Truth in science
Atheism debunked.
Why do many atheists support the absurd notion that everything came from nothing?
It is evident that ‘something’ must have always existed.
A child can understand why the other scenario; that everything came from nothing of its own volition, is preposterous.
So, why do prominent atheists now support such a crazy idea?
Is it because they are forced to?
Is it an acknowledgement that the sensible option logically supports the existence of a creator?
How?
Because, if something has always existed….
We know that eternally existent ‘something’, must be non-contingent (uncaused).
We know, from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that the ‘something’ cannot be a natural entity.
Because we know, from that Law, that natural things, being subject to entropy, are temporal (with a beginning) and temporary (declining in potential).
We also know from the Law of Cause and Effect that everything temporal is an effect which requires an adequate cause (is contingent).
We know the cause of everything temporal, temporary and contingent (its creator) can only be the ‘something’ that has always existed (not subject to entropy).
We know from the Law of Cause and Effect that a contingent effect (everything caused) cannot be superior, in any way, to that which ultimately caused it.
We know, therefore, that the ‘something’, which has always existed, which caused everything else that exists, cannot be inferior, in any way, to anything it caused.
Informed atheists are aware that fundamental principles and natural laws, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect, are fatal to all, natural, origin scenarios.
They realise that the only escape from this dilemma is to deny the basic, logical premise; that something has always existed.
They know, if ‘something’ has always existed, due to entropy and contingency, it couldn’t possibly be a natural entity.
Consequently, the only way they can defend their ideological commitment to naturalism, is to propose that everything came from nothing!!!
Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins have all presented this bizarre notion as their ‘scientific’ answer to the origin of the universe.
However, even if we ignore the fact that this idea is nonsensical, it still doesn’t solve their problem of how to demonstrate the origin of everything by purely, natural processes, and it certainly can’t be construed as scientific.
Why?
a) The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that there is no natural means by which matter/energy can be created. That precludes any natural means by which something could come from nothing.
b) The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that, whatever came from nothing, would require a peak of energy potential and order from the outset. It could not just gradually develop from something simple.
c) Whatever atheists propose came from nothing, would obviously be temporal. Therefore, the Law of Cause and Effect tells us it must be contingent and would require a cause. Furthermore, that cause would require a previous cause, etc. etc. ad infinitum. (So, although they won’t admit it, this decisively refutes their ‘everything from nothing’ proposal and confirms the logical premise that something has always existed. And, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out an infinite regression or chain of temporal causes, [because the chain would be subject to deterioration through entropy], we know that the something cannot be a natural entity.)
This simple fact alone, demolishes the ‘everything from nothing’ story.
d) The Law of Cause and Effect also tells us that, whatever came from nothing, could not be something simple.
Remember, an effect cannot be greater than its cause.
The Universe is not simple. So, the original, first cause of the universe must embody all the order and complexity together with every quality and potential inherent in the universe
So, we are forced by logic, and the application of fundamental laws of nature, to conclude that there is no natural alternative to a supreme being.
____________________________________
Everything from nothing?
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
In simple terms:
Something cannot give more than it possesses.
Nothing possesses absolutely nothing, therefore can give nothing, i.e. nothing can come from nothing, 0+0=0.
Ergo, everything cannot come from nothing.
Hence, the atheist ‘something from nothing’ story is proven impossible!
The origin of life?
If you think the original cause of life is just chemistry, the effect will be chemistry, nothing more.
If the end result is intelligent life, the original cause must be intelligent life.
It doesn’t matter how many intermediate stages you may think it has taken from the original cause to the end result, the end result can never be greater than its original cause. So, whether you believe in direct creation or some evolutionary process, it makes no difference to the characteristics of the original cause. All we have to do is to make a comparison of the end result with the original cause, to assess the abilities/qualities of the original, first cause.
The effect cannot be greater than its cause.
Ergo, according to the law of cause and effect we were made in the image of the original cause (Creator). Which is exactly what the Bible has declared all along.
However, the first cause (Creator) is not just equal to us, it has to be enormously superior, because it existed before us, is uncreated (infinite), and has the ability to create us, and everything else that exists.
Why God MUST exist ...
Is the inescapable verdict of logic and natural laws ...
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 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.
“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events” Dr Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
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.
