Atheism debunked - why God MUST exist ...

Something or nothing?

There are only two alternatives, something or nothing. Existence or non-existence?

Existence is a fact!

We know something exists (the physical universe),

but why?

Two questions arise …why is there something rather than nothing?

And where did everything that exists come from? Obviously, something cannot arise from nothing, no sane person would entertain such an impossible prospect. However, an incredible fantasy that the universe actually created itself from nothing, has been proposed by some, high profile atheists, and presented to the public as though it is science. A sort of ‘theory of everything’ that purports to eliminate a creator.

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

Professor Stephen Hawking.

 

It is not intelligent, sensible or scientific to believe that everything created itself from absolutely nothing.

In a state of infinite and eternal nothingness, nothing exists and nothing happens - EVER.

Nothing means ‘nothing’. Nothing tangible, no physical laws, no information, not even abstract things, like mathematics. If nothing exists there can be no numbers or anything based on numbers.

Furthermore, you don’t need to be a genius, or a scientist, to understand that something CANNOT create itself.

Put simply, it is self-evident that - to create itself, something would have to pre-exist its own creation to carry out the act of creating. And, if it already exists, it doesn’t need to create itself.

And, if anything at all already exists, i.e. in this case ‘gravity’, (which is simply an inherent property of matter), it cannot be called 'nothing'.

Moreover, ‘gravity’ cannot be a creative agent, it is merely an inherent property of matter – it is obvious that a property of something cannot create that which it is a property of. Thus, we are obliged to conclude that nonsense remains nonsense, even when presented by high profile scientists.

“Fallacies remain fallacies, even when they become fashionable.” GK Chesterton.

Such incredible, nonsensical propositions are just vain attempts to undermine the well, established, law of cause and effect, which is fatal to atheist ideology.

 

Religion?

Once we admit the obvious fact that the universe cannot arise of its own accord from nothing (nothing will remain nothing forever), the only alternative is that ‘something’ has always existed – an infinite ‘something’. For anything to happen, such as the origin of the universe, the infinite something, cannot just exist in a state of eternal, passive inactivity, it must be capable of positive activity.

If we examine the characteristics, powers, qualities and attributes which exist now, we must conclude that the ‘something’, that has always existed, must have amazing (godlike) powers to be able to produce all the wonderful qualities we see in the universe, including: information, natural laws, life, intelligence, consciousness, etc.

This means we need to believe in some sort of ‘godlike entity’. The only remaining question is - which god? Is it a creator or simply nature or natural forces? Seeking an answer to that question is the essential role of religion, which is based on reason, rather than blind faith.

 

Why God MUST exist ...

There are only two states of being (existence) – temporal and infinite. That. which has a beginning, is ‘temporal’. That which has no beginning is ‘infinite’.

Everything that exists must be one or the other.

The temporal (unlike the infinite) is not autonomous or non-contingent, it, essentially, relies on something else for its beginning (its cause) and its continued existence.

The universe and all natural things are temporal. Hence, they ALL require a cause or causes.

They could NOT exist without a cause to bring them into being. This is a FACT accepted by science, and enshrined in the Law of Cause and Effect.

The Law of Cause and Effect tells us that every, natural effect requires a cause. And that - an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

This is a fundamental principle, essential to the scientific method.

No temporal effect can be greater than (superior to) the sum-total of its cause or causes

It is obvious that - something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.

A temporal entity can be a subsidiary cause of another temporal entity, but cannot be the initial (first) cause of the entire, temporal realm - which includes ALL natural effects and entities.

Entropy

The initial (first) cause of the temporal realm had to be something non-temporal (uncaused), i.e. something infinite.

The word ‘temporal’ is derived from tempus, Latin for time. - All temporal things are subject to time - and, as well as having a beginning in time, natural things can also expect to naturally degenerate, with the passage of time, towards a decline in function, order and existence. The material universe is slowly in decline and dying.

