Which Infers a Stable Universe, Atheism or Theism?

In my last article I discussed the “God of the gaps” accusation levied against creationists and IDists.  A “refutation” that is common all across the scope of Darwinian influenced minds.

I showed that, in fact, it is the Darwinists that use “gap” arguments, or arguments from ignorance and not the designists at all.

Now at the end of that article I quoted professor Richard Lewontin on his absolute adherence to materialism in all things “scientific”.

Here is the quote again, followed by my comments on the last sentence:

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 University

Lewotin makes a perfectly foolish unthinking statement at the end when he says that appealing to an omnipotent deity allows that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured.  Really? Lewontin fails to see that this is perfectly true for atheism, not theism!

Under atheism there are no absolutes, there is no absolute truth, so one cannot even know anything for sure -including no scientists, such as Lewontin. The irony is striking. Now if there are no absolutes then it would be true that we allow that the regularities of nature may change any & every moment. The laws may dissolve, mathematics is no longer certain, nothing remains.  Science itself becomes relative, volatile and unreliable. Nothing is certain under atheism’s obligatory relativism. Nothing can be known as objectively true in atheism, including atheism itself. This is standard atheist dogma and if atheism were true, then they would be right in claiming this.


However, under theism, what is the reason that the regularities may be ruptured? The only possible reason would be the will of the deity.  But then why would an intelligent creator simply screw everything he made from one day to the next?  What reason would he have? None, assuming this God is wise and good.

Moreover, even if he did, would mankind ever know it? Highly unlikely, well at least not for more than a few seconds. We would almost certainly disappear in some sort of total cosmic implosion if only 1 of the “fine tuning” constants were to be altered by the deity. And who would be left to give a damn for humanity?

In theism, we infer, through multitudes of inferences and the very state of the cosmos,  that the intelligence of the creator is infinite (just look at what he made) and that his moral nature is the very foundation of all morality.

Worse, Lewontin’s statement is in fact simply wrong, since we already have ample testimony that in fact the laws of the nature are universal, stable and constant since the beginning of all human history. Simply because we have something we call “science” and it works.

Now to prove how asinine some atheists can get on this specific point, lets read the “expert” atheist version; one that, if true, literally turns Lewontin’s inane statement upside down:

“There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.” — Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind,1921, pp. 159- 60

Can you see that the truly unstable, unreliable, utterly mutable universe Lewontin imagines under a deity, is actually the highly probable state of nature if atheism were true and not at all if theism is true?

Thank God it isn’t!

Why else would Einstein consider that one of the most surprising attributes of nature to be that it is understandable?

“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility … The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle”
-Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, p. 462

Einstein was not an atheist by any means.

Thank God for that too.

Advertisements

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]
Simple.

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.

 

The Euthyphro dilemma?

This is, and has been for centuries, considered by atheists and anti-moralists as the ultimate refutation of God. Specifically of Divine Command theory.

This dilemma basically goes as follows:

In Plato’s dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates is attempting to understand the essence of piety and holiness:

Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?

Euthyphro: Certainly.

Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?

Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.

Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?

The dilemma Euthyphro faced is this: Is a thing good simply because the gods say it is? Or do the gods say a thing is good because of some other quality it has? If so, what is that quality? The problem stumped Euthyphro.

Russel put it this way:

If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God

First, I refer interested parties to the following sites: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236
and : http://www.charlesgfinney.com/1840skeletons/sk_lecture23.htm

These 2 sites offer or some good responses to this issue and teh Moral Law of in general. I will quote from one or the other in some small measure here.

Basically, no being can make law. But no law can exist without sanctions. And no sanctions can exist without a Ruling, conscious Magistrate to adiminster them…reason it farther – the ultimate conclusions are obvious enough – God’s existence is necessary to the existence of ultimates moral values.

However, nothing is easier than defining this *dilemma* out of existence. Why? Because there is no dilemma in the 1st place!

The pretended dilemma argues what it does not understand and founds it’s argument on a falsity, an incorrect presumption – that the moral Law and God are two separate things.

So, in one phrase it may be undone – “God is the Law and the Law is God.”

God is the inspirited, incarnate, Living Law – they are one. Not independant entities.

What is said of God is exactly what may be said of the Moral Law “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature”. Every thing that one can discern of all true objective moral realities can also be said of God himself.

And of course, this is the view of the bible and Christianity. “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because *God is love*.”

Love is good willing. It is benevolence. It is seeking the highest good. “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'”

The Law is One. An indivisible unit all summed up in one word “love” – agape – disinterested, unselfish good willing. And that so describes who and what God is, that the two are inseparable, immutable, unchangeable and eternally, mutually existent – one in the other.

Thus no God = no law and no law = no God. And thus the existence of God = existence of Law vice versa. So the very existence of a real, objective Moral Law running everywhere where there are sentient, self-deteminingbeings, is evidence of the existence of God.

Just as both philosophers (check Kant on this) and theologians and simple everyday people have been saying from times immemorial.

Do as you would be done by” is the worlds oldest, most universal command. It describes love which describes the Moral Law which describes who God is and what he is like.

As for the so-called tautologies and contradictions involved with the infamous “dilemma”, they are the very well documented territory of Darwinism and atheism as any one know if they’d really done any proper homework on the issue.