The Flickr Naturalistreligion Image Generatr

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied.
Some of the wealth of field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimantary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion of sedimentary deposits in perfectly, still water. Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown beach, Isle of Wight. Formed 15/01/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.

Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top. Indeed, micro-strata were regarded as being somewhat similar to tree rings, indicative of a relative timescale (annual/seasonal).
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer/stratum comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
Changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils found within the rocks.
The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
A sort of circular reasoning was applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on the preconceived idea of evolutionary progression) used to date strata in the Geologic Column.
Although these assumptions may have seemed logical at the time, we now know they are not supported by the evidence.
The mechanics of stratification had not been properly studied.

An additional and unfortunate factor was that the assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the general acceptance of Darwinism, for the vast (multi-million-year) ages required for progressive, microbes-to-human evolution.
Thus, because the presumed, fossil record had become dependant on it, there was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, especially as any change in the status quo would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
Unfortunately, the effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinist ideology effectively stymied any study which didn’t treat the presumed, evolutionary, fossil record as though it was an irrefutable factor. The linking of geology/stratification with Darwinism is known as biostratigraphy.

There is now a wealth of evidence which refutes the old assumptions regarding strata formation. Some recent, field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However, they claim it is an occasional, or very rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does not invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing mechanism of sedimentary deposition occurring whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water.
Experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a wealth of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal, everyday occurrence.
It is clear from experimental evidence that strata are not usually formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed, but by sediment being sorted in moving/flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram.

Rapid strata formation at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...

In the diagram (Y) which is the normal, everyday mechanism for strata formation (discovered by experiments), we can see that a fossil (A) in the top strata is actually older than a fossil (B) in the middle strata. And both fossils (A) & (B) are older than the fossil (C) in the bottom strata.
Put simply, when a stratified, sedimentary deposit is laid down in flowing water, all the strata upstream is deposited before all the strata downstream. This means all strata upstream is always older than all strata downstream.
So strata at the top can actually be older than strata at the bottom of a rock formation. Which strata is older in sedimentary rock can only be determined if we know the direction of the water current at the time the sedimentary deposit was laid down.
This completely overturns the idea that fossils found in lower strata must always be older than those in upper strata. it completely debunks the idea of index fossils (biostratigraphy) and of a fossil record based on depth of burial or geological/ecological eras.

Examples:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/45113754412
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/29224301937
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/40393875072
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/44552032162

Field evidence of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion of sedimentary deposition in perfectly, still water. Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in these photos ...
Rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

Examples in the photos www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
are the result of normal, everyday tidal action each occurring in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, considerable depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. It does not require the many millions of years assumed to be necessary by evolutionists.

It is also evident that the composition of individual stratum formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

Experiments demonstrate the rapid, stratification principle.
and field evidence supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Rapid strata formation videos:
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI

A wealth of field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. The natural examples observed in field studies confirm the principle demonstrated by sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the widely accepted, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) combined with field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, and frequently in a single event.
Most importantly, in such cases, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Field studies of natural, stratification processes confirm the experiments carried out by sedimentologists and show that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession.
Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils certainly needs to be reassessed.
The observed, rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

The vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that virtually all rock formations which contain good, intact fossils were formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Radiometric dating based on unverifiable assumptions.
scienceagainstevolution.info/v8i8f.htm

Geology the dreadful science. Principle of Superposition falsified.
malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/geology-the-dreadful-s...

More about strata formation.
creation.com/geological-strata

Rapid stratification
evidenceoverignorance.wordpress.com/rapid-stratification-2/

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

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.
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.
____________________________________________
"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...

The universe from nothing?

The law of cause and effect tells us that every natural entity/event/effect requires an adequate cause. Which means an uncaused, ‘natural’ first cause is impossible, according to this fundamental principle of science.
Of course, this fact is fatal to atheist beliefs, because it rules out every conceivable, naturalistic, origin scenario.

One of the ways atheists try to get round the problem of a first cause is by saying - that the universe created itself from ‘nothing’ by natural processes.
If you think the notion that something could arise from nothing, by natural processes, is a crazy idea which defies logic and common sense, you are perfectly correct.
But atheists become extremely indignant at that accusation, and usually retort that anyone who thinks the idea is crazy is just plain ignorant. They accuse them of not understanding science, or what is really meant by 'nothing'.

So just what do atheists mean by their idea of nothing?
Incredibly, it turns out that the ‘nothing’ that atheists call nothing, isn't really nothing at all, but a definite ‘something’, i.e. space/time.

Confused or what?

So we have to ask - why do atheists perversely insist on referring to SOMETHING (i.e. space and time) which clearly ISN'T nothing - as NOTHING? They could, for example, just say that the universe created itself from a pre-existing, natural entity.
The answer is plain and simple … it is an obvious smokescreen.

Why would they need such a smokescreen?

Atheists know that people can easily accept the idea of an eternal nothingness, because ‘nothing’ in its true sense of the word (meaning NO - THING) doesn’t need a first cause. It simply means non-existence of everything.
And that which doesn’t exist, doesn’t need a cause.
Therefore, for atheists to claim the universe arose from 'nothing' means they can avoid having to explain ... what caused that which they believe existed before the universe?
However, the atheist’s ‘nothing’ actually turns out to be part of the existing material realm.
The atheist’s nothing is … ‘space’, and space is NOT nothing. Space is the medium which is around and between cosmic bodies in the existing universe.

In our universe, there is no such thing as empty space, even though it may look empty. We know that ‘space’ contains light, radio waves, gravitational forces, cosmic rays etc. Space is an integral part of the material universe, and is just as dependant on a first cause as the cosmic bodies it surrounds.
Therefore it is evident that the confusion between ‘space’ and ‘nothing’ is deliberate. The real nothing, that every sensible person understands as nothing, is totally different to the atheist idea of 'nothing'.

The space/time that atheists refer to as ‘nothing’ in their “UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING” scenario, apparently also contains energy and gravity.
Hence, the atheist ‘nothing’ turns out to be - not nothing at all, but a definite SOMETHING … And furthermore, it is an integral part of the material realm.
This means that, like all material things, – space (the atheist's 'nothing') cannot be non-contingent or eternally self-existent.
And that is the absolute crux of the matter.
It means that atheists are back to square one with the impossible problem of explaining a 'natural' first cause, because they still need to explain what CAUSED their 'nothing' (space) to exist, which is exactly what they were trying to avoid?

So there is no such thing as ... the universe from nothing. When you hear atheists proposing the universe arising from nothing, you will know what they are really proposing is the universe arising from 'something' which is itself already an integral part of the universe. In other words, it doesn't explain anything at all about a first cause of the universe. It is useless as a credible explanation of origins. It is just another atheist myth that has been debunked.

Why God must exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@

THE QUANTUM EFFECTS, SMOKE AND MIRRORS TRICK ...
What about the idea presented by some atheists that the answer to the origin of the universe lies in quantum mechanics and the so-called 'God' particle?

It is common sense that quantum effects cannot have anything to do with the origin of the universe.

The reasoning of those who propose quantum effects as a possible origin of the universe seems to be that, if something is impossible, just propose that it could happen - little by little -and that makes it plausible. If you make something as small, as simple, and as less complex as you can, people will believe anything is possible.
It is a similar reasoning to that applied to the origin of life and progressive evolution.

But what makes anyone think it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Is it any easier or more credible for a grain of sand to come from nothing than it would be for a boulder?
Of course it isn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size or lack of complexity doesn’t alter that.

Nevertheless, some atheists apparently still think …. that, although people might realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?-
What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?
That should sound much more plausible to the public.
We could even find a particle which we could nickname the ‘God’ particle. Problem solved - apparently!
People will at least think that, even if we haven’t solved it completely, we are well on the way to solving it.
And, of course, if anyone still stubbornly insists that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t come from nothing, we can always propose that nothing isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to get a scientifically illiterate and gullible public, in awe of anything claimed to be scientific, to swallow that.

However, the idea of a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but some atheists loved it and, predictably, the secular, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing, as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
A simple, sub-atomic particle CANNOT possibly be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God, because it is clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So those atheists who try to persuade people that it is easier for something to come from nothing, if it is simple and microscopic, actually shoot themselves in the foot....
The little by little approach which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.

An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause.
The very first cause of the universe cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe itself.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means every property and quality it contains. The end result - the universe - cannot be greater in any respect than that which ultimately caused it. The properties of the first cause of the universe must at the very least, be equal to every property that exists in the universe.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, any more than any of the other natural, first causes proposed by atheists.
Furthermore, quantum effects are not uncaused. They are part of a caused, contingent universe and are just as reliant on causes as the universe itself.

So those atheists who think they can replace God with quantum mechanics are entirely wrong, they are interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is absolutely certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.
The nickname the God particle actually originates from a book by Lederman.

Wikipedia …
“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe. Higgs, an atheist, was reported to be displeased and stated in a 2008 interview that he found it "embarrassing" because it was "the kind of misuse... which I think might offend some people” Science writer Ian Sample stated in his 2010 book on the search that the nickname is "universally hate[d]" by physicists and perhaps the "worst derided" in the history of physics, but that (according to Lederman) the publisher rejected all titles mentioning "Higgs" as unimaginative and too unknown.”

____________________________________________
"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essential characteristics of the first cause.

Consider this short chain of causes and effects:
A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.
'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.
Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.
We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.
We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.

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

____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Is matter inherently predisposed to produce life, on Earth and elsewhere in the universe, whenever conditions permit it?
And if it is, where does that predisposition come from?

Atheists and most evolutionists believe life originated by entirely, natural processes. They believe, and present to the public as a scientific fact, the discredited notion of abiogenesis - which is life arising of its own volition (by natural, chemical processes) from sterile matter. This is similar to the ancient idea of the spontaneous generation of life, which was a fairly common belief before it was soundly refuted by scientists such as Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur.

Dedicated observational and experimental scientific research, over many centuries, resulted in the Law of Biogenesis. This law rules out the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis) as impossible, it says that life only comes from existing life. This is now the reliable basis of medical and food hygiene, and is confirmed by other branches of science, such as Information Theory, the Law of Entropy (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the Laws of Probability and Law of Cause and Effect. The Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.

So is it possible that chemistry or physics (the physical interaction of matter and energy) can produce biology?
The properties of biology and life are completely different to those of chemistry and physics. Life embodies, not just natural laws, as in physics and chemistry, but also complex, constructive information - stored and expressed through the DNA code. Biology has its own unique properties, such as self-replication, which chemistry and physics don’t possess.
The behaviour of natural things is entirely dependent on their inherent properties. They cannot behave in ways that exceed the limits dictated by their own properties. That is the essence of natural laws which describe the scope and limits of the behaviour of natural entities according to their intrinsic properties. For natural laws to change, or not be valid, the intrinsic properties of natural entities, on which they are based, would have to change.

It is a major problem for atheists to explain where natural laws came from, or why they exist?
In a PURPOSELESS universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect that the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.

If we consider the atheist belief; that matter is naturally predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), the question arises of where does that predisposition for life come from, and why does such a property exist in a purposeless universe?

The idea that the origin of life is just an inevitable consequence of the right conditions – the right chemistry or interaction of matter and energy - is routinely presented by atheists and evolutionists as a scientific fact. They believe that is how life on Earth originated - and also that life is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe, for the very same reason.
For this to be true, matter/energy would have to be inherently predisposed for the potential production of life, whenever conditions are conducive and - therefore, some sort of natural law/plan/blueprint for the creation of life would have to be an intrinsic property of matter. A basic principle of science (and common sense) is that an effect can never be greater than that which causes it. In this case the effect - LIFE - could not be greater than that which atheists allege caused it, i.e. the random interaction of matter and raw energy and chemical processes. So there has to be a directive principle existing as an intrinsic property of matter that endows it with the ability to create life.

So atheists are left with an impossible dilemma – if life originates as a natural result of the inherent properties of matter, i.e. a natural predisposition for life, they have to explain where that predisposition for life comes from?
It would not be possible for matter to have such a property in a purposeless universe. Therefore, the atheist belief in a natural origin of life, denotes purpose in the universe which atheists deny. This then, is a classic catch 22 situation for atheists.
Atheists cannot have it both ways, if there is no purpose in the universe, matter cannot possibly have an inherent predisposition to produce life.
Thus the atheist belief in ‘no purpose’ also means there is no possibility of a natural origin of life.
The denial of purpose negates a natural origin of life.

So if atheists insist on claiming a natural origin of life, they are also obliged to admit to the existence of 'purpose' in the universe.

Therefore, either the idea of a purposeless universe is effectively debunked, or the idea of a natural origin of life is debunked - which is it?
Atheists can take their choice?
Either way, atheism is effectively debunked.
To believe in abiogenesis means that atheism is wrong.
To not believe in abiogenesis also means atheism is wrong.
Conclusion: atheism is wrong - period.

____________________________________________
"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...

"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Mao Tse-tung (1893 – 1976). Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)

On behalf of Britain, I ask the whole world to accept the sincere apologies of the British people, for the damage done to science and society by Charles Darwin.
Britain has a great scientific heritage, having produced some of the world's finest, and greatest scientists. However, Britain's enormous contribution to science has been seriously sullied by the false ideas popularised by Charles Darwin, which have led to a serious decline in scientific integrity, and spawned a whole catalogue of fakes, frauds and very dubious science.

Although it has been evident for some time that Darwinian, progressive evolution is not scientifically credible, and that there is a great deal of evidence against it, the idea has now developed a life of its own, and has become an essential lynch pin in an ideological agenda. As a consequence, there is no longer any normal, scientific objectivity permitted and Darwinism has become uniquely sacrosanct, even to the extent of it being given a protected status in science education by some national governments. This is very damaging to genuine, scientific endeavour, and has had the effect of creating a virtual straitjacket, for any field of research that is likely to have any adverse implications for Darwinism.

So what is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?

The fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.

So what exactly was the erroneous idea that Darwin popularised?
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.

However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.
This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, body parts etc. (macro-evolution).

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were strictly limited, as the science of selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are literally ... genetic, copying MISTAKES.

The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been correct all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.
A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the fanciful idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on the belief in a total progression from microbes to humans through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it should be regarded as unscientific nonsense. It defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.

People are often confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of progressive, macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating entirely new structures, body parts, organs etc. and that is a FACT.
It is no wonder that Professor W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... "the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity".

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story. The dogs remain dogs and will always remain dogs. Hundreds of years of experiment and observation through selective breeding confirms that.

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of billions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.

In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA), of every living thing that has ever lived, was created by a series built on previous mistakes ... mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc.

If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain where that original information came from?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, body parts, organs, biological systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed - in all living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes, all built on previous mistakes ... mistake upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times. That is ... every part, system and process of all living things are the result of the accumulation of billions of genetic MISTAKES over many millions of years.

So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been transformed from an original, single, living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).

Conclusion:
Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
Want to join the club?

What about the fossil record?

The formation of fossils.

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
So it is evident that any rock containing good, intact fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes under catastrophic conditions.

The very existence of intact fossils is testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.
Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
You don't need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
But what does leading sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault have to say:
www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Rapid formation of strata - some recent field evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Drama in the rocks - the scientific evidence of rapid strata formation - confirmed by the scientific method of experiment and observation.
youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

Living Fossils - when NO evidence IS evidence.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

Piltdown Man (a fake),
Nebraska Man (a pig),
South West Colorado Man (a horse),
Orce man (a donkey),
Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
Archaeoraptor (a fake),
Java Man (a giant gibbon),
Peking Man (a monkey),
Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)
The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
Etc. etc.

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.
All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.
Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution, and Nebraska Man (found 3 years before the trial) was resurrected and given increased media publicity leading up the trial in order to influence the outcome.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
Is that 'science'?

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also promoted as 'scientific' evidence for evolution by evolutionists in the popular media leading up to the Scopes Trial. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.

Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.

Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!
The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.
However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering
"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"


And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:
"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to
the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable.
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”
Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments.

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince.

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

Evolution is a fairy tale.
www.trueorigin.org/

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”
___________________________________________
THE GREAT MISTAKE
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/15650423453

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

The truth about progressive evolution.
An incredible story of 'creative' MISTAKES.

Fish are alleged to be among the first vertebrates (having a flexible backbone or vertebrae) to evolve from invertebrates (having no backbone, or any other bones).

Neo Darwinists claim - that all the entirely new, genetic information required for the construction of bones and flexible backbones, with all the interlocking vertebrae etc. (see picture), was created (from no previously existing, genetic information for any type of bones) by means of a series of mutations (mutations are genetic, copying MISTAKES). And with each of the many, intermediate, mutational steps becoming preserved and dominant in the gene pool, by providing a significant survival or reproductive advantage (natural selection).

To clarify, in simple terms, exactly what is proposed by evolutionists for the creation of new, constructive, genetic information is - a genetic mistake (mutation) is preserved and becomes dominant in the gene pool - followed by another mistake being preserved and becoming dominant - followed by another mistake being preserved and becoming dominant - over and over and over again, an accumulative series of mistakes - with each new mistake built on previous mistakes .... A mistake of a mistake of a mistake, etc. We also have to bear in mind that, to produce a backbone from scratch, the numerous, random mutations or copying mistakes required would, by sheer chance, have to all be relevant to the genetic instructions for exactly the same part of the body, i.e. the spine. And even if the genetic information for some sort of proto-bone was created by random, genetic, copying mistakes, it could just as easily be destroyed by further, random, copying mistakes somewhere along the line.
So that is the evolutionary mechanism which allegedly created all the new, genetic information for bones and a flexible backbone!

In fact, it is the same mechanism proposed by evolutionists for the origin of every single scrap of genetic information for the construction of every body part, anatomical feature and biological system in every living thing, including humans. Which means that the whole human genome is the result of billions of random, genetic, copying mistakes (apart from the original, genetic information in the first living cell). That original, genetic information encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, apparently, just appeared by some unknown process in the so-called, primordial soup, and then proceeded to mutate (randomly make copying mistakes of itself), billions of times - eventually creating the whole human genome - and the genome of every living thing, over millions of years!

The theory of evolution - laid bare - is more aptly called - the theory of 'Creative Mistakes'.
Mutations are bad, we would expect mistakes to be harmful, and most of them are, they cause illness, deformities and cancer. They are not something desirable, in any sense. Some are neutral in effect, which means the adverse effects are not obviously harmful, or the damage they do is not significant to cause an immediate problem.
Anything that can be described as a beneficial mutation is extremely rare, and it is doubtful if a truly, beneficial mutation (without some adverse effects) exists at all, there are no good, observable examples of any. What is certain is that they do not add the sort of useful, constructive, genetic information, which would be required as a mechanism for creating entirely, new body parts, organs etc.

There is no fossil evidence whatsoever for this amazing transformation by means of genetic MISTAKES. There are no transitional or intermediate examples of a developing backbone.
Fish appear in the fossil record, fully formed and 100% functional, like the one in the picture. And they remain exactly the same today.

The fossil fish in the picture, claimed to have lived many millions of years ago, is just like any regular fish, you will see swimming around in seas, rivers and lakes today.
The fossil record shows that fish are no more advanced or evolved today, after umpteen millions of alleged years, than the specimen shown here.

Next time you have a whole fish for dinner, take a close look at its amazing, flexible backbone, and remember this - some people want you to believe that such a marvellous construction was created entirely by a long series of random mistakes - mistake upon mistake, upon mistake ... and they want you to believe that is 'science'.

An incredible story indeed!

THE DEBATE:

Ron Harris (atheist)
Stated in common sense, plain language, the salvation story is pure nonsense.
________________________________________________
7tenths (atheist)
Well said...pure man-made fiction...by ignorant men.
________________________________________________
budderflyman (atheist)
I was actually told by a priest who later became an archbishop that the Church believes Mary was 12 when she became impregnated. Now, either Joseph, God, or the angel Gabriel was a child molester. Or, more likely, the whole story was made up.
_______________________________________________
Truth in science (theist)
Atheism revealed as false- why God MUST exist
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15818838060
_______________________________________________
budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

How can atheism be revealed as "false"? Atheism is very much real. It is a belief in the non existence of any gods. It is a true belief system.

Where is your evidence for a prime mover?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)

Logic, natural law and fundamental principles of science prove that atheism is false.

The law of cause and effect (which is the premier law, basic to all science and applicable to all natural entities) demonstrates that God (the supernatural first cause) must exist. That law alone exposes atheism as false, illogical nonsense.

Consider this simple, 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.
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’.
The 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 can also say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D & E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist. We must 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 also have to say that ‘A’ has to be adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well, in the case of E, we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence.
E can in no way be superior to D, because D had to contain within itself everything necessary to produce E.
The same applies to D, it cannot be superior to C. Furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on ‘A’ for their existence and for all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to ‘A’ whether singly or combined.
‘A’ had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E, including all their properties, abilities and potentials.

Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe. Because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

Conclusion… A first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than anything that exists).
Natural law and fundamental principles of science tell us; that NO ‘natural’ entity can possibly have those attributes.
That is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist - and atheism is revealed as false.

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Harris (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

How is causality a "chain"? At best you can trace back some necessary conditions for a given event that seems chainlike. Without a chain of causes you cannot have "superior" causes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to Ron Harris (atheist)

The law of cause and effect, which is the fundamental principle behind scientific research, tells us that every natural effect/event/entity has to have an adequate cause.

Therefore we must be able to trace every effect and its cause/s back through time (however long the chain of causes and effects) to an original first cause.

If you believe in the big bang, for example, the initial explosion would have caused the expansion of matter, which was subsequently caused (presumably by gravity) to coalesce into cosmic bodies, and so on through numerous other causes - one or more causes leading to other cause/s in a chain right up to the origin of the Earth and first life - and (if you believe in evolution) then through a chain of causes right up to human life. Whether there is one or more chains of causes happening at the same time, or even causes that combine or overlap, doesn't make any difference. At some stage they all originate from an original, first cause, and science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.
So the first cause has to embody everything we see in the universe, all properties, powers, qualities and potentialities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Harris (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

An "adequate" cause? Do you mean the cause must be sufficient for its effect? If so, that has nothing to do with tracing back along a chain of necessary conditions to the earliest necessary condition.

"The effect cannot be greater than the cause. So the first cause has to embody everything we see in the universe, all properties, powers, qualities and potentialities."

What do you mean by the effect not being greater than its cause? In what respect must a cause be greater than any of its effects? Must a cause be greater than any of its effects in every way? What about those ways that are not comparable? Have you taken into account "emergence"? For example, the momentum of the particles of a gas colliding with the walls of its container generates (causes) pressure. So is the momentum of the particles greater than the pressure they generate in all important respects? These are incommensurable properties: how can you compare them for this lesser/greater relation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to Ron Harris (atheist)
You wrote:
What do you mean by the effect not being greater than its cause? In what respect must a cause be greater than any of its effects?

I didn't say a cause must be greater than its effects. It is the other way round. An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

Most effects we see today, are not due to a single cause, they have a combination of several causes. Included in those causes are the inherent properties of the entity involved, which are described by natural laws.
If an apple falls off a tree, for example, there are many causes, some are inherent properties of the tree and of matter. The causes range from the tree growing from an original seed which has landed on the ground, being watered and nourished by rain and soil, its flowers being pollinated, forming a fruit (apple) and when ripe, being caused by gravity to fall to the ground.

Probably a better example would be the act of striking a match and causing a forest fire.
It could be said that the effect, i.e. the forest fire is far greater than the act of striking a match. But, of course, it isn't that simple, because the match is not the only cause.
The inflammable material has been formed over many years of the trees growing and building up a store of energy from the Sun and soil. The match is simply a trigger which causes the energy stored in all the trees to be released in a forest fire.

When we talk about the very first cause, that is a completely different matter, because it is a single cause that is solely responsible for every effect that follows it..
It is the cause of everything, even the inherent properties of natural entities, such as natural laws, which can eventually act as contributing causes themselves.
So nothing in the universe can ever be greater than the first cause, because it is the only cause responsible for the whole universe. The cause of its properties, its structure, its laws, its qualities, its powers, its potentialities and even of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Harris (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

"When we talk about the very first cause, that is a completely different matter, because it is a single cause that is solely responsible for every effect that follows it..
It is the cause of everything, even the inherent properties of natural entities, such as natural laws, which can eventually act as causes themselves."

Pure speculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to Ron Harris (atheist)

It is not speculation it is a logical conclusion.
If you don't agree that the first cause is responsible for everything it causes.
Then tell me why you don't agree with it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Harris (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

But you are making an exception by claiming that there is a first cause and that that first cause is different from other causes. How do you know that there is a first cause and that it is different from other causes? If all you use is the cosmological argument, you are still making an exception of the first cause.

Regarding that argument, you wrote earlier: "At some stage they all originate from an original, first cause, and science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it. The effect cannot be greater than the cause."

I still don't get how you can justify the claim that "science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it." Really?! Science shows this? You need to show why this is so and not pure speculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to Ron Harris (atheist)

You asked:
"How do you know that there is a first cause and that it is different from other causes?"

Because everything in the natural realm is contingent. Every natural entity/event/effect has to have an adequate or sufficient cause. Contingency is an inherent property of ALL natural things.
It is summed up in the law of cause and effect which is the fundamental principle of the scientific method.
There is no such thing as an autonomous, non-contingent natural entity, to suggest that goes against scientific principles.
So, obviously, as all natural entities are contingent (they all rely on causes), if we trace back all causes in the universe we must eventually reach a first cause, however long the chain of causes, it must have a beginning, at some stage, in a very first cause.
The very fist cause cannot be contingent, it has no cause, if it did it wouldn't be the first cause. So it is uncaused, and therefore cannot be a natural entity. It has to be unique, there is no other cause like it, It is autonomous and is not dependant on any cause for its existence. Thus we can say it is self-existent and has always existed.

You wrote:
"I still don't get how you can justify the claim that "science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it." Really?! Science shows this? You need to show why this is so and not pure speculation."

An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
That is a fundamental principle of the scientific method also summed up in the law of cause and effect.
The very first cause is the cause of everything in the natural world, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of producing everything in the natural world. So nothing in the natural world can be greater or superior to that initial cause of everything. If it was, it would be a violation of the law of cause and effect and a fundamental principle of science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Harris (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

You wrote: "There is no such thing as an autonomous, non-contingent natural entity, to suggest that goes against scientific principles."

What scientific principles?

By "autonomous" do you mean that the being is able to function wholly independent of the rest of the universe? Or do you mean something more limited?

"So, obviously, as all natural entities are contingent (they all rely on causes), if we trace back all causes in the universe we must eventually reach a first cause..."

Something is "contingent" simply because it is caused? Why? Because the cause need not have been? So the return of Hailey's comet in 2061 or thereabouts is not fully determined by forces external to it because those forces need not operate?

From your last paragraph:
"An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
That is a fundamental principle of the scientific method also summed up in the law of cause and effect."

In response to that paragraph, I repeat what I wrote before: I still don't get how you can justify the claim that "science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it." Really?! Science shows this? You need to show why this is so and not pure speculation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to Ron Harris (atheist)
I wrote:
"There is no such thing as an autonomous, non-contingent natural entity, to suggest that goes against scientific principles."
You asked?
"What scientific principles?"

The fundamental principle of science is the law of cause and effect. All scientific research depends on it.
The modus operandi of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for EVERY natural occurrence.
An autonomous or non-contingent, natural entity violates that principle. All natural entities, effects and events rely on a preceding cause or causes.
Which means a non-contingent natural entity is impossible as far as science is concerned.
To suggest an autonomous or non-contingent natural entity or occurrence is like harking back to pre-scientific (pagan) times, when people believed in the vagaries of nature. The belief that natural things could simply act autonomously and independently without any apparent preceding cause or causes.

You wrote:
"By "autonomous" do you mean that the being is able to function wholly independent of the rest of the universe? Or do you mean something more limited?"

Natural entities cannot be autonomous because they limited by natural laws that are based on their respective, inherent properties. And being contingent they are entirely dependent on that which causes them.

I wrote:
"So, obviously, as all natural entities are contingent (they all rely on causes), if we trace back all causes in the universe we must eventually reach a first cause..."
You answered :
"Something is "contingent" simply because it is caused? Why? Because the cause need not have been? So the return of Hailey's comet in 2061 or thereabouts is not fully determined by forces external to it because those forces need not operate?"

I don’t understand what you mean by that. The velocity and trajectory of Haley’s comet is entirely subject to causes, it doesn’t act independently or autonomously.

I wrote:
"An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
That is a fundamental principle of the scientific method also summed up in the law of cause and effect."
You answered:
"In response to that paragraph, I repeat what I wrote before: I still don't get how you can justify the claim that "science tells us that nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to it." Really?! Science shows this? You need to show why this is so and not pure speculation."

An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.
That is an absolutely fundamental principle of science.
The very first cause is responsible for EVERY cause and effect that follows it. So it is obvious that no effect, arising anywhere in the chain of causes and effects that follows the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than that which ultimately caused it and the rest of the chain of causes and effects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

You have no idea what happens when a star implodes, for example. We don't know if the known laws of physics apply to black holes or to other universes. You have no evidence at all for any god, gods, or other entities being the "very first" cause of anything. BTW, "very first" is redundant. It's either the first or it isn't. And there is no reason to believe there has to have been a first cause. There may always have been something, as I have said before. You cannot prove me wrong about this.

It's been a pleasant three weeks without reading your B.S.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)

Oh! you're back with your mumbo jumbo and pseudoscience.

