Who Created God?

 

 

Who Created God?

 

 

A  father was reading a story to his young son about cosmetology and likened the earth  to a ball sitting on the back of a huge turtle. The young boy replied “but dad who made the turtle and what is holding up the turtle” “The father replied it’s, “turtles all the way down.” To deny a first cause in the end is to deny reason and the principle of cause-and-effect which simply says that everything must have a cause that is equal or greater than itself.  If I find a complex computer in the wilderness I would automatically look for an intelligent life form that created it. I could say that it always existed but it seems that that would be begging the question and surely wouldn’t answer the need for a cause or the ground for understanding the computer. Young children may ask, “who made the turtle”  grown men do not.

Deep Time and Evolution

Deep Time and Evolution

Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch closer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else.[1] But this is exactly what some atheists attempt to do.[2]  They think they have explained existence by explaining evolution in some kind of narrative form. However, they have a number of large problems. (1) They must first prove that evolution is a science. That is if you believe that science is made up of knowledge that follows what is known as the scientific method[3]……….(2). let’s assume that you prove that evolution is a science. Then you  must prove one theory of evolution.[4] That is, you must prove that evolution is non-dirtected from outside of nature.(3) Then after proving 1 and 2 you must show how evolution of any kind proves that there is no God. In actuality, if you prove one and two all you have proven is that you have the ability to explain how something changed into something else. This may prove that you are intelligent and maybe that you have kissed the Blainey stone and that you are a great storyteller, but it proves nothing else.  An explanation that can never be proven by the scientific method is not science in the literal sense of the word.  Moreover, after all that work you still are not even close to explaining how something came from nothing.

In 2000 Henry Gee[5] who was the Senior Editor of Nature published his book “Deep Time” which was somewhat ignored by the scientific community and especially evolutionist. In the book he maintains that span of time in which evolution took place makes it almost if not impossible to have any rational conclusions about the fossil record. In speaking about the two conflicting views of evolution progressive and non-direct he says the following: “The failure of both use of evolution rest, once again, on the failure to understand that deep time cannot sustain scenarios based on narrative. I return, once again, to the thought experiment that is central to my argument. Next time you see a fossil ask yourself whether it could have belonged to your direct ancestor. Of course, it could be your ancestor, but you will never be able to know this for certain. To hypothesize that it might be your ancestor, then is futile, because your hypothesis would be untestable. So, to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not science.” Page 114 of Deep Time.

[1] G.K. Chesterton

[2] A few atheist in recent time have attempted to explain how something could come from nothing. However, a close reading at their books always end up pointing to a cause that is something.

[3] “There were five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Had anyone observed the phenomenon—in this case, Evolution—as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” test)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no. In other words, there was no scientific way to test it. Like every other cosmogony, it was a serious and sincere story meant to satisfy man’s endless curiosity about where he came from and how he came to be so different from the animals around him. But it was still a story. It was not evidence. In short, it was sincere, but sheer, literature.” “The Kingdom of Speech” by Tom Wolfe.

[4] The two main theories of evolution. There is Darwin’s that espouses random undirected evolution and there is the progressive that believes that there is a built in progressive element that improves and directs the species.

[5] Gee joined Nature as a reporter in 1987 and is now Senior Editor, Biological Sciences. He has published a number of books, including  In Search of Deep Time (1999),A Field Guide to Dinosaurs  (2003) and Jacob’s Ladder (2004).

“Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology”

Hi – I’m reading “Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology” by J. P. Moreland and wanted to share this quote with you.

“Science cannot be practiced in thin air; it is based on many assumptions this, each with its challenges. And the business of stating, criticizing, and defending its assumptions is not scientific but philosophical. Just as the structure of a building cannot be more reliable than the foundation on which it rests, so the conclusions of science (i.e., the structure) cannot be more certain than the presuppositions of science (i.e., its foundation).”

The book can be purchased in Kindle form on Amazon.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad

The New Atheist and Self-righteousness

The New Atheist and Self-righteousness

There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes,and yet is not washed from their filthiness. Proverbs 30:12

The new atheists think that they’re righteous because they have never really made an honest attempt to be righteous.  You never know how weak you are until you try to lift something heavy.  The new atheist believes that they are righteous because like many in the west they equate righteousness with believing the correct thing.  In other words, if you have the right doctrine, you are righteous.  They inherited this belief, that right doctrine equals righteousness, from evangelical Christianity which they so vivaciously hate.  Like all Pharisees they hate what they are and they detest their own shadow to the point that they deny that they even have one.

One man said of the new atheists that their thinking was “…attitudes masquerading as ideas, emotional commitments disguised as intellectual honesty.”  At first these remarks puzzled me and then I realized that the new atheist’s thinking did not have its origin in deep clear thinking and reasoning, but rather in attitudes and the emotions brought about by those attitudes.  The attitudes that come to my mind as typical of the new atheist type are rebellion, hubris and self-righteousness, which are very similar attitudes as those involved in the social justice movement. All of these attitudes are commonly found among younger people, especially young educated males.

Like so many young people of today the new atheists seem to be angry, but  why are they angry?  They are a part of the most spoiled and  pampered generation that’s ever been on the face of the earth.  The majority of the new atheist types are college graduates that have grown up with comfort, ease and pleasure beyond another generation’s imagination.

What are they angry about? They’re furious that the world, and it’s God, is not to their liking.  Yet they are frustrated that they don’t have the power to change it.  They only have the power to destroy it, which is the reason they are called ‘deconstructionists’ by many.  This deconstructionism can take many forms; it can be seen in the new atheist movement, the feminist movement and the social justice movement.  All of these movements have their roots in atheism and in the denial of the divine.  All of these movements are nihilistic in the end and create a people without God, without meaning and without any hope in the world.  The only meaning they seem to have is found in their deconstructionism and their utopia world view.  This can all be seen in the atheistic communist movement that destroyed everything in its path.

Are the new atheists righteous?  Well, if there is a God, they are not righteous, they are evil.  If there is no God it really doesn’t matter because the word righteousness would be just a word without any real content.

Let me end with one of my favorite quotes by an old type of atheist, an honest unbeliever.  Dr. E. Wengraf once confessed, “Every piece of anti-religious propaganda seems to me a crime.  I surely do not wish it to be prosecuted as a crime, but I consider it immoral and loathsome.  This not because of zeal for my convictions, but because of the simple knowledge, acquired through long experience that, given the same circumstances, a religious man is happier than the irreligious.  In my indifference and skeptical attitude toward all positive faith, I have often envied other men to whom deep religiosity has given a strong support in all the storms of life.  To uproot the souls of such men is an abject deed.  I abhor any proselytizing.  But still, I can understand why one who believes firmly in a saving faith tries to convert others.  But I cannot understand a propaganda of unbelief.  We do not have the right to take away from a person his protecting shelter, be it even a shabby hut, if we are not sure we can offer him a better, more beautiful house.  But to lure men from the inherited home of their souls, to make them err afterward in the wilderness of hypotheses and philosophical question marks, is either criminal fatalisms or criminal mindlessness.” Are the new atheists righteous? I guess not according to Dr. E. Wengraf.