The Flickr Agnosticism Image Generatr

Why Rousseau Was Wrong by Frances Ward

This book is about the failure of some key Enlightenment ideas as they shape the soul, the human person and, consequently, Western culture. I suggest that a culture is only as good as its soul and that Western societies discard the traditions of Christianity at their peril. For Christianity is very aware, traditionally, of the shadows of humanity (you need only to read Thomas à Kempis' The Imitation of Christ¹ to discover that). Christianity, from its earliest days, has shaped the soul to be corporate rather than individualistic. The Christian soul has been encouraged to find meaning in time, in nature, in practices, in things and people, so such things are not merely means to some end or useful, but point to an end beyond themselves, which Christians call God. And rather than seeing the human person as having an iden- tity, the Christian faith provides formative prac- tices that enable a virtuous character to develop.

The human personality looks very different with a Christian soul. Arguably, society functions better too.

Frances Ward explores ways in which twenty-first century society can be rebuilt and strengthened for the future.

"The papacy inspires the same sentiment like the Roman goddess, Queen of Heaven, and leads its followers to consider Eve's sin in the same way as paganism did. as paganism. In the canon of the Mass, the most solemn service in the Roman
missal, we find the following expression in the apostrophe to the fault of our first parents:

"O beata culpa,quas talem meruisti Redemptorem!"
O blessed fault, which has provided us with such a Redeemer. -

The idea contained in these words is entirely pagan. Here's what they boil down to: "Thanks be to Eve, whose fault whose fault has obtained for us the glorious Savior." -


The idea of a primordial tradition emerged in Germany in the early 19th century as a consequence of the discovery of the great Eastern sacred texts: it enabled the universal claims of the biblical narrative to be transposed by assigning it a common ancestor with India, Persia and China. In fact, his approach remained marked by his Catholic training and the notion of apostolic tradition based on the two sources of truth: the Scriptures and transmission through the chain of the priesthood."This is the great connection between the physical and the and the spiritual, the earthly and the supersensible, which he wanted to present, as well as the way, which the
the path that man must take through his developing cognitive abilities the path that man must take through his developing cognitive abilities if he wants to ascend from the earthly to the spiritual. to the spiritual. This is a question that man must always ask himself. Schiller had presented this problem in his own witty way in the "Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man".
This treatise, only little known and studied, is a
treasure trove for the one who sets out to solve this riddle. Goethe was inspired by it to express himself on the same question and he did so in the fairy tale "Green Snake and the beautiful Lily", which he later added to the "Unterhaltungen deutscher Ausgewanderten" (conversations of German emigrants). The fairy tale "Green Snake and the beautiful lily" shows the development of the human soul to ever higher insight,
All human soul forces can develop, not only the human thinking faculty. All soul forces, also feeling and willing, can penetrate into the objective secrets of the world. But they must learn to
must learn to switch off.

anthroposophie.byu.edu/vortraege/053_16.pdf

"In itself, the reality which we now call 'Christian religion' existed even among the ancients, and was present from the beginning of the human race until Christ came in the flesh; and it is in consequence of this coming, that the true religion existing from all time, began to be called Christian."
- Saint Augustine, Retractaciones, I, XII, 3

"My heart has become capable of every form: it is a pasture for gazelles and a convent for Christian monks, and a temple for idols, and the Kaabah of the pilgrim, and the table of the Thorah and the book of the Qorân. I am the religion of Love, whatever road its camels take; my religion and my faith are the true religion."
Ibn Arabi (Tarjumân al-Ashwâq)

"As far as religions are concerned, only transcendent unity, achieved from above, is valid: the unity that results from the recognition of the One Tradition beyond its various particular and historical forms, the recognition of the constant metaphysical contents that present themselves in various guises - like so many translations into several "languages" - in the world's multiple religions and sacred traditions. The prerequisite, then, is an "esoteric" understanding of what manifests itself in the confusing and sometimes contradictory variety of religions and traditions. Encounter, therefore, can only take place at the top, at the level of elites capable of grasping the inner, transcendent dimension of the various traditions; then unity would automatically follow, and "dialogues" could take place without disturbing the limits proper to each tradition at the level of "base" and external doctrine. But there is nothing of the kind in the recent reformist initiatives that have given rise to "ecumenical euphoria". It's essentially a matter of simple tolerance that more or less renounces dogma."
Julius Evola (1898-1974)

For René Guénon, religious practice in general concerns only the exoteric, essentially social and moral, aspect of the Primordial Tradition. His knowledge is therefore intended to go beyond the religious point of view, without denying it, but assuming it in its entirety19. Epistemologically speaking, for traditionalists, metaphysical knowledge is not simply a matter of reason, but of intellectual intuition, which is supra-rational20. Knowledge of this hidden truth is therefore aimed at "metaphysical realization" through traditional initiatory rites that are distinct from mere religious rites and inaccessible to the majority. Christianity is, however, an exception for Frithjof Schuon and Jean Borella, for whom Christian sacraments are indeed initiatory. Be that as it may, the Traditional Method is in many respects a "method which is the opposite of a method, since it maintains the secrets, the trials". Beyond his rejection of modernity, Guénon rejected the autonomy and primacy of reason, in contradiction to the entire evolution of Western thought since the end of the Middle Ages, in favor of a purely spiritual "intellectual intuition". Such an approach led him to view the entire cosmos as an illusion destined to dissolve into divine unity at the end of time. These choices gave rise to two complementary features essential to the development of his system: 1) the existence of an original revealed datum, which the work of reason had first commented on and then distorted, and which he called "primordial Tradition", long predating Judeo-Christianity; a tradition handed down from master to disciple since the dawn of time; 2) the central role attributed to the forces of evil, the only "motor of history" driving the world into a slow, ineluctable "descent".

