we consider the atheist belief; that matter is naturally predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), the question arises of where does that predisposition for life come from, and why does such a property exist in a purposeless universe?

 

The idea that the origin of life is just an inevitable consequence of the right conditions – the right chemistry or interaction of matter and energy - is routinely presented by atheists and evolutionists as a scientific fact. They believe that is how life on Earth originated - and also that life is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe, for the very same reason.

For this to be true, matter/energy would have to be inherently predisposed for the potential production of life, whenever conditions are conducive and - therefore, some sort of natural law/plan/blueprint for the creation of life would have to be an intrinsic property of matter. A basic principle of science (and common sense) is that an effect can never be greater than that which causes it. In this case the effect - LIFE - could not be greater than that which atheists allege caused it, i.e. the random interaction of matter and raw energy and chemical processes. So there has to be a directive principle existing as an intrinsic property of matter that endows it with the ability to create life.

 

So atheists are left with an impossible dilemma – if life originates as a natural result of the inherent properties of matter, i.e. a natural predisposition for life, they have to explain where that predisposition for life comes from?

It would not be possible for matter to have such a property in a purposeless universe. Therefore, the atheist belief in a natural origin of life, denotes purpose in the universe which atheists deny. This then, is a classic catch 22 situation for atheists.

Atheists cannot have it both ways, if there is no purpose in the universe, matter cannot possibly have an inherent predisposition to produce life.

Thus the atheist belief in ‘no purpose’ also means there is no possibility of a natural origin of life.

The denial of purpose negates a natural origin of life.

 

So if atheists insist on claiming a natural origin of life, they are also obliged to admit to the existence of 'purpose' in the universe.

 

Therefore, either the idea of a purposeless universe is effectively debunked, or the idea of a natural origin of life is debunked - which is it?

Atheists can take their choice?

Either way, atheism is effectively debunked.

To believe in abiogenesis means that atheism is wrong.

To not believe in abiogenesis also means atheism is wrong.

Conclusion: atheism is wrong - period.

 

____________________________________________

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

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

Lord William Kelvin.

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

 

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

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

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

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

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

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

 

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

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

 

Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...

Atheist myths debunked.

The development of order.

 

One of many questions’ atheists are unable to answer is:

Why is there order in the universe?

Order denotes purpose. Purpose requires a purposeful creation, which atheists deny.

 

There are several laws of nature and principles of science that atheists dearly wish would not exist.

Among these are:

The Law of Cause and Effect, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis.

These laws frustrate all attempts by atheists to replace God with ‘naturalism’ - their extraordinary belief that everything arose from nothing of its own volition, progressively increasing in order and potential, by entirely, natural processes.

 

Every natural, origin scenario (naturalism) defies explanation of the existence of order in the universe.

The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the building blocks of the universe, matter and energy, cannot be created by natural means.

 

The Second Law tells us matter/energy does not increase in order and potential. It tells us that, over time, the natural tendency is towards disorder and decreasing potential, from an obvious, original peak. There cannot be any natural, ongoing, development of order. This is an inconvenient fact for all atheist, natural, origin scenarios, which require the exact opposite; a simple, natural origin of matter/energy from nothing, progressively increasing in order and potential.

In addition to this inconvenient truth is the fact that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. A simple, random, chaotic, or disordered origin cannot naturally lead to a complex, ordered result. This causality principle endorses the Second Law.

The Second Law tells us order/complexity/potential does not increase naturally, but tends to decrease, and the Law of Cause and Effect tells us the result of a process cannot be superior to the totality of its original cause or causes. There cannot subsequently be more potential or order in an effect/entity than that which was intrinsic to its origin. Furthermore, the tendency, over time, is for this potential to decrease.

 

The absolute killer for atheist, origins mythology is that: even if progressively increasing order/potential in the universe was possible, it would still denote purpose.

What inherent principle could support increasing order/improvement as a likely outcome of purely, natural processes?

For example: If, as atheists are compelled to believe, matter/energy automatically progressed, of its own volition, from its origin, to acquire an inherent predisposition for the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis), which (incidentally) violates the Law of Biogenesis, they have to explain how such a predisposition/blueprint for life originated in an unconscious, unplanned, purposeless universe?

They may argue that the origin of life is a just a chance event, but the mechanism/constituents of any chance event must have the intrinsic capacity or capability to produce the chance outcome. A random, number generator may generate an unlikely combination of numbers by chance, but it cannot generate any numbers at all unless it is devised/constructed with the ability to do so. An unlikely event may happen by chance, but only if such an event is intrinsically possible. The atheist ploy, of just ignoring laws of nature, spectacularly fails.

How could the potential for constructive improvement develop autonomously in unplanned, unconscious, purposeless, dumb matter, which originated from nothing? The obvious, rational answer is that it couldn’t.

 

Atheists often employ bizarre arguments to justify their denial of the universality of laws which refute their beliefs. One of these, which has attained common currency among atheists, is the idea that snowflakes and crystals are examples of natural development of order. And that they somehow contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Here is an exchange I had with an atheist which illustrates this:

 

An atheist (Aimless Alliterations) in answer to part of my original post where I cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics, wrote this:

“Oh, goodness gracious. You tied yourself up in all sorts of knots a while back with this one . You really need to read the science and understand it before making statements like this.

Quoting me:

"The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. "

 

“Really? Where does it state this?”

 

Quoting me again:

"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered."

 

“Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system”.

 

My reply:

You wrote:

"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered." Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system."

 

I am afraid it is you who doesn’t understand the Second Law. What I said is perfectly correct.

There are only 2 ways the effects of entropy can be temporarily decreased, halted or reversed by an input of energy. Either by a directive means or agent guiding the energy input, OR a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way.

Raw (unguided) energy (such as random heat) tends to increase entropy and time makes it worse.

Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings, rather than the opposite, which evolutionists require for abiogenesis.

 

Regarding the grading of sediment, I am surprised you mention that, because we know that is how most strata are formed, which effectively demolishes the uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column and the fossil record. In this case, the grading is guided by the physical properties of the particles (size, shape, weight etc.) obeying physical laws. And, it will in time, be eroded and disorganised by the same forces that created it.

 

Abiogenesis (life arising of its own accord by natural processes from sterile matter) certainly does violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it requires a reversal of the effects of entropy.

Atheists and evolutionists often argue that abiogenesis doesn’t violate the Second Law because the Earth is an ‘open system’ which allows an input of energy from outside itself, namely the Sun.

They claim that the law of entropy only applies to ‘closed systems. This claim is obviously spurious, because firstly, we can observe entropy happening all around us. We are in the open system of the Earth, and yet we are well aware of entropy. We see that the Sun does not halt or reverse entropy, in fact we see the opposite. The raw energy and heat from the Sun, unless harnessed, does damage, things all around us obey the law - they deteriorate, rot, erode and decay, they do not naturally improve. If you paint your house, the Sun, and the weather effects caused by the Sun, will eventually damage the paintwork, it will crack and peel after a few years. The hotter the Sun (the greater the energy input) the quicker it will happen.

Secondly, even if it were true that in an open system, things can defy the law of entropy, natural laws are laws for the whole universe, and the universe, as a whole, is a closed system.

So, what can we deduce from this?

Can the effects of entropy ever be reversed of halted?

Obviously, when you paint your house, you are reversing the bad effects of entropy for a short period, but you have to keep doing it, it is not permanent. Moreover, the energy you are using to repair and temporarily reverse the effects of entropy, is directed and guided by your skill and intelligence.

So, the atheist argument about the Earth being an open system is clearly not a valid one.

To conclude: We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life.

Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?

We certainly don't see abiogenesis happening naturally today, it doesn't even happen artificially in contrived experiments. To claim it happened long ago as a one-off phenomenon in some imagined scenario is not science, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

 

Atheist reply:

Quoting me:

“Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings...”

 

“So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.

You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?”

 

My reply:

“You wrote:

"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.

You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?"

 

Oh, for goodness sake! I warned you about scouring the internet searching for answers from quack, atheist websites. They are presented by people as clueless and gullible as the people they are trying to convince, or by people who are deliberately trying to deceive the public for ideological reasons.

Atheists should know that snowflakes, crystals etc. are not examples of the development of order. By regularly presenting them as such, they reveal either their deceitfulness or their complete misunderstanding of science.

There is NO reduction in entropy, the Second Law is NOT, and CANNOT be, violated, as you claim. If you knew even the basics of the Second Law, you would not make a fool of yourself by saying it is.

 

Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the increase in complexity/order required for the origin of life.

Snowflakes, crystals etc. are simply reverting to the natural state dictated by their atomic structure as they cool. If you knew anything about the Second Law you would know that the natural, intrinsic order of matter is highest at lower temperatures. You would know that the application of raw (undirected) heat/energy increases entropy.

The natural, intrinsic order of substances is greatest at absolute zero.

That does not mean cooling causes a decrease in entropy overall, the heat/energy is transferred from one substance to its surroundings and the entropy is increased in the surroundings.

Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance to abiogenesis, because there is no increase in order above or beyond that which is intrinsic to the inherent, atomic properties of water. By lowering the temperature, the apparent increase in order is not an actual increase in, or the development of order, but simply a restoration at the atomic level to the original, natural, ordered state of water at the lower temperature.

 

If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed, and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?

According to the ridiculous, atheist analogy of snowflakes and crystals it would be. It only goes to show that atheists will clutch at any straw, however silly, to justify their ideology. They have the audacity to challenge and attempt to undermine natural laws with their nonsense and then accuse those who uphold them of being unscientific and ignorant. Their barefaced cheek never ceases to amaze me.

 

I repeat my question, which you have failed to answer:

We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life. Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?

 

The basic, inherent, atomic structure of water, and of all matter, along with natural law, is part of the initial order of the universe which became present at the moment of its creation. It is not developing order, such as that which would be required for abiogenesis or cosmic and biological evolution.”

 

Atheist reply:

“You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.

 

Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance.

 

But I'll tell you what .........rather than carry on with this nonsense I'll refer you to a very useful site that you (and anyone else) can access and it'll tell you what entropy is and how it relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't talk about origin of life or anything like that. It uses quite simple language and you need to read it and UNDERSTAND it.

entropysimple.oxy.edu/”

 

My reply:

You wrote:

"You asked for references to self-replicating information. There are many to choose from but here you go. Enjoy the bed-time reading."

 

There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun. So please stop insulting my intelligence, I have seen all this stuff before. I asked you to give me examples yourself, a simple enough request. I don't want links to internet sites (or long copy and pasted tracts) which can be found on the internet to justify virtually anything. What is your problem with actually answering questions yourself?

 

You wrote:

"You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.

Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance."

 

You accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law, after your astonishing, earlier statement:

"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible."

You, who wants to claim that (what Einstein called the premier law in science) can be violated have the audacity to accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law. Unbelievable!

The reason I used the word 'chance' is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject, which obviously doesn't include you.

Only DIRECTED energy can enable a temporary decrease in entropy, it does NOT HAPPEN by CHANCE. There has to be a guiding principle or agent either: 1) acting directly on the energy source - or: 2) a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy. A decrease in entropy doesn't happen randomly or as a 'chance' event.

You believe the atheist nonsense that snowflakes/crystals are an example of an increase in order, which demonstrates your dire knowledge of the subject.

If you knew anything about the Second Law you would not have cited such a spurious example, apparently you are willing to believe anything you read on atheist/evolutionist websites as though it is gospel.

Perhaps you can address the question I asked in my last post: If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape? But I doubt it, answering questions is not exactly your forte. You would rather nit pick about the qualifications of anyone who disagrees with atheist pseudoscience.

 

Atheist reply:

Quoting me:

“There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun."

 

“Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself.

 

If you were aware of such research would you have written the nonsense you pour forth? ............Probably.

 

You also appear to have some sort of cognitive dissonance as far as the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy. I provide you with an excellent resource and you fail to take advantage of it to understand the subject matter properly.

That really is astonishing!

All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy.”

 

My reply:

You wrote:

"Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself."

 

No! You are either too lazy to answer any questions yourself, or you are unable to. I suspect it is the latter, because you have already demonstrated from previous remarks that your knowledge of the subject is absolutely dire. Yet you insist on continuing to try to bluff it out, by either copying or pasting other people's work or posting links to anything you think supports your argument.

I'm afraid you have been sussed.

You have already put your foot in it - big time, by citing snowflakes and crystals as an example of developing order.

You mistakenly thought all you had to do to win an argument was to parrot stuff direct from an atheist/evolutionist website. When, in fact, parroting the sort of pseudoscientific rubbish that atheist/evolutionist websites are filled with, is a sure way of making yourself look extremely foolish.

 

You wrote:

"All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy"

 

What sort of damn-fool answer is that?

I asked: "If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?"

IS IT AN INCREASE IN ORDER OR NOT?

Please answer the question.

Because if it isn't an increase in order, it completely demolishes both your snowflake/crystal argument and the credibility of atheist/evolutionist so-called 'science'.

No wonder you don't want to answer.

 

**************************************************

Four and a half years later.

I am still waiting for any atheist to answer the rubber ball question?

 

The full debate can be seen here:

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/16208667768

___________________________________

Another argument employed by atheists to justify their denial of the Law of Cause and Effect is ‘quantum mechanics’.

Their claim being; because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused.

This is complete nonsense, quantum effects may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED, physical universe.

The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous, because whatever caused the whole universe, is the original cause of everything within it.

Furthermore, just because directly traceable causes cannot be determined, doesn’t mean a direct cause doesn’t exist.

For example:

It can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance.

So, just because, in some instances, direct causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesn’t mean there is no cause.

 

Quantum effects - The smoke and mirrors trick.

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35908166441

 

Evolution, multi-million year timescale refured.

Rapid strata formation - field evidence.

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

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

.

  

.

 

..

  

Kentville Grand Street Parade May 27th 2023 Main Street Kentville -

  

.

  

A loss of inclusion and diversity in 2023 - The exclusion of so many of the participating Valley towns that normally attend and the susbsequent denial of their valued diversity have marred the 2023 Grand Street Parade ? Many nearby Valley communities are missing from this years Parade when longtime loyal participants were no longer included in the Kentville Grand Street Parade ? Where is Canning, Digby, Annapolis Royal, Hantsport Greenwood, Windsor ? Where's Queen Annapolisa ? Where's the Apple Blossom Princesses and all of the individual Town floats including Princess Kentville ? To view a complete (newcomer version) of the world famous Kentville Grand Street Parade press here www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie

 

.

  

.

  

.

 

On the recent 2023 edition of the Grand Street Parade :

  

"it looked as if some spectators along the route just joined in and began to walk along and make themselves a part of the parade ? "

 

May 27th, 2023 - Dismay, disillusion and some extreme disappointment prevail in Kentville over shocking changes and many missing regular entrees in this years 2023 Grand Street Parade ? Where is our famous Queen Annapolisa and where are the many Apple Blossom Princesses and their child attendants riding in their beautiful hand crafted decorated floats ? Where's the town criers ? And what about the dazzling majorette groups, the Scottish pipers and large multi instrumental marching bands that always attend ? And where are the Hantsport and Windsor floats and their large delegations ? And where are Digby, Aylesford, Annapolis Royal, Canning, Middleton, Wolfville, and more ? Why are so many of the Valley towns and villages that normally participate not included in the parade this year ? It was also a major disappointment for many when for the first time ever, Kentville Apple Blossom Princess (aka Miss Kentville) was no longer included as there are many town residents young and old who identify with the Apple Blossom Princess at this time of year ? However, the now purposeless Apple Blossom Princess float was used this year to transport a grouping of everyday town residents as they sat around together in a social scene meant to identity Kentville with diversity and inclusion ? The New Minas float also did not include an Apple Blossom Princess for this year, however her float was transformed into an advertisement for the famous New Minas UFO incident which all New Minions identify with. The Berwick float didn't include a Princess Berwick this year either. but was altered to proudly identify with the town's upcoming Centennial celebrations. And the Kingston float was also missing an Apple Blossom Princess this year but was instead promoting their long running Kingston Steer Barbecue that all Kingstonians readily identify with. It was good to see an RCMP contingent again although they sent far less officers this year than usual ? And it was notable that only 1 other large marching band appeared in the parade when usually 4 or more big bands, many with many pipers usually attend after traveling up from places like Cape Breton, Bridgewater, Dartmouth etc ? And where have all the pets and animals gone ? There's no horse teams, wooden wagons, riders or livestock this year ? Even the usual greyhound dogs weren't there ? Also noticed that some spectators must have just joined in and began walking along within the parade, and others must have come over from the Children's parade with their strollers to join in ? There was a variety of advertisers, most from out of town but some local ? There were various Political parties represented, with the largest delegation coming from the Kody Blois Liberals ? All in all, this Year's parade seemed a bare minimum and a weak effort that really missed the inclusion of royal pageantry and the 7 to 10 spectacular Princess floats, and also missed the large marching bands and majorette groups that usually enter, the usual agriculture horticulture and livestock component, the popular Scottish pipers bands that always attend, and also the many large out of town contingents that always normally participate ? This was not the famous grand street parade that patrons are accustomed to seeing, and did not represent the high standards and degree of professionalism set by all previous Grand Street Parades ? It became obvious that what was being advertised as a newer, bolder, more inclusive and more diverse parade was instead the exact opposite because this new version of our Grand Street Parade had lost the inclusion, diversity and the major contribution put forth by the absent Valley communities along with their individual Princess contestants and Child attendants that always come to Kentville to participate in the Queen Annapolisa competition, the Friday evening coronation gala at Acadia University in Wolfville, the many Princess Teas, and the Royal attendances at schools, hospitals, senior citizen homes and shut-ins, as well as appearances at the Friday night Memorial Park outdoor concert and fireworks, Royal attendances highlighting the Saturday morning Children's Parade, and a Royal trip down Main street Kentville aboard a beautiful hand crafted royal float in the famous Grand Street parade ?

And so, to quickly sum up, can a strange looking, incomplete, shortened, now Royal-less, newcomer mentality amateur version of our elite world-famous Kentville Grand Street Parade that was now missing her heinous Queen Annapolisa and also missing 7 to 10 Apple Blossom Princesses and their individual 7 to 10 beautifully handcrafted Town Princess floats, and also missing much of the unique character and diversity usually provided by the numerous Valley villages and communities who were no longer included, and that also failed to include many of the large out of town marching bands and pipers and majorettes who usually attend, and that also lacked representation from local area farming, agriculture and livestock,, now signal the end of the once glorious Grand Street Parade era ?

