This page simply reformats the Flickr public Atom feed for purposes of finding inspiration through random exploration. These images are not being copied or stored in any way by this website, nor are any links to them or any metadata about them. All images are © their owners unless otherwise specified.
This site is a busybee project and is supported by the generosity of viewers like you.
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135278226
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135278365
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135278226
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135277307
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135277900
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135277757
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135278929
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135278365
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135277574
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135277900
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135278520
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135277574
Qui sit et quid sit Deus
— Thomas Aquinas
Who is God? And what is God?
Typeface: Historical Fell Type
Merchandise available: www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/135277757
As I walked in pretty Frankendael Park yesterday I thought of St Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), whose feastday it was. I'd worked a bit on his writings during my academic life; not as much on his linguistic demonstration of God's existence - interesting though it is - but rather on his analysis of the ideas of truth, freedom of choice and the possibility of consciously willing evil.
In his parsing of the concept of truth, Anselm uses the idea of a dragon to illustrate his point: namely that truth lies not in our senses but rather in our opinion of what our senses relay to us. Thus a child who is utterly terrified of a sculpted dragon sees nothing different than an adult; but its 'interior sense' (=opinion) hasn't yet learned to distinguish between a thing and its likeness.
Anyway... that was all brought on by my seeing Purple Dragon or Spotted Dead-nettle, Lamium maculatum, with its gaping mouth.
ATHEISM REFUTED.
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.
What is religion?
It is not intelligent, sensible or scientific to believe that everything created itself from absolutely nothing.
The incredible fantasy promoted by some high profile, atheist 'scientists' - that the universe was able to create itself from nothing - is merely a cynical and unscientific attempt to evade the scientific law of cause and effect, which is fatal to atheist ideology.
A child can understand that something CANNOT create itself. For something to create itself, it would have to pre-exist its own creation in order to do the creating. In which case, it already exists and has no need to create itself. And, if something already exists, it is not 'nothing'.
It is an insult to the intelligence of the public that such illogical and unscientific nonsense - as the universe creating itself from nothing - can be presented as 'science'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when presented by high profile scientists.
However, if you believe in the only, truly, credible possibility - that something has always existed with (godlike) powers capable of producing all the wonderful, amazing qualities we see in the existing universe - information, natural laws, life, intelligence, consciousness etc. (science tells us; an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s) - then you believe in a god. The only remaining question is - which god?
Religion seeks to answer that question.
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 ...
“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Dr. Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183.
To propose a non-contingent (uncaused), 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.
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.
The argument, often used by atheists, that we don’t know what natural laws existed at the beginning of the universe is a desperate attempt to evade the fact that natural laws are fatal to a natural origin (or natural, first cause) of the universe. It is a nonsensical argument because natural laws describe the inherent properties of natural entities, those properties don’t change.
However, even if we accept the possibility that natural laws could have been different at (or prior to) the beginning of the universe, it is irrelevant to the Law of Cause and Effect. That law is an exception.
Why?
Because the Law of Cause and Effect is in a different category from all other laws which are based solely on the inherent properties of natural things. In fact, it is better described as an eternal truth, rather than a law.
It is a unique and overriding principle of existence, different from other physical laws which are just pertinent to natural entities. Science (which deals exclusively with natural things), quite rightly, accepts the principle of causality as a natural law, and the scientific method is based on it being true.
We know the Law of Cause and Effect cannot be different, or non-operational under any circumstances. That is a fact, because it necessarily applies to ALL temporal things.
Unlike other laws, it is not based on any particular, physical properties of nature, it is based only on the temporal character of nature.
Natural things are all temporal and therefore can never escape from that overriding principle.
Everything with a temporal character is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect, wherever and whenever it exists. There cannot be an exception to this, and that is why we can rely 100% on the scientific method, which depends on exploring causes.
So, even if the argument that we don't know what laws existed at the beginning of the universe is correct, it doesn't and can't apply to the principle of causality.
The principle of causality had to exist at the beginning. It is an eternal principle and truth, which can never be different, under any circumstances.
FACT: If something is temporal, then it is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So, it is not possible to propose a natural origin scenario that can escape the Law of Cause and Effect. All natural entities and occurrences are temporal and therefore are all subject to cause and effect.
The only thing not subject to a cause is the first cause, because the first cause is not temporal, it is infinite and eternally self-existent.
The first cause doesn’t violate the law of cause and effect, because it is only a cause and not an effect. The law states that every effect requires a cause, not that everything requires a cause.
Everything, other than the first cause is an effect, is contingent, and owes its existence to causes, which ultimately originate with the uncaused, first cause (God).
Atheism is debunked ... and God MUST exist.
___________________________________________
____________________________________________
"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
Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...