The concept of "intellectual intuition" is rather difficult to grasp. Guénon also rejects mysticism. Does this "intellectual intuition" correspond to the spirit of the classical body-soul-spirit triptych (with reason referring to the body and mysticism to the soul)? Things change when we consider, beyond the method of approach, the nature of knowledge: what Guénon calls pure intellectual intuition is immediate access to "Deity", to use Master Eckhardt's language, beyond the revealed God. It refers to that identification with God himself which led the Sufi master al-Hallaj to martyrdom, and to what other great spiritualists, recognized by Guénon himself as esoteric, have called mysticism.

www.cairn.info/revue-la-chaine-d-union-2007-1-page-18.htm

The Two Babylons, subtitled Romanism and its Origins, is a book that started out as a religious pamphlet published in 1853 by the Presbyterian Free Church of Scotland theologian Alexander Hislop (1807–65). Its central theme is the argument that the Catholic Church is the Babylon of the Apocalypse which is described in the Bible.[1] The book delves into the symbolism of the image which is described in the Book of Revelation – the woman with the golden cup – and it also attempts to prove that many of the fundamental practices of the Church of Rome, and its Modus Operandi in general, stem from non-scriptural precedents. It analyzes modern Catholic holidays, including Christmas and Easter, and attempts to trace their roots back to pagan festivals. It also attempts to show that many other accepted doctrines (such as Jesus' crucifixion on a Cross) may not be correct. Hislop provides a detailed comparison of the ancient religion which was established in Babylon (allegedly by the Biblical king Nimrod and his wife, Semiramis) by drawing on a variety of historical and religious sources, in order to show that the modern Papacy and the Catholic Church are the same system as the Babylon that was mentioned by the apostle Paul in the first century (when he commented on the iniquity that was already creeping into the 1st century Christian church and the author of Revelation. Most modern scholars have rejected the book's arguments as erroneous and based on a flawed understanding of the Babylonian religion, but variations of them are accepted among some groups of Christian religious evangelical Protestants. The book was expanded in 1858, going through many editions. A 3rd edition was published in 1862, a 7th in 1871, (thus, a mere six years after the author's death, four successive posthumous editions had already appeared), and a popular edition in 1903.

Description
Hislop builds on the Panbabylonian school of Hyperdiffusionism, which was common in the 19th century, to argue that Classical and Ancient Near Eastern civilization took its inspiration from Babylon. From this he derives the argument that the mystery religions of Late Antiquity were actually offshoots of one ancient religion founded at the Tower of Babel. Panbabylonism has since been relegated to pseudohistory by 20th-century scholars. Much of Hislop's work centers on his association of the legendary Ninus and his semi-historical wife Semiramis with the Biblical Nimrod as her husband and her son, with their incestuous male offspring being Tammuz. Hellenistic histories of the Ancient Near East tended to conflate their faint recollections of the deeds of ancient kings into legendary figures who exerted far more power than any ancient king ever did. In Assyria, they invented an eponymous founder of Nineveh named Ninus, who supposedly ruled 52 years over an empire comparable to the Persian Empire at its greatest extent. Ninus' wife Semiramis was in turn a corruption of the historical figure Shammuramat, regent of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from 811 BC.[10] Hislop takes Ninus as a historical figure and associates him with the Biblical figure Nimrod, though he was not the first to do so. The Clementine literature made the association in the 4th Century AD. An influential belief throughout the Middle Ages was that Ninus was the inventor of idolatry,[11] a concept that Hislop clearly drew upon. However, Hislop wrote before the historical records of the ancient near east had been thoroughly decoded and studied, that cast doubt in the decades after he wrote whether there was any such figure as Ninus, and the Greek authors whom he quoted lacked credibility on the subject. The Two Babylons heavily relies on Austen Henry Layard's publications of his excavations at Nineveh, which had only been just discovered in 1851. This gave his work an appearance of being well-researched at the time of its publication. For example, Hislop linked the name of Easter with Astarte, the Phoenician fertility goddess by citing Layard's recent discovery of Astarte's Assyrian name, Ishtar, which Hislop took to be "identical" to Easter. What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar.
Relief of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, whose name Hislop incorrectly claimed to be the root behind the English word Easter
Hislop's claim that Easter is derived from Ishtar is rejected by historical linguists and is an example of folk etymology. Philologists derive the word Easter from Old English Ēostre, the name of a West Germanic goddess. Ēostre derives from the Proto-Germanic goddess name *austrōn-, whose name in turn derives from the Proto-Indo-European deity and personified dawn *h₂ewsṓs (from the Proto-Indo-European root *aus-, meaning 'to shine' and thus 'dawn, east'). Other dawn goddesses who developed from *h₂ewsṓs include Latin Aurora, Ancient Greek Eos, and Vedic Sanskrit Ushas.[14][15][16] Ishtar, however, is unrelated. Ishtar is a Semitic name of uncertain etymology, possibly taken from the same root as Assyria, or from a semitic word meaning "to irrigate". Hislop ultimately claimed to trace Catholic doctrines back to the worship of Nimrod, asserting that the Catholic Church represented Whore of Babylon of the Book of Revelation and that "the Pope himself is truly and properly the lineal representative of Belshazzar." He claimed that the Christogram IHS, the first three Greek letters in the name of Jesus, represented Latin characters standing for Isis, Horus and Seb.

