Atheism revealed as false - why god must exist.

    Newer Older

    Why must God exist?
    There are only 2 basic options for the origin of the universe .... an uncaused, supernatural first cause of the universe OR an uncaused, natural first cause of the universe. If you categorically reject the former (as atheists do), you have no option but to accept the latter by default. It is an intellectually dishonest cop-out to say atheism is merely a lack of belief.
    Atheists cannot simply deny and attack the concept of a supernatural first cause without justifying the only alternative. That is not intellectually credible or rational.

    Firstly ...
    We know that the universe has not always existed, we know it had a beginning and it is 'running down' from an original peak of energy potential at its beginning. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy) confirms that. So we know the universe had an origin.

    Secondly .....
    What about matter itself?
    Can matter have always existed? The simple answer is no.
    Matter/energy and all natural entities and events are contingent, they rely on causes for everything. Because they are contingent they cannot be eternally self-existent or necessary entities. They do not contain within themselves the reason or cause of their own existence. As contingent entities, they are entirely reliant on that which causes and maintains them. They cannot exist or operate in any way without causes, Thus they must have had an original cause at some stage, even if the chain of causes and effects is very long, it had to have a beginning at some point.
    A basic principle of the scientific method is that we can expect to find an adequate cause for every natural occurrence. All scientific research is based on that premise.
    To propose a non-contingent, natural occurrence or entity as the originator of the universe (as atheists are forced to do), is unscientific fantasy.

    Thirdly ....
    A supernatural first cause (God) is not a contingent entity. It is not natural, and is not bound by natural laws which govern matter and all natural events. In fact, as the first cause of matter/energy, it is also the author of the laws that govern matter/energy. It cannot be subject to laws it has created.
    As the very first cause, it also cannot have had any preceding cause, so we know it cannot be a contingent entity.
    Why? Because ...first means first, not second or third. If something is first, nothing preceded it. It must have always existed and must have had within itself the means of its own existence. It could not have relied on anything else for its existence. So the supernatural, first cause (a creator God) has to be eternally, self-existent and necessary.
    It also has to have the powers and ability to create everything else that exists in the universe. As the original cause, it has to be an adequate cause of everything ...of all causes and effects that follow it, forever. That means - it has to have the powers, properties and qualities sufficient to create: time, matter/energy, natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness and every characteristic that humans have. Because we, as a mere effect of the first cause, cannot be greater than that which ultimately caused us.

    So God is the non-contingent, self-existent, necessary, supernatural, first cause of everything in the universe.
    That is the logical conclusion of the understanding and application of natural laws.

    ATHEIST BELIEF IN A NATURAL FIRST CAUSE VIOLATES NATURAL LAW.
    THUS ATHEISM IS ILLOGICAL, AND ANTI-SCIENCE.

    Essential characteristics of the first cause.

    Consider this short 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 have to 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 it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but 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 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.

    So to sum up … 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.

    What about polytheism, can there be more than one God or Creator.
    It is patently obvious there can only be one supernatural first cause.
    The first cause is infinite - and logically, there cannot be more than one infinite entity.
    If there were two infinite entities, for example, A and B. The qualities and perfections that are the property of B would be a limitation on the qualities and perfections of A. and vice versa, so neither would be infinite.
    If A & B had identical qualities and perfections they would not be two different entities, they would be identical and therefore the same entity, i.e. a single, infinite, first cause. So there can be only one infinite being or entity, only one supernatural, first cause and creator of the universe.
    So when atheists keep repeating the claim - that there is no reason to believe the monotheistic, Christian God is any different from the multiple, gods of pagan religions, it simply displays their ignorance and lack of reasoning.

    ____________________________________________
    "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”
    Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

    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

    View 9 more comments

    1. brave insect [deleted] 21 months ago

      And if you don't agree that atheism is a fallacy, then we will god damn burn you, like everyone else that don't agree with us.

    2. Truth in science 21 months ago

      Brave Insect
      That is not an argument I choose to use, or need to use.

      I would rather meet atheists on their own ground.
      Atheists claim their non-belief in God, is based on reason, rational argument and science.
      It is quite easy to refute that claim.
      In fact, all atheist arguments in favour of their natural alternative to God, can be shown to violate natural laws and logic. Which means they are also anti-science.

    3. Silly Deity 21 months ago

      Brave Insect Curious isn't it that when Truth in Science is asked to provide any evidence for his claims, he is unable to?

      Stranger still is the fact that when this is pointed out by others he censors those comments.

      Why is he so afraid of responses to his claims? Especially when others provide evidence that rebuts those claims? Those rebuttals come from respected sources and yet he chooses to censor those responses by deleting them.

