Truth in science
Which is more scientific - Atheism or Christianity?
Which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?
You may think this is a stupid question -
Because ...
Atheism is claimed by atheists and the popular media as the rational, scientific viewpoint. While Christianity is portrayed as an irrational, outdated, backward enemy of science.
Many of us have been conditioned to believe this.
But is what they say actually true?
The answer may surprise you.
What does science itself have to say?
1. The First Law of Thermodynamics says - there is no natural means by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite - that matter/energy created itself, from nothing, by natural processes.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the First Law.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 1
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that both the energy potential and order of the universe is decreasing from an initial peak.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite - that energy potential naturally increased of its own accord to a peak, followed by a subsequent, continuing development of order.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Second Law.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 2
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
3. Law of Cause and Effect says – every natural effect/event has a cause.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists refuse to accept this law, and claim the opposite – a natural, first cause of the universe that was uncaused.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Law of Cause and Effect.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 3
Atheism 0
__________________________________________
4. The Law of Cause and Effect also says – that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The cause must always be adequate to produce the effect.
Christians fully accept this aspect of the law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite – they propose that the universe originated from an uncaused, natural, first cause, which would obviously be inadequate to produce the effect.
i.e. they propose a natural cause of the universe [such as a (Big Bang) explosion or quantum effects] which would be grossly inferior to the totality of all the properties/qualities that exist in the universe.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject this aspect of the Law of Cause and Effect.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 4
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
5. The Law of Biogenesis says – only life begets life, it cannot arise by purely natural processes from sterile matter.
Christians fully accept this well-established law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the exact opposite – they claim that life on Earth, and possibly, even on other planets, did arise by natural processes from sterile matter.
The Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.
Regardless of the facts, atheists stubbornly refuse to accept the well established, Law of Biogenesis and, quite perversely, have invented their own (unscientific) law which they call ‘abiogenesis’ to replace it.
Abiogenesis (which has no evidence to support it) says the complete opposite of the Law of Biogenesis. It says that matter/energy is inherently predisposed to create life of its own volition when environmental conditions are conducive.
Unsurprisingly, atheists cannot explain where this alleged predisposition of matter to produce life comes from? Ironically, this predisposition for life is fatal to the atheist idea of a purposeless universe? A classic, catch 22 situation.
Therefore, with regard to the origin of life, atheists reject the Law of Biogenesis
_________________________________________
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 5/5
Atheism 0/5
_________________________________________
So, which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?
Christianity fully accepts all natural laws, without reservation.
Atheism disregards or rejects any natural laws (or evidence) that contradict the atheist belief in naturalism.
Atheist (pagan-revivalist) naturalism credits natural entities with god-like, non-contingent, autonomous powers, which (according to science) they clearly don't possess.
This means ....
Christianity is more scientific than atheism.
_________________________________________
Conclusion ...
Christianity is compatible with science.
Atheism is an irrational, outdated, backward, enemy of science.
_________________________________________
"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”
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
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
Which is more scientific - Atheism or Christianity?
Which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?
You may think this is a stupid question -
Because ...
Atheism is claimed by atheists and the popular media as the rational, scientific viewpoint. While Christianity is portrayed as an irrational, outdated, backward enemy of science.
Many of us have been conditioned to believe this.
But is what they say actually true?
The answer may surprise you.
What does science itself have to say?
1. The First Law of Thermodynamics says - there is no natural means by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite - that matter/energy created itself, from nothing, by natural processes.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the First Law.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 1
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that both the energy potential and order of the universe is decreasing from an initial peak.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite - that energy potential naturally increased of its own accord to a peak, followed by a subsequent, continuing development of order.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Second Law.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 2
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
3. Law of Cause and Effect says – every natural effect/event has a cause.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists refuse to accept this law, and claim the opposite – a natural, first cause of the universe that was uncaused.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Law of Cause and Effect.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 3
Atheism 0
__________________________________________
4. The Law of Cause and Effect also says – that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The cause must always be adequate to produce the effect.
Christians fully accept this aspect of the law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite – they propose that the universe originated from an uncaused, natural, first cause, which would obviously be inadequate to produce the effect.
i.e. they propose a natural cause of the universe [such as a (Big Bang) explosion or quantum effects] which would be grossly inferior to the totality of all the properties/qualities that exist in the universe.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject this aspect of the Law of Cause and Effect.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 4
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
5. The Law of Biogenesis says – only life begets life, it cannot arise by purely natural processes from sterile matter.
Christians fully accept this well-established law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the exact opposite – they claim that life on Earth, and possibly, even on other planets, did arise by natural processes from sterile matter.
The Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.
Regardless of the facts, atheists stubbornly refuse to accept the well established, Law of Biogenesis and, quite perversely, have invented their own (unscientific) law which they call ‘abiogenesis’ to replace it.
Abiogenesis (which has no evidence to support it) says the complete opposite of the Law of Biogenesis. It says that matter/energy is inherently predisposed to create life of its own volition when environmental conditions are conducive.
Unsurprisingly, atheists cannot explain where this alleged predisposition of matter to produce life comes from? Ironically, this predisposition for life is fatal to the atheist idea of a purposeless universe? A classic, catch 22 situation.
Therefore, with regard to the origin of life, atheists reject the Law of Biogenesis
_________________________________________
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 5/5
Atheism 0/5
_________________________________________
So, which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?
Christianity fully accepts all natural laws, without reservation.
Atheism disregards or rejects any natural laws (or evidence) that contradict the atheist belief in naturalism.
Atheist (pagan-revivalist) naturalism credits natural entities with god-like, non-contingent, autonomous powers, which (according to science) they clearly don't possess.
This means ....
Christianity is more scientific than atheism.
_________________________________________
Conclusion ...
Christianity is compatible with science.
Atheism is an irrational, outdated, backward, enemy of science.
_________________________________________
"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”
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
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183