Analysis
In the note by the editor of the 7th edition, which was published in 1871, it was claimed, "that no one, so far as we are aware, has ventured to challenge the accuracy of the historical proofs adduced in support of the startling announcement on the title page." Since then, however, there have been many who have challenged the accuracy of Hislop's claims. For example, Lester L. Grabbe has highlighted the fact that Hislop's entire argument, particularly his association of Ninus with Nimrod, is based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion.[4] Grabbe also criticizes Hislop for portraying the mythological queen Semiramis as Nimrod's consort, despite the fact that she is never even mentioned in a single text associated with him, and for portraying her as the "mother of harlots",[4] even though this is not how she is depicted in any of the texts where she is mentioned. In 2011, a critical edition was published. Although Hislop's work is extensively footnoted, some commentators (in particular Ralph Woodrow) have made the assertion that the document contains numerous misconceptions, fabrications, logical fallacies, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, and grave factual errors.

Influence
Some fundamentalist Protestants still regard Hislop's book as proof that the Roman Catholic Church is, in fact, the continuation of the ancient Babylonian religion. In 1921 A. W. Pink confidently asserted that Hislop's work had "proven conclusively that all the idolatrous systems of the nations had their origin in what was founded by that mighty Rebel, the beginning of whose kingdom was Babel."[20] Jehovah's Witnesses' periodical The Watchtower frequently published excerpts from it until the 1980s.[21][better source needed] The book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord and other fringe groups. Anti-Catholic Evangelical publisher Jack Chick endorsed the book, and his store still offers it. non-primary source needed] A number of Seventh-day Adventists still use The Two Babylons as source material. An example is the somewhat controversial Walter Veith, who still use the conclusions from Hislop's book to support his articles published at the website "Amazing Discoveries". Adventist magazine Spectrum, however, dismisses Veith as a conspiracy theorist. As well, various viral image posts have appeared on the internet, usually in neopagan or atheist spaces, citing Hislop's theory of Easter being etymologically derived from Ishtar, as well as adding in more misleading pieces such as claiming Ishtar's symbols were the "bunny" and the "egg". This view has been echoed by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, who has since redacted the claim.[

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons

This book has been reissued many times. Its first publication was in 1916. The edition I read was printed in 1965. The title has one of those old lengthy subtitles underneath it: “Or, the Papal worship proved to be the worship of Nimrod and his wife.” I guess the subtitle about sums it up. The author carefully examines the various elements of Roman Catholicism and concludes in each case that it has its foundation in the ancient religion and practices of old Babylon as opposed to New Testament Christianity. The topics covered include: mitres, robes, candles, rosaries, statues, crosses, fishes, festivals, doctrines, developments and much more. It is pretty comprehensive, at least up until the date when it was written. The book will also go some way to explaining the origins of ‘the gods’ showing that they were founded upon the patriarchs and their deeds. The style of this book is more suited to academics and particularly those who are familiar with classical mythology. Neither of which describes myself and I would have to admit that much of the finer detail went over my head. The book can be made easier to comprehend and considerably shortened by not reading the frequent and lengthy footnotes. Why am I recommending this book? Well, quite simply the subject matter in hand is of such vital importance to God’s children. Many through woeful ignorance have been seduced into thinking that Catholicism is somehow ‘Christian’. This book is something of a standard work when it comes to exposing, not just a few ‘errors’ in Catholicism, but the entire system for what it is really all about. From both history and doctrine Mr Hislop shows overwhelmingly that the origins and practices of this religion are founded upon ancient Babylonian mysticism. Whether it is through this particular book or one of the many others that have been ably written on this subject I think that every one who is a believer in the biblical Gospel should acquaint himself with the facts of what that religion is really all about. There is no inference whatsoever in this book that anyone should have cause to despise catholic people. It focuses purely on the facts of the development of the system and concludes, just as many others do, that God has one specific word to those who are caught up with this ‘Alternative Church’ – “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins.” In conclusion, this particular book may not be the one for everyone on this subject, but those with a slightly more academic bent will appreciate the carefully researched detail and its presentation.
www.newtestamentpattern.net/book-reviews/expose/the-two-b...

Primordial Tradition is Perennialism's idea that a single metaphysical truth intrinsically links all sacred traditions to an original revelation, the cause of which is non-human (divine). This truth, intrinsic to all traditions, constitutes the unique "Universal and Unanimous Tradition "1, which can be discovered through the multiple symbolic, mythical and ritual correspondences shared by the various sacred traditions of mankind.Developing the concept of Perennis Philosophia, the concept of Primordial Tradition has been theorized and problematized in contemporary times by the "School of Tradition "2 . This school is made up of writers, philosophers, anthropologists, historians and essayists from various religious denominations, whose founder and principal representative is the metaphysician René Guénon. For him, Primordial Tradition refers to humanity's oldest tradition, of meta-historical origin, which is "common to all authentic and 'orthodox' traditions, whose traces and signs appear very legibly in the symbols, rites and myths "3 of the various "traditional forms" or observable religions. Primordial Tradition is a concept that refers to the founding myths of mankind's various sacred traditions, such as the earthly paradise of the Bible, the Golden Age of Greco-Roman mythology or the Hindu krita yugaAS 1. Intimately linked to intuitive and intellectual knowledge of the "Ultimate Principle", Primordial Tradition thus designates a state of spiritual being that man lost during the Fall, and which he must regainAS 2 through metaphysical knowledge, both speculative (oral or written teaching) and operative (ritual initiation). The traditionalist imaginary is thus attentive to what each observable orthodox tradition says, and draws from their common account of a golden age the conclusion of a "Revelation, or primitive illumination of human thought". The starting point is therefore that the unity of the Principle of reality, God, is matched by the unity of a primordial revelation, expressed and revealed in the various sacred traditions of mankind. The traditionalist therefore gives equal credence to the accounts of the different "religions" as legitimate testimonies to the same original metaphysical experience. The "Traditional Method" thus endeavours to "discover an essential unity or equivalence of symbols, forms, myths, dogmas and disciplines beyond the varied expressions that the contents may have in the different historical traditions", with the aim of "bringing out the universal character of a symbol or teaching by comparing it with other corresponding symbols belonging to other traditions, in order to establish the presence of something superior and anterior to each of these formulations, different from each other, but nevertheless equivalent". The School of Tradition's approach is therefore not limited to the religious realm, but penetrates what it considers to be its inner, metaphysical aspect. From this perspective, the "synthesis" it intends to make of the various doctrinal expressions is not a "syncretism", as it does not intend to mix rites, symbols or myths, but to draw comparisons between them. Indeed, "Syncretism consists in bringing together, from the outside, elements that are more or less disparate and which, seen in this way, can never really be unified; in short, it's just a kind of eclecticism, with all that eclecticism always entails in terms of fragmentation and incoherence. This is something purely external and superficial; the elements taken from all sides and brought together artificially in this way only ever have the character of borrowings, incapable of being effectively integrated into a doctrine worthy of the name. Synthesis, on the other hand, is essentially performed from within; by this we mean that it properly consists in considering things in the unity of their very principle, in seeing how they derive and depend on this principle, and thus uniting them, or rather becoming aware of their real union, by virtue of a link that is all interior, inherent in what is deepest in their nature."


fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition_primordiale

A High Point in the Universal Consciousness evolved into matter. This High Point is called “God” by the theists. The atheists deny God’s role in creation because the High Point evolved of its own effort without any external prompting.

#Agnosticism will always #end in #chaos because if any #order is #introduced #will be #justified! His Divine Holiness #Bhagavan Sri #Nithyananda #Paramashivam Follow HDH Sri #Nithyananda #Paramashivam on Twitter (@SriNithyananda): twitter.com/SriNithyananda?s=09 Original Video youtu.be/lJPwRYbWQMg Q & A on the Multi-Dimensions of the Universe

Atheist myths debunked.
The development of order.

One of many questions’ atheists are unable to answer is:
Why is there order in the universe?
Order denotes purpose. Purpose requires a purposeful creation, which atheists deny.

There are several laws of nature and principles of science that atheists dearly wish would not exist.
Among these are:
The Law of Cause and Effect, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis.
These laws frustrate all attempts by atheists to replace God with ‘naturalism’ - their extraordinary belief that everything arose from nothing of its own volition, progressively increasing in order and potential, by entirely, natural processes.

Every natural, origin scenario (naturalism) defies explanation of the existence of order in the universe.
The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the building blocks of the universe, matter and energy, cannot be created by natural means.

The Second Law tells us matter/energy does not increase in order and potential. It tells us that, over time, the natural tendency is towards disorder and decreasing potential, from an obvious, original peak. There cannot be any natural, ongoing, development of order. This is an inconvenient fact for all atheist, natural, origin scenarios, which require the exact opposite; a simple, natural origin of matter/energy from nothing, progressively increasing in order and potential.
In addition to this inconvenient truth is the fact that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. A simple, random, chaotic, or disordered origin cannot naturally lead to a complex, ordered result. This causality principle endorses the Second Law.
The Second Law tells us order/complexity/potential does not increase naturally, but tends to decrease, and the Law of Cause and Effect tells us the result of a process cannot be superior to the totality of its original cause or causes. There cannot subsequently be more potential or order in an effect/entity than that which was intrinsic to its origin. Furthermore, the tendency, over time, is for this potential to decrease.

The absolute killer for atheist, origins mythology is that: even if progressively increasing order/potential in the universe was possible, it would still denote purpose.
What inherent principle could support increasing order/improvement as a likely outcome of purely, natural processes?
For example: If, as atheists are compelled to believe, matter/energy automatically progressed, of its own volition, from its origin, to acquire an inherent predisposition for the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis), which (incidentally) violates the Law of Biogenesis, they have to explain how such a predisposition/blueprint for life originated in an unconscious, unplanned, purposeless universe?
They may argue that the origin of life is a just a chance event, but the mechanism/constituents of any chance event must have the intrinsic capacity or capability to produce the chance outcome. A random, number generator may generate an unlikely combination of numbers by chance, but it cannot generate any numbers at all unless it is devised/constructed with the ability to do so. An unlikely event may happen by chance, but only if such an event is intrinsically possible. The atheist ploy, of just ignoring laws of nature, spectacularly fails.
How could the potential for constructive improvement develop autonomously in unplanned, unconscious, purposeless, dumb matter, which originated from nothing? The obvious, rational answer is that it couldn’t.

Atheists often employ bizarre arguments to justify their denial of the universality of laws which refute their beliefs. One of these, which has attained common currency among atheists, is the idea that snowflakes and crystals are examples of natural development of order. And that they somehow contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Here is an exchange I had with an atheist which illustrates this:

An atheist (Aimless Alliterations) in answer to part of my original post where I cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics, wrote this:
“Oh, goodness gracious. You tied yourself up in all sorts of knots a while back with this one . You really need to read the science and understand it before making statements like this.
Quoting me:
"The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. "

“Really? Where does it state this?”

Quoting me again:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered."

“Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system”.

My reply:
You wrote:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered." Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system."

I am afraid it is you who doesn’t understand the Second Law. What I said is perfectly correct.
There are only 2 ways the effects of entropy can be temporarily decreased, halted or reversed by an input of energy. Either by a directive means or agent guiding the energy input, OR a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way.
Raw (unguided) energy (such as random heat) tends to increase entropy and time makes it worse.
Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings, rather than the opposite, which evolutionists require for abiogenesis.

Regarding the grading of sediment, I am surprised you mention that, because we know that is how most strata are formed, which effectively demolishes the uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column and the fossil record. In this case, the grading is guided by the physical properties of the particles (size, shape, weight etc.) obeying physical laws. And, it will in time, be eroded and disorganised by the same forces that created it.

Abiogenesis (life arising of its own accord by natural processes from sterile matter) certainly does violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it requires a reversal of the effects of entropy.
Atheists and evolutionists often argue that abiogenesis doesn’t violate the Second Law because the Earth is an ‘open system’ which allows an input of energy from outside itself, namely the Sun.
They claim that the law of entropy only applies to ‘closed systems. This claim is obviously spurious, because firstly, we can observe entropy happening all around us. We are in the open system of the Earth, and yet we are well aware of entropy. We see that the Sun does not halt or reverse entropy, in fact we see the opposite. The raw energy and heat from the Sun, unless harnessed, does damage, things all around us obey the law - they deteriorate, rot, erode and decay, they do not naturally improve. If you paint your house, the Sun, and the weather effects caused by the Sun, will eventually damage the paintwork, it will crack and peel after a few years. The hotter the Sun (the greater the energy input) the quicker it will happen.
Secondly, even if it were true that in an open system, things can defy the law of entropy, natural laws are laws for the whole universe, and the universe, as a whole, is a closed system.
So, what can we deduce from this?
Can the effects of entropy ever be reversed of halted?
Obviously, when you paint your house, you are reversing the bad effects of entropy for a short period, but you have to keep doing it, it is not permanent. Moreover, the energy you are using to repair and temporarily reverse the effects of entropy, is directed and guided by your skill and intelligence.
So, the atheist argument about the Earth being an open system is clearly not a valid one.
To conclude: We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life.
Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?
We certainly don't see abiogenesis happening naturally today, it doesn't even happen artificially in contrived experiments. To claim it happened long ago as a one-off phenomenon in some imagined scenario is not science, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
“Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings...”

“So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?”

My reply:
“You wrote:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?"

Oh, for goodness sake! I warned you about scouring the internet searching for answers from quack, atheist websites. They are presented by people as clueless and gullible as the people they are trying to convince, or by people who are deliberately trying to deceive the public for ideological reasons.
Atheists should know that snowflakes, crystals etc. are not examples of the development of order. By regularly presenting them as such, they reveal either their deceitfulness or their complete misunderstanding of science.
There is NO reduction in entropy, the Second Law is NOT, and CANNOT be, violated, as you claim. If you knew even the basics of the Second Law, you would not make a fool of yourself by saying it is.

Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the increase in complexity/order required for the origin of life.
Snowflakes, crystals etc. are simply reverting to the natural state dictated by their atomic structure as they cool. If you knew anything about the Second Law you would know that the natural, intrinsic order of matter is highest at lower temperatures. You would know that the application of raw (undirected) heat/energy increases entropy.
The natural, intrinsic order of substances is greatest at absolute zero.
That does not mean cooling causes a decrease in entropy overall, the heat/energy is transferred from one substance to its surroundings and the entropy is increased in the surroundings.
Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance to abiogenesis, because there is no increase in order above or beyond that which is intrinsic to the inherent, atomic properties of water. By lowering the temperature, the apparent increase in order is not an actual increase in, or the development of order, but simply a restoration at the atomic level to the original, natural, ordered state of water at the lower temperature.

If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed, and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?
According to the ridiculous, atheist analogy of snowflakes and crystals it would be. It only goes to show that atheists will clutch at any straw, however silly, to justify their ideology. They have the audacity to challenge and attempt to undermine natural laws with their nonsense and then accuse those who uphold them of being unscientific and ignorant. Their barefaced cheek never ceases to amaze me.

I repeat my question, which you have failed to answer:
We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life. Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?

The basic, inherent, atomic structure of water, and of all matter, along with natural law, is part of the initial order of the universe which became present at the moment of its creation. It is not developing order, such as that which would be required for abiogenesis or cosmic and biological evolution.”

Atheist reply:
“You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.

Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance.

But I'll tell you what .........rather than carry on with this nonsense I'll refer you to a very useful site that you (and anyone else) can access and it'll tell you what entropy is and how it relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't talk about origin of life or anything like that. It uses quite simple language and you need to read it and UNDERSTAND it.
entropysimple.oxy.edu/”

My reply:
You wrote:
"You asked for references to self-replicating information. There are many to choose from but here you go. Enjoy the bed-time reading."

There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun. So please stop insulting my intelligence, I have seen all this stuff before. I asked you to give me examples yourself, a simple enough request. I don't want links to internet sites (or long copy and pasted tracts) which can be found on the internet to justify virtually anything. What is your problem with actually answering questions yourself?

You wrote:
"You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.
Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance."

You accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law, after your astonishing, earlier statement:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible."
You, who wants to claim that (what Einstein called the premier law in science) can be violated have the audacity to accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law. Unbelievable!
The reason I used the word 'chance' is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject, which obviously doesn't include you.
Only DIRECTED energy can enable a temporary decrease in entropy, it does NOT HAPPEN by CHANCE. There has to be a guiding principle or agent either: 1) acting directly on the energy source - or: 2) a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy. A decrease in entropy doesn't happen randomly or as a 'chance' event.
You believe the atheist nonsense that snowflakes/crystals are an example of an increase in order, which demonstrates your dire knowledge of the subject.
If you knew anything about the Second Law you would not have cited such a spurious example, apparently you are willing to believe anything you read on atheist/evolutionist websites as though it is gospel.
Perhaps you can address the question I asked in my last post: If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape? But I doubt it, answering questions is not exactly your forte. You would rather nit pick about the qualifications of anyone who disagrees with atheist pseudoscience.

Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
“There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun."

“Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself.

If you were aware of such research would you have written the nonsense you pour forth? ............Probably.

You also appear to have some sort of cognitive dissonance as far as the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy. I provide you with an excellent resource and you fail to take advantage of it to understand the subject matter properly.
That really is astonishing!
All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy.”

My reply:
You wrote:
"Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself."

No! You are either too lazy to answer any questions yourself, or you are unable to. I suspect it is the latter, because you have already demonstrated from previous remarks that your knowledge of the subject is absolutely dire. Yet you insist on continuing to try to bluff it out, by either copying or pasting other people's work or posting links to anything you think supports your argument.
I'm afraid you have been sussed.
You have already put your foot in it - big time, by citing snowflakes and crystals as an example of developing order.
You mistakenly thought all you had to do to win an argument was to parrot stuff direct from an atheist/evolutionist website. When, in fact, parroting the sort of pseudoscientific rubbish that atheist/evolutionist websites are filled with, is a sure way of making yourself look extremely foolish.

You wrote:
"All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy"

What sort of damn-fool answer is that?
I asked: "If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?"
IS IT AN INCREASE IN ORDER OR NOT?
Please answer the question.
Because if it isn't an increase in order, it completely demolishes both your snowflake/crystal argument and the credibility of atheist/evolutionist so-called 'science'.
No wonder you don't want to answer.

**************************************************
Four and a half years later.
I am still waiting for any atheist to answer the rubber ball question?

The full debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/16208667768
___________________________________
Another argument employed by atheists to justify their denial of the Law of Cause and Effect is ‘quantum mechanics’.
Their claim being; because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused.
This is complete nonsense, quantum effects may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED, physical universe.
The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous, because whatever caused the whole universe, is the original cause of everything within it.
Furthermore, just because directly traceable causes cannot be determined, doesn’t mean a direct cause doesn’t exist.
For example:
It can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance.
So, just because, in some instances, direct causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesn’t mean there is no cause.

Quantum effects - The smoke and mirrors trick.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35908166441

Evolution, multi-million year timescale refured.
Rapid strata formation - field evidence.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/albums/72157635944...

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

Many Paths to God?
‘There are many paths to God‘- has become a politically, correct catchphrase, used by the liberal establishment to imply that all religions and beliefs are equally worthy.
Of course, you don’t need a degree in common sense to work out that this is illogical nonsense.
Everybody is aware that even the major religions disagree on many important issues. Therefore, simple logic dictates that they cannot all be right. Where they all disagree on a particular belief (if any are right) it can only be ONE that is right.
It is obvious then that all those religions that are wrong in any belief cannot be equal in merit, or equal as a path to God, as the one that is wholly right. So, to insist they are all equally worthy is to be unjustly biased against the one that is true.
Error should never be given equality with truth.
Therefore, it is inexcusable that our society should not to make every effort to discern, and then to officially recognise the truth in this matter.
For anyone to contend that ERROR should ever be entitled to equal endorsement and support by the state as TRUTH is unjust, prejudiced, morally reprehensible and downright stupid.

Western civilisation was founded and built on the commendable notion that truth really matters and should be encouraged and supported.
For centuries, it was accepted and agreed by the most learned persons and rulers, that the beliefs of Christianity best represent spiritual truth. Whilst also providing superlative spiritual and social benefits for citizens and society. And therefore, it was agreed that Christianity should be entitled to official recognition and special support by society and the state. The traditions, heritage, laws and culture of Christendom were founded on this generally, accepted precept.
It is not hard to understand why?
Christianity really is special.
Jesus Christ taught love, peace and forgiveness, even forgiveness of one’s enemies. He was not a warlord or military leader, like some others, but the true Prince of Peace.

