Truth in science
IF, THEN - And the atheist dilemma.
IF, THEN, AND THE ATHEIST DILEMMA.
All scientific theories are based on ‘if’ and ‘then’. The proposition being; IF such a thing is so, THEN we can expect certain effects to be evident.
For example: there are only two competing alternatives for the origin/first cause of everything.
A natural, first cause, OR a supernatural, first cause.
Atheists believe in a natural, first cause.
Theists believe in a supernatural, first cause.
IF the first cause is natural, THEN progressive evolution of the universe (cosmos) and life are deemed to be expected, even essential.
Conversely, IF the first cause is supernatural, THEN an evolutionary scenario of the cosmos and/or life is not required, not probable, but not impossible.
In other words, while evolution, and an enormous, time frame are perceived as absolutely essential for atheist naturalism, theism could (perhaps reluctantly) accept evolution and/or a long, time frame as possible in a creation scenario.
Crucially, if the evidence doesn’t stack up for cosmic evolution, biological evolution, and a long evolutionary time frame, atheist naturalism is perceived to fail.
For atheism, evolution is an Achilles heel. Atheists have an ideological commitment to a natural origin of everything from nothing - which, if it were possible, would essentially require both cosmic and biological evolution and a vast timescale.
Consequently, atheist scientists can never be genuinely objective in assessing evidence. Only theist scientists can be truly objective.
However, the primary Achilles heel for atheist naturalism is its starting proposition.
Because the ‘IF’ proposal of a natural, first cause, is fatally flawed, the subsequent ‘THEN’ is a non sequitur.
The atheist ‘IF’ (a natural, first cause) is logically impossible according to the laws of nature, because all natural entities are contingent, temporal and temporary.
In other words:
All natural entities depend on an adequate cause.
All natural entities have a beginning.
And all natural entities are subject to entropy.
Whereas a first cause MUST be non-contingent, infinite and eternal.
But, just suppose we ignore this insurmountable obstacle and, for the sake of argument, assume that the ‘THEN’ which follows from the atheist ‘IF’ proposition of a natural, first cause is worth considering.
We realise that both cosmic and biological evolution are still not possible as NATURAL occurrences.
The law of cause and effect tells us that whatever caused the universe (whether it evolved or not) could not be inferior, in any way, to the sum total of the universe.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So, we know that cosmic evolution from nothing could not happen naturally.
That traps atheists in an impossible, catch 22 situation, by supporting cosmic evolution, they are supporting something which could not happen naturally, according to natural laws.
It doesn’t get any better with biological evolution, in fact it gets worse. The Law of Biogenesis (which has never been falsified) rules out the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. Atheists choose to ignore this firmly established law and have, perversely, invented their own law (abiogenesis), which says the exact opposite. However, their cynical disregard for laws of nature, ironically, fails to solve their problem.
Crucially ...
An origin of life, arising of its own volition from sterile matter, conditions permitting (abiogenesis), would require an inherent predisposition/potential of matter to automatically develop life.
The atheist dilemma here is; where does such an inherent predisposition to automatically produce life come from? In a purposeless universe, which arose from nothing, how could matter have acquired such a potential or property?
A predisposed potential for spontaneous generation of life would require a purposeful creation (some sort of blueprint/plan for life intrinsic to matter). So, by advocating abiogenesis, atheists are unintentionally supporting a purposeful creation.
Following on from that, we also realise that abiogenesis requires an initial input of constructive, genetic information. Information Theory tells us; there is no NATURAL means by which such information can arise of its own accord in matter.
Then there is the problem of the law of entropy (which derives from the Second Law of Thermodynamics). How can abiogenesis defy that law? The only way that order can increase is by an input of guided energy. Raw energy has the opposite effect. What could possibly direct or guide the energy to counter the natural effects of entropy?
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
Suppose we are stupid enough to ignore all this and we carry on speculating further by proposing a progressive, microbes-to-human evolution (Darwinism).
Starting with the limited, genetic information in the first cell (which originated how, and from where? nobody knows). The only method of increasing that original information is through a long, incremental series of beneficial mutations (genetic, copying MISTAKES). Natural selection cannot produce new information, it simply selects from existing information.