The natural realm is not just temporal, but also temporary (finite). Science acknowledges this with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy).

As all natural things are temporal, we know that the initial (first), infinite cause of everything temporal cannot be a natural agent or entity.

The infinite, first cause of everything natural can also be regarded as ‘supernatural’, in the sense that it is not subject to natural laws that are intrinsic only to natural things, which it caused.

This fact is verified by science, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that there is no ‘natural’ means by which matter/energy can be created.

However, as the first cause existed before the natural realm (which is subject to natural laws, without exception), the issue of the first cause being exempt from natural laws (supernatural) is not something extraordinary or magical. It is the original and normal default state of that infinite something which caused/created the natural realm.

If the material universe was infinite, we wouldn’t have entropy. Entropy is a characteristic only of natural entities.

The infinite cannot be subject to entropy, it does not deteriorate, it remains the same forever.

Entropy can apply only to temporal, natural entities.

Therefore, we know that the material universe, as a temporal entity, had to have a beginning and will have an end.

That which existed before the universe, as an original cause of everything material, had to be infinite, because you cannot have an infinite chain of temporal (material) events. The temporal can only exist if it is sustained by the infinite.

As all natural entities are temporal, the (infinite) first cause could not possibly be a natural entity.

So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports and confirms the only logical conclusion we can reach from the Law of Cause and Effect, that a natural, first cause is impossible, according to science.

This is fatal to the atheist ideology of naturalism because it means there is no alternative to an infinite, supernatural, first cause (a Creator God).

 

Can there be multiple infinite, first causes (polytheism)?

It is evident that there can be only one ‘infinite’ entity. If, for example, there are two infinite entities, neither could have its own, unique properties.

Why?

Because, unless they possessed identical properties, neither would be infinite. However, if they both possessed the very same properties, there would be no distinction between them, they would be identical and thus a single entity.

To put it another way …

God, as an infinite being, can only be a single entity, if He was not, and there was another infinite being, the properties which were pertinent to the other infinite being would be a limitation on His infinite character, and vice versa. So, neither entity would be infinite.

Creation - an act of will?

For an infinite cause to produce a temporal effect, such as the universe, an active character and an act of will must be involved. If the first cause was just a blind, mechanistic, natural thing, the universe would just be a continuation of the infinite nature of the first cause, not temporal (subject to time). For example, if the nature of water in infinite time was to be frozen, it would continue its frozen nature infinitely. There must be an active agent involved.

Time applies to the temporal, not the infinite. The infinite is omnipresent, it always was, it always is, and it always will be. It is the “Alpha and the Omega” as the Bible explains.

Jesus referred to Himself as “I am” which means He was claiming to be the infinite creator.

Therefore, what we know about the characteristics of this supernatural entity, are as follows:

The single, supernatural entity:

1. Has always existed, has no cause, and is not subject to time. (is infinite, eternally self-existent, autonomous and non-contingent).

2. Is the first, original and deliberate cause of everything temporal (including the universe and every natural entity and effect).

3. Cannot be, in any way, inferior to any temporal or natural thing that exists.

In simple terms, this means that the single, infinite, supernatural, first cause of everything that exists in the temporal realm, has the capability of creating everything that exists, and cannot be inferior in any powers and attributes to anything that exists. This is the entity we recognise as the creator God.

The Bible tells us that we were made in the image of this God. This is logical because it is obvious, we cannot be superior to this God (an effect cannot be greater than its cause).

So, all our qualities and attributes must be possessed by the God in whose image we were made.

All our attributes come from the creator, or supernatural, first cause.

Remember, the logic that something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.

We have life. Thus, our creator must be alive.

We are intelligent. Thus, our creator must be intelligent.

We are conscious. Thus, our creator must be conscious.

We can love. Thus, our creator must love.

We understand justice. Thus, our creator must be just, etc. etc.

Therefore, we can logically discern the character and attributes of the creator from what is seen in His creation.