      Is he afraid that those rebuttals demonstrate that his claims are nonsense?

      Highly likely!

    4. Truth in science 21 months ago

      Silly Deity
      You have been asked numerous times to give an example of a 'natural', origins scenario that doesn't violate any natural laws, and you have failed to do so.

      All natural things are temporal (have a beginning), and all temporal things require an adequate cause.
      It is only the 'infinite' that doesn't have a beginning. And thus, it is only the infinite that doesn't require any cause.

      An adequate 'first' cause has to account for everything that exists in the universe, i.e. be capable of producing (not inferior in any way to) everything in the universe. it cannot be a temporal entity, which itself needs a cause.

      What is your proposed, adequate cause for the temporal universe?
      Give an example of a cause of the universe that is not temporal?
      I have given my explanation, which you reject.
      So, what is yours?

    5. Silly Deity 21 months ago

      Truth in science Oh, come on now.................you really are being extremely predictable.

      You are making a claim.

      You need to provide the evidence to support that claim.

      You know you can't so you attempt (yet again) to reverse the burden of proof.

      Can't you be honest for once?

    6. Truth in science 21 months ago

      Silly Deity
      I have just given you evidence, which is based on the common sense understanding of natural law.
      Are you really that dumb, or are you just pretending to be dumb, in order to duck out of facing the obvious truth?

      Assuming it is the former, shall we approach this as we would if you were a first year student?

      Lesson 1.
      Please carefully read and study the following statement,
      and then we will analyse it:

      All temporal things (i.e. all things which have a beginning) require an adequate cause.
      It is only the 'infinite' that doesn't have a beginning. Thus, it is only the infinite that doesn't require any cause.
      Therefore, we must conclude that a 'first' cause cannot be a temporal entity.

      1. All temporal things require an adequate cause.
      Do you agree or disagree?
      If no, please explain why?

      2. It is only if something is 'infinite' that it doesn't have a beginning.
      Do you agree or disagree?
      If you disagree, please explain why?

      3. Only something that doesn't have a beginning (is infinite) doesn't require any cause.
      Do you agree or disagree?
      If you disagree, please explain why?

      4. A 'first' cause cannot be a temporal entity.
      Do you agree or disagree?
      If you disagree, please explain why?

      Lesson 2.
      Now, please carefully read and study the following statement and we will analyse it in the same way as before:

      An adequate 'first' cause has to account for everything that exists in the universe, i.e. be capable of producing (not inferior in any way to) everything in the universe.

      1. A first cause has to account for everything it causes.
      Do you agree or disagree?
      If you disagree, please explain why?

      2. Something cannot give what it doesn't possess.
      Do you agree or disagree?
      If you disagree, please explain why?

      3. A first cause cannot give more (to anything it causes) than that which it possesses.
      So, that which is caused, cannot be superior to its first cause.
      Do you agree or disagree?
      If you disagree, please explain why?

    7. Silly Deity 21 months ago

      This regurgitation of the first cause argument is so old and hoary it is really rather pathetic.

      More Creationist Nonsense - The Law of Cause & Effect

      www.flickr.com/groups/atheism/discuss/72157671042685495/

      Your assertion makes the following assumptions: self-causation is impossible, an infinite causal chain cannot occur and this causal starting point is in fact a very specific God – and spookily it's precisely the one that you have in mind.

      The first assumption is wrong if, for example, each of the four fundamental forces of nature (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity) was created by a different god. The second has no basis at all.

      Spotted any science "proving" the existence of God so far? That would be a "no".

      Even assuming that there is a "first cause", the argument completely and utterly fails to address how we can know the identity or even define what the "first cause" is. The assertion that it must be the particular God that you have in mind is a complete non sequitur - a statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it.

      Spotted any logic "proving" the existence of God so far? That would also be a "no".

      But do we even know that there is a "first cause" for everything? What we do know through modern science is that natural phenomena exist whose causes have not yet been discerned or are potentially non-existent. A well known example is radioactive decay. Decay follows statistical laws and it is possible to predict the quantity of a radioactive substance that will decay over time, but it's impossible according to our current understanding of physics to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is truly random and might be uncaused and thus knocks holes in the assumption that everything must have a cause.

      Another counterexample is the spontaneous generation of virtual particles, which randomly appear even in complete vacuum. These particles are responsible for the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation.

      So your assertion certainly does not prove that god exists. Science has very little to say on the subject other than providing us with examples that knock holes in the "first cause" argument. Science provides us with a methodology for determining the causal linkages between things. That methodology is called the "scientific method" and has been explained to you many times before and yet you still willfuly misunderstand it. The scientific method is considered the best method for making useful and practical additions to human knowledge about the physical world and at its core is the idea that the value of a hypothesis, theory, or concept is best determined by its ability to make falsifiable predictions that can be tested against empirical reality. That means that supernatural entities or concepts that are meaningless or logically contradictory cannot be included in a scientific hypothesis.

      So have you now spotted yet another flaw in your claim that you can prove the existence of god?

      Having scanned the comments on the various images where you've made this claim, it's evident that many others have spotted these flaws, however all too often your have deleted their comments simply because you realise your dishonesty has been exposed.

      "Lying for Jesus" is still lying.

      You continue to peddle this falsehood of "natural laws". Every time you've been asked to provide a definition of such "laws" and how they relate to science and the provision of evidence for your claim you've failed to do so.

      Conclusion: You have not "proved" the existence of god any more than anyone can "prove" the existence of leprachauns, unicorns and the tooth fairy. Likewise, flawed logic is never going to provide the "proof" that you claim either and as usual you're talking utter bollocks.

      And you're still making an argument from ignorance however you try to twist it

    8. Truth in science 21 months ago

      Silly Deity
      You wrote:
      “This regurgitation of the first cause argument is so old and hoary it is really rather pathetic.”

      So, if something is old it makes it wrong, does it? What rubbish! Truth is not affected by time, the first cause argument has never been refuted. Just because atheists claim it has, doesn’t make it a fact.

      You wrote:
      “Your assertion makes the following assumptions: self-causation is impossible, an infinite causal chain cannot occur.”

      That is not an assumption.
      1. Something CANNOT create itself from nothing. That is a fact. To create itself, something would have to pre-exist its own creation. In which case, if it already exists, it has no need to create itself. And, if something already exists, it is not ‘nothing’.

      You wrote:
      “The first assumption is wrong if, for example, each of the four fundamental forces of nature (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity) was created by a different god.”

      Where are you getting this drivel?
      Those things are inherent properties of matter. They don’t exist without matter/energy. They are temporal things which rely on the existence of matter.
      And you can’t have 4 different gods creating anything, there can only be one infinite, creative entity.
      If, for example, there were two infinite entities each with their own properties, the properties unique to one entity would be a limitation on the other and vice versa, so neither would be infinite. If their properties were identical, they would be identical and thus the same, single entity. It is obvious that God can only be one. That is the logical basis of monotheism.

      2. “An infinite causal chain cannot occur”.
      That is also not an assumption. 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. Temporal + temporal can never equal infinite.
      The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that everything physical is subject to entropy. The idea; that there could be an indefinitely, long chain (with no beginning) in which, although every link in the chain is subject to entropy, the chain, as a whole, is not, having been able to exist during an infinite past, is absurd.
      It is an incredible notion to imagine that a chain consisting entirely of temporal elements, all of which require a beginning and depend on causes, and all of which are subject to entropy, as a whole, can be infinitely long, with no beginning and by some miracle is unaffected by law of entropy (throughout an infinite past) which would have caused its demise.
      You may ask - 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, the 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.
      Maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number 1. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible, including the idea of infinite regress. 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. The fact that a ‘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).

      You wrote:
      “But do we even know that there is a "first cause" for everything? What we do know through modern science is that natural phenomena exist whose causes have not yet been discerned or are potentially non-existent. A well known example is radioactive decay. Decay follows statistical laws and it is possible to predict the quantity of a radioactive substance that will decay over time, but it's impossible according to our current understanding of physics to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is truly random and might be uncaused and thus knocks holes in the assumption that everything must have a cause.”

      We DO know there is cause or causes for everything temporal. And there must have been an original single ‘first’ cause at the beginning of the temporal realm. To insinuate that science, in any way disputes the law of cause and effect is bogus science. Atheists frequently cite radioactive decay and quantum particles/effects as though they refute the law of cause and effect, which, of course they don’t. It is nonsense. Firstly, random does not equal causeless. And secondly, these effects are part of a ‘caused’, temporal universe. So, even if we haven’t yet been able identify an obvious direct cause, they came into existence as a result of the overall cause of the universe. The universe is CAUSED, and thus everything in the universe is CAUSED.

      You wrote:
      “So your assertion certainly does not prove that god exists. Science has very little to say on the subject other than providing us with examples that knock holes in the "first cause" argument. Science provides us with a methodology for determining the causal linkages between things. That methodology is called the "scientific method" and has been explained to you many times before and yet you still willfuly misunderstand it.”

      Science does NOT knock holes in the ‘first cause’ argument, on the contrary, it supports it.
      Looking for adequate causes is the modus operandi of the scientific method.
      The scientific method is not about trying to prove that things happen without causes. That is an atheist obsession, which is doomed to failure.
      You need to learn that just because some atheists claim that science refutes causality, doesn’t make it a fact. Atheists have an agenda, real science does not. Atheists hate the law of cause and effect, and other natural laws that are fatal to their ideology.

      You wrote:
      “Having scanned the comments on the various images where you've made this claim, it's evident that many others have spotted these flaws, however all too often your have deleted their comments simply because you realise your dishonesty has been exposed.”

      Stop lying! I only delete comments is when the commenter keeps repeating the same arguments over and over again, or if they deliberately try to fill my pages with puerile dross, or when they post unaccredited copy and pastes, which purport to be their own work. And I usually warn them beforehand. Anyone looking at my image pages can see they are full of comments /arguments, mostly from atheists. I never delete sensible, serious comments.

    9. Silly Deity 21 months ago

      Truth in science Oh your pants must really be on fire now!

      Such dishonesty! You censor those that have proved you wrong. Would you like me to provide the screenshots? I can post them in my own photostream.

      Your wall of text addresses absolutely none of the flaws in your argument that I pointed out.

      So let's count those fallacious arguments you've made:
      1. Argument from incredulity/divine fallacy
      2. Trying to shift the burden of proof
      3. Circular reasoning
      4. Correlative fallacies
      5. False equivalence
      6. Kettle logic
      7. Ludic fallacy
      8. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
      9. Proof by assertion
      10. Proof by verbosity (very very verbose!)
      11. Special pleading

      But first and foermost you're still making an argument from ignorance.

      No clue.

      No evidence.

      Evidence

      EVIDENCE

      If you can't produce it your claim fails.

    10. Truth in science 21 months ago

      Silly Deity
      Is that the best you can do?
      You must be desperate. You attempted to refute my argument with bogus, speculative science and failed miserably, so now you are returning to your usual, worn-out, fallacy argument.

      You wrote:
      "Such dishonesty! You censor those that have proved you wrong."

      It hasn't happened, no one has poved me wrong, because the first cause argument has never been refuted, by anyone.
      If you think it has, then give me the argument now, that you think disproves the existence of an infinite, supernatural, first cause?

      BTW, I am not trying to shift the burden of proof, I have given you plenty of evidence, using a logical understanding of natural laws, which are recognised by science.

      Now, where is your equivalent evidence for your position that a creator God does not exist?

      Of course you will try the usual cop-out that athesim is just a non-belief. That might be true if, on a personal basis, atheists just said "I don't believe" and left it at that.
      But you, and many other atheists, are on a mission, to convince others (by propaganda) that God doesn't exist.

      For example, remember, the atheist bus campaign ... "There probably is no God" ... a bold assertion presented without any evidence to support it.
      Atheists have ceased being just passive non-believers, they are now active campaigners for an ideology.
      What evidence do they present in their campaign? Precisely zero.
      They have plenty of slogans and sound bites, which they parrot ad nauseum, and which are the whole essence of their anti-theist propaganda.
      We are fed up with hearing about sky fairies, Easter Bunnies, imaginary friends, Santa, flat earthers, god-of-the-gaps etc. etc.

      The argument is simple, it is about whether the first cause is a natural (temporal) one, or a supernatural (infinite) one? That is all it is.
      Atheist slogans are just a deliberate diversion - a substitute for proper debate on the real issue, which, for some strange reason, terrifies them.

      If you say "there is probably no God" you are making a claim which should be supported by evidence, or by logical argument. So, where is it? Slogans are neither evidence nor logical argument.
      Atheists, by publicly rejecting a supernatural, first cause are actively supporting the only other alternative, a natural, first cause.
      The burden of proof is on you an other atheists to justify the assertion that - there probably is no God, or is it just a worthless slogan?

      I have given one of the logical arguments for a supernatural, first cause based on the law of cause and effect (there are also others).
      Now, let us see your logical argument in favour of a natural, first cause?

    11. Silly Deity 21 months ago

      Truth in science Yet another dishonest attempt at reversing the burden of proof.

      As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. I'm NOT making any claims. You are.

      You've tried to justify your claim using fallacious logic.

      Your claim requires empirical evidence.

      Evidence

      EVIDENCE

      If you can't produce it your claim fails.

      So go on. One final chance. Produce your evidence. And if all we see is another wall of text about your "logic" then we'll know you've failed yet again.

    12. Truth in science 21 months ago

      Silly Deity
      You wrote:
      "Yet another dishonest attempt at reversing the burden of proof.
      As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. I'm NOT making any claims. You are.
      You've tried to justify your claim using fallacious logic.
      Your claim requires empirical evidence."

      I haven't reversed the burden of proof, I have given you my evidence. Just because YOU choose to reject it, doesn't mean I haven't given it.

      Your attempts to debunk my argument with your bogus 'science' ended in an embarrassing failure. So, now you return to the fallacy argument, which is fallacious in itself.
      If that is all you have, then you might as well to go back to scouring atheist websites, in the vain hope that you will find some gem of wisdom that will get you out of fhe hole you are digging yourself into.

      To ask for empirical evidence is ridiculous, and you know it is. There is NO empirical evidence for the origin of the universe.

      No human was there at the beginning of the temporal realm.
      ALL hypotheses about origins are ONLY a logical and reasoned asssessment of what is possible or likely from the things we definitely do know, such as natural laws.
      Atheists tend to agree with any hypotheses that support their ideological position, however bizarre. Empirical evidence is not even a consideration for them.

      How much 'empirical' evidence is there for Stephen Hawking's bizarre, origins myth, summed up by him in a single sentence? - "Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".

      Empirical evidence for Hawking's contradictory fantasy is zero, it even fails logically. Yet (quelle surprise), atheists loved it, and I didn't see any of them demanding that Hawking should provide empirical evidence to support it. And, I also didn't see anyone calling it a logical fallacy, even though it is an absolutely, prime example.
      Gross hypocrisy or what?

      Now, where is the evidence for your ideological position?
      You vigorously reject one of only two alternatives, and yet are unable to provide any evidence or logical argument for the other.
      Not exactly an intellectually, tenable position.
      But then, why should I be surprised?
      That is the devious character of the atheist cult.
      What you do is lambast one side of the argument, while deliberately avoiding any justification of your own side. And then you invent all sorts of excuses why you don't need to do so.
      Apparently the thinking behind this is; if you have no credible argument, just keep attacking the other side with slogans and ridicule and you gain the intellectual, high ground. Attack being the best form of defence.

      Sorry, that may work with the secularist media, and amongst those who are easily influenced by slogans, propaganda and sound bites, but it doesn't work with anyone who has any common sense, and is not wedded to an ideological agenda.

      You reject one of only two alternatives, i.e. you reject a supernatural, infinite first cause. And your photostream shows that you have utter contempt for those who support it. You obviously don't reject the other alternative: a natural, temporal, first cause, but you don't think you have to justify it.
      How can you have the barefaced cheek to scorn and ridicule supporters of one of the two options, and then refuse to explain your obvious support for the other option?
      You ARE making a claim ...
      By ridiculing one of only two options you are effectivlely making a claim that the other option is the only credible alternative.
      So, now let us see your evidence or logical argument for a 'natural', first cause?

    13. Silly Deity 21 months ago

      Truth in science Let’s start by reminding you (yet again) that I have made NO claims. It is you who have made certain claims. When you make claims these have to be capable of standing up to scrutiny.

      This is called the burden of proof.

      This means that you need to provide evidence to support your claims. Otherwise people will accuse you (quite rightly) of being dishonest. A colloquial term for this is “making-up-shit”.

      If we didn’t have this burden of proof than all sorts of people could claim all sorts of nonsense and we wouldn’t be able to differentiate between what is true and what is false. For example, you could claim that while you were at a party on Saturday you and the other party-goers drank all the wine and so you made some more by turning water into wine. Now that sounds pretty unlikely (indeed it sounds like “made-up-shit” to me) and so quite rightly people would demand some evidence that you’d done this.

      Or you might claim that two weeks ago you rose from the dead. Sounds pretty damn crazy doesn’t it? But if you insisted that you’d risen from the dead, people would definitely demand evidence - I mean who wouldn’t? If you were unable to provide that evidence, then you’d certainly be accused of “making-up-shit”.

      Or you might claim that humans and dinosaurs co-existed despite the fact that no evidence for this exists……..that would be another example of “making-up-shit”.

      If you continued persistently “making-up-shit” you’d be called “a liar”.

      Now you claim that what you are providing is "evidence", but of course if you're providing fallacious logic as the basis of your reasoning - that is not only NOT evidence, its the exact opposite of evidence.

      So for kicks let's look at your claim that it is your god that is the first cause. Use your claimed "logic" and "evidence" to explain why any of the following deities should not be considered as the first cause:

      Cheonjiwang
      Absu and Tiamat
      Chaos
      Ahura Mazda
      Lono
      Mangala
      Pangu
      Roog
      Anu
      Buga
      Unkulunkulu
      Vainanmoinen
      Viracocha

      Because if you're saying there has to be a first cause, why isn't it one of the above? Remember evidence has to be demonstrable - that's what empirical means by the way.

    14. Truth in science 21 months ago

      Silly Deity
      My evidence is based on the well-established reliability of the Law of Cause and Effect, which applies to everything temporal (including all natural entities) and has never been falsified. And, on the reliability of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which also has never been falsified.
      So, your argument is not with me, it is with the natural laws, which are fatal to the atheist idea of a natural, first cause.

      Of course, you don’t trust those laws, in fact you hate them. That is why you will cling to any bizarre, unscientific fantasy in a vain attempt to refute them. Your previous, attempt to refute my argument with your ridiculous suggestion that ‘self-causation’ and an ‘infinite causal chain’ may be possible, is a prime example.
      For anyone who missed your previous attack on those laws, and on the logical argument based on them, I repeat here what you wrote:
      “Your assertion makes the following assumptions: self-causation is impossible, an infinite causal chain cannot occur and this causal starting point is in fact a very specific God – and spookily it's precisely the one that you have in mind.
      The first assumption is wrong if, for example, each of the four fundamental forces of nature (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity) was created by a different god. The second has no basis at all.”

      By dismissing my argument as ‘assumptions’ based on such nonsense, you revealed yourself as anti-science, and have forfeited all credibility in this debate.
      I think, I can safely say that any sensible, unbiased person who reads your illogical attack on natural laws, as quoted above, will treat anything else you say with the contempt it deserves.
      You are now in a hole of you own making, due to your fanatical adherence to atheist ideology.
      You have demonstrated that you would rather attack natural laws, than admit that atheism is logically and scientifically bankrupt. Which, of course, by your attack on natural laws, you have inadvertantly confirmed.

      BTW, as you insist that ‘empirical’ evidence is essential, and, as we wouldn’t want to have to accuse you of double standards? Perhaps you will cite all the empirical evidence for the following scenarios presented by atheist ‘scientists’ as their ‘scientific’ versions of origins?
      1. A ‘multiverse’.
      2. The self-creation of the universe from nothing.
      3. A singularity.
      4. Abiogenesis (presented as a fact).
      5. The existence of life /aliens on other planets.
      That will do for starters. Please list all the empirical evidence for these ‘scientific’ scenarios?

      You wrote:
      “Use your claimed "logic" and "evidence" to explain why any of the following deities should not be considered as the first cause”

      My present, logical argument is that a single, infinite, supernatural creator certainly exists, whose character and attributes can be discerned from natural laws and properties existing in the universe.
      It is easy to determine which God is the true one, but that is a discussion to be had with people who acknowledge that a God exists. It is a theological debate, and not a theist versus atheist debate. Atheists simply use it as a diversion and device to muddy the waters when they realise they are losing the argument.

      BTW, in your list of deities you forgot to mention your own version of a creator god, i.e. Mother Nature. I wonder why?

    15. Silly Deity 21 months ago

      Truth in science
      Ah..............so you're STILL dodging the requirement for you to provide evidence. No surprise there. Instead we get the usual strawmen, ad hominems, equivocation and fallacious nonsense.

      Without evidence your claim fails.

      You seem to be unable to answer my quite straightforward question. One that is central to your claim. I wonder why that is? I pointed this out to you 6 days ago and you appeared unable to answer that point then.

      If your god is so easy to determine - if your logic and evidence is so solid, so irrefutable, then explain why any of the following deities should not be considered as the first cause:

      Cheonjiwang
      Absu and Tiamat
      Chaos
      Ahura Mazda
      Lono
      Mangala
      Pangu
      Roog
      Anu
      Buga
      Unkulunkulu
      Vainanmoinen
      Viracocha

      This surely should be an easy question for you to answer. If you can't answer it then it'll be yet another in a long line of answers you're unable to provide.

    16. Truth in science 21 months ago

      Silly Deity
      As you have simply repeated questions I have already answered, while ignoring all of mine, I refer you to my answers and questions in my previous post. Which I repeat intact below.

      (BTW. I think we can safely conclude that your failure to give even a single piece of empirical evidence for any of the so-called, 'scientific', atheist, origin scenarios I listed, means there isn't any. So, whenever you have the audacity to demand 'empirical' evidence for any of my logical arguments, you are guilty of deplorable, double standards and we can, quite rightly, treat all your demands for empirical evidence with the contempt they deserve.)

      Repeat of my previous post giving answers and questions which you chose to ignore:
      "My evidence is based on the well-established reliability of the Law of Cause and Effect, which applies to everything temporal (including all natural entities) and has never been falsified. And, on the reliability of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which also has never been falsified.
      So, your argument is not with me, it is with the natural laws, which are fatal to the atheist idea of a natural, first cause.

      Of course, you don’t trust those laws, in fact you hate them. That is why you will cling to any bizarre, unscientific fantasy in a vain attempt to refute them. Your previous, attempt to refute my argument with your ridiculous suggestion that ‘self-causation’ and an ‘infinite causal chain’ may be possible, is a prime example.
      For anyone who missed your previous attack on those laws, and on the logical argument based on them, I repeat here what you wrote:
      “Your assertion makes the following assumptions: self-causation is impossible, an infinite causal chain cannot occur and this causal starting point is in fact a very specific God – and spookily it's precisely the one that you have in mind.
      The first assumption is wrong if, for example, each of the four fundamental forces of nature (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity) was created by a different god. The second has no basis at all.”

      By dismissing my argument as ‘assumptions’ based on such nonsense, you revealed yourself as anti-science, and have forfeited all credibility in this debate.
      I think, I can safely say that any sensible, unbiased person who reads your illogical attack on natural laws, as quoted above, will treat anything else you say with the contempt it deserves.
      You are now in a hole of you own making, due to your fanatical adherence to atheist ideology.
      You have demonstrated that you would rather attack natural laws, than admit that atheism is logically and scientifically bankrupt. Which, of course, by your attack on natural laws, you have inadvertantly confirmed.

      BTW, as you insist that ‘empirical’ evidence is essential, and, as we wouldn’t want to have to accuse you of double standards? Perhaps you will cite all the empirical evidence for the following scenarios presented by atheist ‘scientists’ as their ‘scientific’ versions of origins?
      1. A ‘multiverse’.
      2. The self-creation of the universe from nothing.
      3. A singularity.
      4. Abiogenesis (presented as a fact).
      5. The existence of life /aliens on other planets.
      That will do for starters. Please list all the empirical evidence for these ‘scientific’ scenarios?

      You wrote:
      “Use your claimed "logic" and "evidence" to explain why any of the following deities should not be considered as the first cause”

      My present, logical argument is that a single, infinite, supernatural creator certainly exists, whose character and attributes can be discerned from natural laws and properties existing in the universe.
      It is easy to determine which God is the true one, but that is a discussion to be had with people who acknowledge that a God exists. It is a theological debate, and not a theist versus atheist debate. Atheists simply use it as a diversion and device to muddy the waters when they realise they are losing the argument.

      BTW, in your list of deities you forgot to mention your own version of a creator god, i.e. Mother Nature. I wonder why?"

    17. Silly Deity 20 months ago

      Truth in science Well according to you - bearing in mind you seem to think that your "logic" is so solid - my question should have been an easy one for you to answer.

      Yet you can't. Yet again you run away.

      You've repeatedly failed to provide evidence for your claims.

      You've repeatedly failed to respond to rebuttals of your arguments

      You've repeatedly failed to answer questions that should be simple to answer.

      Not doing too well are you?

      So let's try something that requires you merely to provide a reference to a publication. That should be even easier than all of the questions I've previously asked you. Surely you'll be able to answer this one?

      You mentioned the "Law of Cause and Effect" in your most recent post. Indeed you constantly refer to it. Why don't you provide a defintion of the "Law of Cause and Effect"? Not one that you've made up but one that appears in a scientific journal or a respected scientific source. Because when you're claiming that "well-established reliability of the Law of Cause and Effect" is central to your claim, you seem to be rather vague about what this "law" actually is.

      So come on. Surely you can't fail on this one too?

    18. Truth in science 20 months ago

      Silly Deity
      You are like a broken down record.
      How many times do I have to repeat myself before it sinks in?

      Any intelligent person who reads through these comments can see that I have presented a logical argument based on things we can be certain of, like natural laws.
      Whereas, you have failed to give any justification whatsoever - either through evidence, logical argument or natural laws, for any atheist, origin stories.

      Atheists, dishonestly, present their origin stories to the public as though they are the scientific viewpoint, but they are obviously nothing of the sort.
      Declared atheists Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, for example, claim the universe created itself from nothing. What empirical evidence do they present for this incredible fantasy? Zero!

      "Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" This dogmatic claim is Stephen Hawking's much vaunted, naturalistic replacement for God. His so-called 'theory of everything' summed up in a single sentence.
      Why don't atheists demand evidence for such a dogmatic claim, which is presented to the public as though it is supported by science?

      Here is what should be a very easy question for you.
      Bearing in mind that 'abiogenesis' is presented by atheists, not only as scientific, but as a fact, we would expect there to be much, empirical evidence to support it. Please list the empirical evidence for the extraordinary claim that life arose of its own accord from sterile matter?

      You wrote:
      "You mentioned the "Law of Cause and Effect" in your most recent post. Indeed you constantly refer to it. Why don't you provide a defintion of the "Law of Cause and Effect"?"

      I am surprised you are returning to that, maybe you are hoping people reading these comments have forgotten or didn't read your previous, embarassing attempt to debunk the Law of Cause and Effect.
      In case they missed it, here it is again:

      You wrote:
      “This regurgitation of the first cause argument is so old and hoary it is really rather pathetic.”

      My answer:
      So, if something is old it makes it wrong, does it? What rubbish! Truth is not affected by time, the first cause argument has never been refuted. Just because atheists claim it has, doesn’t make it a fact.

      You wrote:
      “Your assertion makes the following assumptions: self-causation is impossible, an infinite causal chain cannot occur.”

      My answer:
      That is not an assumption.
      1. Something CANNOT create itself from nothing. That is a fact. To create itself, something would have to pre-exist its own creation. In which case, if it already exists, it has no need to create itself. And, if something already exists, it is not ‘nothing’.

      You wrote:
      “The first assumption is wrong if, for example, each of the four fundamental forces of nature (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity) was created by a different god.”

      My answer:
      Where are you getting this drivel?
      Those things are inherent properties of matter. They don’t exist without matter/energy. They are temporal things which rely on the existence of matter.
      And you can’t have 4 different gods creating anything, there can only be one infinite, creative entity.
      If, for example, there were two infinite entities each with their own properties, the properties unique to one entity would be a limitation on the other and vice versa, so neither would be infinite. If their properties were identical, they would be identical and thus the same, single entity. It is obvious that God can only be one. That is the logical basis of monotheism.

      2. “An infinite causal chain cannot occur”.
      That is also not an assumption. 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. Temporal + temporal can never equal infinite.
      The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that everything physical is subject to entropy. The idea; that there could be an indefinitely, long chain (with no beginning) in which, although every link in the chain is subject to entropy, the chain, as a whole, is not, having been able to exist during an infinite past, is absurd.
      It is an incredible notion to imagine that a chain consisting entirely of temporal elements, all of which require a beginning and depend on causes, and all of which are subject to entropy, as a whole, can be infinitely long, with no beginning and by some miracle is unaffected by law of entropy (throughout an infinite past) which would have caused its demise.
      You may ask - 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, the 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.
      Maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number 1. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible, including the idea of infinite regress. 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. The fact that a ‘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).

      You wrote:
      “But do we even know that there is a "first cause" for everything? What we do know through modern science is that natural phenomena exist whose causes have not yet been discerned or are potentially non-existent. A well known example is radioactive decay. Decay follows statistical laws and it is possible to predict the quantity of a radioactive substance that will decay over time, but it's impossible according to our current understanding of physics to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate. The spontaneous disintegration of radioactive nuclei is truly random and might be uncaused and thus knocks holes in the assumption that everything must have a cause.”

      My answer:
      We DO know there is cause or causes for everything temporal. And there must have been an original single ‘first’ cause at the beginning of the temporal realm. To insinuate that science, in any way disputes the law of cause and effect is bogus science. Atheists frequently cite radioactive decay and quantum particles/effects as though they refute the law of cause and effect, which, of course they don’t. It is nonsense. Firstly, random does not equal causeless. And secondly, these effects are part of a ‘caused’, temporal universe. So, even if we haven’t yet been able identify an obvious direct cause, they came into existence as a result of the overall cause of the universe. The universe is CAUSED, and thus everything in the universe is CAUSED.

      You wrote:
      “So your assertion certainly does not prove that god exists. Science has very little to say on the subject other than providing us with examples that knock holes in the "first cause" argument. Science provides us with a methodology for determining the causal linkages between things. That methodology is called the "scientific method" and has been explained to you many times before and yet you still willfuly misunderstand it.”

      My answer:
      Science does NOT knock holes in the ‘first cause’ argument, on the contrary, it supports it.
      Looking for adequate causes is the modus operandi of the scientific method.
      The scientific method is not about trying to prove that things happen without causes. That is an atheist obsession, which is doomed to failure.
      You need to learn that just because some atheists claim that science refutes causality, doesn’t make it a fact. Atheists have an agenda, real science does not. Atheists hate the law of cause and effect, and other natural laws that are fatal to their ideology.

    19. Silly Deity 20 months ago

      Truth in science Well, well well. No surprises once more.

      I ask you another very simple question - namely to provide a definition of the "Law of Cause and Effect" from a respected scientific source and you can't even do that. We get another wall of verbiage. Made up stuff. Nonsense.

      I mean it really should be very, very simple for you - all you had to do was to provide a link to a respected source that provides a definition.

      But you can't even do that.

      You run away.

      Again!

      My work here is done.

    20. Truth in science 13 months ago

      ____________________________________________
      "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”
      Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

      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

    The photo owner has disabled commenting.
    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts