Who made God? A question children WILL ask.
I love writing down my thoughts and things that I enjoy reading and also sharing. Now, in preparing this work, I came across a lot of objection to the existence of God. Many believe that God's existence is not logical at all. But here I will attempt to show that God's existence is not only logical but required for our existence. I will not use the Bible but use reason and science to show that God's existence within reason and logic.
Let's take a look at the argument or question "Who made God?" First the question is a failure of understanding who or what God is. Someone who asks that question "who made God?" thinks that in order for God to exist he must be made, since this person is admitting that for something to exist it must be created. Within our time, space and reality, that is true, but we must understand that God is not within our time and space, and reality. To say that since God is not part of our time, space and reality he can not exist is absurd. For example, everything that you see, all life, all material all live or exist within time, BUT they also live in their own APPOINTED time. We will all eventually pass on, but in our own time, some may live longer and others may not, so we exist within a period of time. What we create can only exist within a period of time. I can create something that can last for 20 years. In order for me to create I must exist outside of my creation, and am not subject to the time limit of my creation and neither to my creations properties and functionality.
So as we can see, there is simple logic to the reasoning in God's existence, he exists outside of our time and space, hence is not effected by natural laws. Hence can not be created or made, since logically he must be eternal, and outside of all that materially exists.
Science is based on many laws, one law is "cause and effect". This law is universally accepted because it is testable, and also within reason and logic. No effect is ever quantitatively "greater" nor quantitatively "superior" to it's cause. An effect can be lower than it's cause but never higher.
Let's use causal reasoning:
1. The First Cause of limitless Space: Must be Infinite.
2. The First Cause of Endless Time: Must be Eternal.
3. The First Cause of Boundless Energy: Must be Omnipotent.
4. The First Cause of Universal Interrelationships: Must be Omnipresent.
5. The First Cause of Infinite Complexity: Must be Omniscient.
6. The First Cause of Moral Values: Must be Moral.
7. The First Cause of Spiritual Values: Must be Spiritual.
8. The First Cause of Human Responsibility: Must be Volitional.
9. The First Cause of Human Integrity: Must be Truthful.
10. The First Cause of Human Love: Must be Loving.
11. The First Cause of Life: Must be Living.
Now, someone could object to these and say…"These are natural emotions, therefor God must be natural." But that is also untrue, since many emotions and knowledgeable truths cant be proven scientifically. They are metaphysical.
So far, I believe we have good reason to believe God exists, without using Scripture, but logic, and science i.e. the laws of cause and effect. And good reason to believe that God is uncaused, therefor is eternal and always existed.
Let's take another look at that question "Who made God?". Let's just assume that God had parents. He would still need to exist outside of our time and space, and he would still be our creator, he just wouldn't be God. Creator does not define God, but rather create is something God does. But since logic and science prove that God must be eternal, since the First Cause of Limitless Space and Time, God must be Infinite and Eternal. Therefore God would be limitless, i.e. Infinite and Eternal.
Now science doesn't prove there is a God, it does give us reason to believe logical that there MUST BE a God, and that in order for all to exist God is required. Let's look at science, and what science can't prove.
Truth is something Science can't prove.
1. Truth is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone's knowledge of it. Gravity existed prior to it's discovery.
2. Truth is transcultural; if something is true, it is true for all people, in all places, at all times. 2+2=4 for everyone, everywhere, at every time.
3. Truth is unchanging even though our BELIEFS about truth change. We believed it was true that the coelacanth was extinct, we were wrong, the truth was that it wasn't.
4. Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held.
5. Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it.
6. All truths are absolute truths. Even truths that appear to be relative are really absolute.
The mere existence of good and evil, is evidence of the existence of God. Honestly, does anyone think that good and evil are man made inventions?
Well, I'm sure if you decided to read this threw, or attempted to, you couldn't keep your eyes open or lost interest half way through and therefor wouldn't be reading this far so anyway. These are just a few of many reasons why the "Who made God" question or argument doesn't cary weight, since the laws of cause and effect shows that God is eternal etc.
Thanks for reading those who dared.
Elijah
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Science and Pseudoscience ....
Science and Pseudoscience...
I'm here thinking about truth. What is truth? I responded to an email I recently had with two Atheists/Evolutionists. I am thrown at the sheer illogical thought process that they so proudly throw around. They actually do not have a clue about themselves or what they are talking about. I wanted to proceed with my series on Darwinism and Evolution, with "Science and Pseudoscience." Now, I call Evolution a Pseudoscience, why? Because it is a pretender. It is a false science. Pseudo means.."not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham." Let's begin.
Science the search for truth.
Science should and always be a search for truth. Science is a way of learning, we learn from what is factual, not what is unprovable. Naturalist/Darwinist LOVE to say that science is always used to test things over and over to learn more about the world.
"Because that is science, it tests things over and over again to learn still more about the world. There's a reason its called science, not Truth-lessons. Science makes minor corrections along the way that's how we learn: From our mistakes." Anglicantian. (That is the screen name of the Darwinist I debated)
Science does test things, but not over and over again as to find the result we want, but to find the facts. Science is questioning a hypothesis or THEORY and if the result does not go along with the theory, the theory it's self is no longer considered. You can not continue to test 2+2 so that you can come up with something other than 4. You accept it because it is a fact. Is there a need to continue to test the math that 2+2 is not 4? No. His statement is that we take a theory and keep testing it till it becomes truth. NO. We take a theory and if the result does not support the theory, we throw out the theory and formulate a new one. We look for other possibilities. Not Evolutionists, they are bent on finding anything but the truth. They are looking for their own version of what is truth. It is a false truth. A pseudo-truth.
