Truth in science
Atheist mythology - Quantum effects, the smoke and mirrors trick …
Quantum effects, the smoke and mirrors trick ….
Atheists would dearly love to debunk the Law of Cause and Effect, and all the other natural laws that are fatal to their ideology of naturalism.
(The atheist 'religion' of naturalism requires a NATURAL, first cause of the universe, which the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws definitively rule out as impossible).
Of course, they know they can never succeed, because by undermining the Law of Cause and Effect, they effectively undermine science itself. The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of scientific research. The scientific method relies on seeking and discovering causes for EVERY natural event. The concept of an uncaused, natural event or entity is an anathema to genuine science.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said the Law of Cause and Effect is the "law of laws".
Although intelligent atheists are well aware that they can never debunk laws, which definitively rule out a natural origin of the universe as impossible - nevertheless, they attempt to give the impression, to the public, that a natural, first cause of everything is scientifically feasible, and that laws of nature are not a serious obstacle.
One way atheists try to convince the public to accept their naturalist ideology, is by proposing that the quantum world is very different from the world we see around us. And in that mysterious, quantum world virtually anything can occur, regardless of natural laws which generally describe what is possible in the universe.
This apparent air of mystery gives atheists carte blanche to propose various, bizarre, origin scenarios, which would normally be ruled out as impossible or as just crackpot fantasies.
If challenged, to scientifically justify such imaginative scenarios, they usually reply; ‘with quantum effects, no one knows what is possible’. In this way, opposition to any extraordinary hypothesis can be effectlively silenced. And to dispute, whatever origin scenario they choose to invent, may seem pointless.
However, it would be entirely wrong to accept this.
Science does not progress in a straightjacket, especially one imposed for ideological reasons. We are perfectly justified in rigorously challenging the idea that quantum mechanics or effects are a possible, natural answer to the origin of the universe. And that quantum effects can give credence to the belief that everything naturally arose from nothing, without an adequate cause, or purpose.
So, what is the truth?
We can state quite categorically that quantum effects cannot have anything to do with an origin of the universe from nothing.
Why?
It is common sense that something CANNOT come from nothing, and that EVERY natural occurrence needs an adequate cause. Micro or sub-atomic particles are not an exception. There are NO exceptions.
Atheist, Richard Dawkins tries to define 'nothing' as 'something'.
The atheist mentality seems to be that, if something is deemed impossible, just propose it could happen; little-by-little, and it becomes plausible, especially to a credulous public.
Presumably, if you make it as small, make it sound as simple, and as less complex as you can, people will believe anything is possible.
This is a similar, little-by-little approach that atheists have applied to the origin of life, and it is precisely how they have managed to get most people to accept microbes-to-human evolution, through beneficial mutations.
However, we need to ask ...
What makes atheists think that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Would it be easier, or more credible, for a grain of sand to come from nothing than for a boulder?
Of course, it wouldn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size, or lack of complexity, doesn’t alter that.
It seems that atheist thinking is something like the following:
Although people may realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?
What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?
That could seem much more plausible.
What if we could even find such a particle - a sort of ‘god’ particle?
We could claim a supernatural, first cause (God) has been made redundant.
The first cause problem would be solved - apparently!
At least, people would believe that; even if the problem of everything coming from nothing, without a cause, hasn’t been solved completely, 'science' is well on the way to solving it.
If anyone suggests this is nonsense; that the first cause must an infinite Creator. We can accuse them of trying to fill gaps in 'scientific' knowledge with a god. The good old, the god-of-the-gaps argument.
Finally, if anyone is stubborn enough to insist that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t come from absolutely nothing, we can retort that the ‘nothing, we are referring to, is not the same ‘nothing’ that the scientifically illiterate think of as nothing, but ‘something’ which only appears to be nothing, i.e. space/time.
Physicist Michio Kaku wrote:
"In quantum physics, it was a Higgs-like particle that sparked the cosmic explosion [the Big Bang]. In other words, everything we see around us, including galaxies, stars, planets and us, owes its existence to the Higgs boson."
Kaku, M. The Spark That Caused the Big Bang. The Wall Street Journal. Posted on online.wsj.com July 5, 2012.
However, a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but militant atheists loved the idea, and predictably, the popular, secularist, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that, not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
Why?
A simple, sub-atomic particle simply CANNOT be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God because, not only is it impossible for it to be uncaused, it is also clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So, atheists, while trying to fool people into thinking that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is simple and microscopic, have shot themselves in the foot....
The little-by-little approach, which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution, also doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.
FACT!
An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause (the Law of Cause and Effect).
The very first cause of the universe, as well as not being a contingent entity, cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means EVERY property and quality it contains, including: information, life, intelligence, consciousness, design, love, justice, etc. etc.
Always remember this very important, and common sense, fact:
Something cannot give what it doesn't possess.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, they are definitely NOT an adequate cause of the universe. And, neither are any of the other natural, origin scenarios proposed by atheists. They all fail in this regard.
What about the atheist claim that, because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused?
Quantum effects, may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED physical universe.
The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous.
As for a direct cause of quantum effects, it can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance. So just because, in some instances, causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesn’t mean there are ever no causes.
So, atheists are flogging a dead horse by thinking they can replace God with quantum mechanics, which may be interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.
To give the impression to the public that they could be, is just a smoke and mirrors trick deliberately intended to deceive.
The 'God particle', Wikipedia …
“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers, the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe."
Why are laws of nature so important in this debate?
Laws of nature are both descriptive and prescriptive.
Laws of nature describe the behaviour, operation, potential and LIMITATIONS of natural things based on their inherent properties. They enable us to make predictions based on those properties. The only way that laws of nature could ever be invalid is, if the inherent properties of natural things they apply to, are changed.
The insurmountable problem for atheists is that, although they might try to invent fantasy scenarios where the properties of nature are different, and therefore not subject to most established laws. There is no possible, fantasy scenario which can negate the law of cause and effect. The law which is most fatal to atheist naturalism is the very law that cannot possibly be negated, under any circumstances.
Why?
Because the law of cause and effect is in a unique category, different from all other laws of nature. It is not just a fundamental principle of science, it can also be regarded as the premier law of the universe and creation, because it applies to ALL temporal things, not just nature or natural entities. It doesn’t matter what different properties natural things may have, they can never evade the law of cause and effect. It isn't based on the properties of things, it doesn't depend on any particular properties, only on a temporal character, nothing more.
And that is a FACT, which cannot be denied.
The ONLY exception to the first part of this law – every effect must have a cause – is that which is not temporal (that which has no beginning), i.e. INFINITE, not subject to time (time is a chronology of temporal/temporary events).
The second part of this law – an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s – applies to everything that exists, even to an infinite entity. An infinite entity cannot cause an effect greater than itself.
Thus, the law of cause and effect definitively rules out ALL natural or temporal entities as a possible, first cause.
The first cause of everything natural/temporal, MUST BE a single, infinite (uncaused, eternally self-existent and omnipresent), entirely autonomous, supernatural cause which is greater, in every respect, than everything else that exists (which it has caused).
That is the first cause we call the Creator or God.
What about a singularity?
Is a 'Singularity' the first cause of everything, as some atheists maintain?
A singularity (meaning single event) is described by atheists as a one-off event where the laws of nature didn't apply.
A natural event, not subject to laws of nature, used to be called – magic! Until, atheists started calling it ‘science’.
Quote:
"This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there." Stephen Hawking, The Beginning of Time.
However, even if you want to believe in the fantasy of a 'singularity', it makes no difference to the fact that a natural cause of the universe is impossible.
A singularity doesn't negate the law of cause and effect, because, as I have already explained, that law pertains to ALL temporal entities. And it always applies, even if the laws of physics don't apply.
Conclusion:
It doesn't matter what natural, origin scenarios are proposed, none of them can ever qualify as the first cause of the universe. An origin of the universe by purely, natural processes is ruled out as IMPOSSIBLE.
The Bible rightly tells us to worship and honour the Creator, and not to worship the created.
Pagans honour and worship the created by crediting nature/material entities with godlike powers.
Atheists honour the created, rather than the Creator, because they elevate the effects (nature, matter/energy) to a godlike status and deny their cause.
The new, atheist naturalism nonsense is simply the old, pagan naturalism nonsense re-invented.