.

  

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

  

.

  

Following a 2 year absence due to Covi,, the 2022 Annapolis Valley Apple Blossom Festival. (and Parade) will be held as per usual this year.. Unfortunately the Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess competition has had to be postponed until next year due to time constraints.

  

.

  

.

  

Shocking news from ABF,

  

* There's been a stunning development at ABF. *

 

Apparently in a new younger generation there are those who harbor resentment towards our nations history, for English colonialism, and even for the Monarchy ? Other minority groups have voiced discontent over the diversity and inclusion issue ? And so it seems that the current ABF Board of Directors has listened to the concerns and complaints of a few small minority groups while apparently ignoring and excluding the overwhelming majority of Valley residents ? And it appears that this current Board of Directors chose to resolve such discontent by simply moving to implement and execute the nuclear option and the final solution ? And therefore after a highly successful lengthy run of 87 consecutive years in a row, the extremely anticipated, very popular, family oriented, inclusive and diverse, multi village Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess Pageant along with the prestigious Royal Coronation crowning ceremonies held in Wolfville have all been terminated forever by this current board of Directors ?

  

.

  

-----------------------It's The End of an Era-----------------------------

  

"We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep."

  

Annapolis Valley Apple Blossom Festival 2023 - ABF Board of Directors has announced drastic new changes in format and even deeper cut-backs to the annual People's Festival ? Concerns over ceremony, symbolism, the monarchy and colonialism, along with some complaints over inclusion and diversity may have had an influence on the current ABF board of Directors and they have seen a need to update the long running Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess pageant in order to bring it up to a standard they view as being more relevant to the current times ? And so the Directors must have held an extremely private 'think tank' last Winter, and without notifying, caring, considering or consulting with any of the long time participating Valley communities, they had decided that rather than trouble themselves any further with this pesky issue, why not just take the easy way out and simply get rid of it ? And so it seems they made a final decision in private last Winter and moved to execute the final and fatal solution to their problem by ordering that the iconic 87 year old Pageant competition be immediately shut down and terminated forever ? And therefore, as a result of an uninclusive and uncontested decision made in private, one of the longest running, popular, identifiable, well known, highly anticipated, most inclusive and diverse, proud all family events that has ever benefited Valley residents of every age, has just been taken away ?

This unconditional act of finality will now end the long running 88 year reign of her royal Heinous Queen Annapolisa and will terminate all participation of the 7 to 10 Apple Blossom Princess contestants and their child attendants that represent 7 to 10 local Valley communities ? It will also mean the end of the many beautiful hand crafted award winning Princess floats that always highlight Grand Street Parade, and it will also signal the end of the ultra glamorous Queen and Ladies-in-waiting Crowning ceremonies held annually and televised each year from Acadia University in Wolfville ? This also puts an end to the many popular community Princess Tea events, and also ends all Royal Party visitations to local Schools, hospitals and old folks homes that are so welcome and appreciated by Students, Seniors and shut-ins ? This also signals the end of Royal Party appearances at Kentville Children's Parade, at the Memorial Park Friday night open air concert and fireworks, and all Royal attendances at many other events held annually throughout the Valley and the Province ?

It appears now that current ABF Officials led by President Logan Morse along with Kentville town rep Lindsey Young have not only interrupted the Pageant in 2022 when they temporarily postponed it, but have now in 2023 moved to terminate this prestigious event forever explaining that their radical decision has been made to improve, include, modernize and evolve the famed beauty pageant ? This final act of termination ends almost 90 years of royal pageantry and also leaves a huge gap in the Festival itself ? It will also negatively affect so many of the nearby Valley communities who always participate and enter contestants in the Pageant ? The ending of such an important multiple community event and the taking away of the better half and Star of the Apple Blossom Festival brings forth the question of what replacement is planned, and what are local towns and villages that always play major roles in both the Queen and Princess competition suppose to do now ? And what about Valley youth and the childhood dreams of one day becoming a child attendant or an Apple Blossom Princess or even a Queen ?

You have to marvel at the level of ego and disrespect shown by this latest Board of Directors who have dared appoint themselves as the ones that will end the Pageant and then to think that Valley residents are stupid enough to believe that by cancelling and taking away a cherished and long running event, that they have in some perverted way of thinking moved the Valley forward or improved and modernized anything ? It seems far more likely that they have taken the Valley on a giant step backwards and they have robbed the people of a much beloved, long running, multi community, all inclusive, local production that has always been a highly anticipated all Valley highlight for the past almost 90 consecutive years ?

Why current ABF Management who have applied themselves to be the stewards who are in charge and responsible for the promotion and presentation of this event, appear as unable to perform their duties and do the job they are compensated to do and do what their predecessors have always done so well before them each and every year for the past 87 years often in far more trying circumstances and in far less prosperous times, is hard to understand ? And you have to wonder, Whatever happened to the # 1 rule in business that says that if you can't do the job because of inexperience, immaturity, inability, incompetency, bias, or just plain stupidity, then,, You're all FIRED ! (and a Class action recovery suit may be forthcoming ?)

  

ABF news updates :

  

Logan Morse and a newcomer ABF Board of Directors break the hearts of Valley families especially the Children when moving to terminate the historic and long running Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess Pageant after 88 years ? Directors show no remorse, only saying that bold action was needed to improve, evolve and bring the pageant up to their modern standards ? www.pressreader.com/canada/annapolis-valley-register/2023...

 

May 26, 2023 - We Are the Ones. An unusual degree of disrespect shown when the long running all Valley Peoples Pageant is cancelled without either of consideration or consultation ? A modern generation of newcomer ABF Directors with bold new ideas have apparently proclaimed themselves to be the generation that will interrupt and then permanently end 88 years of wonderful multi Valley village Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess enjoyment ?

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/apple-blossom-festival...

 

Annapolis Valley families are in shock and children cry upon learning their beloved Queen Annapolisa Pageant has been cancelled without notice, consultation, consideration or compassion ? Newcomer Directors say they are taking this bold action to improve, evolve and modernize the historic Annapolis Valley Apple Blossom Festival ? www.saltwire.com/atlantic-

 

Valley residents lose a long time major public yearly entertainment event after the ever popular ABF Greenwood Airshow is terminated and will be no more. Fast forward to Aug 24, 2024, and corporate greed ? Air Show Atlantic Inc. now charges big bucks to see taxpayer owned aircraft at a taxpayer owned airport in a far inferior airshow ?

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/52345513615

 

Kentville IS the Cornwallis Inn and the Cornwallis Inn IS Kentville ! If you were to google the 2 words Cornwallis Inn you will get over 600,000 entries with almost all of them married to the word Kentville.. (what a great promotional tool) . The world famous Cornwallis Inn is the source of many fond memories for all local and Valley residents.. "It was the centre of everything’: The past and present of Kentville’s iconic Cornwallis Inn"

www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/lifestyles/it-was-the-centre...

 

Kentville, an identity crisis. Help, Is there a Superhero out there to save Kentville from the newconers ? www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/51811175986/in/album-7...

 

The controversial 2017 Grand Street Parade - Has Kentville once again been the target of exploitation ? After Warden Brothers, (Greenwood ) and Liberal MP L Glavine (Kingston) had all but hijacked Waterville Airport and then relocated it to their own home riding in the Kingston/Greenwood area, it seems that the town of Kentville must face yet another attack from the Kingston area when Alxys Chamberlain, the Kingston Apple Blossom Princess, and ABF Directors attempt to take yet another major source of revenue and major attraction away from the town of Kentville ?

Et tu, Madama Chamberlain ? The unconscionable attempted hijacking and subsequent recovery of Kentvilles's most beloved yearly event ?

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/18506181065

 

2023 Kentville Grand Street Parade - Disregard for safety shown as unrestrained Senior citizens are precariously perched atop an unshaded, no sided, stop and go, large unstable jerking motion moving platform ?

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/53900780519/in/album-7...

 

Exploiting a Queen for a photo op ? Politicians at the official opening of the 2023 Apple Blossom Festival pretend that there's still a Pageant while knowing full well that Queen Annapolisa has been terminated forever and will no longer be a part of this Festival ? www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/53755100811/in/album-7...

 

2023 Kentville Grand Street Parade ABF stewards defy Trudeau's call for diversity and inclusion ? Many nearby local Valley towns and villages that always normally attend are now excluded from the parade ? This exclusion also means an absence of the diversity provided from the attendance of these many local communities ? Where is Canning, Digby, Annapolis Royal, Hantsport Greenwood, Windsor ? Where's Queen Annapolisa ? Where's the Apple Blossom Princesses and all of the individual Town floats including Princess Kentville ? To view the complete 2023 Kentville Grand Street Parade press here, www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie

 

89th Kentville Grand Street Parade May 27th 2023,, It's the sad ending of an Era ? ABF Organizers take away tremendous diversity when all Royal proceedings have been excluded from this years festival, www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/52934419451

 

Facebook, Friends of Kentville - The site Administrator, a new arrival from PEI, says she wants to see Kentville as the queerest town in all of Nova Scotia ? www.facebook.com/groups/2588266877982288

 

Will a drag Queen replace an apple blossom Queen in Kentville ? www.nsbuzz.ca/life/kentville-all-ages-drag-show-draws-pro...

 

Nov 16 2023 - Apple Blossom Princesses call for a return of Queen Annapolisa,

www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/communities/former-apple...

 

The Town of Kentville has moved to cut back and eliminate many hours of public outdoor entertainment that were held as a part of the Apple Blossom Festival ?

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/52094784785

 

A medley of the guest Tribute bands that have performed at Memorial Park Kentville - Always free of charge in the past at the Apple Blossom Festival : Petty Larceny, Fleetwod Mix, Keep the Faith, Stones Tribute, Green River Revival, Viscious, Eddy's Basement, Matt Minglewood,

www.dailymotion.com/video/x5hqti9

 

Mean corporate greed is shown by the newcomer ABF directors in this years Apple Blossom Festival ? Instead of providing a free guest Tribute band at the free Memorial Park Friday night concert, it will now cost 50.00 pp to see the 'Queen tribute band' performance. that's 50.00 per ticket in 2025 ? acadiau.universitytickets.com/

 

A Scrooge-like cheap Town of Kentville rips off its own citizens (and right at Apple Blossom Festival time) ? Cold capitalism shown by Town of Kentville and by the newcomer ABF management ? Citizens burdened with an out of pocket expense of TWENTY DOLLARS each just to attend an outdoor street dance held downtown on taxpayer owned property during Apple Blossom Festival ? Is there no sense of shame ? www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54546051832/in/photost...

 

She's Ruined It ! Our great Festival is no longer even recognizable ? How could anyone take a world class event and turn it into something that can only be described as stupid ? President Erica Gillis has to be the worst ever ?

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54493011308/in/dateposted

 

2025 Kentville Grand Street Parade - A brief 45-minute and a very limited and compacted Kentville Grand Street Parade this year ? Zero large marching street bands and majorettes invited other than 1 mini version of the standard RCMP entrée, No Sottish pipers or pipe bands, zero in Royalty or their famous royal floats, Most of the regular nearby Valley village participants weren't here, Zero horses or wagons, No armaments, soldiers, bands or displays from the Aldershot military or Greenwood, etc etc, ? And yet the Guest parade announcer proclaims in quote @ 29:17, " this parade is the largest in Canada, incl Toronto - it's the longest with the largest route and has the most entries. " Wha-a-a-t, where did she come from and what is she talkin about ?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQuaIdrQi00

 

Mayor in Kentville Grand Street Parade - A new Royal rider rolls down Main Street aboard the Kentville Apple Blossom Princess float ? This year the newcomer Mayor graces the royal throne. 'Somebody get that king a crown and scepter '

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54557663677/in/dateposted

 

they've ruined it part 2 ? May 31st, 2025 Grand Street Parade - From 100,000 down to 10,000, Parade attendance shrinks to all time low, www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54568017261/in/photost.... Also see, They've ruined the Festival and the Parade too ?

www.facebook.com/avabf

 

ABF Directors may disapprove and may have terminated the beloved Queen Annapolisa pageant and the multiple village Apple Blossom Princess competition but Valley residents will always admire, support, respect and remain fond of the British Monarchy. The majority of Valley citizens are delighted to hear that his Majesty King Charles III and Queen Camilla are invited and will be coming for a royal visit to Canada on May 26 and 27, 2025. This year's incomplete and now Royalty-less ABF starts on the 28th, www.cbc.ca/news/politics/king-charles-canada-visit-1.7524946

 

The long proud history of past Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess winners has been removed from sight and erased from the official Annapolis Valley Apple Blossom Festival website ? A special honorary history page dedicated to previous Queen Annapolisa winners from 1933 thru 2019 has been taken down and apparently replaced with jumbo size portraits of the newcomer President and other ABF directors who have taken over and ruined the world famous Annapolis Valley Apple Blossom Festival ? www.appleblossom.com/history/past-queens

Meet the directors,

www.appleblossom.com/about/

  

May 30th, 2025 - a 20 dollar hamburger and a ride on the bouncycastle ? High level security enforcement brought in for this years ABF Memorial Park Friday night rock concert ? ( must have taken up most of the budget ) ? Town of Kentville brings in outside police, closes roads, and sets up security perimiter with manned guard posts to provide tightened security for their Friday night Memorial Park Apple Blossom outdoor concert that in the past had always featured guest rock bands, interesting displays, and a Royal visit following the glamorous coronation ceremony in Wolfville, but has now been cut down to some kind of an outdoor romper room type family show featuring food trucks, fireworks, air blown bouncy jumpers and minimal live local entertainment on the main stage ? It has been reported that a parking violator was successfully apprehended thanks to the upgraded crowd control security and strict traffic control hired by the Board for this occasion ? www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54558198569

 

May 30th, 2025 Memorial Park Kentville - Seniors and those with disabilities are made to walk long distances in order to reach this year's disappointing ABF Friday night outdoor rock Concert that didn't bring in a rock band, (nor much of anything else) ? www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54558198569/in/photost...

 

Oct 4th, 2025 - Kentville Harvest Festival Centre Square, A disappointing harvest festival this year that forgot about hayrides, pumpkin people making, the harvest and the farmer ?https://www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54835089011/in/photostream/

  

Upgrade 2025 ? taken from the front of Phinneys dept store - a massive expenditure is budgeted for a major upgrade to the Mayor's business backyard - Downtown Kentville Webster Street gets a complete and total beautification makeover with new installations of street paving, paint, new sidewalks both sides, driveway entrances, and new curb and gutter both sides ? All the other streets that surround the Phinneys' downtown business block have also been upgraded including Aberdeen Street, Cornwallis Street, and Main Street ?

 

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54835340734/in/photost...

  

Some previous parades :

 

2011 Grand Street Parade Kentville 79th ABF

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVgh3Dh2xn8&t=208s

  

2012 Grand Street Parade Kentville www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB1VBx50b18

  

2014 Kentville Grand Street Parade www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEo14IZKxp8&t=11s

  

2015 Kentville Grand Street Parade

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBifeG2SdPY&t=47s

 

2016 Kentville Grand Street Parade www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2wedvN5_Iw&t=8s

 

2017 Kentville Grand Street Parade www.youtube.com/watch?v=JozwyGpvfSY&t=1978s

 

2018 Kentville Grand Street Parade www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOK1GmiLmNk&t=986s

 

2019 Kentville Grand Street Parade www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMdEx8Zf-q0&t=1492s

 

2023 Grand Street Parade - To view a complete (newcomer version) of the deteriorated famous Kentville Grand Street Parade press here www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie

 

They've ruined the Festival and the Parade too ?

www.facebook.com/avabf

 

A concerned Kentvillian must finally speak out, www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/44424045874

  

Kentville is an incorporated town in Nova Scotia. It is the most populous town in the Annapolis Valley. As of 2021, the town's population was 6,630.

  

.

 

A Sari, saree, sadi, or shari is a South Asian female garment that consists of a drape varying from 4.5 metres to 8 metres in length and 60 cm to 1.20 m in breadth that is typically wrapped around the waist, with one end draped over the shoulder, baring the midriff.

 

The sari is usually worn over a petticoat (called 'parkar' (परकर) in Marathi lahaṅgā or lehenga in the north; seelai in Tamil, pavada (or occasionally langa) in Malayalam, Kannada and Telugu, chaniyo, parkar, ghaghra, or ghagaro in the west; and shaya in eastern India), with a fitted upper garment commonly called a blouse (ravike in South India and choli elsewhere). The blouse has short sleeves and is usually cropped at the midriff. The sari is associated with grace and is widely regarded as a symbol of Indian, Nepalese, Bangladesh, and Sri Lankan cultures.

 

ETYMOLOGY

The word sari described in Sanskrit शाटी śāṭī which means 'strip of cloth' and शाडी śāḍī or साडी sāḍī in Prakrit, and which was corrupted to sāṛī in Hindi. The word 'Sattika' is mentioned as describing women's attire in ancient India in Buddhist Jain literature called Jatakas. This could be equivalent to modern day 'Sari'. The term for female bodice, the choli is derived from another ruling clan from ancient Tamil Nadu, the Cholas. Rajatarangini (meaning the 'river of kings'), a tenth-century literary work by Kalhana, states that the Choli from the Deccan was introduced under the royal order in Kashmir.

 

ORIGINS AND HISTORY

In the history of Indian clothing the sari is traced back to the Indus Valley Civilisation, which flourished during 2800–1800 BC around the western part of the Indian subcontinent. Sari draping leaves back, cleavage, and side view of belly bare. The origin of such exposing attire can be attributed to humid climate of the land. The earliest known depiction of the sari in the Indian subcontinent is the statue of an Indus Valley priest wearing a drape.

 

Ancient Tamil poetry, such as the Silappadhikaram and the Sanskrit work, Kadambari by Banabhatta, describes women in exquisite drapery or sari. The ancient stone inscription from Gangaikonda Cholapuram in old Tamil scripts has a reference to hand weaving. In ancient Indian tradition and the Natya Shastra (an ancient Indian treatise describing ancient dance and costumes), the navel of the Supreme Being is considered to be the source of life and creativity, hence the midriff is to be left bare by the sari.