This FACT - that an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s, is recognised as a basic principle of science, and is it crucial to understanding the nature and attributes of the first cause.

It means nothing in the universe that exists, resulting from the action of the first cause, can be in anyway superior to the first cause. We must conclude that, at least, some attributes of the first cause can be seen in the universe.

 

Atheists frequently ask how can we possibly know what God is like?

The Bible (which is inspired by God) tells us many things about the character of God, but regardless of scripture, the universe itself gives us evidence of God’s nature.

For example: can the properties of human beings, in any way, be superior to the first cause?

To suggest they are, would be to violate the scientific principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.

All the powers, properties, qualities and attributes we observe in the universe, including all human qualities, must be also evident in the first cause.

If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have life.

If there is intelligence in the universe the first cause must have intelligence.

The same applies to consciousness, skill, design, purpose, justice, love, beauty, forgiveness, mercy etc.

Therefore, we must conclude that the eternally, self-existent, non-natural (supernatural), first cause, has life, is conscious, has intelligence and created the temporal as an act of will.

We know, from the law of cause and effect, that the first cause cannot possibly be any of the natural processes frequently proposed by atheists, such as: the so-called, big bang explosion, singularity or quantum mechanics.

They are all temporal, moreover, it is obvious that none of them are adequate to produce the effect. They are all grossly inferior to the result.

 

To sum up:

Using impeccable logic and reason, supported by our understanding of established, natural, physical laws (which apply to everything of a natural, temporal nature) acknowledged by science, humans have been able to discover the existence of a single, infinite, supernatural, living, intelligent, loving and just creator God.

God discovered, not invented!

Contrary to the narrative perpetuated by atheists, a personal, creator God is not a “human invention”, and He is certainly not a backward substitute for reason or science, but rather, He is an enlightened, human discovery, based on unimpeachable logic, reason, rationality, natural laws and scientific understanding.

 

The real character of atheism.

Is belief in God just superstitious, backward thinking, suitable only for the uneducated or scientific illiterates, as atheists would have us believe?

The widely acknowledged, best brain in modern atheism proposed the following (quoted earlier), which it was claimed by some, made belief in God redundant:

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

This is the essence of Professor Stephen Hawking's so-called, 'theory of everything' summed up in a single sentence.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand it is atheism, not monotheism, which is a throwback to a former unenlightened period in human history. A period when Mother Nature or other natural or material, temporal entities were regarded as having autonomous, godlike, creative powers.

The discredited concept of worshipping nature itself (naturalism) or various material things (Sun, Moon, idols etc.) as some sort of autonomous, non-contingent, creative, or self-creative agents, used to be called paganism. Now it has been re-invented as 21st century, atheism...

"The universe can and will create itself from nothing"- Professor Stephen Hawking.

“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” - G.K. Chesterton.

 

God’s power.

Everything that exists is dependent on the original and ultimate cause (God) for its origin, continued existence and operation.

This means God affords everything all the power it needs to function. Everything operates only with God’s power. We couldn’t even lift a little finger, if the power to do so was not permitted by God.

 

What caused God?

Ever since the 18th century, atheist philosophers such as David Hume and Bertrand Russell have attempted to debunk the logical evidence for a creator God, as the infinite, first cause and creator of the universe.

The basic premise of their argument is that a long chain of causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (no first cause, but rather an infinite regress), and that, if every effect requires an adequate cause (as the Law of Cause and Effect states), then God (a first cause) could no more exist without a cause, than anything else.

This latter point is summed up in the what many atheists deem to be the killer question:

“What caused God then?”

This question wasn’t sensible in the 18th century, and is not sensible today, but incredibly, atheists still think it is a valid argument and continue to use it on a regular basis.

As explained previously, the Law of Cause and Effect applies to all temporal entities.

Temporal entities have a beginning, and therefore need a cause. They are all contingent or dependent on a cause or causes without exception.

It is obvious to any sensible person that the first cause, because it is FIRST, had nothing preceding it.

First means first, it doesn’t mean second or third. If we could go back far enough with a chain of causes and effects, however long the chain, at some stage we must reach an ultimate beginning, i.e. the cause which is first, having no previous cause. This first cause must have always existed, it is essentially self-existent from an infinite past - and for an infinite future. It must be completely autonomous and non-contingent, not relying on any cause or anything else for its existence. Not temporal, but infinite.

So, the answer to the question is that - God was not caused.

He is the eternally, self-existent, ultimate, non-contingent, supernatural, first. infinite cause of everything temporal.

As explained earlier, the first cause could not be a natural entity, it had to be supernatural, as all natural entities are temporal and contingent (they all require causes).

 

What about the infinite regress argument?

This is an atheist argument against the need for a first cause. Their proposition is that; a long chain of causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning. This proposition is nonsensical.

Why?

It is evident that you cannot have a chain of temporal effects going backwards in time, forever. It is the inherent nature of all temporal things to have a beginning. Likewise, for a long chain of temporal causes and effects, there must be a beginning at some point in time. Contingent things do not become non-contingent, simply by being in a long chain.

Temporal + temporal can never equal infinite.

In addition, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that everything physical is subject to entropy.

It is an absurd notion that there could be an indefinitely, long chain (with no beginning) in which, although every link in the chain is subject to entropy, the complete chain is not, having been able to exist for an infinite past. Incredibly, what these atheists propose is that; a chain consisting entirely of temporal elements, all of which individually require a beginning and depend on causes, and are subject to entropy, as a whole, can be infinitely long, with no beginning. And by some miracle would be unaffected by law of entropy (throughout an infinite past) which would have caused its demise.

 

What about the fact that infinite regress is acceptable in maths?

Maths is a type of information - and information, like truth, is not purely physical.

It can require physical media to make it tangible, but while the physical media is always subject to entropy, information is not. 1+1 = 2 will always be true, it is unaffected by time, or even whether there are any humans left to do mathematical calculations.

Jesus said; Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will go on forever. Jesus is pointing out that truth and information are unaffected by entropy.

For example: historical truths, such as the fact that Henry VIII had six wives, will always be true. Time cannot erode or change that truth. Even if all human records of this truth were destroyed, it would never cease to be true.

As the Christian, apologist Peter Keeft has made clear, maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number one. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible.

The concept of number 1 also exists as a characteristic of the one, infinite, first cause. - God is one. - God embodies that positive integer (number one/first cause), essential for the operation of maths. Without the number one, there could be no number two or three, etc. etc. There could be no positive numbers, no negative numbers and no fractions.

The fact that an infinite ‘first’ cause exists, means that number one is bound to exist. In a state of eternal and infinite nothingness, there would be no information and no numbers and nothing would be ‘first’. So, like everything else, maths is made possible only by the existence of the one, infinite, first cause (God).

As Peter Keeft puts it ...

“it is often asked why there can’t be infinite regress, with no first being. Infinite regress is perfectly acceptable in mathematics: negative numbers go on to infinity just as positive numbers do. So why can’t time be like the number series, with no highest number either negatively (no first in the past) or positively (no last in the future)? The answer is that real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of real beings moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past. Positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers. There is, in fact, a parallel in the number series for a first cause: the number one. If there were no first positive integer, no unit one, there could be no subsequent addition of units. Two is two ones, three is three ones, and soon. If there were no first, there could be no second or third.”

 

Consider this simple 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 must say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent, they all depend entirely on other causes to exist. We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning.

Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E. We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.

Why? Well, in the case of E, we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence. E can in no way be superior to D, because D had to contain within itself everything necessary to produce E.

The same applies to D, it cannot be superior to C. Furthermore, neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.

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

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

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

Conclusion …

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.

_____________________________________________

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

Done