____________________________________________
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
Atheist mythology - Quantum effects, the smoke and mirrors trick …
Quantum effects, the smoke and mirrors trick ….
Atheists would dearly love to debunk the Law of Cause and Effect, and all the other natural laws that are fatal to their ideology of naturalism.
(The atheist 'religion' of naturalism requires a NATURAL, first cause of the universe, which the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws definitively rule out as impossible).
Of course, they know they can never succeed, because by undermining the Law of Cause and Effect, they effectively undermine science itself. The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of scientific research. The scientific method relies on seeking and discovering causes for EVERY natural event. The concept of an uncaused, natural event or entity is an anathema to genuine science.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said the Law of Cause and Effect is the "law of laws".
Although intelligent atheists are well aware that they can never debunk laws, which definitively rule out a natural origin of the universe as impossible - nevertheless, they attempt to give the impression, to the public, that a natural, first cause of everything is scientifically feasible, and that laws of nature are not a serious obstacle.
One way atheists try to convince the public to accept their naturalist ideology, is by proposing that the quantum world is very different from the world we see around us. And in that mysterious, quantum world virtually anything can occur, regardless of natural laws which generally describe what is possible in the universe.
This apparent air of mystery gives atheists carte blanche to propose various, bizarre, origin scenarios, which would normally be ruled out as impossible or as just crackpot fantasies.
If challenged, to scientifically justify such imaginative scenarios, they usually reply; ‘with quantum effects, no one knows what is possible’. In this way, opposition to any extraordinary hypothesis can be effectlively silenced. And to dispute, whatever origin scenario they choose to invent, may seem pointless.
However, it would be entirely wrong to accept this.
Science does not progress in a straightjacket, especially one imposed for ideological reasons. We are perfectly justified in rigorously challenging the idea that quantum mechanics or effects are a possible, natural answer to the origin of the universe. And that quantum effects can give credence to the belief that everything naturally arose from nothing, without an adequate cause, or purpose.
So, what is the truth?
We can state quite categorically that quantum effects cannot have anything to do with an origin of the universe from nothing.
Why?
It is common sense that something CANNOT come from nothing, and that EVERY natural occurrence needs an adequate cause. Micro or sub-atomic particles are not an exception. There are NO exceptions.
Atheist, Richard Dawkins tries to define 'nothing' as 'something'.
The atheist mentality seems to be that, if something is deemed impossible, just propose it could happen; little-by-little, and it becomes plausible, especially to a credulous public.
Presumably, if you make it as small, make it sound as simple, and as less complex as you can, people will believe anything is possible.
This is a similar, little-by-little approach that atheists have applied to the origin of life, and it is precisely how they have managed to get most people to accept microbes-to-human evolution, through beneficial mutations.
However, we need to ask ...
What makes atheists think that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Would it be easier, or more credible, for a grain of sand to come from nothing than for a boulder?
Of course, it wouldn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size, or lack of complexity, doesn’t alter that.
It seems that atheist thinking is something like the following:
Although people may realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?
What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?
That could seem much more plausible.
What if we could even find such a particle - a sort of ‘god’ particle?
We could claim a supernatural, first cause (God) has been made redundant.
The first cause problem would be solved - apparently!
At least, people would believe that; even if the problem of everything coming from nothing, without a cause, hasn’t been solved completely, 'science' is well on the way to solving it.
If anyone suggests this is nonsense; that the first cause must an infinite Creator. We can accuse them of trying to fill gaps in 'scientific' knowledge with a god. The good old, the god-of-the-gaps argument.
Finally, if anyone is stubborn enough to insist that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t come from absolutely nothing, we can retort that the ‘nothing, we are referring to, is not the same ‘nothing’ that the scientifically illiterate think of as nothing, but ‘something’ which only appears to be nothing, i.e. space/time.
Physicist Michio Kaku wrote:
"In quantum physics, it was a Higgs-like particle that sparked the cosmic explosion [the Big Bang]. In other words, everything we see around us, including galaxies, stars, planets and us, owes its existence to the Higgs boson."
Kaku, M. The Spark That Caused the Big Bang. The Wall Street Journal. Posted on online.wsj.com July 5, 2012.
However, a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but militant atheists loved the idea, and predictably, the popular, secularist, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that, not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
Why?