 

Sculptures from the Gandhara, Mathura and Gupta schools (1st–6th century AD) show goddesses and dancers wearing what appears to be a dhoti wrap, in the "fishtail" version which covers the legs loosely and then flows into a long, decorative drape in front of the legs. No bodices are shown.

 

Other sources say that everyday costume consisted of a dhoti or lungi (sarong), combined with a breast band called 'Kurpasika' or 'Stanapatta' and occasionally a wrap called 'Uttariya' that could at times be used to cover the upper body or head. The two-piece Kerala mundum neryathum (mundu, a dhoti or sarong, neryath, a shawl, in Malayalam) is a survival of ancient Indian clothing styles. The one-piece sari is a modern innovation, created by combining the two pieces of the mundum neryathum.

 

It is generally accepted that wrapped sari-like garments for lower body and sometimes shawls or scarf like garment called 'uttariya' for upper body, have been worn by Indian women for a long time, and that they have been worn in their current form for hundreds of years. In ancient couture the lower garment was called 'nivi' or 'nivi bandha', while the upper body was mostly left bare. The works of Kalidasa mentions 'Kurpasika' a form of tight fitting breast band that simply covered the breasts. It was also sometimes referred to as 'Uttarasanga' or 'Stanapatta'.

 

The tightly fitted, short blouse worn under a sari is a choli. Choli evolved as a form of clothing in the 10th century AD, and the first cholis were only front covering; the back was always bare but covered with end of saris pallu. Bodices of this type are still common in the state of Rajasthan.

 

In South India and especially in Kerala, women from most Hindu communities wore only the sari and exposed the upper part of the body till the middle of the 20th century.Poetic references from works like Silappadikaram indicate that during the Sangam period in ancient Tamil Nadu, a single piece of clothing served as both lower garment and head covering, leaving the midriff completely uncovered. Similar styles of the sari are recorded paintings by Raja Ravi Varma in Kerala. By the mid 19th century, though, bare breasted styles of the sari faced social revaluation and led to the Upper cloth controversy in the princely state of Travancore (now part of the state of Kerala) and the styles declined rapidly within the next half a century.

 

In ancient India, although women wore saris that bared the midriff, the Dharmasastra writers stated that women should be dressed such that the navel would never become visible. By which for some time the navel exposure became a taboo and the navel was concealed.

 

Red wedding saris are the traditional garment choice for brides in Indian culture. Sari fabric is also traditionally silk. Over time, colour options and fabric choices for Indian brides have expanded. Today fabrics like crepe, Georgette, charmeuse, and satin are used, and colours have been expanded to include gold, pink, orange, maroon, brown, and yellow as well. Indian brides in Western countries often wear the sari at the wedding ceremony and change into traditional Indian wear afterwards (lehnga, choli, etc.).

 

STYLES OF DRAPING

There are more than 80 recorded ways to wear a sari. Fashion designer Aaditya sharma declared, "I can drape a sari in 54 different styles".

 

The most common style is for the sari to be wrapped around the waist, with the loose end of the drape to be worn over the shoulder, baring the midriff. However, the sari can be draped in several different styles, though some styles do require a sari of a particular length or form. The French cultural anthropologist and sari researcher Chantal Boulanger categorised sari drapes in the following families:

 

- Nivi – styles originally worn in Andhra Pradesh; besides the modern nivi, there is also the kaccha nivi, where the pleats are passed through the legs and tucked into the waist at the back. This allows free movement while covering the legs.

- Bengali and Odia style.

- Gujarati/Rajasthani/Pakistani – after tucking in the pleats similar to the nivi style, the loose end is taken from the back, draped across the right shoulder, and pulled across to be secured in the back

- Maharashtrian/Konkani/Kashta; this drape is very similar to that of the male Maharashtrian dhoti. The centre of the sari (held lengthwise) is placed at the centre back, the ends are brought forward and tied securely, then the two ends are wrapped around the legs. When worn as a sari, an extra-long cloth of nine yards is used and the ends are then passed up over the shoulders and the upper body. They are primarily worn by Brahmin women of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Goa.

- Madisar – this drape is typical of Iyengar/Iyer Brahmin ladies from Tamil Nadu. Traditional Madisar is worn using 9 yards saree.

- Kodagu style – this drape is confined to ladies hailing from the Kodagu district of Karnataka. In this style, the pleats are created in the rear, instead of the front. The loose end of the sari is draped back-to-front over the right shoulder, and is pinned to the rest of the sari.

- Gobbe Seere – This style is worn by women in the Malnad or Sahyadri and central region of Karnataka. It is worn with 18 molas saree with three four rounds at the waist and a knot after crisscrossing over shoulders.

- Gond – sari styles found in many parts of Central India. The cloth is first draped over the left shoulder, then arranged to cover the body.

- Malayali style – the two-piece sari, or Mundum Neryathum, worn in Kerala. Usually made of unbleached cotton and decorated with gold or coloured stripes and/or borders. Also the Kerala sari, a sort of mundum neryathum.

- Tribal styles – often secured by tying them firmly across the chest, covering the breasts.

 

Kunbi style or denthli:Goan Gauda and Kunbis,and those of them who have migrated to other states use this way of draping Sari or Kappad, this form of draping is created by tying a knot in the fabric below the shoulder and a strip of cloth which crossed the left shoulder was fasten on the back.

 

NIVI STYLE

The nivi is today's most popular sari style from Andhra Pradesh. The increased interaction with the British saw most women from royal families come out of purdah in the 1900s. This necessitated a change of dress. Maharani Indira Devi of Cooch Behar popularised the chiffon sari. She was widowed early in life and followed the convention of abandoning her richly woven Baroda shalus in favour of the traditional unadorned white. Characteristically, she transformed her "mourning" clothes into high fashion. She had saris woven in France to her personal specifications, in white chiffon, and introduced the silk chiffon sari to the royal fashion repertoire.

 

The chiffon sari did what years of fashion interaction had not done in India. It homogenised fashion across this land. Its softness, lightness and beautiful, elegant, caressing drape was ideally suited to the Indian climate. Different courts adopted their own styles of draping and indigenising the sari. In most of the courts the sari was embellished with stitching hand-woven borders in goldfrom Varanasi, delicate zardozi work, gota, makaish and tilla work that embellished the plain fabric, simultaneously satisfying both traditional demands and ingrained love for ornamentation. Some images of maharanis in the Deccan show the women wearing a sleeveless, richly embellished waistcoat over their blouses. The Begum of Savanur remembers how sumptuous the chiffon sari became at their gatherings. At some courts it was worn with jaali, or net kurtas and embossed silk waist length sadris or jackets. Some of them were so rich that the entire ground was embroidered over with pearls and zardozi.

 

Nivi drape starts with one end of the sari tucked into the waistband of the petticoat, usually a plain skirt. The cloth is wrapped around the lower body once, then hand-gathered into even pleats below the navel. The pleats are tucked into the waistband of the petticoat. They create a graceful, decorative effect which poets have likened to the petals of a flower. After one more turn around the waist, the loose end is draped over the shoulder. The loose end is called the pallu, pallav, seragu, or paita depending on the language. It is draped diagonally in front of the torso. It is worn across the right hip to over the left shoulder, partly baring the midriff. The navel can be revealed or concealed by the wearer by adjusting the pallu, depending on the social setting. The long end of the pallu hanging from the back of the shoulder is often intricately decorated. The pallu may be hanging freely, tucked in at the waist, used to cover the head, or used to cover the neck, by draping it across the right shoulder as well. Some nivi styles are worn with the pallu draped from the back towards the front, coming from the back over the right shoulder with one corner tucked by the left hip, covering the torso/waist. The nivi sari was popularised through the paintings of Raja Ravi Varma. In one of his paintings, the Indian subcontinent was shown as a mother wearing a flowing nivi sari. The ornaments generally accepted by the Hindu culture that can be worn in the midriff region are the waist chains. They are considered to be a part of bridal jewellery.

 

PROFESSIONAL STYLE OF DRAPING

Because of the harsh extremes in temperature on the Indian Subcontinent, the sari fills a practical role as well as a decorative one. It is not only warming in winter and cooling in summer, but its loose-fitting tailoring is preferred by women who must be free to move as their duties require. For this reason, it is the clothing of choice of air hostesses on Air India. This led to a professional style of draping a sari which is referred to "Air-Hostess style sari". An air hostess style sari is tied in just the same way as a normal sari except that the pleats are held together quite nicely with the help of pins. A bordered sari will be just perfect for an Air-Hostess style drape where the pallu is heavily pleated and pinned on the shoulder. Even the vertical pleats that are tucked at the navel are severely pleated and pressed. Same goes for the pallu pleats that are pinned at the shoulder. To get the perfect "Air-hostess" a complimentary U-shaped blouse that covers the upper body completely is worn which gives a very elegant and formal look. Mastering the "Air-hostess" style drape helps to create the desired impact in a formal setting like an interview or a conference.

 

Saris are worn as uniforms by the female hotel staff of many five star luxury hotels in India as symbol of culture. Recently, in a makeover design, Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces, decided the welcoming staff at the group's Luxury Hotels would be draped in the rich colours and designs of the Banarasi six yards. The new saris were unveiled at the Taj property in Mumbai. It will be subsequently replicated at all 10 Luxury Hotels of the group across the country for duty managers and front office staff. Taj had adopted three villages in Varanasi and employed 25 master weavers there for the project. The vision finally took shape after 14 months, once the weavers had a good work environment, understood the designs and fine-tuned the motifs.

 

Similarly, the female politicians of India wear the sari in a professional manner. The women of Nehru–Gandhi family like Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi wear the special blouse for the campaign trail which is longer than usually and is tucked in to prevent any midriff show while waving to the crowds.Stylist Prasad Bidapa has to say, "I think Sonia Gandhi is the country's most stylish politician. But that's because she's inherited the best collection of saris from her mother-in-law. I'm also happy that she supports the Indian handloom industry with her selection." BJP politician Sushma Swaraj maintains her prim housewife look with a pinned-up pallu while general secretary of AIADMK Jayalalithaa wears her saris like a suit of armour.

 

SARIS IN INDIAN LAW

In 2014, an Indian family court in Mumbai ruled that a husband objecting to his wife wearing a kurta and jeans and forcing her to wear a sari amounts to cruelty inflicted by the husband and can be a ground to seek divorce. The wife was thus granted a divorce on the ground of cruelty as defined under section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act, 1954.

 

BANGLADESH

Sharee or saree (in Bengali=শাড়ি) is the national wear of Bangladeshi women. Most women who are married wear sharee as their regular dress while young-unmarried girls wear sharee as an occasional dress. The shari is worn by women throughout Bangladesh. Sari is the most popular dress for women in Bangladesh, both for casual and formal occasion. Although Dhakai Jamdani (hand made shari) is worldwide known and most famous to all women who wear shari but there are also many variety of shari in Bangladesh.There are many regional variations of them in both silk and cotton. e.g.- Tanta/Tant cotton shari, Dhakai Benaroshi shari, Rajshahi silk shari, Tangail Tanter shari, Tassar silk shari, monipuri shari and Katan shari are the most popular in Bangladesh.

 

PAKISTAN

In Pakistan, the sarees are still popular and worn on special occasions. The Shalwar kameez, however, is worn throughout the country on a daily basis. The sari nevertheless remains a popular garment among the middle and upper class for many formal functions. Sarees can be seen worn commonly in metropolitan cities such as Karachi and Islamabad and are worn regularly to weddings and other business type of functions. Sarees are also worn by many Muslim women in Sindh to show their status or to enhance their beauty. The sari is worn as daily wear by Pakistani Hindus, by elderly Muslim women who were used to wearing it in pre-partition India and by some of the new generation who have reintroduced the interest in saris.

 

SRI LANKA

Sri Lankan women wear saris in many styles. Two ways of draping the sari are popular and tend to dominate: the Indian style (classic nivi drape) and the Kandyan style (or osaria in Sinhalese). The Kandyan style is generally more popular in the hill country region of Kandy from which the style gets its name. Though local preferences play a role, most women decide on style depending on personal preference or what is perceived to be most flattering for their figure.

 

The traditional Kandyan (osaria) style consists of a full blouse which covers the midriff completely and is partially tucked in at the front as is seen in this 19th-century portrait. However, modern intermingling of styles has led to most wearers baring the midriff. The final tail of the sari is neatly pleated rather than free-flowing. This is rather similar to the pleated rosette used in the Dravidian style noted earlier in the article.

 

The Kandyan style is considered the national dress of Sinhalese women. It is the uniform of the air hostesses of SriLankan Airlines.

 

During the 1960s, the mini sari known as 'hipster' sari created a wrinkle in Sri Lankan fashion, since it was worn below the navel and barely above the line of prosecution for indecent exposure. The conservative people described the 'hipster' as "an absolute travesty of a beautiful costume almost a desecration" and "a hideous and purposeless garment".

 

NEPAL

The sari is the most commonly worn women's clothing in Nepal. In Nepal, a special style of sari draping is called haku patasihh. The sari is draped around the waist and a shawl is worn covering the upper half of the sari, which is used in place of a pallu.

 

AFGHANISTAN

Sari's have been worn by the Afghan royal family house and upper family classes as well by Muslim women at special functions.

 

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WITH OTHER ASIAN CLOTHING

While the sari is typical to Indian traditional wear, clothing worn by South-East Asian countries like Burma, Malaysia, Philippines, and Singapore resemble it, where a long rectangular piece of cloth is draped around the body. These are different from the sari as they are wrapped around the lower-half of body as a skirt, worn with a shirt/blouse, resembling a sarong, as seen in the Burmese Longyi, Filipino Malong, Tapis, Laotian Xout lao, Thai Sinh's, and Timorese Tais. Saris, worn predominantly in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal are usually draped with one end of the cloth fastened around the waist, and the other end placed over the shoulder baring the midriff.

 

SAREE ORNAMENTATION AND DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES

Saris are woven with one plain end (the end that is concealed inside the wrap), two long decorative borders running the length of the sari, and a one to three-foot section at the other end which continues and elaborates the length-wise decoration. This end is called the pallu; it is the part thrown over the shoulder in the nivi style of draping.

 

In past times, saris were woven of silk or cotton. The rich could afford finely woven, diaphanous silk saris that, according to folklore, could be passed through a finger ring. The poor wore coarsely woven cotton saris. All saris were handwoven and represented a considerable investment of time or money.

 

Simple hand-woven villagers' saris are often decorated with checks or stripes woven into the cloth. Inexpensive saris were also decorated with block printing using carved wooden blocks and vegetable dyes, or tie-dyeing, known in India as bhandani work.

 

More expensive saris had elaborate geometric, floral, or figurative ornaments or brocades created on the loom, as part of the fabric. Sometimes warp and weft threads were tie-dyed and then woven, creating ikat patterns. Sometimes threads of different colours were woven into the base fabric in patterns; an ornamented border, an elaborate pallu, and often, small repeated accents in the cloth itself. These accents are called buttis or bhuttis (spellings vary). For fancy saris, these patterns could be woven with gold or silver thread, which is called zari work.

 

Sometimes the saris were further decorated, after weaving, with various sorts of embroidery. Resham work is embroidery done with coloured silk thread. Zardozi embroidery uses gold and silver thread, and sometimes pearls and precious stones. Cheap modern versions of zardozi use synthetic metallic thread and imitation stones, such as fake pearls and Swarovski crystals.

 

In modern times, saris are increasingly woven on mechanical looms and made of artificial fibres, such as polyester, nylon, or rayon, which do not require starching or ironing. They are printed by machine, or woven in simple patterns made with floats across the back of the sari. This can create an elaborate appearance on the front, while looking ugly on the back. The punchra work is imitated with inexpensive machine-made tassel trim.

 

Hand-woven, hand-decorated saris are naturally much more expensive than the machine imitations. While the overall market for handweaving has plummeted (leading to much distress among Indian handweavers), hand-woven saris are still popular for weddings and other grand social occasions.

 

SARI OUTSIDE SOUTH ASIA

The traditional sari made an impact in the United States during the 1970s. Eugene Novack who ran the New York store, Royal Saree House told that he had been selling it mainly to the Indian women in New York area but later many American business women and housewives became his customers who preferred their saris to resemble the full gown of the western world. He also said that men appeared intrigued by the fragility and the femininity it confers on the wearer. Newcomers to the sari report that it is comfortable to wear, requiring no girdles or stockings and that the flowing garb feels so feminine with unusual grace.

 

As a nod to the fashion-forward philosophy established by the designs of Emilio Pucci, the now-defunct Braniff International Airways envisioned their air hostesses wearing a more revealing version of a sari on a proposed Dallas-Bombay (conceivably via London) service in the late 1970s. However this was never realised because of Halston's resistance to working with a palette outside of his comfort zone. The former Eagan, Minnesota–based Northwest Airlines considered issuing saris to flight attendants working the Minneapolis-Amsterdam-Delhi route that began in the 1990s. This never occurred largely because of a union dispute.

 

The sari has gained its popularity internationally because of the growth of Indian fashion trends globally. Many Bollywood celebrities, like Aishwarya Rai,[48] have worn it at international events representing the Indian culture. In 2010, Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone wanted to represent her country at an international event, wearing the national costume. On her very first red carpet appearance at the Cannes International Film Festival, she stepped out on the red carpet in a Rohit Bal sari.

 

Even popular Hollywood celebrities have worn this traditional attire. Pamela Anderson made a surprise guest appearance on Bigg Boss, the Indian version of Big Brother, dressed in a sari that was specially designed for her by Mumbai-based fashion designer Ashley Rebello. Ashley Judd donned a purple sari at the Youth AIDS Benefit Gala in November 2007 at the Ritz Carlton in Mclean, Virginia. There was an Indian flavour to the red carpet at the annual Fashion Rocks concert in New York, with designer Rocky S walking the ramp along with Jessica, Ashley, Nicole, Kimberly and Melody – the Pussycat Dolls – dressed in saris.