Everything in life is scientific. You use science every day of your life. In different forms but it's still science. The scientific method is something that we use as well. Children are tested in problem solving skills. That means they are tested according to the scientific method. The simplest analogy to use and probably the most popular is the example of a light bulb.
When you come home at night and turn on a light switch and suddenly there is no light at all. You have made an observation. No light, switch is on. So, now you form a hypothesis or prediction or a theory. You're first theory would probably be that the light bulb is out. You make another observation, you notice that all the lights in the house are out as well. You form the theory that maybe also the power in your home is out. Or maybe the neighborhood. So, now you have 3 theories.
1. Either the light bulb is out, because you have observed the light is out.
2. All the power in your home is out, because you have observed there is no light in your home.
3. The power is out in the entire neighborhood.
Let's go with the 3rd one. You go to your window and make an observation, that all the power seems to be on at the neighbors house. So you can determine that there is power to your neighborhood in which there should be power to your home. So because of observation the 3rd theory fails to be factual.
Let's go to your second theory. You theorize that the power in your house is out, but you have already observed that the power in your neighbors home is on so the chances of that happening are slim. You then go turn on a light in the other rooms, and bingo. You were correct, the light works. So, that 2nd theory is eliminated.
Now, the only conclusion left is that the light bulb is bad. You take the bulb out of the light and through observation you notice the light bulb is bad. Let's take this a step further, you replace a good light bulb in another light with the one that seems to be bad, and flip the switch and the light doesn't turn on. Therefor your first theory, that the bulb is indeed faulty, and is no longer a theory or a guess, BUT it is a fact.
Notice something? Everything that I mentioned, each process involves one thing, observation. If you can not observe it, what is to be concluded? The theory or guess, or hypothesis is not a valid one. So you then formulate another theory.
That is science, that is what science looks for, truth. Now, I'm not saying we can not question truth. We should always question truth, that way we learn more about the truth. Let's use this analogy and what Dawkins likes to call, the "Blind watchmaker" It's funny to me that Atheists/Evolutionists/Naturalists/Darwinist, seem to scoff at the analogy of finding a watch on a beach and coming to the only conclusion, the watch had to have a designer. Why is that hard to comprehend? Because their intelligence limits them.
Lets go ahead and use this analogy. Take a look at your watch, or your computer or anything around you. Let's say your computer. You know the function of your computer you know what it does. You know that your computer was put together for a specific reason, and that reason is to be a computer and nothing more. The truth is, you have a computer that functions, it is doing what it is designed to do, it may not always work properly, but still. You can not escape the fact that your computer is nothing more than a computer. You know it needs memory and a processor to run, you know that it needs a cd rom and a monitor. But can you still formulate the question as to why it does what it does? There is no doubt that it is a pc, and does what it does, but WHY does it function? That is how you question truth. You will know more about your computer and how and WHY it works when you question it's creator or designer. So yes, truth is questionable.
Science is a search for truth and in finding that truth, we must question that truth. That is how we learn, from truth.
The car and science
One analogy that I like to use is one that I personally feel is a divine personal revelation from our Creator. It's an argument that is in no way flawed, all tho many Darwinist will attempt to find a flaw in it, but so far the only thing they can do is willfully deny it's truth.
In this analogy I will explain scientific process, logic and reason. Another thing that I will touch on here is being open-minded. Now, when I say to be open-minded, I'm saying that within the scientific community one must be open-minded, because that's the very nature of science, to consider other alternatives. Regarding our faith in Christ, we are not open-minded to other religions but we are tolerant of people. If we were open minded to other religions, then we would leave ourselves open to Satan who is the author of man made religions in order to deceive. So, we are closed for a reason, so were not manipulated by Satan. I will touch more on this subject on open-mindedness in a later post called "Free will". Let's begin with the car analogy.
Naturalist/Darwinist are like husbands who try to change the battery in a car thinking that the reason the car wont start is because of the battery and only because of the battery. Not even considering the alternator. After all, the battery is not very hard to change and requires no owners manual to read and not as difficult as the alternator to change. So, Darwinist keep trying to change the battery (Darwinian Evolution) on the car (Creation) expecting the car to start. They believe they have the right idea, because without the battery (Darwinian Evolution) the car (Creation) wont start. We as creationist believe in the alternative which is the alternator (Creation Science) It is another alternative that MUST be considered. While the Darwinist/Naturalist seeks to waste money (Time and knowledge) on purchasing battery after battery (Darwinian Evolution) they get no where, and when asked.."Why doesn't it work?" They respond with.."We don't know." If they would stop and realize the alternative, and grab the owners manual (The Bible) and read it, they will understand how the alternator (Creation Science) works, and not only will they understand that, they will understand it's designer (God) the one who created the science of the car (Creation). When you understand that, it will open your eyes to why and how the car(Creation) works. And in changing the alternator(Creation Science) they will realize that this science will take them places they have never been or seen.
That is how science works, how it should work.
Darwinism above Science.
Now, I always tell Naturalist that God is scientific, He thinks scientifically. But, He also thinks outside the box of what we believe to be natural. Darwinist seem to think that the only answer is a naturalistic one. That is not the case. There have been many studies conducted my many scientists and experts within the fields of the paranormal. When attempting to discredit the claims Atheist or Darwinist simply look at the easiest claims to refute, or simply ignore the claims. There is also evidence to suggest that there is something beyond our reach, and understanding. But in studying and researching, we come to understand a little more each day. Micheal Shermer and renowned Atheist, and publisher of "Skeptic" magazine, has repeatedly denied any sort of evidence suggesting towards anything supernatural. A recent discovery was made of something called the "Iraq Battery" this "battery" is believed to be older than Christ, it is nothing but a clay pot, and and a copper plate, in the center a piece of iron, when this pot with it's contents are filled with "Orange juice" in which they did have, they had fruit or wine, in which they had, ore vinegar, the device exhibited electrical current. This experiment was done, and the out come was that there was indeed electricity used. Carvings within an ancient pyramid shows a sort of light bulb. The only people allowed in these pyramids were the priests, now note that hallways had no signs of any sort of fire or torches being lit, there was no residue on the walls or ceilings. In fact, the tombs are so deep, that there is not enough air for fire to burn, so fire could not have been used. There are also claims that they used a sort of mirror effect with gold or copper shields, when these shields were placed, they traced in the light of the sun through reflection, yet, when this theory was replicated the light died out before it reached the deepest parts of the halls and rooms of the pyramids where these priests would be. Now, as I spoke of Micheal Shermer, his response to this was..."So what." So what? Through science we have developed a provable and observable technique that they may have used to light the insides of the pyramids and Shermer says "So what."??
Here is the problem that I believe I have found. Mr. Shermer has willfully ignored the evidence that supports a learned intelligence, because from our understanding the light bulb INCLUDING electricity would not be discovered for thousands of years. These people got their knowledge from someone, who? Shermer denies these, not because they are not possible or science has refuted them, on the contrary, it is through science that we have discovered these things. He has denied it for the fact that he is an Atheist, and the evidence suggests a "higher knowledge" was at work here, and he denies it, because he must, out of his personal ideology.
Mr. Shermer and Dawkins, and Hitchens and other Naturalist Philosophers and Scientists call themselves skeptics, well...the word skeptic actually is rooted in meaning "To view from afar." They are skeptic of the existence of God, and the supernatural, they believe that science only has natural explanations and have basically brainwashed an entire generation of young people to this thinking. Well, my question is this...If skeptic means to "view from afar" then how is it that you get to know something or someone? Naturally, one must approach a person to get to know them, to investigate, to come to understand them a little better. If you're a skeptic, maybe it's because you have willfully refused to understand what you say or refuse to accept. They call this science, I call it Pseudoscience.
Thanks for stopping by and reading. My next posting will be on the outrageous claims that Darwinist make.
I'm here thinking about truth. What is truth? I responded to an email I recently had with two Atheists/Evolutionists. I am thrown at the sheer illogical thought process that they so proudly throw around. They actually do not have a clue about themselves or what they are talking about. I wanted to proceed with my series on Darwinism and Evolution, with "Science and Pseudoscience." Now, I call Evolution a Pseudoscience, why? Because it is a pretender. It is a false science. Pseudo means.."not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham." Let's begin.
Science the search for truth.
Science should and always be a search for truth. Science is a way of learning, we learn from what is factual, not what is unprovable. Naturalist/Darwinist LOVE to say that science is always used to test things over and over to learn more about the world.
"Because that is science, it tests things over and over again to learn still more about the world. There's a reason its called science, not Truth-lessons. Science makes minor corrections along the way that's how we learn: From our mistakes." Anglicantian. (That is the screen name of the Darwinist I debated)
Science does test things, but not over and over again as to find the result we want, but to find the facts. Science is questioning a hypothesis or THEORY and if the result does not go along with the theory, the theory it's self is no longer considered. You can not continue to test 2+2 so that you can come up with something other than 4. You accept it because it is a fact. Is there a need to continue to test the math that 2+2 is not 4? No. His statement is that we take a theory and keep testing it till it becomes truth. NO. We take a theory and if the result does not support the theory, we throw out the theory and formulate a new one. We look for other possibilities. Not Evolutionists, they are bent on finding anything but the truth. They are looking for their own version of what is truth. It is a false truth. A pseudo-truth.
Everything in life is scientific. You use science every day of your life. In different forms but it's still science. The scientific method is something that we use as well. Children are tested in problem solving skills. That means they are tested according to the scientific method. The simplest analogy to use and probably the most popular is the example of a light bulb.
When you come home at night and turn on a light switch and suddenly there is no light at all. You have made an observation. No light, switch is on. So, now you form a hypothesis or prediction or a theory. You're first theory would probably be that the light bulb is out. You make another observation, you notice that all the lights in the house are out as well. You form the theory that maybe also the power in your home is out. Or maybe the neighborhood. So, now you have 3 theories.
1. Either the light bulb is out, because you have observed the light is out.
2. All the power in your home is out, because you have observed there is no light in your home.
3. The power is out in the entire neighborhood.
Let's go with the 3rd one. You go to your window and make an observation, that all the power seems to be on at the neighbors house. So you can determine that there is power to your neighborhood in which there should be power to your home. So because of observation the 3rd theory fails to be factual.
Let's go to your second theory. You theorize that the power in your house is out, but you have already observed that the power in your neighbors home is on so the chances of that happening are slim. You then go turn on a light in the other rooms, and bingo. You were correct, the light works. So, that 2nd theory is eliminated.