A simple, sub-atomic particle simply CANNOT be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God because, not only is it impossible for it to be uncaused, it is also clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So, atheists, while trying to fool people into thinking that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is simple and microscopic, have shot themselves in the foot....
The little-by-little approach, which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution, also doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.
FACT!
An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause (the Law of Cause and Effect).
The very first cause of the universe, as well as not being a contingent entity, cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means EVERY property and quality it contains, including: information, life, intelligence, consciousness, design, love, justice, etc. etc.
Always remember this very important, and common sense, fact:
Something cannot give what it doesn't possess.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, they are definitely NOT an adequate cause of the universe. And, neither are any of the other natural, origin scenarios proposed by atheists. They all fail in this regard.
What about the atheist claim that, because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused?
Quantum effects, may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED physical universe.
The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous.
As for a direct cause of quantum effects, it can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance. So just because, in some instances, causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesn’t mean there are ever no causes.
So, atheists are flogging a dead horse by thinking they can replace God with quantum mechanics, which may be interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.
To give the impression to the public that they could be, is just a smoke and mirrors trick deliberately intended to deceive.
The 'God particle', Wikipedia …
“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers, the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe."
Why are laws of nature so important in this debate?
Laws of nature are both descriptive and prescriptive.
Laws of nature describe the behaviour, operation, potential and LIMITATIONS of natural things based on their inherent properties. They enable us to make predictions based on those properties. The only way that laws of nature could ever be invalid is, if the inherent properties of natural things they apply to, are changed.
The insurmountable problem for atheists is that, although they might try to invent fantasy scenarios where the properties of nature are different, and therefore not subject to most established laws. There is no possible, fantasy scenario which can negate the law of cause and effect. The law which is most fatal to atheist naturalism is the very law that cannot possibly be negated, under any circumstances.
Why?
Because the law of cause and effect is in a unique category, different from all other laws of nature. It is not just a fundamental principle of science, it can also be regarded as the premier law of the universe and creation, because it applies to ALL temporal things, not just nature or natural entities. It doesn’t matter what different properties natural things may have, they can never evade the law of cause and effect. It isn't based on the properties of things, it doesn't depend on any particular properties, only on a temporal character, nothing more.
And that is a FACT, which cannot be denied.
The ONLY exception to the first part of this law – every effect must have a cause – is that which is not temporal (that which has no beginning), i.e. INFINITE, not subject to time (time is a chronology of temporal/temporary events).
The second part of this law – an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s – applies to everything that exists, even to an infinite entity. An infinite entity cannot cause an effect greater than itself.
Thus, the law of cause and effect definitively rules out ALL natural or temporal entities as a possible, first cause.
The first cause of everything natural/temporal, MUST BE a single, infinite (uncaused, eternally self-existent and omnipresent), entirely autonomous, supernatural cause which is greater, in every respect, than everything else that exists (which it has caused).
That is the first cause we call the Creator or God.
What about a singularity?
Is a 'Singularity' the first cause of everything, as some atheists maintain?
A singularity (meaning single event) is described by atheists as a one-off event where the laws of nature didn't apply.
A natural event, not subject to laws of nature, used to be called – magic! Until, atheists started calling it ‘science’.
Quote:
"This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there." Stephen Hawking, The Beginning of Time.
However, even if you want to believe in the fantasy of a 'singularity', it makes no difference to the fact that a natural cause of the universe is impossible.
A singularity doesn't negate the law of cause and effect, because, as I have already explained, that law pertains to ALL temporal entities. And it always applies, even if the laws of physics don't apply.
Conclusion:
It doesn't matter what natural, origin scenarios are proposed, none of them can ever qualify as the first cause of the universe. An origin of the universe by purely, natural processes is ruled out as IMPOSSIBLE.
The Bible rightly tells us to worship and honour the Creator, and not to worship the created.
Pagans honour and worship the created by crediting nature/material entities with godlike powers.
Atheists honour the created, rather than the Creator, because they elevate the effects (nature, matter/energy) to a godlike status and deny their cause.
The new, atheist naturalism nonsense is simply the old, pagan naturalism nonsense re-invented.
____________________________________________
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."