 

TYPES

While an international image of the modern style sari may have been popularised by airline stewardesses, each region in the Indian subcontinent has developed, over the centuries, its own unique sari style. Following are other well-known varieties, distinct on the basis of fabric, weaving style, or motif, in South Asia:

 

CENTRAL STYLES

Chanderi Sari – Madhya Pradesh

Maheshwari – Maheshwar, Madhya Pradesh

Kosa Silk – Chhattisgarh

Dhokra Silk – Madhya Pradesh

 

EASTERN STYLES

Tangail Tant Saree – Bangladesh

Jamdani – Bangladesh

Muslin – Bangladesh

Rajshahi Silk (Eri Silk) – Bangladesh

Tussar Silk Saree – Rajshahi Bangladesh

Dhakai Katan – Bangladesh

Khadi Saree – Comilla Bangladesh

Jute Cotton – Bangladesh

Mooga Silk – Assam

Mekhla Cotton – Assam

Dhaniakhali Cotton – West Bengal

Shantipuri Cotton – Shantipur, West Bengal

Phulia Cotton – Phulia, West Bengal

Begumpur Cotton – Begumpur, West Bengal

Garad Saree (Korial) – Murshidabad, West Bengal

Tant Saree – Farshganj, West Bengal

Murshidabad Silk – West Bengal

Baluchari Silk – Bishnupur, Bankura West Bengal

Kantha Silk & Cotton Saree – West Bengal & Bangladesh

Batic Saree – West Bengal & Bangladesh

Sambalpuri Silk & Cotton Saree – Sambalpur, Odisha

Bomkai Silk & Cotton Saree – Bomkai, Ganjam, Odisha

Khandua Silk & Cotton Saree – Nuapatna, Cuttack, Odisha

Sonepuri Silk & Cotton Saree – Subarnapur, Odisha

Berhampuri Silk – Behrampur, Odisha

Mattha Silk Saree – Mayurbhanj, Odisha

Bapta Silk & Cotton Saree – Koraput, Odisha

Tanta Cotton Saree – Balasore, Odisha

Manipuri Tant Saree - Manipur

 

WESTERN STYLES

Paithani – Maharashtra

Bandhani – Gujarat, Rajasthan, Pakistan

Kota doria – Rajasthan, Pakistan

Lugade – Maharashtra

Patola – Gujarat, Pakistan

 

SOUTHERN STYLES

Mysore Silk – Karnataka

Ilkal Saree – Karnataka

Molakalmuru Sari – Karnataka

Venkatagiri – Andhra Pradesh

Mangalagiri Silk Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Uppada Silk Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Chirala Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Bandar Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Bandarulanka – Andhra Pradesh

Kuppadam Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Dharmavaram Silk Saree – Andhra pradesh

Kanchipuram Sari (locally called Kanjivaram Pattu) – Tamil Nadu

Kumbakonam – Tamil Nadu

Thirubuvanam – Tamil Nadu

Coimbatore Cotton Tamil Nadu

Chinnalampattu or Sungudi Tamil Nadu

Balarampuram – Kerala

Mundum Neriyathum – Kerala

Mayilati Silk – Kerala

Kannur Cotton – Kerala

Kalpathi Silk Sarees – Kerala

Maradaka Silk – Kerala

Samudrikapuram Silk and Cotton – Kerala

Pochampally Sari or Puttapaka Sari – Telangana

Gadwal Sari – Telangana

Narayanpet – Telangana or Maharashtra

 

NORTHERN STYLES

Banarasi – Uttar Pradesh

Shalu – Uttar Pradesh

Tanchoi – Uttar Pradesh

Bagru – Rajasthan, Pakistan

 

WIKIPEDIA

My desk in my room. 27" Core i7 iMac, with a 24" Dell monitor connected (left). Core 2 Duo Mac Mini with a 24" Samsung monitor connected (right), 2.6ghz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, and a 1.42ghz G4 Mac Mini (centre), sadly purposeless for the time being.

A Sari, saree, sadi, or shari is a South Asian female garment that consists of a drape varying from 4.5 metres to 8 metres in length and 60 cm to 1.20 m in breadth that is typically wrapped around the waist, with one end draped over the shoulder, baring the midriff.

 

The sari is usually worn over a petticoat (called 'parkar' (परकर) in Marathi lahaṅgā or lehenga in the north; seelai in Tamil, pavada (or occasionally langa) in Malayalam, Kannada and Telugu, chaniyo, parkar, ghaghra, or ghagaro in the west; and shaya in eastern India), with a fitted upper garment commonly called a blouse (ravike in South India and choli elsewhere). The blouse has short sleeves and is usually cropped at the midriff. The sari is associated with grace and is widely regarded as a symbol of Indian, Nepalese, Bangladesh, and Sri Lankan cultures.

 

ETYMOLOGY

The word sari described in Sanskrit शाटी śāṭī which means 'strip of cloth' and शाडी śāḍī or साडी sāḍī in Prakrit, and which was corrupted to sāṛī in Hindi. The word 'Sattika' is mentioned as describing women's attire in ancient India in Buddhist Jain literature called Jatakas. This could be equivalent to modern day 'Sari'. The term for female bodice, the choli is derived from another ruling clan from ancient Tamil Nadu, the Cholas. Rajatarangini (meaning the 'river of kings'), a tenth-century literary work by Kalhana, states that the Choli from the Deccan was introduced under the royal order in Kashmir.

 

ORIGINS AND HISTORY

In the history of Indian clothing the sari is traced back to the Indus Valley Civilisation, which flourished during 2800–1800 BC around the western part of the Indian subcontinent. Sari draping leaves back, cleavage, and side view of belly bare. The origin of such exposing attire can be attributed to humid climate of the land. The earliest known depiction of the sari in the Indian subcontinent is the statue of an Indus Valley priest wearing a drape.

 

Ancient Tamil poetry, such as the Silappadhikaram and the Sanskrit work, Kadambari by Banabhatta, describes women in exquisite drapery or sari. The ancient stone inscription from Gangaikonda Cholapuram in old Tamil scripts has a reference to hand weaving. In ancient Indian tradition and the Natya Shastra (an ancient Indian treatise describing ancient dance and costumes), the navel of the Supreme Being is considered to be the source of life and creativity, hence the midriff is to be left bare by the sari.

 

Sculptures from the Gandhara, Mathura and Gupta schools (1st–6th century AD) show goddesses and dancers wearing what appears to be a dhoti wrap, in the "fishtail" version which covers the legs loosely and then flows into a long, decorative drape in front of the legs. No bodices are shown.

 

Other sources say that everyday costume consisted of a dhoti or lungi (sarong), combined with a breast band called 'Kurpasika' or 'Stanapatta' and occasionally a wrap called 'Uttariya' that could at times be used to cover the upper body or head. The two-piece Kerala mundum neryathum (mundu, a dhoti or sarong, neryath, a shawl, in Malayalam) is a survival of ancient Indian clothing styles. The one-piece sari is a modern innovation, created by combining the two pieces of the mundum neryathum.

 

It is generally accepted that wrapped sari-like garments for lower body and sometimes shawls or scarf like garment called 'uttariya' for upper body, have been worn by Indian women for a long time, and that they have been worn in their current form for hundreds of years. In ancient couture the lower garment was called 'nivi' or 'nivi bandha', while the upper body was mostly left bare. The works of Kalidasa mentions 'Kurpasika' a form of tight fitting breast band that simply covered the breasts. It was also sometimes referred to as 'Uttarasanga' or 'Stanapatta'.

 

The tightly fitted, short blouse worn under a sari is a choli. Choli evolved as a form of clothing in the 10th century AD, and the first cholis were only front covering; the back was always bare but covered with end of saris pallu. Bodices of this type are still common in the state of Rajasthan.

 

In South India and especially in Kerala, women from most Hindu communities wore only the sari and exposed the upper part of the body till the middle of the 20th century.Poetic references from works like Silappadikaram indicate that during the Sangam period in ancient Tamil Nadu, a single piece of clothing served as both lower garment and head covering, leaving the midriff completely uncovered. Similar styles of the sari are recorded paintings by Raja Ravi Varma in Kerala. By the mid 19th century, though, bare breasted styles of the sari faced social revaluation and led to the Upper cloth controversy in the princely state of Travancore (now part of the state of Kerala) and the styles declined rapidly within the next half a century.

 

In ancient India, although women wore saris that bared the midriff, the Dharmasastra writers stated that women should be dressed such that the navel would never become visible. By which for some time the navel exposure became a taboo and the navel was concealed.

 

Red wedding saris are the traditional garment choice for brides in Indian culture. Sari fabric is also traditionally silk. Over time, colour options and fabric choices for Indian brides have expanded. Today fabrics like crepe, Georgette, charmeuse, and satin are used, and colours have been expanded to include gold, pink, orange, maroon, brown, and yellow as well. Indian brides in Western countries often wear the sari at the wedding ceremony and change into traditional Indian wear afterwards (lehnga, choli, etc.).

 

STYLES OF DRAPING

There are more than 80 recorded ways to wear a sari. Fashion designer Aaditya sharma declared, "I can drape a sari in 54 different styles".

 

The most common style is for the sari to be wrapped around the waist, with the loose end of the drape to be worn over the shoulder, baring the midriff. However, the sari can be draped in several different styles, though some styles do require a sari of a particular length or form. The French cultural anthropologist and sari researcher Chantal Boulanger categorised sari drapes in the following families:

 

- Nivi – styles originally worn in Andhra Pradesh; besides the modern nivi, there is also the kaccha nivi, where the pleats are passed through the legs and tucked into the waist at the back. This allows free movement while covering the legs.

- Bengali and Odia style.

- Gujarati/Rajasthani/Pakistani – after tucking in the pleats similar to the nivi style, the loose end is taken from the back, draped across the right shoulder, and pulled across to be secured in the back

- Maharashtrian/Konkani/Kashta; this drape is very similar to that of the male Maharashtrian dhoti. The centre of the sari (held lengthwise) is placed at the centre back, the ends are brought forward and tied securely, then the two ends are wrapped around the legs. When worn as a sari, an extra-long cloth of nine yards is used and the ends are then passed up over the shoulders and the upper body. They are primarily worn by Brahmin women of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Goa.

- Madisar – this drape is typical of Iyengar/Iyer Brahmin ladies from Tamil Nadu. Traditional Madisar is worn using 9 yards saree.

- Kodagu style – this drape is confined to ladies hailing from the Kodagu district of Karnataka. In this style, the pleats are created in the rear, instead of the front. The loose end of the sari is draped back-to-front over the right shoulder, and is pinned to the rest of the sari.

- Gobbe Seere – This style is worn by women in the Malnad or Sahyadri and central region of Karnataka. It is worn with 18 molas saree with three four rounds at the waist and a knot after crisscrossing over shoulders.

- Gond – sari styles found in many parts of Central India. The cloth is first draped over the left shoulder, then arranged to cover the body.

- Malayali style – the two-piece sari, or Mundum Neryathum, worn in Kerala. Usually made of unbleached cotton and decorated with gold or coloured stripes and/or borders. Also the Kerala sari, a sort of mundum neryathum.

- Tribal styles – often secured by tying them firmly across the chest, covering the breasts.

 

Kunbi style or denthli:Goan Gauda and Kunbis,and those of them who have migrated to other states use this way of draping Sari or Kappad, this form of draping is created by tying a knot in the fabric below the shoulder and a strip of cloth which crossed the left shoulder was fasten on the back.

 

NIVI STYLE

The nivi is today's most popular sari style from Andhra Pradesh. The increased interaction with the British saw most women from royal families come out of purdah in the 1900s. This necessitated a change of dress. Maharani Indira Devi of Cooch Behar popularised the chiffon sari. She was widowed early in life and followed the convention of abandoning her richly woven Baroda shalus in favour of the traditional unadorned white. Characteristically, she transformed her "mourning" clothes into high fashion. She had saris woven in France to her personal specifications, in white chiffon, and introduced the silk chiffon sari to the royal fashion repertoire.

 

The chiffon sari did what years of fashion interaction had not done in India. It homogenised fashion across this land. Its softness, lightness and beautiful, elegant, caressing drape was ideally suited to the Indian climate. Different courts adopted their own styles of draping and indigenising the sari. In most of the courts the sari was embellished with stitching hand-woven borders in goldfrom Varanasi, delicate zardozi work, gota, makaish and tilla work that embellished the plain fabric, simultaneously satisfying both traditional demands and ingrained love for ornamentation. Some images of maharanis in the Deccan show the women wearing a sleeveless, richly embellished waistcoat over their blouses. The Begum of Savanur remembers how sumptuous the chiffon sari became at their gatherings. At some courts it was worn with jaali, or net kurtas and embossed silk waist length sadris or jackets. Some of them were so rich that the entire ground was embroidered over with pearls and zardozi.

 

Nivi drape starts with one end of the sari tucked into the waistband of the petticoat, usually a plain skirt. The cloth is wrapped around the lower body once, then hand-gathered into even pleats below the navel. The pleats are tucked into the waistband of the petticoat. They create a graceful, decorative effect which poets have likened to the petals of a flower. After one more turn around the waist, the loose end is draped over the shoulder. The loose end is called the pallu, pallav, seragu, or paita depending on the language. It is draped diagonally in front of the torso. It is worn across the right hip to over the left shoulder, partly baring the midriff. The navel can be revealed or concealed by the wearer by adjusting the pallu, depending on the social setting. The long end of the pallu hanging from the back of the shoulder is often intricately decorated. The pallu may be hanging freely, tucked in at the waist, used to cover the head, or used to cover the neck, by draping it across the right shoulder as well. Some nivi styles are worn with the pallu draped from the back towards the front, coming from the back over the right shoulder with one corner tucked by the left hip, covering the torso/waist. The nivi sari was popularised through the paintings of Raja Ravi Varma. In one of his paintings, the Indian subcontinent was shown as a mother wearing a flowing nivi sari. The ornaments generally accepted by the Hindu culture that can be worn in the midriff region are the waist chains. They are considered to be a part of bridal jewellery.

 

PROFESSIONAL STYLE OF DRAPING

Because of the harsh extremes in temperature on the Indian Subcontinent, the sari fills a practical role as well as a decorative one. It is not only warming in winter and cooling in summer, but its loose-fitting tailoring is preferred by women who must be free to move as their duties require. For this reason, it is the clothing of choice of air hostesses on Air India. This led to a professional style of draping a sari which is referred to "Air-Hostess style sari". An air hostess style sari is tied in just the same way as a normal sari except that the pleats are held together quite nicely with the help of pins. A bordered sari will be just perfect for an Air-Hostess style drape where the pallu is heavily pleated and pinned on the shoulder. Even the vertical pleats that are tucked at the navel are severely pleated and pressed. Same goes for the pallu pleats that are pinned at the shoulder. To get the perfect "Air-hostess" a complimentary U-shaped blouse that covers the upper body completely is worn which gives a very elegant and formal look. Mastering the "Air-hostess" style drape helps to create the desired impact in a formal setting like an interview or a conference.

 

Saris are worn as uniforms by the female hotel staff of many five star luxury hotels in India as symbol of culture. Recently, in a makeover design, Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces, decided the welcoming staff at the group's Luxury Hotels would be draped in the rich colours and designs of the Banarasi six yards. The new saris were unveiled at the Taj property in Mumbai. It will be subsequently replicated at all 10 Luxury Hotels of the group across the country for duty managers and front office staff. Taj had adopted three villages in Varanasi and employed 25 master weavers there for the project. The vision finally took shape after 14 months, once the weavers had a good work environment, understood the designs and fine-tuned the motifs.

 

Similarly, the female politicians of India wear the sari in a professional manner. The women of Nehru–Gandhi family like Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi wear the special blouse for the campaign trail which is longer than usually and is tucked in to prevent any midriff show while waving to the crowds.Stylist Prasad Bidapa has to say, "I think Sonia Gandhi is the country's most stylish politician. But that's because she's inherited the best collection of saris from her mother-in-law. I'm also happy that she supports the Indian handloom industry with her selection." BJP politician Sushma Swaraj maintains her prim housewife look with a pinned-up pallu while general secretary of AIADMK Jayalalithaa wears her saris like a suit of armour.

 

SARIS IN INDIAN LAW

In 2014, an Indian family court in Mumbai ruled that a husband objecting to his wife wearing a kurta and jeans and forcing her to wear a sari amounts to cruelty inflicted by the husband and can be a ground to seek divorce. The wife was thus granted a divorce on the ground of cruelty as defined under section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act, 1954.

 

BANGLADESH

Sharee or saree (in Bengali=শাড়ি) is the national wear of Bangladeshi women. Most women who are married wear sharee as their regular dress while young-unmarried girls wear sharee as an occasional dress. The shari is worn by women throughout Bangladesh. Sari is the most popular dress for women in Bangladesh, both for casual and formal occasion. Although Dhakai Jamdani (hand made shari) is worldwide known and most famous to all women who wear shari but there are also many variety of shari in Bangladesh.There are many regional variations of them in both silk and cotton. e.g.- Tanta/Tant cotton shari, Dhakai Benaroshi shari, Rajshahi silk shari, Tangail Tanter shari, Tassar silk shari, monipuri shari and Katan shari are the most popular in Bangladesh.

 

PAKISTAN

In Pakistan, the sarees are still popular and worn on special occasions. The Shalwar kameez, however, is worn throughout the country on a daily basis. The sari nevertheless remains a popular garment among the middle and upper class for many formal functions. Sarees can be seen worn commonly in metropolitan cities such as Karachi and Islamabad and are worn regularly to weddings and other business type of functions. Sarees are also worn by many Muslim women in Sindh to show their status or to enhance their beauty. The sari is worn as daily wear by Pakistani Hindus, by elderly Muslim women who were used to wearing it in pre-partition India and by some of the new generation who have reintroduced the interest in saris.

 

SRI LANKA

Sri Lankan women wear saris in many styles. Two ways of draping the sari are popular and tend to dominate: the Indian style (classic nivi drape) and the Kandyan style (or osaria in Sinhalese). The Kandyan style is generally more popular in the hill country region of Kandy from which the style gets its name. Though local preferences play a role, most women decide on style depending on personal preference or what is perceived to be most flattering for their figure.

 

The traditional Kandyan (osaria) style consists of a full blouse which covers the midriff completely and is partially tucked in at the front as is seen in this 19th-century portrait. However, modern intermingling of styles has led to most wearers baring the midriff. The final tail of the sari is neatly pleated rather than free-flowing. This is rather similar to the pleated rosette used in the Dravidian style noted earlier in the article.

 

The Kandyan style is considered the national dress of Sinhalese women. It is the uniform of the air hostesses of SriLankan Airlines.

 

During the 1960s, the mini sari known as 'hipster' sari created a wrinkle in Sri Lankan fashion, since it was worn below the navel and barely above the line of prosecution for indecent exposure. The conservative people described the 'hipster' as "an absolute travesty of a beautiful costume almost a desecration" and "a hideous and purposeless garment".

 

NEPAL

The sari is the most commonly worn women's clothing in Nepal. In Nepal, a special style of sari draping is called haku patasihh. The sari is draped around the waist and a shawl is worn covering the upper half of the sari, which is used in place of a pallu.

 

AFGHANISTAN

Sari's have been worn by the Afghan royal family house and upper family classes as well by Muslim women at special functions.

 

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WITH OTHER ASIAN CLOTHING

While the sari is typical to Indian traditional wear, clothing worn by South-East Asian countries like Burma, Malaysia, Philippines, and Singapore resemble it, where a long rectangular piece of cloth is draped around the body. These are different from the sari as they are wrapped around the lower-half of body as a skirt, worn with a shirt/blouse, resembling a sarong, as seen in the Burmese Longyi, Filipino Malong, Tapis, Laotian Xout lao, Thai Sinh's, and Timorese Tais. Saris, worn predominantly in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal are usually draped with one end of the cloth fastened around the waist, and the other end placed over the shoulder baring the midriff.

 

SAREE ORNAMENTATION AND DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES

Saris are woven with one plain end (the end that is concealed inside the wrap), two long decorative borders running the length of the sari, and a one to three-foot section at the other end which continues and elaborates the length-wise decoration. This end is called the pallu; it is the part thrown over the shoulder in the nivi style of draping.

 

In past times, saris were woven of silk or cotton. The rich could afford finely woven, diaphanous silk saris that, according to folklore, could be passed through a finger ring. The poor wore coarsely woven cotton saris. All saris were handwoven and represented a considerable investment of time or money.

 

Simple hand-woven villagers' saris are often decorated with checks or stripes woven into the cloth. Inexpensive saris were also decorated with block printing using carved wooden blocks and vegetable dyes, or tie-dyeing, known in India as bhandani work.

 

More expensive saris had elaborate geometric, floral, or figurative ornaments or brocades created on the loom, as part of the fabric. Sometimes warp and weft threads were tie-dyed and then woven, creating ikat patterns. Sometimes threads of different colours were woven into the base fabric in patterns; an ornamented border, an elaborate pallu, and often, small repeated accents in the cloth itself. These accents are called buttis or bhuttis (spellings vary). For fancy saris, these patterns could be woven with gold or silver thread, which is called zari work.

 

Sometimes the saris were further decorated, after weaving, with various sorts of embroidery. Resham work is embroidery done with coloured silk thread. Zardozi embroidery uses gold and silver thread, and sometimes pearls and precious stones. Cheap modern versions of zardozi use synthetic metallic thread and imitation stones, such as fake pearls and Swarovski crystals.

 

In modern times, saris are increasingly woven on mechanical looms and made of artificial fibres, such as polyester, nylon, or rayon, which do not require starching or ironing. They are printed by machine, or woven in simple patterns made with floats across the back of the sari. This can create an elaborate appearance on the front, while looking ugly on the back. The punchra work is imitated with inexpensive machine-made tassel trim.

 

Hand-woven, hand-decorated saris are naturally much more expensive than the machine imitations. While the overall market for handweaving has plummeted (leading to much distress among Indian handweavers), hand-woven saris are still popular for weddings and other grand social occasions.

 

SARI OUTSIDE SOUTH ASIA

The traditional sari made an impact in the United States during the 1970s. Eugene Novack who ran the New York store, Royal Saree House told that he had been selling it mainly to the Indian women in New York area but later many American business women and housewives became his customers who preferred their saris to resemble the full gown of the western world. He also said that men appeared intrigued by the fragility and the femininity it confers on the wearer. Newcomers to the sari report that it is comfortable to wear, requiring no girdles or stockings and that the flowing garb feels so feminine with unusual grace.

 

As a nod to the fashion-forward philosophy established by the designs of Emilio Pucci, the now-defunct Braniff International Airways envisioned their air hostesses wearing a more revealing version of a sari on a proposed Dallas-Bombay (conceivably via London) service in the late 1970s. However this was never realised because of Halston's resistance to working with a palette outside of his comfort zone. The former Eagan, Minnesota–based Northwest Airlines considered issuing saris to flight attendants working the Minneapolis-Amsterdam-Delhi route that began in the 1990s. This never occurred largely because of a union dispute.

 

The sari has gained its popularity internationally because of the growth of Indian fashion trends globally. Many Bollywood celebrities, like Aishwarya Rai,[48] have worn it at international events representing the Indian culture. In 2010, Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone wanted to represent her country at an international event, wearing the national costume. On her very first red carpet appearance at the Cannes International Film Festival, she stepped out on the red carpet in a Rohit Bal sari.

 

Even popular Hollywood celebrities have worn this traditional attire. Pamela Anderson made a surprise guest appearance on Bigg Boss, the Indian version of Big Brother, dressed in a sari that was specially designed for her by Mumbai-based fashion designer Ashley Rebello. Ashley Judd donned a purple sari at the Youth AIDS Benefit Gala in November 2007 at the Ritz Carlton in Mclean, Virginia. There was an Indian flavour to the red carpet at the annual Fashion Rocks concert in New York, with designer Rocky S walking the ramp along with Jessica, Ashley, Nicole, Kimberly and Melody – the Pussycat Dolls – dressed in saris.

 

TYPES

While an international image of the modern style sari may have been popularised by airline stewardesses, each region in the Indian subcontinent has developed, over the centuries, its own unique sari style. Following are other well-known varieties, distinct on the basis of fabric, weaving style, or motif, in South Asia:

 

CENTRAL STYLES

Chanderi Sari – Madhya Pradesh

Maheshwari – Maheshwar, Madhya Pradesh

Kosa Silk – Chhattisgarh

Dhokra Silk – Madhya Pradesh

 

EASTERN STYLES

Tangail Tant Saree – Bangladesh

Jamdani – Bangladesh

Muslin – Bangladesh

Rajshahi Silk (Eri Silk) – Bangladesh

Tussar Silk Saree – Rajshahi Bangladesh

Dhakai Katan – Bangladesh

Khadi Saree – Comilla Bangladesh

Jute Cotton – Bangladesh

Mooga Silk – Assam

Mekhla Cotton – Assam

Dhaniakhali Cotton – West Bengal

Shantipuri Cotton – Shantipur, West Bengal

Phulia Cotton – Phulia, West Bengal

Begumpur Cotton – Begumpur, West Bengal

Garad Saree (Korial) – Murshidabad, West Bengal

Tant Saree – Farshganj, West Bengal

Murshidabad Silk – West Bengal

Baluchari Silk – Bishnupur, Bankura West Bengal

Kantha Silk & Cotton Saree – West Bengal & Bangladesh

Batic Saree – West Bengal & Bangladesh

Sambalpuri Silk & Cotton Saree – Sambalpur, Odisha

Bomkai Silk & Cotton Saree – Bomkai, Ganjam, Odisha

Khandua Silk & Cotton Saree – Nuapatna, Cuttack, Odisha

Sonepuri Silk & Cotton Saree – Subarnapur, Odisha

Berhampuri Silk – Behrampur, Odisha

Mattha Silk Saree – Mayurbhanj, Odisha

Bapta Silk & Cotton Saree – Koraput, Odisha

Tanta Cotton Saree – Balasore, Odisha

Manipuri Tant Saree - Manipur

 

WESTERN STYLES

Paithani – Maharashtra

Bandhani – Gujarat, Rajasthan, Pakistan

Kota doria – Rajasthan, Pakistan

Lugade – Maharashtra

Patola – Gujarat, Pakistan

 

SOUTHERN STYLES

Mysore Silk – Karnataka

Ilkal Saree – Karnataka

Molakalmuru Sari – Karnataka

Venkatagiri – Andhra Pradesh

Mangalagiri Silk Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Uppada Silk Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Chirala Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Bandar Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Bandarulanka – Andhra Pradesh

Kuppadam Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Dharmavaram Silk Saree – Andhra pradesh

Kanchipuram Sari (locally called Kanjivaram Pattu) – Tamil Nadu

Kumbakonam – Tamil Nadu

Thirubuvanam – Tamil Nadu

Coimbatore Cotton Tamil Nadu

Chinnalampattu or Sungudi Tamil Nadu

Balarampuram – Kerala

Mundum Neriyathum – Kerala

Mayilati Silk – Kerala

Kannur Cotton – Kerala

Kalpathi Silk Sarees – Kerala

Maradaka Silk – Kerala

Samudrikapuram Silk and Cotton – Kerala

Pochampally Sari or Puttapaka Sari – Telangana

Gadwal Sari – Telangana

Narayanpet – Telangana or Maharashtra

 

NORTHERN STYLES

Banarasi – Uttar Pradesh

Shalu – Uttar Pradesh

Tanchoi – Uttar Pradesh

Bagru – Rajasthan, Pakistan

 

WIKIPEDIA

I'm sick of feeling my soul

To people who'll never know

Just how purposeless and empty they've grown

Because the language confuses

like computers refuse to understand how I'm feeling today

 

Muse

Contrary to what we are lead to believe by the popular media, science is not the enemy of Christianity.

Genuine science is completely compatible with the belief in the creator God of Christianity.

Most of the world's greatest scientists, who were the pioneers and founders of modern science recognised this.

It is only fairly recently with the rise of militant atheism that science has been portrayed, through propaganda, as being in conflict with Christianity.

 

So why were so many great scientists convinced that the principles of science were in perfect harmony with belief in the Christian God?

 

Consider this ....

A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?

Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.

Why do they say that?

Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

 

The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

 

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.

The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.

 

So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?

And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

 

Shall we analyse it?

"Because there is a law of gravity ....

 

So,

1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?

AND -

2) Where did the law of gravity come from?

AND -

3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?

 

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

 

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?

(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

 

5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?

AND -

6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?

Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.

 

So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.

 

The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.

The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".

However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.

We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.

The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.

 

And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).

Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?

Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..

 

Here it is again ...

‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.

 

So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.

AMAZING!

 

Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?

 

Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!

 

That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.

Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.

 

So now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.

IMPRESSED? I think not!

 

Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?

 

According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.

Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?

That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.

 

Why is the law of cause and effect so important?

Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.

They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.

That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.

Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.

 

What about the first cause of the universe and everything?

How does that fit in?

 

Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.

The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.

The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.

So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.

 

We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.

That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.

Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.

 

An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.

So is it a valid solution?

 

Firstly .....

Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).

Why?

Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.

Secondly ....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

 

A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?

Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.

In addition ....

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.

So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?

Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.

It can only be one of two options,

an uncaused, natural first cause

OR

an uncaused, supernatural first cause.

An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.

Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

SO ....

Is the law of cause and effect really universal?

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.

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

 

Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.

Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …

 

1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?

 

2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?

 

Which one would you choose?

 

Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?

The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.

So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.

 

To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?

OR,

the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?

No contest!

We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

 

The question of purpose ....

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

 

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

The development of order requires an organizational element.

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

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

The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.

Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

 

Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.

So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.

 

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

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

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

Bogus science indeed!

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Atheists say the exact opposite.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.

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

 

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

Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.

 

What about Christianity and pagan gods?

 

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

 

Do they have a good point?

 

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….

Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.

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

They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.

They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.

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

For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

 

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.

Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.

There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

 

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.

The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.

If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

 

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

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

 

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

How true is that?

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Essential characteristics of the first cause.

 

Consider this short chain of causes and effects:

A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.

'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.

Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.

Why?

Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.

Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.

So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.

We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.

We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.

Why?

Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.

Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.

As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.

Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

 

So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist

 

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

 

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

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

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?

This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.

There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.

Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.

What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.

What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.

The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.

So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?

No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

 

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

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

They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

 

So to sum up .....

The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.

Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism, not religion, is the real enemy of science.

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

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

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

 

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

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Mendigo, mendicante, morador de rua ou sem-abrigo é o indivíduo que vive em extrema carência material, não podendo garantir a sua sobrevivência com meios próprios. Tal situação de indigência material força o indivíduo a viver na rua, perambulando de um local a outro, recebendo o adjetivo de vagabundo, ou seja, aquele que vaga, que tem uma vida errante.

 

O estado de indigência ou mendicância é o mais grave dentre as diversas gradações da pobreza material.

 

+++++++++++++

 

A vagabond is an itinerant person. Such people may be called drifters, tramps, rogues, or hobos. A vagabond is characterised by almost continuous travelling, lacking a fixed home, temporary abode, or permanent residence. Vagabonds are not bums, as bums are not known for travelling, preferring to stay in one location

 

Historically, "vagabond" was a British legal term similar to vagrant, deriving from the Latin for 'purposeless wandering'.[2] Following the Peasants' Revolt, British constables were authorised under a 1383 statute to collar vagabonds and force them to show their means of support; if they could not, they were jailed.[2] Under a 1495 statute, vagabonds could be sentenced to the stocks for three days and nights; in 1530, whipping was added. The assumption was that vagabonds were unlicensed beggars.

 

By the 19th century the vagabond was associated more closely with Bohemianism. The critic Arthur Compton-Rickett compiled a review of the type, in which he defined it as men "with a vagrant strain in the blood, a natural inquisitiveness about the world beyond their doors." Examples included Henry David Thoreau, Michael John Arthur Bujold, Walt Whitman, Leo Tolstoy, William Hazlitt, and Thomas de Quincey.[3] A notable 20th century vagabond was the Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Le vagabondage désigne communément le style de vie de celui qui vit de manière permanente sans adresse et sans emploi fixe, volontairement ou non, le « sans feu, ni lieu ». Juridiquement, le vagabond était souvent celui qui était inconnu dans l'endroit où il se trouvait, qui ne possédait aucun passeport ou autre certificat d'identité ou de bonnes mœurs, et ne pouvait se faire « avouer » (reconnaître) par quelqu'un (curé d'une autre paroisse, etc.). Le vagabondage était alors lourdement réprimé; le délit de vagabondage n'a disparu du droit français que dans les années 1990.

 

Le terme « vagabond » peut être utilisé, au sens péjoratif, pour représenter un sans-abri. Il peut aussi désigner celui qui part à l'aventure pour vivre une expérience de vie différente du mode de vie sédentaire; c'est pourquoi on dit qu'ils vivent de manière désordonnée, du moins en apparence. Des vagabonds célèbres ont existé, par exemple Jésus, Gandhi, Lanza Del Vasto, et d'innombrables philosophes-vagabonds. Le vagabond est celui qui décide de vivre pour une durée indéfinie sans attache, dans un but spirituel (voir Les Clochards célestes de Kérouac), social ou sous une contrainte matérielle. Au sortir de leur période vagabonde, certains d'entre eux ont produit telle ou telle œuvre, résultant de l'inspiration littéraire ou artistique découlant cette phase de vagabondage.

 

La fable de Jean de la Fontaine, Le Loup et Le Chien, illustre bien une situation où un vagabond l'est par choix.

"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Mao Tse-tung (1893 – 1976). Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)

 

(Apart from the last remaining, atheist regime in North Korea) we could say that global atheism died with the demise of the brutal, atheist regimes of the 20th century.

But its ghosts still haunt us.

Incredibly, while the horrendous crimes of the hideous, atheist ideology are still within living memory, attempts are being made to resurrect it and make it seem respectable, under the guise of 'new' atheism.

 

The atheist beast of the East which had died, is now raising its ugly head in the West.

"And I saw one of his heads as if it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world marvelled after the beast." Revelation 13:3

 

Will the atheist monster live again? Who knows?

What we do know - is what history tells us about atheism, and it is not at all pleasant.

 

The promised atheist/communist utopia ... the idea of an atheist Heaven on Earth resulted in a diabolical Hell on Earth.

 

Atheism proved to be the most horrendous, barbaric, murderous and criminal ideology the world has ever experienced. Countless millions suffered and died at the hands of this hideous ideology, they must never be forgotten.

 

Who, but a complete idiot would want to resurrect such a monstrous, no-hope philosophy?

The so-called 'new' (improved?) atheists try to disassociate themselves from the disastrous record of the world's first ever, official, atheist states of the 20th century's, great, atheist experiment. But there is no other example to go by.

The atheist experiment has been tried and, from beginning to end, was a diabolical failure. The new atheists may say: it's nothing to do with us gov.

But who wants to risk such devastation again, by giving atheism another chance? Only an idiot would want to take that gamble.

 

However, it was only to be expected and it could easily have been predicted beforehand, that the inevitable result of atheism's lack of an absolute ethical or moral yardstick would be to wreak havoc on the world - and that is exactly what it did.

Atheism hasn't changed at all in that respect, because it can't. The ephemeral values, moral relativism and situational ethics of atheism is the ideal recipe for abuse.

We can see from the aggressive, intolerant, rabble rousing rhetoric and ranting of today's militant, new atheist zealots, that the leopard hasn't really changed its spots. Let no one doubt it - atheism has a hideous, barbaric history, ... we must never let it happen again.

 

Moreover, it is a singularly perverse ideology that motivates its adherents to waste so much time of the only life they believe they have, trying to convince everyone else that they are doomed to eternal oblivion. The ultimate reward for atheists is to never know if they got it right, only if they got it wrong.

 

There is no moral or rational defence for the atheist cult, past or present.

 

But what do atheists themselves say about their ethical and moral values?

 

They claim that they DO have an ethical and moral yardstick, and cite the Humanist Manifesto as representing the ethics and moral code of atheism.

So is it really true?

 

The Humanist Manifesto looks good at first glance, but like most proposals atheists come up with, when examined closely, it is full of holes.

 

Problems ....

1. You don’t have to sign up to the Humanist Manifesto to be an atheist.

 

2. Even if you do sign up to it, there is no incentive to follow it. No reward for following it, and no penalty for not following it. You are not going to be barred from being an atheist because you reject or break the rules of the Humanist Manifesto. It is not enforced in any way.

 

3. It borrows its desirable ethics from Judeo-Christian values, there is no atheist, moral code per se.

Genuine, naturalist ethics is basically the Darwinian law of the jungle, the ethics of the Humanist Manifesto are actually a contradiction of social Darwinism. The ethics of the H.M. are not consistant with atheist materialist and evolutionist beliefs.

 

4. By far the biggest flaw in the Humanist Manifesto is the fact that it is entirely ephemeral. It advocates 'situational ethics' and 'moral relativism'. And that major flaw makes it a worthless scrap of paper.

Why?

Because .....

Situational ethics is based on what people want or find desirable, not on any adherence to what is intrinsically right or wrong.

 

A good, example of humanist style, situational ethics in practice, is the gender selection abortions now being blatantly carried out in abortion clinics in Britain. It primarily discriminates against female babies, who are especially targeted for killing, because most of the parents who want it, prefer to have boys for cultural reasons.

The abortion clinics openly admit to it happening, and claim it is legal.

The abortion act of 1967 certainly did not intend that, and the Government admits it was not intended.

So we have a Government that knows it is going on, it also knows it is not what the abortion law intended, yet it is still reluctant to do anything about it.

Why? Because it is wedded to the secularist concept of situational ethics, i.e. whatever people want, people get. Any concept of intrinsic right and wrong has to take a back seat, to whatever is the spirit of the times. And that is an example happening right now, in a so-called democracy.

 

The Nazi persecution of the Jews became popular through brainwashing of the public, and was eventually supported by a good proportion of the public.

So Hitler cleverly used situational ethics to do what he had persuaded people was right and good.

 

So, all in all, the Humanist Manifesto is a very dangerous document.

It gives carte blanche to any so-called ethical values, as long they become the fashionable or consensus opinion. Whatever people want, people get, or what a government can claim people want, they are justified in giving to them.

And for that reason it would not stop; a Lenin, a Stalin, a Hitler, or a Pol Pot, even if they had signed up 100% to abide by the Humanist Manifesto.

 

In fact, the 20th century, atheist tyrants even called their regimes ... Democratic People's Republics. They claimed they were representing people's wishes, and thus carried out their 'situational ethics' on behalf of the people.

 

What about the common, atheist tactic of highlighting alleged crimes and wrongdoing committed by Christians?

 

The point is ....

Christians who do wrong, go against the teachings of Christianity.

And, without sincere repentance, they don't get to go to the Christian Heaven.

End of story!

 

Atheists who do wrong, go against nothing, unless it is against the law of the land.

The atheist 'heaven' is right here on earth, and far from being a 'heaven' it is an horrendous nightmare. Anyone with any sense would call it a hell.

 

And even the law of the land need not stop them .....

Whenever, atheists get into a position of power they change the law to suit their situational ethics. Then they can do whatever they want.

That is what Stalin and all the other atheist tyrants did in their people's DEMOCRATIC republics.

 

And the atheist thirst for blood does not cease when they live in the so-called 'real' democracies, it is simply sanitised by atheist inspired, situational ethics.

They use their 'humanist' ethics to change the law, accompanied by 'newspeak' and propaganda.

So that what was once considered evil, is not only made legal, it is actually turned around so it is considered a virtue.

 

The wholesale and brutal slaughter, of the most vulnerable in society ... millions of unborn babies, is callously shrugged off as necessary, for 'free choice'.

Of course murder is always a free choice for the killer, only the dangerous, warped, atheist style, situational ethics could value a killer's free choice to kill, above the victim's right not to be killed, and make murder legal.

 

The callous slaughter of the unborn, which in most cases, was not even put to the people democratically (it was imposed on them by a handful of secularist politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats), is accompanied by the usual atheist lies and devious propaganda.

 

So the secularists simply laugh off democracy, it doesn't stop them, if it gets in the way of their ideology, they just ignore it, like they do with science.

 

"Democratic societies" what are they?

Why ask the people? They are apparently not qualified to consider such difficult matters of right and wrong, like whether babies should live or die? You can't give those ignorant peasants, plebs and rednecks a vote on it, ... leave it to the secularist EXPERTS and their wonderful, situational ethics based on 'reason' and 'science'.

 

We are told by atheist moralists that the unborn baby is not fully human, it is only a blob of jelly, which has, and deserves, NO rights.

And we are also told, anyone who supports the rights of the unborn babies not to be brutally ripped limb from limb is evil, because they are interfering with free CHOICE.

 

So the atheist leopard certainly hasn't changed its lying, devious, brutal and murderous spots, even in so-called 'real' democratic societies. It simply legalises and sanitises evil and murder and makes it appear good.

Then it can claim atheism is extremely ethical and virtuous, with its own, beautiful code of morals and conduct .... Yeah Right!

Remind you of anyone?

 

That, then ... is the atheist Heaven on earth, and images in the picture are of the atheist tyrants of the last century, who exemplified atheist, situational ethics.

 

Is atheism credible, logically or scientifically?

 

..If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.

Atheism is anti-logic ......

 

Atheism = NOTHING created Everything - without a cause and - for NO REASON.

Makes perfect sense .... NOT!

 

www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existen...

 

Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.

The only two options are:

1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.

2. An uncaused, natural first cause.

Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.

Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.

 

Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.

All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.

A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.

A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.

So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.

 

In addition, the fact that there are natural laws and an ordered structure to atoms is not conducive to the idea of a purposeless universe.

 

Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the unguided development of order of its own accord. The application of raw energy, without a directive agent, results in entropy, not increasing complexity and order, which atheists propose.

 

And the First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that there is no 'natural' mechanism for the creation of matter/energy. Yet atheists insist that matter (along with natural law and information) arose naturally of its own accord.

 

It is evident that, while pretending to be scientific, the atheist dogma is actually anti-science, it manipulates science to fit its own agenda, regardless of the violation of natural laws, logic and the scientific method.

 

Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God. It is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.

 

To clarify further:

 

If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.

 

Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.

An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.

If someone was to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.

However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.

So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.

In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose.

 

Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.

That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, sense of beauty, justice etc.

All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.

 

To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.

Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.

If we have intelligence then, that which ultimately caused us cannot be non-intelligent.

Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law.

 

What about infinite time?

Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.

 

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 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. There has to be an existing, inherent potential for future development and everything else that follows the 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 behave only within the limits dictated by the potential of their pre-ordained properties, composition or structure. Those pre-ordained properties are determined by the ability, powers and adequacy of the first cause, which brought them into being.

Lighting blue touch paper achieves absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it. Chance or randomness is not an answer.

 

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

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

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

Incredible!

 

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

― G.K. Chesterton ..... HOW TRUE THAT IS PROVING TO BE!

Oftentimes when we lack freedom to do the things we love to do, we are left aimless and purposeless, descending into a state of utter laxity. It is through this that we become lesser, stripped of passion for the things we used to have passion for... and reduced to a mannequin, a puppet, a shadow, a light that doesn't shine, another being in a world of billions.

 

(Singapore, River Safari)

A Sari, saree, sadi, or shari is a South Asian female garment that consists of a drape varying from 4.5 metres to 8 metres in length and 60 cm to 1.20 m in breadth that is typically wrapped around the waist, with one end draped over the shoulder, baring the midriff.

 

The sari is usually worn over a petticoat (called 'parkar' (परकर) in Marathi lahaṅgā or lehenga in the north; seelai in Tamil, pavada (or occasionally langa) in Malayalam, Kannada and Telugu, chaniyo, parkar, ghaghra, or ghagaro in the west; and shaya in eastern India), with a fitted upper garment commonly called a blouse (ravike in South India and choli elsewhere). The blouse has short sleeves and is usually cropped at the midriff. The sari is associated with grace and is widely regarded as a symbol of Indian, Nepalese, Bangladesh, and Sri Lankan cultures.

 

ETYMOLOGY

The word sari described in Sanskrit शाटी śāṭī which means 'strip of cloth' and शाडी śāḍī or साडी sāḍī in Prakrit, and which was corrupted to sāṛī in Hindi. The word 'Sattika' is mentioned as describing women's attire in ancient India in Buddhist Jain literature called Jatakas. This could be equivalent to modern day 'Sari'. The term for female bodice, the choli is derived from another ruling clan from ancient Tamil Nadu, the Cholas. Rajatarangini (meaning the 'river of kings'), a tenth-century literary work by Kalhana, states that the Choli from the Deccan was introduced under the royal order in Kashmir.

 

ORIGINS AND HISTORY

In the history of Indian clothing the sari is traced back to the Indus Valley Civilisation, which flourished during 2800–1800 BC around the western part of the Indian subcontinent. Sari draping leaves back, cleavage, and side view of belly bare. The origin of such exposing attire can be attributed to humid climate of the land. The earliest known depiction of the sari in the Indian subcontinent is the statue of an Indus Valley priest wearing a drape.

 

Ancient Tamil poetry, such as the Silappadhikaram and the Sanskrit work, Kadambari by Banabhatta, describes women in exquisite drapery or sari. The ancient stone inscription from Gangaikonda Cholapuram in old Tamil scripts has a reference to hand weaving. In ancient Indian tradition and the Natya Shastra (an ancient Indian treatise describing ancient dance and costumes), the navel of the Supreme Being is considered to be the source of life and creativity, hence the midriff is to be left bare by the sari.

 

Sculptures from the Gandhara, Mathura and Gupta schools (1st–6th century AD) show goddesses and dancers wearing what appears to be a dhoti wrap, in the "fishtail" version which covers the legs loosely and then flows into a long, decorative drape in front of the legs. No bodices are shown.

 

Other sources say that everyday costume consisted of a dhoti or lungi (sarong), combined with a breast band called 'Kurpasika' or 'Stanapatta' and occasionally a wrap called 'Uttariya' that could at times be used to cover the upper body or head. The two-piece Kerala mundum neryathum (mundu, a dhoti or sarong, neryath, a shawl, in Malayalam) is a survival of ancient Indian clothing styles. The one-piece sari is a modern innovation, created by combining the two pieces of the mundum neryathum.

 

It is generally accepted that wrapped sari-like garments for lower body and sometimes shawls or scarf like garment called 'uttariya' for upper body, have been worn by Indian women for a long time, and that they have been worn in their current form for hundreds of years. In ancient couture the lower garment was called 'nivi' or 'nivi bandha', while the upper body was mostly left bare. The works of Kalidasa mentions 'Kurpasika' a form of tight fitting breast band that simply covered the breasts. It was also sometimes referred to as 'Uttarasanga' or 'Stanapatta'.

 

The tightly fitted, short blouse worn under a sari is a choli. Choli evolved as a form of clothing in the 10th century AD, and the first cholis were only front covering; the back was always bare but covered with end of saris pallu. Bodices of this type are still common in the state of Rajasthan.

 

In South India and especially in Kerala, women from most Hindu communities wore only the sari and exposed the upper part of the body till the middle of the 20th century.Poetic references from works like Silappadikaram indicate that during the Sangam period in ancient Tamil Nadu, a single piece of clothing served as both lower garment and head covering, leaving the midriff completely uncovered. Similar styles of the sari are recorded paintings by Raja Ravi Varma in Kerala. By the mid 19th century, though, bare breasted styles of the sari faced social revaluation and led to the Upper cloth controversy in the princely state of Travancore (now part of the state of Kerala) and the styles declined rapidly within the next half a century.

 

In ancient India, although women wore saris that bared the midriff, the Dharmasastra writers stated that women should be dressed such that the navel would never become visible. By which for some time the navel exposure became a taboo and the navel was concealed.

 

Red wedding saris are the traditional garment choice for brides in Indian culture. Sari fabric is also traditionally silk. Over time, colour options and fabric choices for Indian brides have expanded. Today fabrics like crepe, Georgette, charmeuse, and satin are used, and colours have been expanded to include gold, pink, orange, maroon, brown, and yellow as well. Indian brides in Western countries often wear the sari at the wedding ceremony and change into traditional Indian wear afterwards (lehnga, choli, etc.).

 

STYLES OF DRAPING

There are more than 80 recorded ways to wear a sari. Fashion designer Aaditya sharma declared, "I can drape a sari in 54 different styles".

 

The most common style is for the sari to be wrapped around the waist, with the loose end of the drape to be worn over the shoulder, baring the midriff. However, the sari can be draped in several different styles, though some styles do require a sari of a particular length or form. The French cultural anthropologist and sari researcher Chantal Boulanger categorised sari drapes in the following families:

 

- Nivi – styles originally worn in Andhra Pradesh; besides the modern nivi, there is also the kaccha nivi, where the pleats are passed through the legs and tucked into the waist at the back. This allows free movement while covering the legs.

- Bengali and Odia style.

- Gujarati/Rajasthani/Pakistani – after tucking in the pleats similar to the nivi style, the loose end is taken from the back, draped across the right shoulder, and pulled across to be secured in the back

- Maharashtrian/Konkani/Kashta; this drape is very similar to that of the male Maharashtrian dhoti. The centre of the sari (held lengthwise) is placed at the centre back, the ends are brought forward and tied securely, then the two ends are wrapped around the legs. When worn as a sari, an extra-long cloth of nine yards is used and the ends are then passed up over the shoulders and the upper body. They are primarily worn by Brahmin women of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Goa.

- Madisar – this drape is typical of Iyengar/Iyer Brahmin ladies from Tamil Nadu. Traditional Madisar is worn using 9 yards saree.

- Kodagu style – this drape is confined to ladies hailing from the Kodagu district of Karnataka. In this style, the pleats are created in the rear, instead of the front. The loose end of the sari is draped back-to-front over the right shoulder, and is pinned to the rest of the sari.

- Gobbe Seere – This style is worn by women in the Malnad or Sahyadri and central region of Karnataka. It is worn with 18 molas saree with three four rounds at the waist and a knot after crisscrossing over shoulders.

- Gond – sari styles found in many parts of Central India. The cloth is first draped over the left shoulder, then arranged to cover the body.

- Malayali style – the two-piece sari, or Mundum Neryathum, worn in Kerala. Usually made of unbleached cotton and decorated with gold or coloured stripes and/or borders. Also the Kerala sari, a sort of mundum neryathum.

- Tribal styles – often secured by tying them firmly across the chest, covering the breasts.

 

Kunbi style or denthli:Goan Gauda and Kunbis,and those of them who have migrated to other states use this way of draping Sari or Kappad, this form of draping is created by tying a knot in the fabric below the shoulder and a strip of cloth which crossed the left shoulder was fasten on the back.

 

NIVI STYLE

The nivi is today's most popular sari style from Andhra Pradesh. The increased interaction with the British saw most women from royal families come out of purdah in the 1900s. This necessitated a change of dress. Maharani Indira Devi of Cooch Behar popularised the chiffon sari. She was widowed early in life and followed the convention of abandoning her richly woven Baroda shalus in favour of the traditional unadorned white. Characteristically, she transformed her "mourning" clothes into high fashion. She had saris woven in France to her personal specifications, in white chiffon, and introduced the silk chiffon sari to the royal fashion repertoire.

 

The chiffon sari did what years of fashion interaction had not done in India. It homogenised fashion across this land. Its softness, lightness and beautiful, elegant, caressing drape was ideally suited to the Indian climate. Different courts adopted their own styles of draping and indigenising the sari. In most of the courts the sari was embellished with stitching hand-woven borders in goldfrom Varanasi, delicate zardozi work, gota, makaish and tilla work that embellished the plain fabric, simultaneously satisfying both traditional demands and ingrained love for ornamentation. Some images of maharanis in the Deccan show the women wearing a sleeveless, richly embellished waistcoat over their blouses. The Begum of Savanur remembers how sumptuous the chiffon sari became at their gatherings. At some courts it was worn with jaali, or net kurtas and embossed silk waist length sadris or jackets. Some of them were so rich that the entire ground was embroidered over with pearls and zardozi.

 

Nivi drape starts with one end of the sari tucked into the waistband of the petticoat, usually a plain skirt. The cloth is wrapped around the lower body once, then hand-gathered into even pleats below the navel. The pleats are tucked into the waistband of the petticoat. They create a graceful, decorative effect which poets have likened to the petals of a flower. After one more turn around the waist, the loose end is draped over the shoulder. The loose end is called the pallu, pallav, seragu, or paita depending on the language. It is draped diagonally in front of the torso. It is worn across the right hip to over the left shoulder, partly baring the midriff. The navel can be revealed or concealed by the wearer by adjusting the pallu, depending on the social setting. The long end of the pallu hanging from the back of the shoulder is often intricately decorated. The pallu may be hanging freely, tucked in at the waist, used to cover the head, or used to cover the neck, by draping it across the right shoulder as well. Some nivi styles are worn with the pallu draped from the back towards the front, coming from the back over the right shoulder with one corner tucked by the left hip, covering the torso/waist. The nivi sari was popularised through the paintings of Raja Ravi Varma. In one of his paintings, the Indian subcontinent was shown as a mother wearing a flowing nivi sari. The ornaments generally accepted by the Hindu culture that can be worn in the midriff region are the waist chains. They are considered to be a part of bridal jewellery.

 

PROFESSIONAL STYLE OF DRAPING

Because of the harsh extremes in temperature on the Indian Subcontinent, the sari fills a practical role as well as a decorative one. It is not only warming in winter and cooling in summer, but its loose-fitting tailoring is preferred by women who must be free to move as their duties require. For this reason, it is the clothing of choice of air hostesses on Air India. This led to a professional style of draping a sari which is referred to "Air-Hostess style sari". An air hostess style sari is tied in just the same way as a normal sari except that the pleats are held together quite nicely with the help of pins. A bordered sari will be just perfect for an Air-Hostess style drape where the pallu is heavily pleated and pinned on the shoulder. Even the vertical pleats that are tucked at the navel are severely pleated and pressed. Same goes for the pallu pleats that are pinned at the shoulder. To get the perfect "Air-hostess" a complimentary U-shaped blouse that covers the upper body completely is worn which gives a very elegant and formal look. Mastering the "Air-hostess" style drape helps to create the desired impact in a formal setting like an interview or a conference.

 

Saris are worn as uniforms by the female hotel staff of many five star luxury hotels in India as symbol of culture. Recently, in a makeover design, Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces, decided the welcoming staff at the group's Luxury Hotels would be draped in the rich colours and designs of the Banarasi six yards. The new saris were unveiled at the Taj property in Mumbai. It will be subsequently replicated at all 10 Luxury Hotels of the group across the country for duty managers and front office staff. Taj had adopted three villages in Varanasi and employed 25 master weavers there for the project. The vision finally took shape after 14 months, once the weavers had a good work environment, understood the designs and fine-tuned the motifs.