Jesus is the perfect, role model for Christians. Although they are not always completely successful, the teaching and example of Jesus Christ are what every genuine Christian aspires to. Those things are eminently conducive to the moral, spiritual and material good of society. They are the fundamentals of Christianity and a Christian society..
We hear a lot today about religious fundamentalism being something bad, but in the case of Christianity the opposite must be true. The more fundamental a Christian seeks to be, the more like (the Christian role model) Jesus they hope to become.
In a nutshell, Jesus taught - love God above all and love your neighbour as yourself. and seek to advance the welfare of all, materially and spiritually - be humble, not proud or envious, be prepared to serve others, not lord it over them - love and forgive even your enemies and do not seek revenge or bear grudges.

A major problem today is that the term 'religion' is cynically used by secularists rather than 'religions'. The effect is to lump all religions together and stereotype them as though they are a single entity. Which means if one religion is perceived in some way as not conducive to the public good, people are led to believe that all religions are a problem - that 'religion' is a problem per se. This sort of stereotyping would be unlikely to be tolerated in any other field. But it suits the aims of militant atheists and the liberal, secular, politically correct agenda.
There is no question that the twentieth century was the bloodiest century in the history of the world. It was in this century that the major nations of Christendom began to abandon Christian beliefs, principles and heritage. And, in the misguided name of progress, began to embrace a variety of pagan, atheistic, materialist, Darwinian, Marxist and socialist ideologies. As a result, we were subjected to 2 world wars, numerous other wars, including the Spanish civil war, and an horrendous, mass murder as a result of the German nation adopting the national, socialist policies of a crazed, Darwinian inspired, anti-Christian, pagan occultist named Hitler. An even greater, mass slaughter was carried out by atheistic, socialist revolutionaries in pursuit of their proposed ‘paradise on Earth‘. The historical record of the twentieth century is absolutely horrendous, the atheistic, Marxist, socialist regimes of; Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were together responsible for the brutal slaughter of an estimated thirty-six million people. In addition, we have seen millions of war deaths, countless murders carried out by other, atheistic, socialist regimes and various other tyrannies, and millions of unborn babies callously slaughtered in state approved and funded, abortion mills.

We hear a lot today about equality, which sounds admirable. And true equality certainly is admirable and a God-given right. However, false equality is not admirable, it can be discriminatory against truth, goodness and, if enforced by the state, can result in an evil tyranny. Error should never be equated with truth and evil should never be equated with good.

So what is true equality?
Every human person is of equal value and should be equally respected and cared for, regardless of gender, colour, race, disability, wealth, influence, intelligence or power. That is true equality.

What is false equality?
False equality is the idea that everything any human person does or believes, is equally valid. The idea that all lifestyles, beliefs, traditions or cultures (that are not against whatever the state decides should be legal) are equally valid and worthy of equal respect.
In post Christian, secular society, while it is demanded by supporters of the liberal establishment that all religions, beliefs and lifestyles should be treated by the state as equally worthy, with no preference or special status given to any. In practice, we can see this is completely ignored in one respect, because there is an exception, inasmuch as it is now the beliefs of 'atheism' that actually receive special recognition and status in most, Western nations. This is evident in the state approved and funded, promotion and teaching of the (unscientific) naturalistic beliefs of Darwinian evolution and spontaneous generation of life, as though they are ‘scientific truths’ (they are treated as sacrosanct - with no alternative, scientific views or contrary evidence, permitted in any state funded or approved, educational curriculum).
The modern, secular state's 'enforced' equality demands that all beliefs etc. are treated as equally worthy, regardless of truth or merit. But, in practice, the liberal mind-set is that all beliefs/religions are inferior to the atheist/secularist ideology, which is perceived as the pinnacle of rationality and arbiter of 'scientific truth' which benevolently deigns to grant (a false) equality to every inferior, belief system. And religions should all be grateful that the secular state grants them equality with each other.
All religions and religious beliefs are thus lumped together as being equal (the crazy with the not so crazy - the logical with the illogical - the true with the patently false) with no intelligent, or logical discernment permitted.

And so we are led to believe by a secular state (which doesn't recognise God) that there are:
‘Many paths to God’ -That all religions and beliefs are equally valid.
But are they?
Anyone who agrees with this automatically rejects the claims of Jesus Christ, who stated; “I am the way, the truth and the life” and “no one can come to the Father except through Me.”
Uniquely, Jesus backed up his claim by suffering an agonising death on the cross as a sacrifice for the salvation of all humanity. The words of Jesus means you cannot be a Christian if you claim or believe there are many paths to God, or that there is any path to God other than through Jesus Christ.
The fact is that Jesus (although completely innocent of all sin himself) suffered for the sins of all humankind, He was crucified for the redemption of His enemies as well as His friends. We are all sinners and have all offended the infinite goodness of God, no one (not even a saint) deserves heaven entirely on their own merit. Everyone is defiled by sin, and nothing defiled can enter heaven. An offence against the infinite goodness of an infinitely loving, but also an infinitely, just God can only be redeemed by an infinitely, good sacrifice. So only a divine sacrifice can pay the price justice demands for our sins.
Only the sacrifice of the true, spiritual messiah, Jesus Christ, the son of the living God, incarnated as man, is sufficient to save us all from the consequences of sin, open the gates of heaven and restore eternal life to the whole human race.
Only those whose garments have been ‘washed white by the blood of the lamb’ are fit to enter heaven.
The debt for our sin has been paid by Jesus and His saving sacrifice is offered as an unsurpassed, loving and free gift to us all. We simply have to gratefully acknowledge and accept that gift in a spirit of humility and repentance.
Jesus requested that a remembrance of his sacrifice should be celebrated (the Eucharist). This unites us with Him and His sacrifice and is the only sacrificial ceremony for sin which is truly acceptable to God. All other sacrifices devised and offered by humans are as ‘dirty rags’ before the divine majesty of the almighty creator.
Only the sacrifice of the true messiah, God made man
(as prophesied by Isaiah in the old testament), is acceptable to God.
By his supreme sacrifice Jesus paid the price for every sin ever committed, and thereby opened the gates of heaven to the whole human race.
Without His sacrifice, no one of any religion could ever enter heaven.
It matters not whether you are the most devout Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist or person of any other faith, ultimately you will rely, not on any rituals and customs of these various religions, but on the sacrifice of Jesus to enter heaven.
All who enter heaven and eternal life do so only with a passport provided by Jesus, without His sacrifice you would never get there.
This is the truth whether you like it or not.

Of course, we all have free choice. Quite rightly, we are all entitled to follow any religion we wish. But once we know that it is only the sacrifice of Jesus that can make us fit to enter heaven and entitled to eternal life, we will surely wish to follow Him. It would be foolishness indeed for us to choose to follow any other religion which refuses to acknowledge this and pretends that we can redeem ourselves just by following its manmade doctrines and rituals.
Does atheist/secularist ideology, deserve to be regarded by the state and society as the pinnacle of rationality and arbiter of 'scientific truth'?
Atheism revealed as false ... Why God MUST 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. A genuine lack of belief would be classed as agnosticism, which is a neutral position. It is a 'don't know' or 'fence sitting' position. A 'don't know' position is not one which would specifically single out to reject, attack and ridicule just one side of the argument, i.e. the concept of a supernatural, first cause, as atheism does.
Atheists cannot simply deny, attack and vociferously ridicule the concept of - a supernatural, first cause, without being expected to justify the only alternative - a natural, first cause. That cannot be regarded as intellectually credible or rational.
We see that atheists dogmatically reject supernaturalism and are zealously on the side of naturalism (a naturalistic origin and explanation for everything). That is not a neutral, 'don't know' or objective position. It is not merely a lack of belief. It is a positive and subjective belief in naturalism. And hence a belief in a natural cause of the universe, and everything that exists or has ever existed.
So how do we know that atheism false and that God MUST exist?
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. Those laws are inherent properties of the material realm and an integral part of all material entities.
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.
Does the first cause have to be a supernatural one, or is it (as atheists claim) just a desperate attempt by ignorant people to fill a gap in scientific knowledge, by saying - God did it?
What does 'supernatural' mean? It means something which cannot be explained by science, natural laws or by natural processes.
The origin of the universe cannot be explained by genuine science, natural laws or by natural processes. And that is an undeniable FACT.
Why?
Because EVERY possible explanation by natural processes violates both the fundamental principle of the scientific method - the Law of Cause and Effect - and other natural laws.
Hence, the first cause, by virtue of the fact that it cannot be explained by science or natural processes, automatically qualifies as a supernatural entity.
To insist that the first cause must be a natural entity or event is to invoke a magical explanation, not a scientific one. The only choice, therefore is between a supernatural first cause or a magical first cause? A natural event that is purported to defy natural laws and scientific principles can only be described as MAGIC. And that is exactly what atheists propose. They cynically dress up their belief - that nature can evade natural laws - as science, but science certainly cannot envisage a causeless, natural event or entity, science cannot look for non-causes.
No one has ever proposed a natural explanation for the origin of the universe that does not violate the law of cause and effect and other natural laws. But, whenever they are challenged about this fact, they always make the excuse that the laws of nature/physics somehow DID NOT APPLY to their proposed, natural origin scenario.
The most, well known case of this excuse is the alleged 'Singularity' which, it was claimed, preceded the Big Bang. Remember it was claimed to be a "one-off event where the laws of physics did not apply." A natural event that defied natural laws! - That used to be called 'magic', before atheist 'scientists' hi-jacked science with their religion of naturalism - the All Powerful, autonomous, Mother Nature.
Excuses aren't science. A natural event that violates natural laws is by definition, not possible. There are no ifs, buts or perhaps, natural things are bound by natural laws, without question. Natural laws describe the inherent properties of natural entities. And the whole essence of science is the fact that every natural entity/event is contingent - has to have an ADEQUATE CAUSE.
The idea of 'laws not applying' to a natural event, is not science. It is just fantasy.
If the origin of the universe is inexplicable to science, within the accepted framework of normal, natural processes and natural laws, then it is a supernatural event.
You cannot claim something as a natural event that violates natural laws. For that reason it is inexplicable to science.
In fact. to claim that something natural can defy natural laws is anti-science.
Those who believe such nonsense are enemies of science.
ALL NATURAL explanations for the origin of the universe violate the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws.
Conclusion: the atheist belief in a natural explanation for the origin of the universe (that Mother Nature did it) is impossible - according to science.
Atheist myths debunked - abiogenesis - the inherent predisposition of matter to create life.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/22250603246
The world's first ever photograph.
The new astonishing phenomenon detected on the Shroud of Turin
youtu.be/B6iQGomNqTw

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue

Article 17 TFEU Dialogue European Parliament dialogue seminar with non-confessional organisations ' Discrimination and Persecution of Non-Believers around the world '
#ReligiousDialogue