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.
Atheism debunked.
Why do many atheists support the absurd notion that everything came from nothing?
It is evident that ‘something’ must have always existed.
A child can understand why the other scenario; that everything came from nothing of its own volition, is preposterous.
So, why do prominent atheists now support such a crazy idea?
Is it because they are forced to?
Is it an acknowledgement that the sensible option logically supports the existence of a creator?
How?
Because, if something has always existed….
We know that eternally existent ‘something’, must be non-contingent (uncaused).
We know, from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that the ‘something’ cannot be a natural entity.
Because we know, from that Law, that natural things, being subject to entropy, are temporal (with a beginning) and temporary (declining in potential).
We also know from the Law of Cause and Effect that everything temporal is an effect which requires an adequate cause (is contingent).
We know the cause of everything temporal, temporary and contingent (its creator) can only be the ‘something’ that has always existed (not subject to entropy).
We know from the Law of Cause and Effect that a contingent effect (everything caused) cannot be superior, in any way, to that which ultimately caused it.
We know, therefore, that the ‘something’, which has always existed, which caused everything else that exists, cannot be inferior, in any way, to anything it caused.
Informed atheists are aware that fundamental principles and natural laws, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect, are fatal to all, natural, origin scenarios.
They realise that the only escape from this dilemma is to deny the basic, logical premise; that something has always existed.
They know, if ‘something’ has always existed, due to entropy and contingency, it couldn’t possibly be a natural entity.
Consequently, the only way they can defend their ideological commitment to naturalism, is to propose that everything came from nothing!!!
Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins have all presented this bizarre notion as their ‘scientific’ answer to the origin of the universe.
However, even if we ignore the fact that this idea is nonsensical, it still doesn’t solve their problem of how to demonstrate the origin of everything by purely, natural processes, and it certainly can’t be construed as scientific.
Why?
a) The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that there is no natural means by which matter/energy can be created. That precludes any natural means by which something could come from nothing.
b) The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that, whatever came from nothing, would require a peak of energy potential and order from the outset. It could not just gradually develop from something simple.
c) Whatever atheists propose came from nothing, would obviously be temporal. Therefore, the Law of Cause and Effect tells us it must be contingent and would require a cause. Furthermore, that cause would require a previous cause, etc. etc. ad infinitum. (So, although they won’t admit it, this decisively refutes their ‘everything from nothing’ proposal and confirms the logical premise that something has always existed. And, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out an infinite regression or chain of temporal causes, [because the chain would be subject to deterioration through entropy], we know that the something cannot be a natural entity.)
This simple fact alone, demolishes the ‘everything from nothing’ story.
d) The Law of Cause and Effect also tells us that, whatever came from nothing, could not be something simple.
Remember, an effect cannot be greater than its cause.
The Universe is not simple. So, the original, first cause of the universe must embody all the order and complexity together with every quality and potential inherent in the universe
So, we are forced by logic, and the application of fundamental laws of nature, to conclude that there is no natural alternative to a supreme being.
____________________________________
Everything from nothing?
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
In simple terms:
Something cannot give more than it possesses.
Nothing possesses absolutely nothing, therefore can give nothing, i.e. nothing can come from nothing, 0+0=0.
Ergo, everything cannot come from nothing.
Hence, the atheist ‘something from nothing’ story is proven impossible!
The origin of life?
If you think the original cause of life is just chemistry, the effect will be chemistry, nothing more.
If the end result is intelligent life, the original cause must be intelligent life.
It doesn’t matter how many intermediate stages you may think it has taken from the original cause to the end result, the end result can never be greater than its original cause. So, whether you believe in direct creation or some evolutionary process, it makes no difference to the characteristics of the original cause. All we have to do is to make a comparison of the end result with the original cause, to assess the abilities/qualities of the original, first cause.
The effect cannot be greater than its cause.
Ergo, according to the law of cause and effect we were made in the image of the original cause (Creator). Which is exactly what the Bible has declared all along.
However, the first cause (Creator) is not just equal to us, it has to be enormously superior, because it existed before us, is uncreated (infinite), and has the ability to create us, and everything else that exists.
Why God MUST exist ...
Is the inescapable verdict of logic and natural laws ...
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 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.
“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events” Dr Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
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.
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.