 

Similarly, the female politicians of India wear the sari in a professional manner. The women of Nehru–Gandhi family like Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi wear the special blouse for the campaign trail which is longer than usually and is tucked in to prevent any midriff show while waving to the crowds.Stylist Prasad Bidapa has to say, "I think Sonia Gandhi is the country's most stylish politician. But that's because she's inherited the best collection of saris from her mother-in-law. I'm also happy that she supports the Indian handloom industry with her selection." BJP politician Sushma Swaraj maintains her prim housewife look with a pinned-up pallu while general secretary of AIADMK Jayalalithaa wears her saris like a suit of armour.

 

SARIS IN INDIAN LAW

In 2014, an Indian family court in Mumbai ruled that a husband objecting to his wife wearing a kurta and jeans and forcing her to wear a sari amounts to cruelty inflicted by the husband and can be a ground to seek divorce. The wife was thus granted a divorce on the ground of cruelty as defined under section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act, 1954.

 

BANGLADESH

Sharee or saree (in Bengali=শাড়ি) is the national wear of Bangladeshi women. Most women who are married wear sharee as their regular dress while young-unmarried girls wear sharee as an occasional dress. The shari is worn by women throughout Bangladesh. Sari is the most popular dress for women in Bangladesh, both for casual and formal occasion. Although Dhakai Jamdani (hand made shari) is worldwide known and most famous to all women who wear shari but there are also many variety of shari in Bangladesh.There are many regional variations of them in both silk and cotton. e.g.- Tanta/Tant cotton shari, Dhakai Benaroshi shari, Rajshahi silk shari, Tangail Tanter shari, Tassar silk shari, monipuri shari and Katan shari are the most popular in Bangladesh.

 

PAKISTAN

In Pakistan, the sarees are still popular and worn on special occasions. The Shalwar kameez, however, is worn throughout the country on a daily basis. The sari nevertheless remains a popular garment among the middle and upper class for many formal functions. Sarees can be seen worn commonly in metropolitan cities such as Karachi and Islamabad and are worn regularly to weddings and other business type of functions. Sarees are also worn by many Muslim women in Sindh to show their status or to enhance their beauty. The sari is worn as daily wear by Pakistani Hindus, by elderly Muslim women who were used to wearing it in pre-partition India and by some of the new generation who have reintroduced the interest in saris.

 

SRI LANKA

Sri Lankan women wear saris in many styles. Two ways of draping the sari are popular and tend to dominate: the Indian style (classic nivi drape) and the Kandyan style (or osaria in Sinhalese). The Kandyan style is generally more popular in the hill country region of Kandy from which the style gets its name. Though local preferences play a role, most women decide on style depending on personal preference or what is perceived to be most flattering for their figure.

 

The traditional Kandyan (osaria) style consists of a full blouse which covers the midriff completely and is partially tucked in at the front as is seen in this 19th-century portrait. However, modern intermingling of styles has led to most wearers baring the midriff. The final tail of the sari is neatly pleated rather than free-flowing. This is rather similar to the pleated rosette used in the Dravidian style noted earlier in the article.

 

The Kandyan style is considered the national dress of Sinhalese women. It is the uniform of the air hostesses of SriLankan Airlines.

 

During the 1960s, the mini sari known as 'hipster' sari created a wrinkle in Sri Lankan fashion, since it was worn below the navel and barely above the line of prosecution for indecent exposure. The conservative people described the 'hipster' as "an absolute travesty of a beautiful costume almost a desecration" and "a hideous and purposeless garment".

 

NEPAL

The sari is the most commonly worn women's clothing in Nepal. In Nepal, a special style of sari draping is called haku patasihh. The sari is draped around the waist and a shawl is worn covering the upper half of the sari, which is used in place of a pallu.

 

AFGHANISTAN

Sari's have been worn by the Afghan royal family house and upper family classes as well by Muslim women at special functions.

 

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WITH OTHER ASIAN CLOTHING

While the sari is typical to Indian traditional wear, clothing worn by South-East Asian countries like Burma, Malaysia, Philippines, and Singapore resemble it, where a long rectangular piece of cloth is draped around the body. These are different from the sari as they are wrapped around the lower-half of body as a skirt, worn with a shirt/blouse, resembling a sarong, as seen in the Burmese Longyi, Filipino Malong, Tapis, Laotian Xout lao, Thai Sinh's, and Timorese Tais. Saris, worn predominantly in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal are usually draped with one end of the cloth fastened around the waist, and the other end placed over the shoulder baring the midriff.

 

SAREE ORNAMENTATION AND DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES

Saris are woven with one plain end (the end that is concealed inside the wrap), two long decorative borders running the length of the sari, and a one to three-foot section at the other end which continues and elaborates the length-wise decoration. This end is called the pallu; it is the part thrown over the shoulder in the nivi style of draping.

 

In past times, saris were woven of silk or cotton. The rich could afford finely woven, diaphanous silk saris that, according to folklore, could be passed through a finger ring. The poor wore coarsely woven cotton saris. All saris were handwoven and represented a considerable investment of time or money.

 

Simple hand-woven villagers' saris are often decorated with checks or stripes woven into the cloth. Inexpensive saris were also decorated with block printing using carved wooden blocks and vegetable dyes, or tie-dyeing, known in India as bhandani work.

 

More expensive saris had elaborate geometric, floral, or figurative ornaments or brocades created on the loom, as part of the fabric. Sometimes warp and weft threads were tie-dyed and then woven, creating ikat patterns. Sometimes threads of different colours were woven into the base fabric in patterns; an ornamented border, an elaborate pallu, and often, small repeated accents in the cloth itself. These accents are called buttis or bhuttis (spellings vary). For fancy saris, these patterns could be woven with gold or silver thread, which is called zari work.

 

Sometimes the saris were further decorated, after weaving, with various sorts of embroidery. Resham work is embroidery done with coloured silk thread. Zardozi embroidery uses gold and silver thread, and sometimes pearls and precious stones. Cheap modern versions of zardozi use synthetic metallic thread and imitation stones, such as fake pearls and Swarovski crystals.

 

In modern times, saris are increasingly woven on mechanical looms and made of artificial fibres, such as polyester, nylon, or rayon, which do not require starching or ironing. They are printed by machine, or woven in simple patterns made with floats across the back of the sari. This can create an elaborate appearance on the front, while looking ugly on the back. The punchra work is imitated with inexpensive machine-made tassel trim.

 

Hand-woven, hand-decorated saris are naturally much more expensive than the machine imitations. While the overall market for handweaving has plummeted (leading to much distress among Indian handweavers), hand-woven saris are still popular for weddings and other grand social occasions.

 

SARI OUTSIDE SOUTH ASIA

The traditional sari made an impact in the United States during the 1970s. Eugene Novack who ran the New York store, Royal Saree House told that he had been selling it mainly to the Indian women in New York area but later many American business women and housewives became his customers who preferred their saris to resemble the full gown of the western world. He also said that men appeared intrigued by the fragility and the femininity it confers on the wearer. Newcomers to the sari report that it is comfortable to wear, requiring no girdles or stockings and that the flowing garb feels so feminine with unusual grace.

 

As a nod to the fashion-forward philosophy established by the designs of Emilio Pucci, the now-defunct Braniff International Airways envisioned their air hostesses wearing a more revealing version of a sari on a proposed Dallas-Bombay (conceivably via London) service in the late 1970s. However this was never realised because of Halston's resistance to working with a palette outside of his comfort zone. The former Eagan, Minnesota–based Northwest Airlines considered issuing saris to flight attendants working the Minneapolis-Amsterdam-Delhi route that began in the 1990s. This never occurred largely because of a union dispute.

 

The sari has gained its popularity internationally because of the growth of Indian fashion trends globally. Many Bollywood celebrities, like Aishwarya Rai,[48] have worn it at international events representing the Indian culture. In 2010, Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone wanted to represent her country at an international event, wearing the national costume. On her very first red carpet appearance at the Cannes International Film Festival, she stepped out on the red carpet in a Rohit Bal sari.

 

Even popular Hollywood celebrities have worn this traditional attire. Pamela Anderson made a surprise guest appearance on Bigg Boss, the Indian version of Big Brother, dressed in a sari that was specially designed for her by Mumbai-based fashion designer Ashley Rebello. Ashley Judd donned a purple sari at the Youth AIDS Benefit Gala in November 2007 at the Ritz Carlton in Mclean, Virginia. There was an Indian flavour to the red carpet at the annual Fashion Rocks concert in New York, with designer Rocky S walking the ramp along with Jessica, Ashley, Nicole, Kimberly and Melody – the Pussycat Dolls – dressed in saris.

 

TYPES

While an international image of the modern style sari may have been popularised by airline stewardesses, each region in the Indian subcontinent has developed, over the centuries, its own unique sari style. Following are other well-known varieties, distinct on the basis of fabric, weaving style, or motif, in South Asia:

 

CENTRAL STYLES

Chanderi Sari – Madhya Pradesh

Maheshwari – Maheshwar, Madhya Pradesh

Kosa Silk – Chhattisgarh

Dhokra Silk – Madhya Pradesh

 

EASTERN STYLES

Tangail Tant Saree – Bangladesh

Jamdani – Bangladesh

Muslin – Bangladesh

Rajshahi Silk (Eri Silk) – Bangladesh

Tussar Silk Saree – Rajshahi Bangladesh

Dhakai Katan – Bangladesh

Khadi Saree – Comilla Bangladesh

Jute Cotton – Bangladesh

Mooga Silk – Assam

Mekhla Cotton – Assam

Dhaniakhali Cotton – West Bengal

Shantipuri Cotton – Shantipur, West Bengal

Phulia Cotton – Phulia, West Bengal

Begumpur Cotton – Begumpur, West Bengal

Garad Saree (Korial) – Murshidabad, West Bengal

Tant Saree – Farshganj, West Bengal

Murshidabad Silk – West Bengal

Baluchari Silk – Bishnupur, Bankura West Bengal

Kantha Silk & Cotton Saree – West Bengal & Bangladesh

Batic Saree – West Bengal & Bangladesh

Sambalpuri Silk & Cotton Saree – Sambalpur, Odisha

Bomkai Silk & Cotton Saree – Bomkai, Ganjam, Odisha

Khandua Silk & Cotton Saree – Nuapatna, Cuttack, Odisha

Sonepuri Silk & Cotton Saree – Subarnapur, Odisha

Berhampuri Silk – Behrampur, Odisha

Mattha Silk Saree – Mayurbhanj, Odisha

Bapta Silk & Cotton Saree – Koraput, Odisha

Tanta Cotton Saree – Balasore, Odisha

Manipuri Tant Saree - Manipur

 

WESTERN STYLES

Paithani – Maharashtra

Bandhani – Gujarat, Rajasthan, Pakistan

Kota doria – Rajasthan, Pakistan

Lugade – Maharashtra

Patola – Gujarat, Pakistan

 

SOUTHERN STYLES

Mysore Silk – Karnataka

Ilkal Saree – Karnataka

Molakalmuru Sari – Karnataka

Venkatagiri – Andhra Pradesh

Mangalagiri Silk Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Uppada Silk Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Chirala Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Bandar Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Bandarulanka – Andhra Pradesh

Kuppadam Sarees – Andhra Pradesh

Dharmavaram Silk Saree – Andhra pradesh

Kanchipuram Sari (locally called Kanjivaram Pattu) – Tamil Nadu

Kumbakonam – Tamil Nadu

Thirubuvanam – Tamil Nadu

Coimbatore Cotton Tamil Nadu

Chinnalampattu or Sungudi Tamil Nadu

Balarampuram – Kerala

Mundum Neriyathum – Kerala

Mayilati Silk – Kerala

Kannur Cotton – Kerala

Kalpathi Silk Sarees – Kerala

Maradaka Silk – Kerala

Samudrikapuram Silk and Cotton – Kerala

Pochampally Sari or Puttapaka Sari – Telangana

Gadwal Sari – Telangana

Narayanpet – Telangana or Maharashtra

 

NORTHERN STYLES

Banarasi – Uttar Pradesh

Shalu – Uttar Pradesh

Tanchoi – Uttar Pradesh

Bagru – Rajasthan, Pakistan

 

WIKIPEDIA

Remiel:

That was the old Hell. That was a place of mindless torture and purposeless pain. There will be no more wanton violence; no further suffering, inflicted without reason or explanation.

 

We will hurt you.

 

And we are not sorry.

 

But we do not do it to punish you. We do it to redeem you.

 

Because afterward, you'll be a better person...

and because we love you.

 

One day you'll thank us for it.

 

Sinner:

But you don't understand...that makes it worse. That makes it so much worse...

 

-from Season of Mists, Neil Gaiman

 

With the countdown to 26, I give you this picture and personal lesson today:

 

Do not dwell in a vicious cycle of complaining.

 

Be careful when you've fallen into a cycle of non-constructive complaining and negativity. Unless it might lead to a solution and change the situation to the better by, for instance, raising someone's awareness about a matter that requires change, do your best not to dwell in it. We victimize ourselves and voluntarily fall into helplessness by complaining purposelessly.

1. What are you grateful for today?

Finally got the car fixed after a whole day of hooha.

 

2. What emotional message did you have today?

Calm.

 

3. What have you done today that move you forward to achieving your dream or goals?

Getting ready the MACC things settled.

 

4. What have you learned today? How can you do it slightly better next time?

Saving money by spending more time is just not worth it if you could utilise the time for better things. learn to plan and arrange better.

 

5. What have you done to leverage your ability today?

Loving myself.

 

6. Have you veered off or stayed back at your centre? Have you contracted or expanded?

Remained.

 

7. What is that one issue/mistake that you notice today and what can you learn from it?

Time=Money

 

8. What's the one thing I want to focus more/ 1 thing I want to eliminate?

Use my time wisely. Eliminate hanging around purposelessly for too long.

.

  

.

 

..

  

Kentville Grand Street Parade May 27th 2023 Main Street Kentville -

  

.

  

A loss of inclusion and diversity in 2023 - The exclusion of so many of the participating Valley towns that normally attend and the subsequent denial of their valued diversity have marred the 2023 Grand Street Parade ? Many nearby Valley communities are missing from this years Parade when longtime loyal participants were no longer included in the Kentville Grand Street Parade ? Where is Canning, Digby, Annapolis Royal, Hantsport Greenwood, Windsor ? Where's Queen Annapolisa ? Where's the Apple Blossom Princesses and all of the individual Town floats including Princess Kentville ? To view a complete (newcomer version) of the world famous Kentville Grand Street Parade press here www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie

 

.

  

.

  

.

 

On the recent 2023 edition of the Grand Street Parade :

  

"it looked as if some spectators along the route just joined in and began to walk along and make themselves a part of the parade ? "

 

May 27th, 2023 - Dismay, disillusion and some extreme disappointment prevail in Kentville over shocking changes and many missing regular entrees in this years 2023 Grand Street Parade ? Where is our famous Queen Annapolisa and where are the many Apple Blossom Princesses and their child attendants riding in their beautiful hand crafted decorated floats ? Where's the town criers ? And what about the dazzling majorette groups, the Scottish pipers and large multi instrumental marching bands that always attend ? And where are the Hantsport and Windsor floats and their large delegations ? And where are Digby, Aylesford, Annapolis Royal, Canning, Middleton, Wolfville, and more ? Why are so many of the Valley towns and villages that normally participate not included in the parade this year ? It was also a major disappointment for many when for the first time ever, Kentville Apple Blossom Princess (aka Miss Kentville) was no longer included as there are many town residents young and old who identify with the Apple Blossom Princess at this time of year ? However, the now purposeless Apple Blossom Princess float was used this year to transport a grouping of everyday town residents as they sat around together in a social scene meant to identity Kentville with diversity and inclusion ? The New Minas float also did not include an Apple Blossom Princess for this year, however her float was transformed into an advertisement for the famous New Minas UFO incident which all New Minions identify with. The Berwick float didn't include a Princess Berwick this year either. but was altered to proudly identify with the town's upcoming Centennial celebrations. And the Kingston float was also missing an Apple Blossom Princess this year but was instead promoting their long running Kingston Steer Barbecue that all Kingstonians readily identify with. It was good to see an RCMP contingent again although they sent far less officers this year than usual ? And it was notable that only 1 other large marching band appeared in the parade when usually 4 or more big bands, many with many pipers usually attend after traveling up from places like Cape Breton, Bridgewater, Dartmouth etc ? And where have all the pets and animals gone ? There's no horse teams, wooden wagons, riders or livestock this year ? Even the usual greyhound dogs weren't there ? Also noticed that some spectators must have just joined in and began walking along within the parade, and others must have come over from the Children's parade with their strollers to join in ? There was a variety of advertisers, most from out of town but some local ? There were various Political parties represented, with the largest delegation coming from the Kody Blois Liberals ? All in all, this Year's parade seemed a bare minimum and a weak effort that really missed the inclusion of royal pageantry and the 7 to 10 spectacular Princess floats, and also missed the large marching bands and majorette groups that usually enter, the usual agriculture horticulture and livestock component, the popular Scottish pipers bands that always attend, and also the many large out of town contingents that always normally participate ? This was not the famous grand street parade that patrons are accustomed to seeing, and did not represent the high standards and degree of professionalism set by all previous Grand Street Parades ? It became obvious that what was being advertised as a newer, bolder, more inclusive and more diverse parade was instead the exact opposite because this new version of our Grand Street Parade had lost the inclusion, diversity and the major contribution put forth by the absent Valley communities along with their individual Princess contestants and Child attendants that always come to Kentville to participate in the Queen Annapolisa competition, the Friday evening coronation gala at Acadia University in Wolfville, the many Princess Teas, and the Royal attendances at schools, hospitals, senior citizen homes and shut-ins, as well as appearances at the Friday night Memorial Park outdoor concert and fireworks, Royal attendances highlighting the Saturday morning Children's Parade, and a Royal trip down Main street Kentville aboard a beautiful hand crafted royal float in the famous Grand Street parade ?

And so, to quickly sum up, can a strange looking, incomplete, shortened, now Royal-less, newcomer mentality amateur version of our elite world-famous Kentville Grand Street Parade that was now missing her heinous Queen Annapolisa and also missing 7 to 10 Apple Blossom Princesses and their individual 7 to 10 beautifully handcrafted Town Princess floats, and also missing much of the unique character and diversity usually provided by the numerous Valley villages and communities who were no longer included, and that also failed to include many of the large out of town marching bands and pipers and majorettes who usually attend, and that also lacked representation from local area farming, agriculture and livestock,, now signal the end of the once glorious Grand Street Parade era ?

.

  

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

  

.

  

Following a 2 year absence due to Covi,, the 2022 Annapolis Valley Apple Blossom Festival. (and Parade) will be held as per usual this year.. Unfortunately the Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess competition has had to be postponed until next year due to time constraints.

  

.

  

.

  

Shocking news from ABF,

  

* There's been a stunning development at ABF. *

 

Apparently in a new younger generation there are those who harbor resentment towards our nations history, for English colonialism, and even for the Monarchy ? Other minority groups have voiced discontent over the diversity and inclusion issue ? And so it seems that the current ABF Board of Directors has listened to the concerns and complaints of a few small minority groups while apparently ignoring and excluding the overwhelming majority of Valley residents ? And it appears that this current Board of Directors chose to resolve such discontent by simply moving to implement and execute the nuclear option and the final solution ? And therefore after a highly successful lengthy run of 87 consecutive years in a row, the extremely anticipated, very popular, family oriented, inclusive and diverse, multi village Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess Pageant along with the prestigious Royal Coronation crowning ceremonies held in Wolfville have all been terminated forever by this current board of Directors ?

  

.

  

-----------------------It's The End of an Era-----------------------------

  

"We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep."

  

Annapolis Valley Apple Blossom Festival 2023 - ABF Board of Directors has announced drastic new changes in format and even deeper cut-backs to the annual People's Festival ? Concerns over ceremony, symbolism, the monarchy and colonialism, along with some complaints over inclusion and diversity may have had an influence on the current ABF board of Directors and they have seen a need to update the long running Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess pageant in order to bring it up to a standard they view as being more relevant to the current times ? And so the Directors must have held an extremely private 'think tank' last Winter, and without notifying, caring, considering or consulting with any of the long time participating Valley communities, they had decided that rather than trouble themselves any further with this pesky issue, why not just take the easy way out and simply get rid of it ? And so it seems they made a final decision in private last Winter and moved to execute the final and fatal solution to their problem by ordering that the iconic 87 year old Pageant competition be immediately shut down and terminated forever ? And therefore, as a result of an unexclusive and uncontested decision made in private, one of the longest running, popular, identifiable, well known, highly anticipated, most inclusive and diverse, proud all family events that has ever benefited Valley residents of every age, has just been taken away ?

This unconditional act of finality will now end the long running 88 year reign of her royal Heinous Queen Annapolisa and will terminate all participation of the 7 to 10 Apple Blossom Princess contestants and their child attendants that represent 7 to 10 local Valley communities ? It will also mean the end of the many beautiful hand crafted award winning Princess floats that always highlight Grand Street Parade, and it will also signal the end of the ultra glamorous Queen and Ladies-in-waiting Crowning ceremonies held annually and televised each year from Acadia University in Wolfville ? This also puts an end to the many popular community Princess Tea events, and also ends all Royal Party visitations to local Schools, hospitals and old folks homes that are so welcome and appreciated by Students, Seniors and shut-ins ? This also signals the end of Royal Party appearances at Kentville Children's Parade, at the Memorial Park Friday night open air concert and fireworks, and all Royal attendances at many other events held annually throughout the Valley and the Province ?

It appears now that current ABF Officials led by President Logan Morse along with Kentville town rep Lindsey Young have not only interrupted the Pageant in 2022 when they temporarily postponed it, but have now in 2023 moved to terminate this prestigious event forever explaining that their radical decision has been made to improve, include, modernize and evolve the famed beauty pageant ? This final act of termination ends almost 90 years of royal pageantry and also leaves a huge gap in the Festival itself ? It will also negatively affect so many of the nearby Valley communities who always participate and enter contestants in the Pageant ? The ending of such an important multiple community event and the taking away of the better half and Star of the Apple Blossom Festival brings forth the question of what replacement is planned, and what are local towns and villages that always play major roles in both the Queen and Princess competition suppose to do now ? And what about Valley youth and the childhood dreams of one day becoming a child attendant or an Apple Blossom Princess or even a Queen ?

You have to marvel at the level of ego and disrespect shown by this latest Board of Directors who have dared appoint themselves as the ones that will end the Pageant and then to think that Valley residents are stupid enough to believe that by cancelling and taking away a cherished and long running event, that they have in some perverted way of thinking moved the Valley forward or improved and modernized anything ? It seems far more likely that they have taken the Valley on a giant step backwards and they have robbed the people of a much beloved, long running, multi community, all inclusive, local production that has always been a highly anticipated all Valley highlight for the past almost 90 consecutive years ?

Why current ABF Management who have applied themselves to be the stewards who are in charge and responsible for the promotion and presentation of this event, appear as unable to perform their duties and do the job they are compensated to do and do what their predecessors have always done so well before them each and every year for the past 87 years often in far more trying circumstances and in far less prosperous times, is hard to understand ? And you have to wonder, Whatever happened to the # 1 rule in business that says that if you can't do the job because of inexperience, immaturity, inability, incompetency, bias, or just plain stupidity, then,, You're all FIRED ! (and a Class action recovery suit may be forthcoming ?)

  

ABF news updates :

  

Logan Morse and a newcomer ABF Board of Directors break the hearts of Valley families especially the Children when moving to terminate the historic and long running Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess Pageant after 88 years ? Directors show no remorse, only saying that bold action was needed to improve, evolve and bring the pageant up to their modern standards ? www.pressreader.com/canada/annapolis-valley-register/2023...

 

May 26, 2023 - We Are the Ones. An unusual degree of disrespect shown when the long running all Valley Peoples Pageant is cancelled without either of consideration or consultation ? A modern generation of newcomer ABF Directors with bold new ideas have apparently proclaimed themselves to be the generation that will interrupt and then permanently end 88 years of wonderful multi Valley village Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess enjoyment ?

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/apple-blossom-festival...

 

Annapolis Valley families are in shock and children cry upon learning their beloved Queen Annapolisa Pageant has been cancelled without notice, consultation, consideration or compassion ? Newcomer Directors say they are taking this bold action to improve, evolve and modernize the historic Annapolis Valley Apple Blossom Festival ? www.saltwire.com/atlantic-

 

Valley residents lose a long time major public yearly entertainment event after the ever popular ABF Greenwood Airshow is terminated and will be no more. Fast forward to Aug 24, 2024, and corporate greed ? Air Show Atlantic Inc. now charges big bucks to see taxpayer owned aircraft at a taxpayer owned airport in a far inferior airshow ?

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/52345513615

 

Kentville IS the Cornwallis Inn and the Cornwallis Inn IS Kentville ! If you were to google the 2 words Cornwallis Inn you will get over 600,000 entries with almost all of them married to the word Kentville.. (what a great promotional tool) . The world famous Cornwallis Inn is the source of many fond memories for all local and Valley residents.. "It was the centre of everything’: The past and present of Kentville’s iconic Cornwallis Inn"

www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/lifestyles/it-was-the-centre...

 

Kentville, an identity crisis. Help, Is there a Superhero out there to save Kentville from the newconers ? www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/51811175986/in/album-7...

 

The controversial 2017 Grand Street Parade - Has Kentville once again been the target of exploitation ? After Warden Brothers, (Greenwood ) and Liberal MP L Glavine (Kingston) had all but hijacked Waterville Airport and then relocated it to their own home riding in the Kingston/Greenwood area, it seems that the town of Kentville must face yet another attack from the Kingston area when Alxys Chamberlain, the Kingston Apple Blossom Princess, and ABF Directors attempt to take yet another major source of revenue and major attraction away from the town of Kentville ?

Et tu, Madama Chamberlain ? The unconscionable attempted hijacking and subsequent recovery of Kentvilles's most beloved yearly event ?

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/18506181065

 

2023 Kentville Grand Street Parade - Disregard for safety shown as unrestrained Senior citizens are precariously perched atop an unshaded, no sided, stop and go, large unstable jerking motion moving platform ?

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/53900780519/in/album-7...

 

Exploiting a Queen for a photo op ? Politicians at the official opening of the 2023 Apple Blossom Festival pretend that there's still a Pageant while knowing full well that Queen Annapolisa has been terminated forever and will no longer be a part of this Festival ? www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/53755100811/in/album-7...

 

2023 Kentville Grand Street Parade ABF stewards defy Trudeau's call for diversity and inclusion ? Many nearby local Valley towns and villages that always normally attend are now excluded from the parade ? This exclusion also means an absence of the diversity provided from the attendance of these many local communities ? Where is Canning, Digby, Annapolis Royal, Hantsport Greenwood, Windsor ? Where's Queen Annapolisa ? Where's the Apple Blossom Princesses and all of the individual Town floats including Princess Kentville ? To view the complete 2023 Kentville Grand Street Parade press here, www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie

 

89th Kentville Grand Street Parade May 27th 2023,, It's the sad ending of an Era ? ABF Organizers take away tremendous diversity when all Royal proceedings have been excluded from this years festival, www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/52934419451

 

Facebook, Friends of Kentville - The site Administrator, a new arrival from PEI, says she wants to see Kentville as the queerest town in all of Nova Scotia ? www.facebook.com/groups/2588266877982288

 

Will a drag Queen replace an apple blossom Queen in Kentville ? www.nsbuzz.ca/life/kentville-all-ages-drag-show-draws-pro...

 

Nov 16 2023 - Apple Blossom Princesses call for a return of Queen Annapolisa,

www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/communities/former-apple...

 

The Town of Kentville has moved to cut back and eliminate many hours of public outdoor entertainment that were held as a part of the Apple Blossom Festival ?

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/52094784785

 

A medley of the guest Tribute bands that have performed at Memorial Park Kentville - Always free of charge in the past at the Apple Blossom Festival : Petty Larceny, Fleetwod Mix, Keep the Faith, Stones Tribute, Green River Revival, Viscious, Eddy's Basement, Matt Minglewood,

www.dailymotion.com/video/x5hqti9

 

Mean corporate greed is shown by the newcomer ABF directors in this years Apple Blossom Festival ? Instead of providing a free guest Tribute band at the free Memorial Park Friday night concert, it will now cost 50.00 pp to see the 'Queen tribute band' performance. that's 50.00 per ticket in 2025 ? acadiau.universitytickets.com/

 

A Scrooge-like cheap Town of Kentville rips off its own citizens (and right at Apple Blossom Festival time) ? Cold capitalism shown by Town of Kentville and by the newcomer ABF management ? Citizens burdened with an out of pocket expense of TWENTY DOLLARS each just to attend an outdoor street dance held downtown on taxpayer owned property during Apple Blossom Festival ? Is there no sense of shame ? www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54546051832/in/photost...

 

She's Ruined It ! Our great Festival is no longer even recognizable ? How could anyone take a world class event and turn it into something that can only be described as stupid ? President Erica Gillis has to be the worst ever ?

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54493011308/in/dateposted

 

2025 Kentville Grand Street Parade - A brief 45-minute and a very limited and compacted Kentville Grand Street Parade this year ? Zero large marching street bands and majorettes invited other than 1 mini version of the standard RCMP entrée, No Sottish pipers or pipe bands, zero in Royalty or their famous royal floats, Most of the regular nearby Valley village participants weren't here, Zero horses or wagons, No armaments, soldiers, bands or displays from the Aldershot military or Greenwood, etc etc, ? And yet the Guest parade announcer proclaims in quote @ 29:17, " this parade is the largest in Canada, incl Toronto - it's the longest with the largest route and has the most entries. " Wha-a-a-t, where did she come from and what is she talkin about ?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQuaIdrQi00

 

Mayor in Kentville Grand Street Parade - A new Royal rider rolls down Main Street aboard the Kentville Apple Blossom Princess float ? This year the newcomer Mayor graces the royal throne. 'Somebody get that king a crown and scepter '

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54557663677/in/dateposted

 

they've ruined it part 2 ? May 31st, 2025 Grand Street Parade - From 100,000 down to 10,000, Parade attendance shrinks to all time low, www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54568017261/in/photost.... Also see, They've ruined the Festival and the Parade too ?

www.facebook.com/avabf

 

ABF Directors may disapprove and may have terminated the beloved Queen Annapolisa pageant and the multiple village Apple Blossom Princess competition but Valley residents will always admire, support, respect and remain fond of the British Monarchy. The majority of Valley citizens are delighted to hear that his Majesty King Charles III and Queen Camilla are invited and will be coming for a royal visit to Canada on May 26 and 27, 2025. This year's incomplete and now Royalty-less ABF starts on the 28th, www.cbc.ca/news/politics/king-charles-canada-visit-1.7524946

 

The long proud history of past Queen Annapolisa and Apple Blossom Princess winners has been removed from sight and erased from the official Annapolis Valley Apple Blossom Festival website ? A special honorary history page dedicated to previous Queen Annapolisa winners from 1933 thru 2019 has been taken down and apparently replaced with jumbo size portraits of the newcomer President and other ABF directors who have taken over and ruined the world famous Annapolis Valley Apple Blossom Festival ? www.appleblossom.com/history/past-queens

Meet the directors,

www.appleblossom.com/about/

  

May 30th, 2025 - a 20 dollar hamburger and a ride on the bouncycastle ? High level security enforcement brought in for this years ABF Memorial Park Friday night rock concert ? ( must have taken up most of the budget ) ? Town of Kentville brings in outside police, closes roads, and sets up security perimiter with manned guard posts to provide tightened security for their Friday night Memorial Park Apple Blossom outdoor concert that in the past had always featured guest rock bands, interesting displays, and a Royal visit following the glamorous coronation ceremony in Wolfville, but has now been cut down to some kind of an outdoor romper room type family show featuring food trucks, fireworks, air blown bouncy jumpers and minimal live local entertainment on the main stage ? It has been reported that a parking violator was successfully apprehended thanks to the upgraded crowd control security and strict traffic control hired by the Board for this occasion ? www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54558198569

 

May 30th, 2025 Memorial Park Kentville - Seniors and those with disabilities are made to walk long distances in order to reach this year's disappointing ABF Friday night outdoor rock Concert that didn't bring in a rock band, (nor much of anything else) ? www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54558198569/in/photost...

 

Oct 4th, 2025 - Kentville Harvest Festival Centre Square, A disappointing harvest festival this year that forgot about hayrides, pumpkin people making, the harvest and the farmer ?https://www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54835089011/in/photostream/

  

Upgrade 2025 ? taken from the front of Phinneys dept store - a massive expenditure is budgeted for a major upgrade to the Mayor's business backyard - Downtown Kentville Webster Street gets a complete and total beautification makeover with new installations of street paving, paint, new sidewalks both sides, driveway entrances, and new curb and gutter both sides ? All the other streets that surround the Phinneys' downtown business block have also been upgraded including Aberdeen Street, Cornwallis Street, and Main Street ?

 

www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/54835340734/in/photost...

  

.

  

Some previous parades :

 

2011 Grand Street Parade Kentville 79th ABF

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVgh3Dh2xn8&t=208s

  

2012 Grand Street Parade Kentville www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB1VBx50b18

  

2014 Kentville Grand Street Parade www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEo14IZKxp8&t=11s

  

2015 Kentville Grand Street Parade

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBifeG2SdPY&t=47s

 

2016 Kentville Grand Street Parade www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2wedvN5_Iw&t=8s

 

2017 Kentville Grand Street Parade www.youtube.com/watch?v=JozwyGpvfSY&t=1978s

 

2018 Kentville Grand Street Parade www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOK1GmiLmNk&t=986s

 

2019 Kentville Grand Street Parade www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMdEx8Zf-q0&t=1492s

 

2023 Grand Street Parade - To view the much deteriorated (newcomer version) of what once was the world famous Kentville Grand Street Parade, press here www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie www.dailymotion.com/video/x8lchie

 

A concerned Kentvillian must finally speak out, www.flickr.com/photos/74039487@N02/44424045874

  

Kentville is an incorporated town in Nova Scotia. It is the most populous town in the Annapolis Valley. As of 2021, the town's population was 6,630.

  

.

 

The peony

Made him measure it

With his fan.

- Issa

 

made to measure it

with a fan...

the peony

- Issa

     

"The way in which the peony is considered as the active source of the measuring of

itself is not merely good psychology, but shows us how Issa looks upon the plant

world and upon himself. Compared to that of the ordinary man, human beings

and plants are much closer together in the thought-feeling world of Issa. The

flower stands there in its color and glory. It does not bloom to be seen, nor

does it wish to blush unseen. It is not dependent upon man, but neither is it

independent of him. Its purposeless purpose is fulfilled in its blooming in

solitude and silence, yet when no one is gazing upon it, it has no shape or color

or fragrance. The flower needs the mind, and the mind needs the flower for its

fulfillment. Issa emphasizes the power and activity of the peony not only because

we live in an egocentric, homocentric world, valueless and unpoetical, but also

because he wishes to bring out the special nature of the peony, its power and

magnificence, its lofty splendor. Is this splendor in the flower? Does Issa

cause the flower to be measured, or does the flower cause Issa to measure it?"

- R. H. Blyth, Haiku, Volume 3, Summer-Autumn

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

 

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, if the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?

AND - where did the law of gravity come from?

AND - 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"

 

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.

 

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 - 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 clique, 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 why is it atheists that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?

 

According to their claims, they 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.

What 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 the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for causes. A natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.

Once you suggest such a notion you are stepping outside the bounds of science and violating the scientific method.

 

What about the first cause of everything? 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. 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.

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 nothing, or 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.

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.

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. And the real enemy of atheism is science, 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.

So is it a valid solution?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

The development of order requires an organizational element.

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

Bogus science indeed!

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Atheists say the exact opposite.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Christianity and pagan gods?

 

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

Do they have a good point?

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….

Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

How true is that?

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

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

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

 

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

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions