God of the Gaps?

Well here we go ladies and gents.  Yet another piece of Darwinian/atheist bad thinking must be exposed for what it really is.

Will this kind of thing ever end? Not until atheists finally admit that their position – it’s not merely a “lack” of a position, as they foolishly pretend to themselves these days – is devoid of intelligence and in fact annihilates intelligence itself since atheism cannot have true rationality.

In atheism all rationality is the end product of completely non rational processes and of course is an “accident”.  Under atheism, rationality is just electrochemical movement in the brain – 3 lbs of meat.  As Francis Crick himself said,

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”  -(p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons

Atheism says that your rationality, your logic, your reasoning faculties; all together is “nothing but a pack of neurons.  Well, Sir Crick has passed on to the other realm that is much more solid than this one and has been obliged to give an account for his own life, including his denial of the Deity, so we can’t ask him the obvious question, “Why should we listen to what a pack of neurons is saying?”, or “How can a pack of neurons be true or false?”.

Other interesting questions like this could and should be posed to atheists as often as it takes to get the message, the logical conclusions and implications of their position, into their all too often stubborn minds.

In any case, we must take a quick and dirty look at one Darwinism’s chief complaints against both creationism and Intelligent Design (no, these are not the same).

Often when theists or even deists point out to Darwinists that their theory cannot account for the intricacies and functional complexities and semantic structures found in every living thing, they will tell you that you’re committing a logical fallacy.  Specifically they claim this type of statement is a “God of the gaps argument”.  This simply means that, because you can’t explain how something occurred, you simply invoke God as the answer.  God fills in the gap where the knowledge of how is missing.

God is used to explain what evolutionism can’t explain.  This is of course a form of “argument from ignorance”.  And believe me, Darwinians everywhere are quick to parrot their fave priests that have told them this, over and over and over.  Here I would love to start a nice discussion of how virtually every amateur and professional Darwinist in the world is little more than a parrot. They are always parroting what they were told in school, in their temples (universities), on their fave web sites, in books etc. Of course, everyone does this to some degree, citing authorities, but the atheist Darwinian crowd does little else.

They do not seem to think well or for themselves, so having been forced into the standard Darwinian mantra through the public education system, they simply parrot what they were told by their priests and gurus.  So, they have indoctrination and “counseling” from their priests to know what to believe.

So, on to the infamous parroted “God if the gaps” accusations.

First of all, arguments of the pattern:

“Evolution cannot explain this therefore God did it” arguments, are almost never used by any informed theist and never by any of the major Intelligent Design or creationist debaters, scientists etc. on this.

People like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Douglas Marks, Jay Richards etc, do not use “gap” arguments at all.  What they really do is argue from a simplified form of “statistical mechanics” (for lack of a better term). This means that when an IDist says anything like, “no evolutionary evidence exist for this, no known evolutionary pathway exists to explain this, no known mechanism exists that can accomplish this”,  They are not saying “you can’t explain it, therefore God must have done it”.

That is simply and categorically false.

They are saying that 1) there is no evidence at all that evolution did this, but 2) there is great evidence that Darwinian evolution cannot do this, and there is irrefutable evidence that only intelligent agents can produce algorithmic, prescriptive information that is found everywhere in biological systems.  Therefore, the best explanation is not evolution but intelligent origin.

Very few creationists or IDists will simply say,  “God did it and that’s it that’s all, no need for further research”.  In recent years, I’ve never heard any of them say anything even remotely like that.  So, when misinformed and disingenuous Darwinian fanatics claim that this is what they’re saying, they are lying, or, incapable of thinking straight, seriously not listening, or all of the above.

In my personal experience it is always been the last 2 options. and sometimes the first as well.

Again, what are IDists saying? Based on the principles of statistical mechanics, they’re saying that we already know that such mechanical sophistication and algorithmic information cannot arise by chance no matter how much time is allotted.  The probability of such machinery and circuitry being constructed, with the plans for making the parts and the assembly instructions for putting them together with all this being algorithmically encoded in DNA, is so astronomically small that it may as well be considered impossible.  It is in fact, statistically impossible by any known random or stochastic process including mutations, plus selection.

So, this has nothing at all to do with “gap” arguments but is merely stating the obvious based on the laws of probability! Something Darwinian biologists tend to be uniquely against applying to their own theory. How many times have I read that “probabilities do not apply to living, reproductive organisms”? Too many!

Designists are not saying, “we can’t see how this happened therefore God id it” at all; on the contrary!  They are saying, “the laws of probability”, thermodynamics and physics do not allow any purposeless, unguided process to create this kind of integrated, specified functionality.

That is a very different thing from a mere gap argument.  So in fact, they are not arguing from ignorance but from well documented knowledge!  Knowledge of proven mathematics applied to the mechanics of biological machinery. That is NOT a gap or ignorance based argument at all.  It is a solid scientific empirical method being used to calculate whether nature can even do such things. When facing the odds of events that have estimated with between 1 in 10^20 to 1 in 10^130 to even less odds, the obvious answer is that blind evolution could not have done it, no matter how much time you allot.

Secondly, there is a humongous hypocrisy at work among the Darwinists when they foolishly choose to use this rebuttal. Notice that Darwinists have never, not even once, provided a viable mutation/selection pathway for the existence of even the smallest living things.  This means that the only way they can claim that any living thing evolved is through speculation and conjecture – most of the time just wishful thinking and vivid imaginations are all they have. Just-so stories fill the Darwinian literature.

For example, how does Darwinism explain the incredible integrated circuitry of vision, the eye? They invent, yes invent, out of thin air, a story!

If you’ve seen the perfectly naive, childishly simplistic explanations given by Darwinists for the origins of sight and eyes you know what I’m talking about it.  Even the scenarios given by so-called professional scientists.  There simply are no viable, serious Darwinian pathways for vision and eyes.  None.  Not even remotely close.

Their explanation is always the same – an imaginary pathway – less than 100 steps (rotfl) – that they think may have, could have, must have etc., been the real evolutionary one. So how about evidence for such naive suppositions – they’re always ridiculously naive – on how something may have happened by evolution? Nope. Don’t need any real empirical evidence.

Really? Why not?

Because they simply invoke evolution of the gaps. They do this everywhere, “evolution did it”. Oh, sorry, they use slightly different terms but the answer is always the same in meaning – evolution did it.

In other words, Darwinists are the worst offenders of “gap”, ignorance-based arguments!  They never have any viable mutational-selection pathways to explain anything but the very, very trivial!  So, without a grain of empirical evidence that really does explain how vision systems developed without a “seeing” intelligence, they simply claim -loudly and with much bombast and pompous dismissal of any other theory, “evolution did it!”


“We don’t need proof!! We know evolution did it!”

“How do you know this, without proof?”

“Because no God exists!”

Yes, many of them really do say this in such terms.  Meaning that their real reason for supporting neo Darwiniism is religious, not scientific! There you have it.  The cat is out of the bag.  The whole system is 99% religion based. Metaphysical Naturalism. In other words. The religion of atheism.

Don’t believe this? Well then you’re being naive and demonstrating a profound ignorance. Just to help you out:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”
– Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard U.

And just look at this quote:
‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.’
– Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.

Wow, if that isn’t clear enough, nothing is.  And say what?! Scientists lie!? Oh my, who would have thought?!
So, neo Darwinists are, for the most part, in fact religious adepts of Naturalism (materialism), a very old heathen religion.
Religion? Yes. Therefore it should be illegal, in the USA, to teach Darwinism in public schools.  So why isn’t it?

The New Atheism’s Prime Idiocy

Some of you may not even believe an increasingly popular atheist claim going around these days, that “nothing created everything”.  Supposedly smart people like Hawking, Krauss etc. are all now claiming that the universe could create itself out of nothing.

They all try the same little magicians trick of making something disappear, when we all know its hiding under the table, up their sleeve or simply by smoke and mirrors.  What is it that they all desperately try to make disappear? Well gee, it ain’t hard? Something, that’s all.

And what magicians technique do they all use to do this with?  Some form of quantum physics. Always.  Why? Because its the only way you can fool the public.  You have to use tricks that the average Joe doesn’t know much about.  Then you have to present this trick in public with adequate levels of hand waving and slanted logic, in just enough doses to fool the gullible.

Thankfully, thank God, the average Joe off the street still doesn’t buy the trick as being “real magic”.

So how is this done basically, in layman’s language?  Its really easy.  All you have to do is lie. All you have to do is present a lie as truth and say it quickly enough, all while subtly redefining a term here or there.  If you do it right, a whole slew of gullible people will believe the lie.  In the case before us, all you have to do is redefine the meaning of the word “nothing”, so that it actually means something, but something so abstract and unclear that a lot of people don’t see the obvious differences.

One such trick, used by Lawrence Krauss, and now all of his mislead disciples, none of whom seem bright enough to discern wherein the magic lies, is equating the mathematical abstract we call ZERO, with true physics nothingness -i.e. the absence of everything, of anything at all in the material sense.

This is one of their favorite tricks.  And you know, the worst and possibly saddest thing about hits is that even they can’t see wherein the magic lies, beyond reality, in their little tricks!   Still the trick is obvious.

Zero isn’t nothing.  Zero is an abstract number – a mere symbol- we use to describe an exact equilibrium or physics nothing, but in this context stating that because the sum of energy in the universe equals nothing the physical nothing is not the valid meaning of zero! In this context it means equilibrium.

Now these people love to use this number as both meanings at once, (bait and switch tactic) whereas, in truth, it cannot be used with the same meaning simultaneously!  The two meanings or definitions of zero here are mutually exclusive.  An equilibrium between two forces, for example, is NOT nothing!  Yet we still use the mathematical symbol Zero or 0 – the form doesn’t matter at all – to represent this equilibrium.

Its like claiming that because the books balance,, there is no money in the account. Not very bright.

This is not hard!

Let me give a very simple example that really does fit, in an analogical way, quite exactly to the New Atheist claims that nothing created everything.

Lets use an example form the world of accounting as per financial things.  We all know what it means when we say, “the books balance”, right?  Balanced accounting ledgers simply mean that the actives are exactly equal to the passives.  Now in the actual books, how is this written? Why with a zero, ie the graphical representation of zero as “0”.

So here’s where we can easily spot the tricky atheist maneuver that so easily blinds most atheists, and people looking for answers that don’t really understand what’s being discussed – and even many that should but don’t and many that do but pretend not to!

Question: when the books are balanced, does this mean there’s no money in the account?
Answer: Of course not.
Can you imagine the chaos in the whole world of finance and accounting if zero and nothing could change meaning to some “scientist’s” interpretation of the symbol, changing it whenever he pleased!? I’m not exaggerating here, not at all.

On a recent “discussion” that I had with a very devoted disciple of atheist priest Krauss, a fellow who claimed to be well educated in this area of physics told me, rather adamantly (as atheist always do),  that nothing can indeed create everything because the sum of the energy in the universe equals nothing.

Of course he was then referring to this Zero being both equivalent to a real “nothingness” AND the mathematical abstraction “ZERO” both at the same time. You remember I just pointed out that this doesn’t work – except when the abstraction Zero is indeed used to represent a real absolute nothingness.

This may seem like quibbling over a definition, but the difference is nevertheless fundamental.

So, I asked this poor fellow if he understood that if this “zero” in his sense, meant that the universe does not exist.  To my own astonishment, even with all these years of being used to atheist nonsense, he replied, yes.  So obviously I was forced to ask him if that means the universe is nothing, i.e. it doesn’t really exist.  And again to my continued astonishment he relied with a resounding, YES.   Then I had to rephrase the whole thing, just to be sure,  into a “So you’re telling me that the universe doesn’t exist?”. Though I couldn’t believe he’d really understood my question, or he surely was just joking, he still said, Yes.

So there was I, an innocent theist, facing a very intelligent atheist, who was seriously telling me, without any qualms at all, that neither he nor I nor anything else really existed!

I’m pretty sure that if you search out this, for lack of a better term, mind-blowing, conversation between an intelligent human being, and someone that doesn’t exist, you’ll be able to find it over there on that most prestigious of all scientific discussion sites, youtube.

I’m sure you’ll be strongly tempted, perhaps by the devil, to post a resounding, ROTFLMAO, as I was; and sadly I couldn’t help but to succumb, forgive me oh Lord, to such a temptation.

The books balance, my friends, therefore all that money in the account created itself, from ‘nothing’.  A child as old as the one in the picture would be giving a nice face palm for such pitiful bull crap at this New Atheist desperate move to get rid of God – no matter how stupid it makes them look.


Another Foolish Atheist Claim

The list of foolish -often very stupid- claims made by atheists is long indeed.  A great many of the claims made by the so-called “New Atheists” from Dawkins to Harris to Dennet to… you-name-em, and the claims based on those claims fall into that category.

This is rather astounding. Why? Because a large part of of the population in the West and in Europe have bought into this. What kind of average IQ rating can we give people,  in spite of how blatantly obvious the endless self-contradictions are, that cannot see these contradictions?

I my own view, that average IQ goes down by several points every time one of these “new atheist” priests opens his mouth to speak or writes another book.  Truly, these people, blind leaders of the blind, could reduce the average IQ of the entire world population by several points every year they continue to promote the bunk they perpetually try to pass off as “fact”, “reason”, “logic”, “true” etc,,

These people just don’t get it or else they really are wicked – deliberately speaking what they know is nonsense.

The often ludicrous propositions they think are so weighty against the existence of a God, a supreme, supernatural being are just bad logic, blind faith in nothing and among the worst of the dumb ideas devised since the beginning of the 20th century.

To illustrate this I’ll quote a recent comment I felt sadly obliged to confront on a blog.  Of course anyone that reads my articles here knows how harsh I can be to the adamant atheists.  Let me explain this just a little here.  I’ve been debating atheists and atheism for many long years -over 30- on and off the web for a about 20 years now.

About 99% of every single debate I’ve either had myself, or watched some other poor theists attempting to reason with atheists in, has been little more than an insult fest.  Most of them almost devoid of any sign of honest reasoning in atheism.  As soon as the atheist is faced with the glaring problems of logic and reason in his untenable position, the discussion is over; the insult session begins.  And in this it doesn’t matter how much proof, evidence, logic, fact or reason one brings against atheism’s multitude of errors, the theist receives a slew of often vulgar, nasty, four-lettered superlatives and accusations of stupidity etc. from the atheist crowd.

Ok so are you ready?  I hope so.

If you’re not an atheist you will no doubt see the foolishness of such comments immediately.  If you’re unfortunate enough to be an atheist you will almost certainly not see a thing.

Here’s the original comment :

“That’s simply because it’s based on observation and rational thought. It’s consistent not because it’s manufactured to be so, but because it actually is consistenct with reality.
Religion relies on dogma to be consistent and does a pretty poor job of it (as numerous schisms have shown).”

And here are my comments -with all my usual angst against atheism and its all too often willfully blind and willfully ignorant victims.  I’ve modified the format and presentation order, and also added some comments in square brackets to make it a bit clearer :

He stated,  “That’s simply because it’s based on observation …”

My response:

Tell us, oh rational one, what observation are you referring to exactly?
Which observation is it that proves there is no God or even no supernatural?
None whatsoever & you know it well too; therefore you’re doubly guilty -of both willful stupidity and fraud.

He said, “…and rational thought”

My response:

What rational thought are you pretending here?
Where is the rational thought that proves atheism?
Atheism denies the very reality of rationality itself by relegating all thought to mere materialism.

“If naturalism [atheism] were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.” [C.S Lewis]

Atheism according to atheists [American Atheists web site],

“Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, … there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be”

My response:

My, such a slew of glaring self contradictions in such a small paragraph is amazing!
They claim that “nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter”

Can they prove this? Using their own feeble methodologies [methodological naturalism]?
No, of course not, and they themselves say so!!

If, by default [and using your own method], you cannot posit [or detect] any supernatural existence then how on earth could you ever possibly “know” that there is no such thing!?
A child could see through such blatant stupidity, but not the well potty-trained atheist!

A wiser man (ex-atheist) wrote,

“The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false'”

This undoes the self contradicting atheist statement on thought, in one single simple phrase.

He adds,

“If he is honest,… the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the “epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process.” … In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true”

You are nothing but a pack of neurons“, said atheist Francis Crick.