You wrote:
"We don't know if the known laws of physics apply to black holes or to other universes"

There you go again, challenging natural laws, because they don't suit your ideology.
What we definitely DO KNOW - is that science only operates by looking for ADEQUATE CAUSES for EVERY natural occurrence. Science can't look for NON-CAUSES or INADEQUATE CAUSES which is precisely what your naturalistic ideology requires.

You wrote:
"BTW, "very first" is redundant. It's either the first or it isn't. And there is no reason to believe there has to have been a first cause"

I said 'VERY' first, because it seems atheists don't understand what 'FIRST' actually means. They keep on asking the same old, stupid question - what caused the first cause? They obviously think something has to precede something which is FIRST.
The word 'VERY' is there to emphasise the fact that if something is First nothing can precede it - I use it for the sake of atheists, who apparently find simple concepts such as the word FIRST actually meaning FIRST, rather difficult to grasp. So if you have an issue with the term 'very first' you need to discuss what 'first' actually means with your fellow atheists. When atheists stop asking the ridiculous question of what caused the first cause? Then I will stop using the term 'very' first.

You wrote:
"There may always have been something, as I have said before"

You're right, there was always something.
The first cause, by virtue of being VERY first, had no preceding cause and therefore has always existed, It is eternally self-existent and NON-CONTINGENT.
Which means the first cause (or whatever you like to call that which has always existed) cannot be something NATURAL, because ALL natural entities are CONTINGENT ...
That is not according to ME - it is according to SCIENCE, which you choose to dispute.
So your dispute is with the fundamental principles of science, not with me.

There probably are no atheists - So choose your god?
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15875116723
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

All you write is "mumbo jumbo". And please stop inserting those hideous posters or whatever the hell they are. They interrupt the flow of this page, a page, btw, which does NOT belong to YOU. I would write on YOUR Flickr pages, but you have me blocked from doing so.

Look, you can rant all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot prove that your god was the first cause of everything. Your god was invented by Jewish rabbis about 6,000 years ago. They got together and wrote the Old Testament. They did the best they could to account for the creation of the world. We are now in the year 2015. We realize the OT is filled with stories with little if any science.

If I had a colorful banner that said "Creationists are Ignorant of Science" I would place it here, but, unfortunately, I don't childishly keep such things around the house.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)
You wrote:
"If I had a colorful banner that said "Creationists are Ignorant of Science" I would place it here,"

You are the one who disputes natural laws and basic scientific principles - you have no defence for that.
Your only defence is to rant about the Bible.
I am sorry, but as I said before, your dispute is with natural laws and scientific principles, not with me, not with the Bible, not with creationists. You simply target those things to divert attention from the fact that you and your atheist cult are anti-science.
Atheism is simply the naturalist religion (which was debunked centuries ago) re-invented. You can try all you like to give it a 21st century gloss, but it is still the unscientific nonsense it always was.
I support natural laws and scientific principles, you denigrate them, and then masquerade as a champion of science. Atheism is based on lies and deceit, not science. You don't like my images because (with the description attached) they expose the lies, hypocrisy and unscientific nature of atheism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

You are hilarious. Typical right wing creationist trying to put a spin on science in his favor, yet is anti-science. Anyone who believes in sky hooks and sky fairies could not possibly know much about science.

Atheism is not a form of the ancient religion known as naturalism. Atheism has no belief system in anything religious or theistic. It's that simple. Most atheists tend to support science. I am sure there must be some out there who do not, but it has nothing to do with religion. I get tired of having to repeat myself, but the point is, we simply do not know what happened before the Big Bang. There is no evidence for any gods, however. And that is where my argument with you and the Bible rests. There is no evidence that your god said "Let there be light" or any other words in any other language. It is convenient to make up creation stories, just as some Hindus believe that the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle and that turtle sits on another world, and there is another turtle beneath that world, ad infinitum. It's conjecture, story telling, fable, myth, call it what you like, but do not call it "truth" because it is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)
You wrote:
"It is convenient to make up creation stories, just as some Hindus believe that the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle and that turtle sits on another world, and there is another turtle beneath that world, ad infinitum. It's conjecture, story telling, fable, myth, call it what you like, but do not call it "truth" because it is not."

It is you who believes in unscientific fables and creation stories -such as: a universe creating itself from nothing, or a universe being created by "eternal, non-contingent alien species", or a universe which can rewind itself, or the spontaneous generation of life, or an uncaused natural first cause, or natural laws that magically don't apply, or an infinite number of universes, etc. There is not one scrap of evidence for any of your made-up creation stories, they are all unscientific nonsense, they are not only nonsense, they are ridiculous and ludicrous anti-science nonsense. They are every bit as ludicrous and unscientific as the giant turtle creation story.

You wrote:
"Atheism is not a form of the ancient religion known as naturalism"

Oh, so you deny that you believe in a natural, origin scenario for everything that exists, do you?
A natural origins scenario that defies natural laws and scientific principles is the essence of pagan naturalism.
That is what atheists believe in. But they think they can hoodwink the public by claiming that discredited idea is scientific.
Sorry to have to inform you, but the atheist tactic of resurrecting pagan naturalism in a different guise, has been sussed.
There is nothing 'scientific' about naturalism, it remains as it always was, illogical and unscientific nonsense.

You wrote:
"Anyone who believes in sky hooks and sky fairies could not possibly know much about science."

I see you are referring to your old, worn, dog-eared and well distressed, 'atheist responses handbook' again, you know the one that says: When the going gets tough, either rant about the Bible or use the good old standby of the sky fairy jibe. Not much originality there then!
BTW - could you please explain what a sky fairy is?
Because I don't know of any theist who believes in either sky fairies or sky hooks, or who even knows what they are supposed to be.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

The Sky Fairy is how most Christians describe their god. A fairy is a mythical creature, such as an angel or god, who floats around "the heavens" and somehow keeps it eye on everyone and everything in the world (yet apparently allows evil, disease, accidents, early death, etc to occur despite heavy prayer on the part of the victims and their families and friends). The sky hook is just what it is, some invisible hook that keeps the fairies and angels suspended.

All I wrote was that most atheists do not believe in the age old religion of naturalism, which is the truth. Atheists have no religion. I know that it must be difficult for you to wrap your washed brain around this concept.

Your B.S. is old and worn. You are the one who makes extraordinary claims about a creator god, not I. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and you or anyone else has yet to present any.

Now, go back under your bridge, troll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)
You wrote:
"All I wrote was that most atheists do not believe in the age old religion of naturalism, which is the truth. Atheists have no religion. I know that it must be difficult for you to wrap your washed brain around this concept."

Yes, that is what you would like everyone to believe, anything to avoid having to justify your illogical belief in naturalism. Unfortunately for you, that little ruse has been exposed as bogus.
Naturalism = your belief, and that of the atheist cult, that 'nature' is responsible for the existence of everything - i.e. that nature (or Mother Nature) is a non-contingent, autonomous, all powerful entity - it is a belief that credits nature with all the attributes of a god.
Atheist naturalism is no different from pagan naturalism, naturalism per se IS a religious belief.
You can dress it up all you like, but the Emperor is revealed to have no clothes.
If you believe that nature created everything - and has the non-contingent, autonomous, eternally self-existent qualities that are attributed to a supernatural first cause - you effectively deify nature and matter.
Furthermore, because such beliefs demand that you disregard natural laws and scientific principles, they are based entirely on blind faith.

You wrote
"Your B.S. is old and worn. You are the one who makes extraordinary claims about a creator god, not I. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and you or anyone else has yet to present any."

You make the extraordinary claim that laws of nature and scientific principles did not apply to your naturalist version of the origin of the universe. That is an extraordinary claim par excellence.
You have presented no evidence whatsoever for that claim, it is all complete hogwash. All you can keep repeating is that it is the scientific viewpoint, which is absolute rubbish. It is the opposite of a scientific view, to dispute natural laws and scientific principles is ANTI-SCIENCE.
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and you or anyone else has yet to present any."
Where then, is your evidence for the extraordinary claim that natural laws and fundamental principles of science didn't apply to the origin of the universe?

You wrote:
"The Sky Fairy is how most Christians describe their god. A fairy is a mythical creature, such as an angel or god, who floats around "the heavens" and somehow keeps it eye on everyone and everything in the world (yet apparently allows evil, disease, accidents, early death, etc to occur despite heavy prayer on the part of the victims and their families and friends). The sky hook is just what it is, some invisible hook that keeps the fairies and angels suspended. "

So the sky fairy and sky hook are both just more fantastical figments of the fertile, atheist imagination - based on their jaundiced and erroneous understanding of the supernatural first cause.
You wrote:
"A fairy is a mythical creature, such as an angel or god"

No, a fairy is a mythical creature based on so-called spirits of NATURE.
They are more akin to paganism and the naturalist religion which atheists subscribe to.
A modern version of the fairies myth, would be the (magical) mythological, non-contingent, alien species (space fairies?), which atheists believe could have created life on Earth.
Fairies have nothing to do with monotheism. In fact, belief in such things as nature spirits, is forbidden by most monotheistic religions, especially Judeo Christian monotheism.

chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

You're joking, right? Atheism is not a cult. It is simply the disbelief in any god or gods. I also disbelieve in unicorns. Does that make me a member of a cult?

Sorry, chum, but the whole concept of angels is connected to the belief in fairies. You see, it is called the belief in the supernatural. And you can add your devil to it, also, since he is supposedly a "fallen angel." It's all craziness. It's what the human mind conceived of to try to explain things it could not comprehend. Humans started belief systems and created mythical creatures. They do not exist, the same as the 700 pound green fart that floats over your head.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)
You wrote:
"Atheism is not a cult. It is simply the disbelief in any god or gods. I also disbelieve in unicorns. Does that make me a member of a cult?"

Atheism effectively deifies nature by transferring the creative, godlike powers, properties and qualities (that theists attribute to God), to nature or matter.
So atheism makes a god of nature, which means it is similar to pagan, naturalist religions.

Theists attribute the creation of everything in the universe to a supernatural cause.
Atheists attribute the creation of everything in the universe to a natural cause.
So the theist God is a supernatural, causal entity or creator, and the atheist god is a natural, causal entity or creator.
They are both religious viewpoints.

Not believing in unicorns doesn't require any alternative belief, whereas not believing in a supernatural first cause, demands belief in a natural first cause. So the comparison with unicorns is stupid.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

Nice try, but you are wrong (as usual). Atheism does not deify anything. That's the point. There are no deities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)

Of course atheists aren't going to admit it.

But if you believe that nature or a natural first cause is the originator of everything, you credit nature (or matter) with a godlike status. You simply replace the Creator God of theism with Mother Nature or an all-powerful god of nature.

Religion really is based on worshipping that which is greater than ourselves - worshipping that which is the cause of our existence. If you believe that cause is nature, then you are a nature worshipper and naturalism is your religion.
It is all based on belief, because you cannot prove that nature is an all powerful creator.
In fact, the evidence from natural law and scientific principles rules it out.
So atheism is an entirely faith-based creed, it has nothing to do with science, logic or reason. It has all the hallmarks of a religion, and if we compare it to pagan naturalism, there is very little to distinguish it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
budderflyman (atheist) reply to Truth in science (theist)

I like the way evangelists twist words and definitions to suit their needs. I also like the way they try to figure out the universe starting with the Bible. And then they attack science and nature and those who live their lives by science and nature (rather than by some weird interpretation of life that fits a religious point of view).

Stop trying to tell me how I think. I don't want some knuckle dragger interpreting my life for me, thank you. And don't tell me I am anti-science when it is you who cannot bring himself to admit that evolution is the cornerstone of biology.

I am finished playing your stupid games. Go troll someone else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Truth in science (theist) reply to budderflyman (atheist)
You wrote:
"And then they attack science and nature and those who live their lives by science and nature"

I don't attack science I defend it against dogmatic atheists who undermine it with their anti-scientific fantasy of a natural, first cause. And I don't attack nature, I simply recognise its limitations defined by natural laws and scientific principles. In fact I support and defend the laws of nature against attacks on them by atheists, who see them as an obstacle to their ideology.

And atheists don't live their lives by science, they are quite willing to distort and pervert scientific principles simply to suit their ideological beliefs. There is no scientific evidence for the atheist cult. It is based purely on faith in the godlike powers of nature to do or create everything, regardless of the fact that logic, natural laws and science, all say the opposite.

You wrote:
"And don't tell me I am anti-science when it is you who cannot bring himself to admit that evolution is the cornerstone of biology."

Progressive evolution is the greatest mistake and greatest hoax in history, it is destined for the dustbin of history when the public finally realise how they have been hoodwinked and treated as fools.
SEE: The Great Mistake.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15650423453
______________________________________________

A naturalistic 'theory of everything' is it feasible?
Or is it just a revival of pagan naturalism in a new guise - an atheistic device to explain the universe in terms of the creative powers and godlike attributes of nature?

Contrary to what we are lead to believe by the popular media, science is not the enemy of Christianity.
Genuine science is completely compatible with the belief in the creator God of Christianity.
Most of the world's greatest scientists, who were the pioneers and founders of modern science recognised this.
It is only fairly recently with the rise of militant (evangelistic) atheism that science has been portrayed, through relentless propaganda, as being in conflict with Christianity.

So why were so many great scientists convinced that the principles of science were in perfect harmony with belief in the Christian God?

Consider this ....
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

The atheist replacement for God was summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.

So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity" ....

So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND -
6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.

So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.

The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.

And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..

Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.

So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!

Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?

Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!

That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.

So now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.
IMPRESSED? I think not!

Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?

According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?
That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.
In fact, it is true to say that the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion - and the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion.

Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.
That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.

What about the first cause of the universe and everything in the material realm?
How does that fit in?

Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.

We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.


An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.
So is it a valid solution?

Firstly .....
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
Secondly ....
It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous, atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic and the Law of Cause and Effect, which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some atheists that the universe 'just is'?
Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.
In addition ....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?
Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.
It can only be one of two options,
an uncaused, natural first cause
OR
an uncaused, supernatural first cause.
An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.
Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.

Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.
Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….
And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. if the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg. or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties, and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.
The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.

The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.
SO ....
Is the law of cause and effect really universal?

Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.

In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.
ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.
Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.

Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere.
If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?
Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?

If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.

Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?
Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?

To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.
That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.
By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.

Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.
Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …

1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?

2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?

Which one would you choose?

Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?
The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.
So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.

To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?
OR,
the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Daniel Denton etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?
No contest!

We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

The question of purpose ....
A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.

Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element.
To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.
Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.
So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.

The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.
If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.
Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!
Bogus science indeed!
This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.

A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?
In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.

Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific propositions:

1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.

2. A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

5. That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

6. That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.

7. That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.

8. That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.

11. That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.

12. That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.

The claim of atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.
They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.
However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Of course, whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.

That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.


What about Christianity and pagan gods?

Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.

Do they have a good point?

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….
Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.
Idols of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.
They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.
They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.
In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.
For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.
Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.
There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.
The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.
If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But apparently, atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.
This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.

Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?
How true is that?

The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.

The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?
If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.
That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.
All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.
That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.
Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.
Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.
The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.
In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...
The effect cannot be greater than the cause....
So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,
If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.
If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.
If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.
That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.

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

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?
This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.
There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.
Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.
What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.
What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.
The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.
So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?
No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

So to sum up .....
The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.
Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism, not religion, is the real enemy of science.


The garden path of lies
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/14829503672

The universe from nothing?

The law of cause and effect tells us that every natural entity/event/effect requires an adequate cause. Which means an uncaused, ‘natural’ first cause is impossible, according to this fundamental principle of science.
Of course, this fact is fatal to atheist beliefs, because it rules out every conceivable, naturalistic, origin scenario.

One of the ways atheists try to get round the problem of a first cause is by saying - that the universe created itself from ‘nothing’ by natural processes.
If you think the notion that something could arise from nothing, by natural processes, is a crazy idea which defies logic and common sense, you are perfectly correct.
But atheists become extremely indignant at that accusation, and usually retort that anyone who thinks the idea is crazy is just plain ignorant. They accuse them of not understanding science, or what is really meant by 'nothing'.

So just what do atheists mean by their idea of nothing?
Incredibly, it turns out that the ‘nothing’ that atheists call nothing, isn't really nothing at all, but a definite ‘something’, i.e. space/time.

Confused or what?

So we have to ask - why do atheists perversely insist on referring to SOMETHING (i.e. space and time) which clearly ISN'T nothing - as NOTHING? They could, for example, just say that the universe created itself from a pre-existing, natural entity.
The answer is plain and simple … it is an obvious smokescreen.

Why would they need such a smokescreen?

Atheists know that people can easily accept the idea of an eternal nothingness, because ‘nothing’ in its true sense of the word (meaning NO - THING) doesn’t need a first cause. It simply means non-existence of everything.
And that which doesn’t exist, doesn’t need a cause.
Therefore, for atheists to claim the universe arose from 'nothing' means they can avoid having to explain ... what caused that which they believe existed before the universe?
However, the atheist’s ‘nothing’ actually turns out to be part of the existing material realm.
The atheist’s nothing is … ‘space’, and space is NOT nothing. Space is the medium which is around and between cosmic bodies in the existing universe.

In our universe, there is no such thing as empty space, even though it may look empty. We know that ‘space’ contains light, radio waves, gravitational forces, cosmic rays etc. Space is an integral part of the material universe, and is just as dependant on a first cause as the cosmic bodies it surrounds.
Therefore it is evident that the confusion between ‘space’ and ‘nothing’ is deliberate. The real nothing, that every sensible person understands as nothing, is totally different to the atheist idea of 'nothing'.

The space/time that atheists refer to as ‘nothing’ in their “UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING” scenario, apparently also contains energy and gravity.
Hence, the atheist ‘nothing’ turns out to be - not nothing at all, but a definite SOMETHING … And furthermore, it is an integral part of the material realm.
This means that, like all material things, – space (the atheist's 'nothing') cannot be non-contingent or eternally self-existent.
And that is the absolute crux or the matter.
It means that atheists are back to square one with the impossible problem of explaining a 'natural' first cause, because they still need to explain what CAUSED their 'nothing' (space) to exist, which is exactly what they were trying to avoid?

So there is no such thing as ... the universe from nothing. When you hear atheists proposing the universe arising from nothing, you will know what they are really proposing is the universe arising from 'something' which is itself already an integral part of the universe. In other words, it doesn't explain anything at all about a first cause of the universe. It is useless as a credible explanation of origins. It is just another atheist myth that has been debunked.

Why God must exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@

Many people call themselves atheists, and it is frequently argued by some that atheism is the only rational viewpoint.
However, it is also often said that there is no such thing as a genuine atheist.
This is supported by the Bible which declares: “the fool hath said in his heart there is no God.”

So which view is correct?

If we give just a little thought to this matter, we can see that there is no argument at all as to whether the qualities and properties usually attributable to God actually exist.
This is certain and beyond dispute.
So really the only disagreement is over the source or origin of these attributes.

Furthermore, we can understand that there are only 2 possible, alternative sources of these attributes.

It is self evident that something material can never come out of (absolute) nothing of its own accord (First Law of Thermodynamics & Law of Cause and Effect). (Something cannot create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation to do so).
We know that something material exists (i.e. the universe), therefore something must have always existed, something must be eternal and have had no beginning. This eternal something, can only be:

1. A force or power independent of the material, and thus the Creator of the material, OR
2. The material itself.

So an eternal nature must be possessed by,
EITHER:
1. A Supernatural Power.
OR
2. Matter/energy.

Consequently, all the other qualities, powers and potentialities which exist in the universe must have originally derived from ONE OR OTHER of these two proposed 'eternal' sources.

Some of the qualities existing in the material world.
Laws of Nature, Life, Information & means of information storage (DNA etc.), Consciousness, Intelligence, Design, Order, Motion, Love, Choice, Good, Beauty, Emotion, Kindness, Personality, Morality, Awareness, Justice, Wisdom, Hope, Joy, skill, etc.

There is no disagreement that these qualities are present in the universe.
The only dispute is over the source or origin of these qualities.
THEREFORE ....
Is the stuff of the universe (matter/energy) eternal?
Does this 'eternal matter' intrinsically possess all the above qualities, or the inherent potential to produce them of its own volition?
OR
Is there a power greater than, pre-existing and independent of, the material?
A Supernatural Creator of the material, possessor and originator of all the above attributes evident in the material creation?

IT CAN ONLY BE ONE OR THE OTHER
SO THIS IS THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT, AND IT IS AN AGE-OLD DISAGREEMENT.

No atheist would attempt to claim that mankind is the originator of all these qualities.
We are not eternal, we did not create ourselves or the universe, something greater than us essentially exists.
Is that something a Supernatural Creator God?
Or a purely material power which must intrinsically possess all the qualities, powers & potentialities usually attributed to a Supernatural Creator God?
- - A material god? - - A pagan god!

SO THE CHOICE IS CLEAR,- -
WE MUST FACE THE FACTS! - -
ATHEISM (or even agnosticism) IS NOT AN OPTION.
YOU MUST PAY HOMAGE TO A POWER WHICH IS GREATER THAN YOURSELF,

THAT POWER IS EITHER:
A Creator God as described in the Bible,
OR,
The material pagan god or gods' (represented by natural entities, such as: Mother Earth, Mother Nature, the Sun, the Moon, an 'intelligent' Universe, or idols of stone, wood etc.) which you must necessarily imbue with the SAME ATTRIBUTES.

Atheism = the religion of Pagan Naturalism re-invented.
SO NOW CHOOSE YOUR GOD?

Footnote:
An eternally, self-existent universe, or any uncaused, natural entity with no beginning is not possible.
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent with no beginning.
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent.
Contingency is an inherent property of all natural entities. They have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes.
The nearest you could get to eternally, existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would have to be a non-contingent, eternally existent, first cause. A long chain of causes and effects simply pushes a first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
What about an eternally, cyclical universe?
It is obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is unscientific nonsense. As well as the Law of Cause and Effect - the Second Law of Thermodynamics also rules it out
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most fundamentalist atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in some sort of beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.

So an eternally existent, god of 'matter/energy' is demonstrably IMPOSSIBLE... that leaves only one POSSIBLE choice of god - the supernatural, creator God, as described in the Bible.

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.

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

There is a continuing debate among theoretical physicists about how the stuff (matter/energy) of the universe could have originated of its own accord, out of 'nothing' (the elusive, so-called ‘theory of everything’). However, the most important question in this debate: Where did information come from? Has been largely ignored, but this is absolutely CRUCIAL - because the universe, as we know it, could not exist without information. The laws of nature, are indicative of order, they govern and control the whole material universe, and extremely complex information is essential for all life.
Information is rightly called the third fundamental property of the universe.
So we have to wonder why the crucial question of the origin of information is excluded from the 'theory of everything' debate?
Without a credible explanation of the origin of information - any proposed theory of 'everything' would, in fact, be a theory of 'nothing' ... and absolutely useless.

Life requires information from the very outset, even the tiniest, most primitive cell is packed with complex information (coded in DNA), and the means of interpreting it.
Life could not exist without information. The first life on earth (regardless of how you believe it originated) needed complex information right from the very start, this is certain and beyond any dispute.
So how did information arise in the first life? Was the information for life just floating about in the ether waiting to alight on the right mixture of chemicals in some primordial soup? I think not! (but atheists have not yet proposed any better explanation).
However, even if such an incredible thing were possible, the question would still remain as to how this information originated within the universe? Where did it come from, and why? Hence for any atheist, the origin of DNA code itself, and the information it contains, is an impossible dilemma.
The unanswerable question for atheism is, which came first, information or matter?
Information cannot possibly create itself, but neither can matter. To suggest that either of them originated, of their own accord, from nothing, is self-evidently, utter nonsense and completely unscientific.
(Atheists will never be able to answer this question because the only logical option is - - a non-contingent first cause of all the material realm, which is eternally pre-existent, intelligent, non-material and therefore not subject to natural laws which govern all natural entities, i.e. a Supernatural Creator God).

Amazingly, we were told by ‘experts’ in 2004 that the discovery of the simple sugar glycoldehide in a gas cloud (known as Sagittarius B2 allegedly detected light years away in the middle of our galaxy) could explain the origin of DNA & life. (Daily Mirror newspaper, UK, 22/9/2004)
This is comparable to claiming that, if a component for making ink were to be discovered in outer space, it would explain how the complete works of Shakespeare could have originated spontaneously, of their own accord - and some people call that science - - incredible!

Make no mistake, atheism is just another religion.
Atheists are very fond of telling us what they don’t believe, but just what do they believe?

Because they reject an eternal, pre-existent, non-material first cause, every atheist is obliged to believe the preposterous notion that, the potential and information for life, as well as all the laws of nature, must have been an intrinsic property of the first matter/energy, when this matter/energy arose by its own power, and of its own volition, out of absolutely nothing, at the beginning of everything!!!! (albeit contrary to logic, common sense, and the laws of nature that govern all matter).
Surely this must be the ultimate miracle to outdo all other miracles.
Supporters of this bizarre, magical belief are very fond of describing atheism as “the only rational viewpoint,” - - -
They call such a belief rational? - - -
What do you think?

Atheists cannot accept that any information pre-existed the material. Therefore, matter not only had to create itself, but also its own governing laws & information, from nothing, and so the god of the atheist religion of naturalism is credited with even more creative powers than those usually attributed to an eternally pre-existing, Supernatural God.
In other words, ‘matter’ is automatically ascribed by atheist belief as a self-created, intelligent entity.
(This is completely contrary to logic, and to natural laws which describe the inherent properties and behaviour of matter and all natural occurrences, without exception).

“It’s just unbelievable what unbelievers are willing to believe, in order to be unbelievers” (Dr. Duane Gish)

Consider this ...
Long, long, long ago, in an eternal void of nothingness, a tiny cosmic egg arose of its own volition. Then, all of a sudden, the egg accidentally exploded and proceeded to expand until it became the whole universe and everything within it. 
(This is the atheistic, ‘Big Bang’, fairy story of creation in a nutshell - - - or should that be eggshell?). But where could this cosmic egg have come from? - - - who knows? - - - perhaps a cosmic chicken laid it? - - - if so - - - where did the cosmic chicken come from? - - - don’t even ask! - - - because the only thing we are absolutely sure of is that we are still waiting for any ‘Big Bang’ supporter to propose a better solution. - - - Please don’t hold your breath!
The best they have come up with so far, is that the 'nothing' in which the cosmic egg emerged, wasn't really nothing, but 'something', i.e. SPACE. But, any fool can see that this is just a device to make a ridiculous belief sound plausible. It is obviously not plausible, because they then have to explain how space (which is not nothing, but just a part of the contingent, material realm) originated, which takes the whole ridiculous idea back to square one.

Since information is not a physical element (and as information is a fundamental constituent of the universe and an essential feature of all life) to assert that the universe is composed solely of matter and energy is clearly wrong.
The speculated ‘Big Bang’ explosion is an accidental, purposeless and destructive event, with no directing, informational component whatsoever. As it is not possible for such a ‘Big Bang’ or any other undirected release of energy to create useful information (or any sort of order) it is patently obvious that this ‘Big Bang’ story of creation is erroneous.

Where has wisdom gone?
For all our modern knowledge and technology, ancient man had a wisdom in these matters which far surpasses modern ideas.
It is now almost 2 thousand years ago that Christ's Apostle John delivered the ultimate ‘theory of everything’. He understood (like many of his predecessors) that the most important factor in the question of origins is information: “In the beginning was the word” [(word: logos) = information]. John 1; 1. (the 'Word' is applied by John to Jesus Christ as true God and true man - meaning the universe was created by the Word (Jesus), by means of God's word - intelligent, constructive information).

All sensible people realise that information just had to come first, nothing constructive or creative can occur without information. Science tells us that, any input of raw energy alone, tends to increase entropy. Only organised or directed energy (energy with an informational component) can temporarily reverse or reduce the effects of entropy.
Without information, nothing material could exist in its present form.
Information derives only from an intelligent source, so only information from a pre-existing, supernatural, intelligent source could bring everything material into being, organise and control its construction and behaviour, and maintain its continued existence.
So the essential, single, first cause had to be both uncaused and intelligent.
There is no other logical option.

Belief in God did not just evolve (as some atheists keep telling us) as a means for ‘ignorant’, ‘primitive’, ‘superstitious’ humans to explain things they could not understand.
On the contrary, ancient man (from the time of Adam) fully understood (better than many of the so-called experts today) that the material universe does not contain within itself any possible means of creating itself and its essential, regulatory information, out of nothing.
A non-contingent, pre-existing, supernatural (non-material), eternal, infinite and omnipotent force had to be responsible for creating it. An essential element of that force is a supreme intelligence which has to be the original source of all information.

“ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE. IN HIM WAS LIFE
AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN” John 1: 3-4.

In this computer age, people are again beginning to understand the particular relevance of information.
A computer (the hardware) processes and stores information (the software). Without any software programming, the hardware would be useless.
As Chuck Missler points out in his book ‘Cosmic Codes; “software has no mass. (its embodiment may have weight, but the software doesn’t. It simply codes information)”.
A computer disk loaded with a million bytes of software will weigh no more than a blank disk and the information it contains can be sent invisibly through the airwaves from one point to another.
To quote Chuck Missler again “if you and I were meeting face-to-face, I would still not be able to see the real you. I would only see the temporary residence you are occupying. The real you, your personality - - call it soul, spirit, whatever - - is not visible. It is software not hardware. The codes - - your history, your accumulated responses to the events of your life, your attitudes - - are all simply informational, not physical. It is software only and software has no mass”. According to Einstein, time is a physical property - - - “that which has no mass has no time. You are eternal, that is what the Bible has declared all along. You are eternal whether you like it or not” Chuck Missler, Cosmic Codes. 1999. Koinonia house.

The information for life ....
Atheists and evolutionists have no idea how the first, genetic information originated. They claim the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.

Atheists and evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code originated. However that is not the major problem. The impression is given to the public, that evolutionists only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved. That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit. It is far from the truth, as they very well know.
Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.
For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.
You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.
The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.
So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries. Therefore, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.
Next time you hear atheists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any atheist or evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means?

Why God must exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15818838060

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essential characteristics of the first cause.

Consider this short chain of causes and effects:
A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.
'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.
Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.
We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.
We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.

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

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

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

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

Secondly .....
What about matter itself?
Can matter have always existed? The simple answer is no.
Matter/energy and all natural entities and events are contingent, they rely on causes for everything. Because they are contingent they cannot be eternally self-existent or necessary entities. They do not contain within themselves the reason or cause of their own existence. As contingent entities, they are entirely reliant on that which causes and maintains them. They cannot exist or operate in any way without causes, Thus they must have had an original cause at some stage, even if the chain of causes and effect 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. Scientific research is based on that premise.

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.

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

Contrary to what we are lead to believe by the popular media, science is not the enemy of Christianity.
Genuine science is completely compatible with the belief in the creator God of Christianity.
Most of the world's greatest scientists, who were the pioneers and founders of modern science recognised this.
It is only fairly recently with the rise of militant atheism that science has been portrayed, through propaganda, as being in conflict with Christianity.

So why were so many great scientists convinced that the principles of science were in perfect harmony with belief in the Christian God?

Consider this ....
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.

So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....

So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND -
6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.

So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.

The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.

And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..

Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.

So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!

Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?

Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!

That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.

So now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.
IMPRESSED? I think not!

Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?

According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?
That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.

Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.
That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.

What about the first cause of the universe and everything?
How does that fit in?

Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.

We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.


An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.
So is it a valid solution?

Firstly .....
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
Secondly ....
It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous, atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?
Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.
In addition ....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?
Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.
It can only be one of two options,
an uncaused, natural first cause
OR
an uncaused, supernatural first cause.
An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.
Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.

Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.
Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….
And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. if the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg. or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties, and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.
The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.

The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.
SO ....
Is the law of cause and effect really universal?

Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.

In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.
ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.
Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.

Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere.
If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?
Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?

If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.

Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?
Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?

To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.
That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.
By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.

Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.
Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …

1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?

2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?

Which one would you choose?

Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?
The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.
So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.

To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?
OR,
the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Andrew Denton etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?
No contest!

We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

The question of purpose ....
A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.

Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element.
To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.
Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.
So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.

The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.
If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.
Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!
Bogus science indeed!
This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.

A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?
In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.

Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific propositions:

1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.

2. A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

5. That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

6. That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.

7. That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.

8. That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.

11. That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.

12. That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.

The claim of atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.
They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.
However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Of course, whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.

That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.


What about Christianity and pagan gods?

Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.

Do they have a good point?

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….
Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.
Idols of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.
They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.
They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.
In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.
For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.
Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.
There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.
The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.
If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But apparently, atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.
This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.

Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?
How true is that?

The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.

The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?
If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.
That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.
All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.
That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.
Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.
Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.
The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.
In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...
The effect cannot be greater than the cause....
So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,
If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.
If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.
If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.
That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.

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

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?
This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.
There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.
Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.
What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.
What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.
The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.
So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?
No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

So to sum up .....
The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.
Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism, not religion, is the real enemy of science.


The garden path of lies
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/14829503672

Contrary to what we are lead to believe by the popular media, science is not the enemy of Christianity.
Genuine science is completely compatible with the belief in the creator God of Christianity.
Most of the world's greatest scientists, who were the pioneers and founders of modern science recognised this.
It is only fairly recently with the rise of militant atheism that science has been portrayed, through propaganda, as being in conflict with Christianity.

"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.

So why were so many great scientists convinced that the principles of science were in perfect harmony with belief in the Christian God?

Consider this ....
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.

So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....

So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND -
6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.

So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.

The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, adequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.

And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..

Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.

So, atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!

Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?

Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!

That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.

So, now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.
IMPRESSED? I think not!

Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?

According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?
That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.

Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.
That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.

What about the first cause of the universe and everything?
How does that fit in?

Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.

We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.


An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.
So is it a valid solution?

Firstly .....
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
Secondly ....
It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous, atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?
Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.
In addition ....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?
Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.
It can only be one of two options,
an uncaused, natural first cause
OR
an uncaused, supernatural first cause.
An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.
Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.

Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.
Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….
And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. if the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg. or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties, and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.
The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.

The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.
SO ....
Is the law of cause and effect really universal?

Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.

In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.
ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.
Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.

Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere.
If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?
Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?

If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.

Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?
Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?

To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.
That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.
By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.

Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.
Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …

1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?

2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?

Which one would you choose?

Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?
The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.
So, if you choose the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) it actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.

To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?
OR,
the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Daniel Dennett, Bill Nye, Bill Maher etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?
Methinks, there is no contest!

We can thus see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

The question of purpose ....
A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.

Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element.
To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.
Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

Natural laws are pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.
So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws, just as they cannot change their own inherent properties.

The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.
If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.
Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!
Bogus science indeed!
This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.

A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?
In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.

Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific propositions:

1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.

2. A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

5. That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

6. That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.

7. That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.

8. That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.

11. That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.

12. That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.

The claim of atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.
They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.
However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Of course, whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.

That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre. Not just bizarre, but impossible, unscientific fantasies.


What about Christianity and pagan gods?

Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.

Do they have a good point?

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….
Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.
Idols of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.
They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.
They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.
In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.
For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (the ancient Egyptian god Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.
Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator, that is the atheist religion of naturalism.
There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.
The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.
If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But apparently, atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.
This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.

Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?
How true is that?

The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.

The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?
If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.
That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.
All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.
That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.
Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.
Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.
The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.
In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...
The effect cannot be greater than the cause....
So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,
If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.
If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.
If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.
That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?
This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.
There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.
Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.
What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.
What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.
The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.
So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?
No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

So to sum up .....
The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.
Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism, not religion, is the real enemy of science.

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


FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

The Atheist Bus Campaign, set out to convince you that a loving creator God does not exist, that you have no prospect of eternal life and that all you can look forward to is eternal oblivion.

Atheists have no evidence to back up that assertion. In fact logic, natural law and the basic principles of the scientific method rule out their naturalistic alternative to a creator as impossible.

They invent all sort of bizarre scenarios to replace a supernatural first cause (God), they even try to present their fantastical, naturalistic replacements for God as 'scientific'. Please don't be taken in by it.
Their naturalistic replacements for God are illogical, they all violate natural laws and the basic principles of science.

Atheism is rightly referred to as the no-hope philosophy.
Their ultimate goal and pinnacle of their short life is - eternal oblivion.
And, quite perversely, they want to convince you that is all you can look forward to.
Please don't be dragged down with them into that depressing pit of hopelessness.
The Good News is that they are entirely wrong, and furthermore, it is not just an opinion. It can be satisfactorily demonstrated by logic, natural law, and the basic principle of the scientific method ......

Read on .... and you will understand, why atheists can never replace God, however much they try.

Their Atheist Bus Campaign is deceitful because atheists have no logical or scientific grounds for claiming "There's Probably No God", in fact, the evidence of applied logic and natural law, is completely the contrary. The atheist claim that there's probably no God is just an unsubstantiated opinion based only on their own ideological beliefs.
You may wonder why they inserted the word 'probably'? Obviously, they knew that if they were challenged to present evidence for the truth of their advertisement and had to defend it in court, they would be unable to do so. Science and logic can be used to prove they have no alternative to a supernatural first cause, and they know it.

For atheists to propose that believing there is no God, is somehow a reason to stop worrying and the recipe for an enjoyable life, is perverse in the extreme.
For most sane people it would be the opposite - a road to depression, hopelessness, and a feeling that this short existence is worthless. It will all end in oblivion, and you might as well never have lived.

Thankfully, atheists are demonstrably wrong, there is every reason for hope - as we will show - a loving Creator definitely does exist. Your life is not a few short, stressful and worthless years leading to eternal oblivion. You are a unique, valuable, person, specially created out of supreme love, every human life is of infinite value right from the moment of conception. Humans really are special and not just intelligent apes, or a mere collection of atoms, as atheists would have you believe You can live forever in eternal bliss - that is the gift of life the loving Creator of the universe offers you, and it is all offered for free.

Please don't be fooled ... people who think for themselves (the REAL freethinkers), are able to see right through the atheist hype and propaganda. Ignore the relentless bombardment of atheist propaganda, such as the atheist bus campaign. Seek out and learn the real truth and the truth will set you free.

Please read on and you will understand ......

Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.

Consider this ....
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.

So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....

So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND -
6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.

So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.

The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.

And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..

Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.

So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!

Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?

Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!

That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.

So now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.
IMPRESSED? I think not!

Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?

According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?
That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.

Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.
That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.

What about the first cause of the universe and everything?
How does that fit in?

Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.

We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.


An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.
So is it a valid solution?

Firstly .....
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
Secondly ....
It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous, atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?
Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.
In addition ....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?
Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.
It can only be one of two options,
an uncaused, natural first cause
OR
an uncaused, supernatural first cause.
An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.
Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.

Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.
Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….
And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. if the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg. or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties, and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.
The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.

The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.
SO ....
Is the law of cause and effect really universal?

Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.

In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.
ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.
Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.

Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere.
If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?
Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?

If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.

Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?
Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?

To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.
That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.
By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.

Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.
Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …

1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?

2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?

Which one would you choose?

Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?
The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.
So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.

To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?
OR,
the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Andrew Denton etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?
No contest!

We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

The question of purpose ....
A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.

Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element.
To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.
Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.
So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.

The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.
If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.
Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!
Bogus science indeed!
This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.

A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?
In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.

Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific propositions:

1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.

2. A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

5. That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

6. That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.

7. That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.

8. That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.

11. That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.

12. That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.

The claim of atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.
They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.
However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Of course, whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.

That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.


What about Christianity and pagan gods?

Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.

Do they have a good point?

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….
Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.
Idols of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.
They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.
They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.
In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.
For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.
Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.
There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.
The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.
If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But apparently, atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.
This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.

Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?
How true is that?

The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.

The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?
If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.
That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.
All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.
That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.
Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.
Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.
The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.
In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...
The effect cannot be greater than the cause....
So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,
If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.
If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.
If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.
That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?
This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.
There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.
Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.
What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.
What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.
The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.
So what existed outside of the eternally existent first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed. So did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?
No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. So to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists that is not ‘nothing’. This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ didn’t exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

So to sum up .....
The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.
Science is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism is the real enemy of science.

So please ignore the atheist bus slogans, they are not worth the ink the are printed with.

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

The popular media makes much ado about so-called 'living fossils'. Some, like the coelacanth fish and wollemi pine were found to be still living when they were previously thought to have been extinct, having left no trace in the fossil record for many millions of years (according to uniformitarian, geological interpretation).
But other well publicised examples are: the lungfish, horseshoe crab, ginkgo tree, tuatara lizard, silverfish and cycad tree. These 'living fossils' are always substantially unchanged from their fossil form and show no evolutionary progression.
However, it is not so widely known that almost every creature/plant alive today can also be regarded as a 'living fossil' inasmuch as EVERY creature/plant alive today that has been found as a fossil is substantially unchanged from its fossil form and shows no evolutionary advance after an alleged umpteen million years.
For example, look at the earliest fossil of a bat, it is 100% bat, as complete and fully functional as any bat today.
The same goes for any other creature/plant you can name: ants, spiders, beetles, bees, mosquitoes, cockroaches, sharks, turtles, crocodiles, jellyfish, crabs, lobsters, shrimps, nautilus, shellfish, elephants, pigs, hippos, maples, redwoods, magnolias, ferns etc. etc.
Some creatures, such as the dragonfly, were larger in the past, but apart from a size variation they are similar in every other respect.
All we see in the fossil record is either extinct types, or unchanged (un-evolved) types.

While the officially recognised 'living fossils', such as the coelacanth fish, receive massive publicity, very little is said about these other unofficial 'living fossils'. However, they are just as important as evidence in the history of life on earth as the official ones.

To sum up, no 'living fossil', whether official or unofficial, shows any evidence of evolution.

But amazingly, the officially recognised 'living fossils' are frequently presented throughout the popular media as powerful evidence for evolution.
Why?
Apparently, because Charles Darwin predicted that some fossils might be found which would show that some living things had escaped evolutionary pressures and remained virtually unchanged, these official, non evolved, 'living fossils' prove that Darwin was correct!

So, in the topsy-turvy world of evolutionist belief - - -
NO evidence of any evolution is claimed as evidence FOR evolution.
If you think that is serious science, then how about the story of the frog prince?

Unofficial, 'living fossils' in the picture:
Top (from left to right) beetle, crab, maple leaf.
Bottom (left to right) fish, lobster, fish.

Footnote: If you think the idea - that evolutionists claim NO evidence of any evolution as evidence FOR evolution - is just creationist propaganda, think again ...
Cited below is an example (which beats all the examples mentioned above). The living fossil of an organism completely un-evolved for an alleged 2 billion years is claimed by evolutionists to support evolution.
From: Science Daily, 3rd February 2015....
”The greatest absence of evolution ever reported has been discovered by an international group of scientists: a type of deep-sea microorganism that appears not to have evolved over more than 2 billion years. But the researchers say that the organisms' lack of evolution actually supports Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."
Read the whole article here:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203104131.htm

It is obvious to everyone that the so-called, 'NEW' atheists and their allies - humanists and secularists are in concerted, proselytising mode.
They are becoming increasingly militant, belligerent and vociferous in their bid to promote their atheist ideology, particularly in Western nations. Their ultimate aim is similar to that attempted by the self-declared, atheist regimes of the last century.... the elimination of all religious belief (especially Christianity). The elimination of all Christian or other religious influence in law-making and government and the establishment of secularist, atheist states, throughout the world.

Why should we fear this?
This is simply history revisited.
Anyone familiar with the history of the 20th century is fully aware of the diabolical failure of the great, atheist experiment which was tried in the Soviet bloc, Red China and other self-declared atheist regimes around the world The only surviving example of the dogmatic, atheist rule from that period is North Korea.
All atheist states had one thing in common. They were the most brutal, murderous, repressive regimes the world has ever experienced. We should be afraid - very afraid, of any resurgence of the atheist agenda.

The so-called 'new' atheists may say they aim to convince people of the merits of the atheist ideology, rather than force it on them, as the 20th century atheists did.

The problem is that atheism is based on illogical and false beliefs. It is deceitful and has no absolute moral or ethical yardstick. Its ethics are ephemeral, they are liable to change according to fashion, trends, consensus opinion or the opinion of the powerful, ruling elite. There are no inalienable, God-given rights. Atheist style, human rights are simply whatever those in power decide they are.

What about the illogicality and false beliefs of atheism?
Atheism is deceitful because atheists often pretend that they have no beliefs concerning origins. That is patently not true. They deny having any beliefs or faith, because they know that the only alternative to a Supernatural First Cause (God), is not credible.
It is ruled out by logic and natural law. They know that there is no defence for atheism, whether moral, logical or scientific.

Remember the Atheist Bus Campaign, which set out to convince you that a loving creator God does not exist, that you have no prospect of eternal life and that all you can look forward to is eternal oblivion.

Atheists had no evidence to back up that assertion. In fact logic, natural law and the basic principles of the scientific method rule out their naturalistic alternative to a creator as impossible.

They invent all sort of bizarre scenarios to replace a supernatural first cause (God), they even try to present their fantastical, naturalistic replacements for God as 'scientific'. Please don't be taken in by it.
Their naturalistic replacements for God are illogical, they all violate natural laws and the basic principles of science.

Atheism is rightly referred to as the no-hope philosophy.
Their ultimate goal and pinnacle of their short life is - eternal oblivion.
And, quite perversely, they want to convince you that is all you can look forward to.
Please don't be dragged down with them into that depressing pit of hopelessness.
The Good News is that they are entirely wrong, and furthermore, it is not just an opinion. It can be satisfactorily demonstrated by logic, natural law, and the basic principle of the scientific method ......

Read on .... and you will understand, why atheists can never replace God, however much they try.

Their Atheist Bus Campaign is deceitful because atheists have no logical or scientific grounds for claiming "There's Probably No God", in fact, the evidence of applied logic and natural law, is completely the contrary. The atheist claim that there's probably no God is just an unsubstantiated opinion based only on their own ideological beliefs.
You may wonder why they inserted the word 'probably'? Obviously, they knew that if they were challenged to present evidence for the truth of their advertisement and had to defend it in court, they would be unable to do so. Science and logic can be used to prove they have no alternative to a supernatural first cause, and they know it.

For atheists to propose that believing there is no God, is somehow a reason to stop worrying and the recipe for an enjoyable life, is perverse in the extreme.
For most sane people it would be the opposite - a road to depression, hopelessness, and a feeling that this short existence is worthless. It will all end in oblivion, and you might as well never have lived.

Thankfully, atheists are demonstrably wrong, there is every reason for hope - as we will show - a loving Creator definitely does exist. Your life is not a few short, stressful and worthless years leading to eternal oblivion. You are a unique, valuable, person, specially created out of supreme love, every human life is of infinite value right from the moment of conception. Humans really are special and not just intelligent apes, or a mere collection of atoms, as atheists would have you believe You can live forever in eternal bliss - that is the gift of life the loving Creator of the universe offers you, and it is all offered for free.

Please don't be fooled ... people who think for themselves (the REAL freethinkers), are able to see right through the atheist hype and propaganda. Ignore the relentless bombardment of atheist propaganda, such as the atheist bus campaign. Seek out and learn the real truth and the truth will set you free.

Please read on and you will understand ......

Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.

Consider this ....
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.

The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!

The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.

So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?

Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....

So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.

5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND -
6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.

So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.

The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.

And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..

Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.

So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!

Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?

Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!

That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.

So now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.
IMPRESSED? I think not!

Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?

According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?
That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.

Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.
That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.

What about the first cause of the universe and everything?
How does that fit in?

Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.

We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.


An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.
So is it a valid solution?

Firstly .....
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
Secondly ....
It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous, atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?
Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.
In addition ....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?
Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.
It can only be one of two options,
an uncaused, natural first cause
OR
an uncaused, supernatural first cause.
An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.
Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.

Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.
Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….
And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. if the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg. or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties, and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.
The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.

The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.
SO ....
Is the law of cause and effect really universal?

Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.

In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.
ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.
Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.

Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere.
If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?
Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?

If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.

Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?
Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?

To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.
That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.
By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.

Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.
Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …

1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?

2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?

Which one would you choose?

Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?
The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.
So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.

To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural first cause?
OR,
the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Andrew Denton etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural first cause?
No contest!

We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

The question of purpose ....
A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.

Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element.
To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.
Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.
So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.

The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.
If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.
Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!
Bogus science indeed!
This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.

A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?
In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.

Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific propositions:

1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.

2. A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).

3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

5. That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

6. That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.

7. That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.

8. That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).

9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.

11. That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.

12. That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.

The claim of atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.
They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.
However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Of course, whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.

That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.


What about Christianity and pagan gods?

Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.

Do they have a good point?

Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….
Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.
Idols of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.
They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.
They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.
In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.
For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.

So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.
Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.
There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.

The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.
The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.
If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.

The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But apparently, atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.
This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.

Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?
How true is that?

The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.

The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?
If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.
That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.
All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.
That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.
Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.
Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.
The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.
In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...
The effect cannot be greater than the cause....
So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,
If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.
If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.
If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.
That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
They are clutching at straws and anyone with any common sense understands that.

So to sum up .....
The atheist ideology is illogical, unscientific nonsense. Even worse, it has no compunction in treating natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method with utter distain and contempt whenever they interfere with atheist beliefs.
Science is the real enemy of atheism, and atheism is the real enemy of science.

So please ignore the atheist bus slogans, they are not worth the ink they are printed with.

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