Proposing mistakes as a mechanism for improvement is not sensible. In fact, it is completely bonkers. Billions of such beneficial mutations would be required to transform microbes into humans and every other living thing.
Once again, it would need help from a purposeful creator.
So, we can conclude that the atheist ‘IF’, of a natural, first cause, is not only a non-starter, but also every ‘THEN’, which would essentially arise from that proposal, ironically supports the theist ‘IF’.
Consequently ...
If you don't believe in cosmic evolution you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in cosmic evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
And...
If you don’t believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution, you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
Conclusion:
The inevitable and amazing conclusion is that everyone (intentionally or unintentionally) supports the existence of a creator, whatever scenario they propose for the origin of the universe.
No one can devise an origin scenario for the universe that doesn’t require a Creator. That is a fact, whether you like it or not!
The Bible correctly declares:
Only the fool in his heart says there is no God.
Theists have no ideological need to be dogmatic. Unlike atheists, they can assess all the available scientific evidence objectively. Because a long timescale, and even an evolutionary scenario, in no way disproves a creator. In fact, as I have already explained, a creator would still be essential to enable: cosmic evolution, the origin of life, and microbes-to-human evolution. Whereas, both a long timescale and biological evolution are deemed essential to (but are no evidence for) the beliefs of atheist naturalism.
Atheist scientists are hamstrung by their own preconceptions.
It is impossible for atheists to be objective regarding any evidence. They are forced by their own ideological commitment to make dogmatic assumptions. It is unthinkable that atheists would even consider any interpretation of the evidence, other than that which they perceive (albeit erroneously) to support naturalism. They force science into a straitjacket of their own making.
All scientific hypotheses/theories about past events, that no one witnessed, rely on assumptions. None can be claimed as FACT.
The biggest assumption of all, and one that is logically and scientifically unsustainable, is the idea of a natural, first cause. If this is your starting assumption, then everything that follows is flawed.
The new atheist nonsense, is simply the old, pagan nonsense of naturalism in a new guise.
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
The poison in our midst - progressive politics.
IF, THEN - And the atheist dilemma.
IF, THEN, AND THE ATHEIST DILEMMA.
All scientific theories are based on ‘if’ and ‘then’. The proposition being; IF such a thing is so, THEN we can expect certain effects to be evident.
For example: there are only two competing alternatives for the origin/first cause of everything.
A natural, first cause, OR a supernatural, first cause.
Atheists believe in a natural, first cause.
Theists believe in a supernatural, first cause.
IF the first cause is natural, THEN progressive evolution of the universe (cosmos) and life are deemed to be expected, even essential.
Conversely, IF the first cause is supernatural, THEN an evolutionary scenario of the cosmos and/or life is not required, not probable, but not impossible.
In other words, while evolution, and an enormous, time frame are perceived as absolutely essential for atheist naturalism, theism could (perhaps reluctantly) accept evolution and/or a long, time frame as possible in a creation scenario.
Crucially, if the evidence doesn’t stack up for cosmic evolution, biological evolution, and a long evolutionary time frame, atheist naturalism is perceived to fail.
For atheism, evolution is an Achilles heel. Atheists have an ideological commitment to a natural origin of everything from nothing - which, if it were possible, would essentially require both cosmic and biological evolution and a vast timescale.
Consequently, atheist scientists can never be genuinely objective in assessing evidence. Only theist scientists can be truly objective.
However, the primary Achilles heel for atheist naturalism is its starting proposition.
Because the ‘IF’ proposal of a natural, first cause, is fatally flawed, the subsequent ‘THEN’ is a non sequitur.
The atheist ‘IF’ (a natural, first cause) is logically impossible according to the laws of nature, because all natural entities are contingent, temporal and temporary.
In other words:
All natural entities depend on an adequate cause.
All natural entities have a beginning.
And all natural entities are subject to entropy.
Whereas a first cause MUST be non-contingent, infinite and eternal.
But, just suppose we ignore this insurmountable obstacle and, for the sake of argument, assume that the ‘THEN’ which follows from the atheist ‘IF’ proposition of a natural, first cause is worth considering.
We realise that both cosmic and biological evolution are still not possible as NATURAL occurrences.
The law of cause and effect tells us that whatever caused the universe (whether it evolved or not) could not be inferior, in any way, to the sum total of the universe.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So, we know that cosmic evolution from nothing could not happen naturally.
That traps atheists in an impossible, catch 22 situation, by supporting cosmic evolution, they are supporting something which could not happen naturally, according to natural laws.
It doesn’t get any better with biological evolution, in fact it gets worse. The Law of Biogenesis (which has never been falsified) rules out the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. Atheists choose to ignore this firmly established law and have, perversely, invented their own law (abiogenesis), which says the exact opposite. However, their cynical disregard for laws of nature, ironically, fails to solve their problem.
Crucially ...
An origin of life, arising of its own volition from sterile matter, conditions permitting (abiogenesis), would require an inherent predisposition/potential of matter to automatically develop life.
The atheist dilemma here is; where does such an inherent predisposition to automatically produce life come from? In a purposeless universe, which arose from nothing, how could matter have acquired such a potential or property?
A predisposed potential for spontaneous generation of life would require a purposeful creation (some sort of blueprint/plan for life intrinsic to matter). So, by advocating abiogenesis, atheists are unintentionally supporting a purposeful creation.
Following on from that, we also realise that abiogenesis requires an initial input of constructive, genetic information. Information Theory tells us; there is no NATURAL means by which such information can arise of its own accord in matter.
Then there is the problem of the law of entropy (which derives from the Second Law of Thermodynamics). How can abiogenesis defy that law? The only way that order can increase is by an input of guided energy. Raw energy has the opposite effect. What could possibly direct or guide the energy to counter the natural effects of entropy?
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
Suppose we are stupid enough to ignore all this and we carry on speculating further by proposing a progressive, microbes-to-human evolution (Darwinism).
Starting with the limited, genetic information in the first cell (which originated how, and from where? nobody knows). The only method of increasing that original information is through a long, incremental series of beneficial mutations (genetic, copying MISTAKES). Natural selection cannot produce new information, it simply selects from existing information.
Proposing mistakes as a mechanism for improvement is not sensible. In fact, it is completely bonkers. Billions of such beneficial mutations would be required to transform microbes into humans and every other living thing.
Once again, it would need help from a purposeful creator.
So, we can conclude that the atheist ‘IF’, of a natural, first cause, is not only a non-starter, but also every ‘THEN’, which would essentially arise from that proposal, ironically supports the theist ‘IF’.
Consequently ...
If you don't believe in cosmic evolution you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in cosmic evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
And...
If you don’t believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution, you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
Conclusion:
The inevitable and amazing conclusion is that everyone (intentionally or unintentionally) supports the existence of a creator, whatever scenario they propose for the origin of the universe.
No one can devise an origin scenario for the universe that doesn’t require a Creator. That is a fact, whether you like it or not!
The Bible correctly declares:
Only the fool in his heart says there is no God.
Theists have no ideological need to be dogmatic. Unlike atheists, they can assess all the available scientific evidence objectively. Because a long timescale, and even an evolutionary scenario, in no way disproves a creator. In fact, as I have already explained, a creator would still be essential to enable: cosmic evolution, the origin of life, and microbes-to-human evolution. Whereas, both a long timescale and biological evolution are deemed essential to (but are no evidence for) the beliefs of atheist naturalism.
Atheist scientists are hamstrung by their own preconceptions.
It is impossible for atheists to be objective regarding any evidence. They are forced by their own ideological commitment to make dogmatic assumptions. It is unthinkable that atheists would even consider any interpretation of the evidence, other than that which they perceive (albeit erroneously) to support naturalism. They force science into a straitjacket of their own making.
All scientific hypotheses/theories about past events, that no one witnessed, rely on assumptions. None can be claimed as FACT.
The biggest assumption of all, and one that is logically and scientifically unsustainable, is the idea of a natural, first cause. If this is your starting assumption, then everything that follows is flawed.
The new atheist nonsense, is simply the old, pagan nonsense of naturalism in a new guise.
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
The poison in our midst - progressive politics.