So tell us, why should anyone give a crap about what your neurons are doing?  Under atheism you’re just a slab of animated meat.   Rationality cannot be defined as meat.   The sooner you finally use your brain to figure out that, if atheism is true, then you really are nothing but animated meat, the sooner you might get free from the abject intellectual poverty of atheism.

The atheist said,  “It’s consistent not because it’s manufactured to be so, but because it actually is consistenct with reality.

My response:

Atheism isn’t even consistent with itself! Wake up and smell the oxymorons.
Atheism IS denial of reality.
He then said, “Religion relies on dogma to be consistent and does a pretty poor job of it (as numerous schisms have shown).

My response:

You were raised on humanism and you swallowed its ubiquitous lies and propaganda. You’re bound in the snares of its multitudinous idiocies, all while thinking yourself to be “free” and a “thinker”.
Packs of neurons can neither be free nor thinkers.

Atheism rational?!
You, like all atheists, are exactly like the man born blind that denies the existence of light and color because he himself cannot see it, and then you claim this is “rational”!

Think on that and maybe you’ll start really thinking for the 1st time in your life.

Ok, so there you have my initial admittedly angry response.

The greatest contradiction in atheism is this pretension that you can have rationality in an atheist universe.  You cannot have rationality in a universe that is itself irrational.  You cannot have rationality in a universe that is purely and solely material -matter.  Matter is not rational, it doesn’t think, has no consciousness and no will. You may as well assign an IQ to a rock, intelligence to a piece of meat, as to believe rationality exist by accidents in matter.

Rationality itself is purely conceptual. It relies completely on the absolute laws of logic to even exist. Which do not exist in atheism.

I’m always amazed, astounded and confounded when I hear atheists smugly bragging of reason, logic, rationality etc. within a world view, a philosophy that itself, by default, by its own tenets, denies even the possibility that these things can even exist as anything real. Rationality, under atheism, is nothing but a material pack of neurons. It’s nothing but animated meat, chemical reactions, electrochemical activity in meat.  It can never be more because according to atheism, that’s all that exists.

Yet the average atheist never can’t seem to figure this simple fact out.  Crick did, so did many others, but they always end up denying the necessary logical implications and consequences of their ideas.

Therefore, all while claiming to be perfectly logical, the atheist must deny major facets of logic, in order to keep his position “consistent” with itself.  Yet, the very act of denying these vital aspects of reason and logic, the atheist automatically, whether hes sees it or not, has denied his own foundations for atheism. It’s the ultimate intellectual self-destruct.


On the Problem of Evil & Suffering

Atheists often argue against the existence of God, and specifically an almighty and good God on the basis of the existence of evil and suffering in the universe.   The argument goes something like this:

God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect.
A perfect, good God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering).
The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.
Therefore, God does not exist.

Basically, it’s always some form of the Epicurean paradox.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”- Epicurus

So in short, either God is not good, or not all-powerful or he does not exist, because if he did exist then surely he could stop all the suffering. The atheist then concludes that both the idea of a bad God and the idea of a limited God make no sense, therefore God must not exist. Variations on this ages old theme exist but that is the gist of it.

So how does one answer this type of objection?

Most apologists go into lengthy arguments concerning why a good and almighty God could and does allow evil & suffering in the world.  They will usually get into the biblical fall of Lucifer and of man to explain how such evils and sufferings came to be.

That’s all well and good. But forget all that for now. There is a much simpler way to demonstrate why this argument is flawed.

First you must see that in a universe with no God, there cannot be any absolute moral values. Most atheists admit this. For example:

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3)no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.” -William B. Provine, atheist professor of biology at Cornell University

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”Richard Dawkins, –Out of Eden, page 133

“If there is no God, everything is permitted.” – Jean Paul Sartre on Ivan Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoevski’s character

“Morality is no more … than an adaptation, and as such has the same status as such things as teeth and eyes and noses. . . . [M]orality is a creation of the genes”. – Michael Ruse

“Nature has no concern for good or bad, right or wrong. . . . We cannot get behind ethics.” – Naturalist Simon Blackburn

Evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson said that morality is just a survival mechanism. Ethics, he claims,

“is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate,” and “the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.”

Now how does one refute the atheist argument against God based on evil & suffering?

Easy.  Without God, there is no good or evil.
The atheist high priests, quoted above say so.

The goes the ball game for the atheist objector. The atheist shoots himself in the foot with such arguing against God based on “there is so much evil”.  For such an argument becomes too obviously wrong given that “no God = no evil”. So how does the atheist argue against God based on something that does not and cannot exist in his own worldview? Contradiction much? Indeed.

Suffering becomes a mere amoral, purposeless event in a cold uncaring cosmos. Or as Dawkins put it, a blind, pitiless, indifferent universe. Suffering, but without God suffering is neither evil nor good nor “bad”, since godd and bad only exist as humans illusions.

Thus we see how the atheist in using the existence of evil and suffering to refute the existence of God is unwittingly assuming the existence of God in the very argument itself.

Therefore, how can one claim God doesn’t exist while admitting the existence of evil? If there is no God how does one define evil?  Indeed, how does one claim that suffering is “wrong” in a universe without God?

One might even state,

“Evil exists.  Therefore God exists. God defines ultimate good. Evil is all that is contrary to that good. No God, no evil”

The fact that all men everywhere and at all times have recognized the existence of evil, demonstrates the existence of a transcendent moral law, else, evil does not exist. Things simply are what they are – neither right nor wrong; neither evil or good.

Without an absolute law giver, there can be no such thing as evil or good and since atheists, as shown above, really do admit that without God there is no real good or evil, how can they then contradict themselves by claiming God doesn’t exist based on it? Intellectual blindness, that’s how.

Thus the atheists using this argument, show a rather stunning lack of perception.  But in this case it is a lack of perception of their own arguments logical implications and flaws! To argue against God based on the existence of evil is to argue for God based on the existence of moral right and wrong. So when atheists use the old “problem of pain and evil” argument they are unwittingly admitting of a transcendent Law that defines evil by the existence of absolute good – which is the ONLY way evil can be defined!

C.S. Lewis wrote,

“Truth and falsehood are opposed; but truth is the norm not of truth only but of falsehood also.”
–The Allegory of Love

Indeed, without God (ultimate truth) there is no reason to call anything at all “evil”.

Thus the whole “evil and suffering” based argument falls apart under its own underlying assumptions. This argument actually does more to uphold the existence of God than it can ever do to refute it.  Sadly, most atheists do not and will not see this, such is the hardness of their hearts.

The Atheist That Still Doesn’t Get It

In my last article I posted in response to an atheist that claimed that I don’t understand, atheism, metaphysics, information, evidence etc..  I attempted to show how most atheists don’t understand their own position by using some of his claims and dismantling their obvious errors.  Not surprisingly this same atheist has once again responded with the same insistence and of course, the same errors.  He has still not seen any light.  Of course not, he would have to off his blinders to see any light.

So here, once again, I’ll post some of his further misguided comments and respond. This time for the last time as I’ve learned over the years that arguing with adamantly religious atheist fundamentalists is a waste of time.  They cannot see because they don’t want to see and thus live in perpetual denial of reality and darkness.

So let’s deal with his first, unsurprising because almost universal with web debate atheists, but utterly wrong claim,

“Evidence for atheism? No, atheism is the default position.”

This is a ubiquitous claim among modern atheists but still very wrong and that for several reasons:

1. Who says atheism is the default position?

Can anyone seriously make this claim and back it up?  No.  It is a positive claim to knowledge that no atheist possesses.  Worse – Can atheists prove this? Have they proved this? No they have not and no they cannot.

The claim assumes, or rather presumes, that metaphysical beliefs, religion and faith if you please, are taught and learned from early childhood.  It assumes that no metaphysical concepts exist in initially in very young children.  It also assumes,  (once again revealing that the atheist here doesn’t understand that he has a positively chosen metaphysical position, a religious belief),  that atheism is a non position – no position at all!  This is rather amazing persistence in the foolishness of denial of reality that is atheism.  Yet, this same atheist implores me to open up comments so he (in his own mind) can refute what I’m saying here!  He has not understood the real nature of atheism yet, but still wants to refute it. This is so common today that it’s a tragedy.

2.  If atheism is the default position, where is the proof of this?

The atheist wrongly assumes that a default position doesn’t require proof.  If this were the default position it still requires proof that it ought truly be the default position.  Back to square one! More atheist circular reasoning that, in their default cognitive dissonance creating position, hinders them from detecting.

3. There is ever mounting evidence that atheism is not the default position.

Dr. Justin L. Barrett is senior researcher at University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind and the Institute for Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology.  Barrett has published studies demonstrating that metaphysical beliefs or innate or born in humans.  His research, which is also based on or associated with the research of many others who have come to the same conclusions, is that humans are born with a natural propensity to believe in God, purpose in life, and they demonstrate a clear recognition of designed artifacts versus natural ones right from the earliest stages of cognition.  Here is a link to a short article.  Dr. Barrett has even written a book on the subject called Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief.

As one commenter of the book put it,

“A fascinating and readable account of why religious beliefs are perfectly normal and virtually universal. In an age of atheism, this book will challenge widespread assumptions that nonbelief is the default and that children must be indoctrinated to believe.  Jam-packed with insight and wit, Born Believers should be required reading for all parents and for anyone else interested in the spiritual lives of children.”  — Robert A. Emmons, Professor of Psychology, University of California

Barrett stated,

“The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children’s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose,” – on BBC Radio “4 Today”.
“If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God.”

I may also point to the work of Paul Bloom of the Department of Psychology, Yale University, USA.  His essay called, “Religion is natural”, Bloom says,

“The proposal here is that there are certain early-emerging cognitive biases that give rise to religious belief. These include body–soul dualism and a hyper-sensitivity to signs of agency and design. These biases make it natural to believe in Gods and spirits, in an afterlife, and in the divine creation of the universe. These are the seeds from which religion grows.”

Many other recent research articles could be noted.

Atheists are once again shown to be off in their logic and metaphysics.  Once again, I provide solid and simple reasoning and evidence whereas the atheist provides bare assertions. Assertions that, no matter how universal, inevitably turn out to be false.

Thus you can see why the atheists’ next statement is also wrong,

“The claims that need evidence are the positive claims “there is a God” or “there is no God”. 

Worse, or perhaps better, I’m not sure, the atheist says,

“Atheism is simply the position of not accepting the positive claims. Without evidence either way I am agnostic. But I am also an atheist. Your writing undoubtedly betrays your lack of awareness of this position.”

Here the atheist has modified his definition of himself in contradictory ways.  First he states that atheism, previously a mere “absence of belief”, is now a refusal to accept evidence – which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along.  So has he accepted this at last?  Apparently no, as he is very confused as well.  How so?  He now claims to be an atheist agnostic.  But the two are mutually exclusive! One cannot be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. Agnostics are not atheists, they simply claim they don’t know whether their is a God or not, and many also claim that such knowledge is unattainable.  Atheists, on the other hand do not believe in God at all, and many, such as this atheist friend of ours here, adamantly refuse all evidence pointing to a supreme being.  “Curiouser and curiouser”!

Then he adds,

Not only that, but even if you do attack atheism it doesn’t prove theism true.”

This is rather surprising since I stated clearly in the previous article that proving any specific evidence for God wrong does not prove there is no God. Obviously the reverse is true. Proving atheist counter propositions to God to be false doesn’t prove there is a God.  And?

Then he insults my academic and experiential credentials – a bachelors degree in informatics plus many years of experience in information technologies – by stating,

“As for your not understanding information, you don’t. The idea that you think information necessitates a mind is just a nonsense.”

Obviously our friend is very uniformed on information himself.  As he follows with this,

“Are the ice core records not information? Are tree-rings not information? Are soil layers not information? If they are then information obviously doesn’t need a mind, and if not explain why DNA is information and these things are not.”

Here we see a very common and glaring error committed by atheists attempting to refute the laws of information and the nature of  specified information. Once again the atheist fails to discern between information and the medium in which it is stored, even though I clearly explained this hereAlso here and here as well.  Not clearly enough apparently, or he didn’t read it.

Our atheist antagonist commits intellectual suicide here, not realizing that this very statement proves him wrong.

Ice cores, tree rings, soil layers etc. are information? No they are not. They are only what they are – natural phenomena. It’s like claiming that a rock is information. No it isn’t.

However, a mind can derive information from such things by obtaining previous knowledge on interpretation of ice layering properties etc..  The information on conditions of the various eras when the ice was formed exists only in a mind that can reason upon its natural properties. It is not structured information contained in the ice itself.  Moreover, this is not specified information.  It isn’t algorithmic at all.  Not is it encoded, the code exists in the mind of the interpreter alone.

The same thing applies to tree rings, soil layers, and the color of stars, a benzene molecule etc.  These things merely are what they are.  Information derived by understanding their nature and condition is completely other and can only be derived by a mind using logic.  Logic is a property only of minds.   Rocks have no logic.  Rocks carry only matter and information can be derived from them by a thinking mind with other information.

The information contained in DNA is however another matter altogether – again as I previously explained in the original article.  It is algorithmic, prescriptive and descriptive information such as one finds in a recipe or a set of plans for building a car. It’s information does not point only to itself, but describes whole information systems constructed with proteins by long sequential, algorithmically ordered molecules of amino acids.

I suggest those interested in a real understanding of information read the published papers of Dr David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors here.  Their work and lucent reasoning is devastating to both atheism and it’s origins myth, Darwinism.

Here’s a short excerpt on their work from Biosemiotic Research Trends,

Genomic instructions are a form of what Abel (Abel, 2002, Abel and Trevors, 2005) calls prescriptive information. Such a clarifying descriptor of information is necessary to distinguish mere Shannon combinatorial uncertainty and Kolmogorov complexity from functional algorithmic strings. Algorithms steer events and behaviors towards predictable usefulness.  Prescriptive information utilizes a sign system to either instruct or direct compute utility.

Artificial life investigators and most applied biologists accepted this reality early on. Steering is required to achieve sophisticated function of any kind. Much of the life-origin research community, however, continues to “live in denial” of this fact.

The atheist/agnostic (I don’t think he knows what he is) then states,

“Now, your last post contradicts your About section”

Right.  Nuff’ said.

Then he adds, with equally unimpressive lucidity,

“See, to think about it you really need to be open to contrary views and to debate the evidence, you’re not willing to do that. What you are doing is closing the comments section and spreading dishonesty.”

Sadly, his own mind is shut like a trap and has probably been on hold for many years.  The fact is that I’ve debated thousands of times with atheists, on and off line.  So this poor dupe again insults me by claiming that I, like himself,  have a closed mind and am not willing to debate! Laughable and truly pathetic. Oh and once again, there is no evidence for atheism.

The only dishonesty witnessed around web forums where atheists attempt to debate their “default” non-position is among atheist themselves, the most dishonest pseudo thinkers on earth.

He invites me to debate on his blog.

Sorry dear boy but no.  That’s my only sane response, given he has understood virtually nothing I’ve said thus far and I have no hopes he ever will.   I’ve seen overwhelming evidence of the following statements too many times for one person in one life and as I stated before, no longer interested in wasting time arguing endlessly with willful fools,

“The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..” – Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary

“You can lead an atheist to evidence but you can’t make him think.” – Ray Comfort

“Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior. One need only ask an atheist what his morality is, and inquire as to how he developed it and why it should happen to so closely coincide with the dominant societal morality to discover that there is nothing rational about most atheists’ beliefs. Either he has none and is “immorally” practicing Dennett’s doxastic division of labor by unquestioningly accepting the societal norms that surround him, or he is simply selecting which aspects to credit and which to reject on the basis of his momentary desires. In neither case does anything that can legitimately be described as reason enter into the picture. The same is often true of his atheism itself; it is telling to note that Hitchens and Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine.

The idea that there is any rational basis for atheism is further damaged due to the way in which so many atheists become atheists during adolescence, an age which combines a tendency towards mindless rebellion as well as the onset of sexual desires which collide with religious strictures on their satisfaction” -Vox Day, aka Theodore Beale, The Irrational Atheist, p 147-148

There is no God and I am his prophet