Now, the only conclusion left is that the light bulb is bad. You take the bulb out of the light and through observation you notice the light bulb is bad. Let's take this a step further, you replace a good light bulb in another light with the one that seems to be bad, and flip the switch and the light doesn't turn on. Therefor your first theory, that the bulb is indeed faulty, and is no longer a theory or a guess, BUT it is a fact.
Notice something? Everything that I mentioned, each process involves one thing, observation. If you can not observe it, what is to be concluded? The theory or guess, or hypothesis is not a valid one. So you then formulate another theory.
That is science, that is what science looks for, truth. Now, I'm not saying we can not question truth. We should always question truth, that way we learn more about the truth. Let's use this analogy and what Dawkins likes to call, the "Blind watchmaker" It's funny to me that Atheists/Evolutionists/Naturalists/Darwinist, seem to scoff at the analogy of finding a watch on a beach and coming to the only conclusion, the watch had to have a designer. Why is that hard to comprehend? Because their intelligence limits them.
Lets go ahead and use this analogy. Take a look at your watch, or your computer or anything around you. Let's say your computer. You know the function of your computer you know what it does. You know that your computer was put together for a specific reason, and that reason is to be a computer and nothing more. The truth is, you have a computer that functions, it is doing what it is designed to do, it may not always work properly, but still. You can not escape the fact that your computer is nothing more than a computer. You know it needs memory and a processor to run, you know that it needs a cd rom and a monitor. But can you still formulate the question as to why it does what it does? There is no doubt that it is a pc, and does what it does, but WHY does it function? That is how you question truth. You will know more about your computer and how and WHY it works when you question it's creator or designer. So yes, truth is questionable.
Science is a search for truth and in finding that truth, we must question that truth. That is how we learn, from truth.
The car and science
One analogy that I like to use is one that I personally feel is a divine personal revelation from our Creator. It's an argument that is in no way flawed, all tho many Darwinist will attempt to find a flaw in it, but so far the only thing they can do is willfully deny it's truth.
In this analogy I will explain scientific process, logic and reason. Another thing that I will touch on here is being open-minded. Now, when I say to be open-minded, I'm saying that within the scientific community one must be open-minded, because that's the very nature of science, to consider other alternatives. Regarding our faith in Christ, we are not open-minded to other religions but we are tolerant of people. If we were open minded to other religions, then we would leave ourselves open to Satan who is the author of man made religions in order to deceive. So, we are closed for a reason, so were not manipulated by Satan. I will touch more on this subject on open-mindedness in a later post called "Free will". Let's begin with the car analogy.
Naturalist/Darwinist are like husbands who try to change the battery in a car thinking that the reason the car wont start is because of the battery and only because of the battery. Not even considering the alternator. After all, the battery is not very hard to change and requires no owners manual to read and not as difficult as the alternator to change. So, Darwinist keep trying to change the battery (Darwinian Evolution) on the car (Creation) expecting the car to start. They believe they have the right idea, because without the battery (Darwinian Evolution) the car (Creation) wont start. We as creationist believe in the alternative which is the alternator (Creation Science) It is another alternative that MUST be considered. While the Darwinist/Naturalist seeks to waste money (Time and knowledge) on purchasing battery after battery (Darwinian Evolution) they get no where, and when asked.."Why doesn't it work?" They respond with.."We don't know." If they would stop and realize the alternative, and grab the owners manual (The Bible) and read it, they will understand how the alternator (Creation Science) works, and not only will they understand that, they will understand it's designer (God) the one who created the science of the car (Creation). When you understand that, it will open your eyes to why and how the car(Creation) works. And in changing the alternator(Creation Science) they will realize that this science will take them places they have never been or seen.
That is how science works, how it should work.
Darwinism above Science.
Now, I always tell Naturalist that God is scientific, He thinks scientifically. But, He also thinks outside the box of what we believe to be natural. Darwinist seem to think that the only answer is a naturalistic one. That is not the case. There have been many studies conducted my many scientists and experts within the fields of the paranormal. When attempting to discredit the claims Atheist or Darwinist simply look at the easiest claims to refute, or simply ignore the claims. There is also evidence to suggest that there is something beyond our reach, and understanding. But in studying and researching, we come to understand a little more each day. Micheal Shermer and renowned Atheist, and publisher of "Skeptic" magazine, has repeatedly denied any sort of evidence suggesting towards anything supernatural. A recent discovery was made of something called the "Iraq Battery" this "battery" is believed to be older than Christ, it is nothing but a clay pot, and and a copper plate, in the center a piece of iron, when this pot with it's contents are filled with "Orange juice" in which they did have, they had fruit or wine, in which they had, ore vinegar, the device exhibited electrical current. This experiment was done, and the out come was that there was indeed electricity used. Carvings within an ancient pyramid shows a sort of light bulb. The only people allowed in these pyramids were the priests, now note that hallways had no signs of any sort of fire or torches being lit, there was no residue on the walls or ceilings. In fact, the tombs are so deep, that there is not enough air for fire to burn, so fire could not have been used. There are also claims that they used a sort of mirror effect with gold or copper shields, when these shields were placed, they traced in the light of the sun through reflection, yet, when this theory was replicated the light died out before it reached the deepest parts of the halls and rooms of the pyramids where these priests would be. Now, as I spoke of Micheal Shermer, his response to this was..."So what." So what? Through science we have developed a provable and observable technique that they may have used to light the insides of the pyramids and Shermer says "So what."??
Here is the problem that I believe I have found. Mr. Shermer has willfully ignored the evidence that supports a learned intelligence, because from our understanding the light bulb INCLUDING electricity would not be discovered for thousands of years. These people got their knowledge from someone, who? Shermer denies these, not because they are not possible or science has refuted them, on the contrary, it is through science that we have discovered these things. He has denied it for the fact that he is an Atheist, and the evidence suggests a "higher knowledge" was at work here, and he denies it, because he must, out of his personal ideology.
Mr. Shermer and Dawkins, and Hitchens and other Naturalist Philosophers and Scientists call themselves skeptics, well...the word skeptic actually is rooted in meaning "To view from afar." They are skeptic of the existence of God, and the supernatural, they believe that science only has natural explanations and have basically brainwashed an entire generation of young people to this thinking. Well, my question is this...If skeptic means to "view from afar" then how is it that you get to know something or someone? Naturally, one must approach a person to get to know them, to investigate, to come to understand them a little better. If you're a skeptic, maybe it's because you have willfully refused to understand what you say or refuse to accept. They call this science, I call it Pseudoscience.
Thanks for stopping by and reading. My next posting will be on the outrageous claims that Darwinist make.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Logic ...
Hello Everyone,
I'm here again continuing my series on God vs Atheism or Creation vs Darwinian Evolution. In this post I will touch on logic. What seems logical and illogical. What Atheists/Darwinist perceive as logical and illogical. Now, what I will be discussing here is more of what has been discussed before but using it in a logical way and pointing out the differences between the logical views of Creation and God to the illogical views of the Atheist or Darwinist. Their illogical use of facts and words, and the claims they make that seem so far fetched. Lets begin shall we?
Thought process...
It's hard to comprehend the thought process of an Atheist/Darwinist because it's so unsystematic that it is difficult to find the logic within their arguments. As a matter of fact it is down right impossible. Where Atheist/Darwinist often fail at is of course their reasoning. You see, they have none. They ask illogical questions like, "Could God create a rock so big he could not lift it?" The question is self defeating. The question violates a logical principal known as the law of the excluded middle which states that a = 'not a'. How much power would it take to make a = not a? See how illogical the question is? That is a question I have been asked many times before and frankly my reply is "That question is so illogical that it has no baring on this discussion." This question is a set up, it distracts from the real question "Does God exist." The person posing this can "Can God lift a rock" question is not interested in the existence of God but intent on trapping the Christian. Since as Christians we believe that God is all powerful, then the question is set up to make one think, that 1. If God is all powerful then he can create a rock so big. 2. If he can't lift the rock then he's not all powerful. It's not a logical question. What they are really asking is this.."Can God can't?" Can God can't do something? The question is absurd and flawed. Only an Atheist/Darwinist who is illogical would ask such an illogical question.
As you can see it's an illogical thought process. Here are a few more questions that I have been asked by Atheists/Darwinist. I just also want to add that some of these answers to their questions took a lot of thought and research. Because I wasn't about to answer them with.."I don't know."
I was asked.."Can God create a being who's actions he can not predict?" No, then God would not be sovereign in certain ways. Another one I've been asked is. "Can God create a place where he can not be?" No, then he would not be omnipresent. The bible states that God upholds all things. See, Atheist have a flawed logic that has no real basis for their beliefs.
Illogical reasons why they don't believe in God..
In a recent debate I had with an Atheist/Darwinist, he gave me reasons as to why he did not believe in God. Here are his reasons.
"Finally, I would like to tell you why I do not believe in a God. A God should in my opinion, in order to actually be a God, be perfect and infallible. In Genesis, I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that God produces man in Gods image, thus man is perfect? And in general that all things God creates, animals included, are perfect. So my problems are: Human fetuses grow clearly visible tails. Until the 8. Week, at which point it starts disappearing again, although some few are born with an actual tail. To me this more than indicates that we share an ancestor with a tailed being, a sort of ape. At the same time, I could never understand why a God would make fetuses with tails, which are of no use."
Notice where he talks about babies growing tails within the womb of their mothers. He indicates that is an example of a common ancestry with a tailed being. Where he sees it as a common ancestry, I see as a common designer, but wait, earlier in our discussion he said..that we did not evolve from apes, but an ape type. 1. There is no evidence to this day that supports that theory. 2. If we did not come from apes then we must have come from an all human line, in which would refute the Darwinian belief that we all came from apes. So then who was our ancestor? Was it an ape or not? Their answer is.."It's ape like." That's not an answer nor is there evidence to support it. Another thing, not all humans are born with tails and the odds of that happening are slim. It is a mutation and not a beneficial one. Darwinist believe through BENEFICIAL mutations that we evolve into a higher species. Problem here, if we are to evolve into a higher species then having a tail would be backwards. Since we can not evolve backwards. So, a human with a tail is not evidence enough to prove Darwinian Evolution. So, here his logic has failed him. Now I would also like to touch on his first statement that God must be perfect to create the perfect being and then he asks "Were perfect?" What he fails to understand here is Adam made a choice and that choice he made ruined us all basically. Because of mans sin and free will, we are not perfect. Only God is perfect. I'm going to touch more on this subject soon in my post called "Free will." I did relay all this to him. But I will also say that we are not perfect only God is perfect. At the time of Adams creation God did not have to send his son to die on the cross, because there was no sin, no imperfection. And since we are imperfect that separates us from Gods perfection. Therefor Christ coming down to bridge the gap between our imperfections to the perfection of God. Again, I'll touch on this more in a later post.
Here is another reason why he does not believe in God. Now, Atheist/Darwinist believe that we have no need for some of our body parts or what they call vestigial organs. For example they believe we don't need all our toes. Problem, without our toes we would not be able to run very well and lose balance.
"Similarly, modern day whales, f.x. the Greenland whale, have a rudimentary pelvis. Whales have no legs, thus a pelvis is of no use to it. I could never understand why God would have made whales with a useless hip-section."
Remember God doesn't create things for no reason. Everything has a reason. Now, this section is a little forward in which I speak of the sexual organs of these magnificent creatures of God's creation. So, please do not be offended, it was used to describe their use, and if you look at it this way, God created these organs for this purpose.
My response:
"The pelvic bones of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.
In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus.
The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion."
So, as you can see what he believes to be "vestigial" I believe that God created them for a purpose.
This next one is probably one of the silliest or most illogical reasons I have ever read. He states..
"Now, these are only a few examples. Other examples are that the "perfect" human eye has a blind spot, and that giraffes have 6 meters of tangled nerves, resulting in an inability to say anything (they're mute)"
Now, here's the problem with his example or reason I should say. He talks about the human eye being flawed. This is a statement made by Atheist/Darwinist for years and yet, they refuse to answer the simple question posed to them by making this statement. Let's go ahead and start with the claim that the human eye is "imperfect" Now, remember something..Atheist/Darwinist will only believe in what their told to believe by Atheistic scientists, who put their personal beliefs before science. I'm going to quote from Atheist/Darwinist Michael Shermer, he states..
"The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but 'intelligence' in its design. It is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses—which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain...."
Now, quickly, I will pose the question. He says the eye shows no intelligence, yet...he can see with it can he not? Of course, then the design of the eye works. Now, he's saying how wrong the eye is built, now he's comparing that to what? If you're going to say that the human eye is built wrong, you must compare it not an animals eye but to another humans eye. Guess what? They can't. They keep making illogical assumptions about how the human eye is flawed yet, having nothing to make the comparison. You can not compare a bad apple to a good orange, yes they both are fruits, and are both round. They both have seeds, but one is designed to be an orange and the other an apple. They both grow on trees, but they also have different properties to them. They are designed for a specific need. So to properly evaluate a bad apple you must have a perfect apple to make the comparison. Now, here is what I like to call a desperate attempt to validate their "bad eye" belief.
Mr. Shermer goes on to state..
""An intelligent designer, working with the components of this wiring, would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. No one, for example, would suggest that the neural connections should be placed in front of the photoreceptor cells -- thus blocking the light from reaching them -- rather than behind the retina."
Funny thing, he talks like he knows how to create a better eye. I would challenge Mr. Shermer to go ahead and create a better eye. (Science has made several attempts and FAILED.) All so Mr. Shermer, why don't you call your eye doctor and have him rewire your eye and see what happens. Odds are, you're going to be blind.
They also make these assumptions.
"The result of this design is a blind spot in the human eye. The Mollusc eye has better vision and no blind spot."
People, the Mollusc is a snail. Now, snails die when you pour salt on them. Do you hear them complaining? It's not logical to compare a human to a snail. Here's the problem with arguing the errors of the eye to the perfect eye of the mollusc. If Darwinian Evolution were true, that means we came from simplicity to complexity, then why is it that the eye of the mollusc a more simple creature's eyes are far better than our own? I will tell you why, because we are designed according to our own species.
They also give this example..
"David Hitt asks an interesting question: "we are surrounded by examples of eyes at all stages of development, from the highly developed (but still flawed) human eye to simple light sensitive cells on some creatures, and everything in between. If they were created, why would God limit some creatures to poor sight and give good sight to others?"
This question or statement assumes that all creatures have a need for perfect sight. That is not true. The reason for it, and I'll say it again..is because we are designed according to our kind, and our needs.
One more..
"Turtles see in 4 primary colors whilst humans only see in three. The turtle therefore also has a better eye than a human."
Here's my response to this. So?? Do you hear anyone complaining that they don't see that 4th primary color? NO. This argument is more like that of a whining or jealous child. I'm reminded of the feisty Verruca Salt from Willie Wonka, who wanted everything better than the other kids or wanted more then what they had, because she felt she deserved it. This argument does not disprove the existence of God, but more proves that those who complain are more like that of an ungrateful child. It has no logic at all.
Now, I would also like to get back to the second part of the reasons the young Atheist/Darwinist gave me. If you recall he mentioned the eye and it's flaws. But he also mentions the giraffe. Here he states...
"hat giraffes have 6 meters of tangled nerves, resulting in an inability to say anything (they're mute)."
Now, here's my question. Since when do giraffes have any kind of need to say a word?? Anyone? He's basically saying that because giraffes can't talk, then that is part of the reason why he doesn't believe in God. Does that make much sense? NO. I will go into detail on a few things regarding the giraffe. Why is it that only this animal is designed the way it is? Let me show you what I mean.
Why is the heart of the Giraffe so big? Because the neck of the Giraffe extends so high into the air, the heart must contain an extraordinarily strong pump to force the blood from the lower body to the highest reaches of the brain. Thus, the first capability unique to the giraffe is a heart that is also a most powerful pump.
However, when the giraffe lowers its neck to drink, the blood that is circulating in its neck will suddenly come rushing down by the force of gravity. This sudden rush of blood is so strong, it would quickly cause the giraffe to suffer a brain aneurysm, killing the animal instantly. Therefore, the second capability is that spigots are built into his neck arteries that instantly close down whenever the animal lowers its neck to drink water.
However, when the giraffe abruptly raises its head after drinking, the blood would flow so rapidly downward through the force of gravity that the animal would suffer a sudden loss of blood to the brain, thus causing him to pass out cold. However, God has built a third capability that prevents this from occurring. The brain has a sponge-like material just behind the brain that has gradually been absorbing blood all the time the giraffe has been drinking. When the giraffe suddenly raises his head, that blood very slowly drains out of the brain, thus keeping the giraffe from passing out, while the spigots open up and the blood begins to flow naturally.
Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe.
The Giraffe also by itself utterly disproves Evolution.
Now, you see where the Atheist/Darwinist fail to use their logic. It is logic that points to a divine creator, an all knowing, all loving God. I'll show you one more argument,and I'll make this one quick. This is another debate by a gentleman by the name of Matt, who debated an Atheist.
Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.
Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
Matt: Then you know there is no God?
Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes..Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism... Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist...
Matt: That is what I said...which are you?
Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained...
Matt: So, you know there is no god?
Atheist: Yes.
Matt: How can you know that?
Atheist: It's a reasonable assumption. If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.
Matt: Then you cannot KNOW there is no God. Your strong atheism is illogical.
Atheist: Let's look at Christianity. It runs on faith. Faith is not logical. It gives credence to unicorns, goblins and thing s that go bump in the night.
Matt: Nope. The subject is your atheism. Please don't try to change the subject.
Atheist: The subject can jump where ever.
Matt: Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God.
Atheist: I will defend, but also place in attack. Try to defend faith
Matt: One subject at a time....You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
Atheist: You can never see all evidences but that does not mean there is a god.
Matt: Correct.
Atheist: No, that means there is not enough information for a conclusion. So we make assumptions as best we can according to our knowledge...
Matt: But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical.
Atheist: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe there is no god...
Matt: Then that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.
Atheist: And so must you... But you picked a side.
Matt: Then it [your atheism] is not logical, but only assumptions you base your atheism on. Your atheism is untenable.... You must admit that agnosticism is more logically viable. If you admit that, we can discuss my faith.
Atheist: I'm not ignorant to say I don't use faith. But only the usage of faith in a situation that remains provable.
Matt: So, are you agnostic or atheist? which is it?
Atheist: Atheist.
Matt: You've lost the argument. Sorry...
Atheist: Wrong. What you're doing is a ploy. You bring me over.. but you stay the same. Either you must move over as well or the argument is mute in the first place. One can not keep faith and call his beliefs logical. For a bit I will stray over to the agnostic side. But I am willing to state instances where I believe prove my contention that there is no god.
Matt: You have been cornered.... It is not logical for you to claim strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God's existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation.
Now, I don't know if you noticed but there are two problems with the Atheist. One was his tactic. He tried to divert the conversation away from the error he makes regarding his atheism. Two, he inadvertently admitted that it takes faith to believe there is no God.
In conclusion, you have seen the arguments that Atheists/Darwinist make. They use no logic, but what they do use is a blind faith. As our Christian faith is built on what we experience, and that experience is salvation, for Christ is our foundation in which our faith is built upon. Where the faith of an Atheist, has nothing to build on. It is a faith built on sand and not evidence or logic. Our faith stands on the word of God, proven through out history. It is all logical.
I hope you enjoyed this post, I know this was one of the longer ones. I hope you found it interesting. My next post in this series will be on Science and Pseudoscience. Thank you for reading. Remember, logic is a understanding. To know, to understand your purpose, your reason. To see logically that it takes an infinite mind to understand who you are. The logical thing to do, is to seek He who created you and allow Him to show you who you really are.
God bless...
I'm here again continuing my series on God vs Atheism or Creation vs Darwinian Evolution. In this post I will touch on logic. What seems logical and illogical. What Atheists/Darwinist perceive as logical and illogical. Now, what I will be discussing here is more of what has been discussed before but using it in a logical way and pointing out the differences between the logical views of Creation and God to the illogical views of the Atheist or Darwinist. Their illogical use of facts and words, and the claims they make that seem so far fetched. Lets begin shall we?
Thought process...
It's hard to comprehend the thought process of an Atheist/Darwinist because it's so unsystematic that it is difficult to find the logic within their arguments. As a matter of fact it is down right impossible. Where Atheist/Darwinist often fail at is of course their reasoning. You see, they have none. They ask illogical questions like, "Could God create a rock so big he could not lift it?" The question is self defeating. The question violates a logical principal known as the law of the excluded middle which states that a = 'not a'. How much power would it take to make a = not a? See how illogical the question is? That is a question I have been asked many times before and frankly my reply is "That question is so illogical that it has no baring on this discussion." This question is a set up, it distracts from the real question "Does God exist." The person posing this can "Can God lift a rock" question is not interested in the existence of God but intent on trapping the Christian. Since as Christians we believe that God is all powerful, then the question is set up to make one think, that 1. If God is all powerful then he can create a rock so big. 2. If he can't lift the rock then he's not all powerful. It's not a logical question. What they are really asking is this.."Can God can't?" Can God can't do something? The question is absurd and flawed. Only an Atheist/Darwinist who is illogical would ask such an illogical question.
As you can see it's an illogical thought process. Here are a few more questions that I have been asked by Atheists/Darwinist. I just also want to add that some of these answers to their questions took a lot of thought and research. Because I wasn't about to answer them with.."I don't know."
I was asked.."Can God create a being who's actions he can not predict?" No, then God would not be sovereign in certain ways. Another one I've been asked is. "Can God create a place where he can not be?" No, then he would not be omnipresent. The bible states that God upholds all things. See, Atheist have a flawed logic that has no real basis for their beliefs.
Illogical reasons why they don't believe in God..
In a recent debate I had with an Atheist/Darwinist, he gave me reasons as to why he did not believe in God. Here are his reasons.
"Finally, I would like to tell you why I do not believe in a God. A God should in my opinion, in order to actually be a God, be perfect and infallible. In Genesis, I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that God produces man in Gods image, thus man is perfect? And in general that all things God creates, animals included, are perfect. So my problems are: Human fetuses grow clearly visible tails. Until the 8. Week, at which point it starts disappearing again, although some few are born with an actual tail. To me this more than indicates that we share an ancestor with a tailed being, a sort of ape. At the same time, I could never understand why a God would make fetuses with tails, which are of no use."
Notice where he talks about babies growing tails within the womb of their mothers. He indicates that is an example of a common ancestry with a tailed being. Where he sees it as a common ancestry, I see as a common designer, but wait, earlier in our discussion he said..that we did not evolve from apes, but an ape type. 1. There is no evidence to this day that supports that theory. 2. If we did not come from apes then we must have come from an all human line, in which would refute the Darwinian belief that we all came from apes. So then who was our ancestor? Was it an ape or not? Their answer is.."It's ape like." That's not an answer nor is there evidence to support it. Another thing, not all humans are born with tails and the odds of that happening are slim. It is a mutation and not a beneficial one. Darwinist believe through BENEFICIAL mutations that we evolve into a higher species. Problem here, if we are to evolve into a higher species then having a tail would be backwards. Since we can not evolve backwards. So, a human with a tail is not evidence enough to prove Darwinian Evolution. So, here his logic has failed him. Now I would also like to touch on his first statement that God must be perfect to create the perfect being and then he asks "Were perfect?" What he fails to understand here is Adam made a choice and that choice he made ruined us all basically. Because of mans sin and free will, we are not perfect. Only God is perfect. I'm going to touch more on this subject soon in my post called "Free will." I did relay all this to him. But I will also say that we are not perfect only God is perfect. At the time of Adams creation God did not have to send his son to die on the cross, because there was no sin, no imperfection. And since we are imperfect that separates us from Gods perfection. Therefor Christ coming down to bridge the gap between our imperfections to the perfection of God. Again, I'll touch on this more in a later post.
Here is another reason why he does not believe in God. Now, Atheist/Darwinist believe that we have no need for some of our body parts or what they call vestigial organs. For example they believe we don't need all our toes. Problem, without our toes we would not be able to run very well and lose balance.
"Similarly, modern day whales, f.x. the Greenland whale, have a rudimentary pelvis. Whales have no legs, thus a pelvis is of no use to it. I could never understand why God would have made whales with a useless hip-section."
Remember God doesn't create things for no reason. Everything has a reason. Now, this section is a little forward in which I speak of the sexual organs of these magnificent creatures of God's creation. So, please do not be offended, it was used to describe their use, and if you look at it this way, God created these organs for this purpose.
My response:
"The pelvic bones of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.
In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus.
The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion."
So, as you can see what he believes to be "vestigial" I believe that God created them for a purpose.
This next one is probably one of the silliest or most illogical reasons I have ever read. He states..
"Now, these are only a few examples. Other examples are that the "perfect" human eye has a blind spot, and that giraffes have 6 meters of tangled nerves, resulting in an inability to say anything (they're mute)"
Now, here's the problem with his example or reason I should say. He talks about the human eye being flawed. This is a statement made by Atheist/Darwinist for years and yet, they refuse to answer the simple question posed to them by making this statement. Let's go ahead and start with the claim that the human eye is "imperfect" Now, remember something..Atheist/Darwinist will only believe in what their told to believe by Atheistic scientists, who put their personal beliefs before science. I'm going to quote from Atheist/Darwinist Michael Shermer, he states..
"The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but 'intelligence' in its design. It is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses—which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain...."
Now, quickly, I will pose the question. He says the eye shows no intelligence, yet...he can see with it can he not? Of course, then the design of the eye works. Now, he's saying how wrong the eye is built, now he's comparing that to what? If you're going to say that the human eye is built wrong, you must compare it not an animals eye but to another humans eye. Guess what? They can't. They keep making illogical assumptions about how the human eye is flawed yet, having nothing to make the comparison. You can not compare a bad apple to a good orange, yes they both are fruits, and are both round. They both have seeds, but one is designed to be an orange and the other an apple. They both grow on trees, but they also have different properties to them. They are designed for a specific need. So to properly evaluate a bad apple you must have a perfect apple to make the comparison. Now, here is what I like to call a desperate attempt to validate their "bad eye" belief.
Mr. Shermer goes on to state..
""An intelligent designer, working with the components of this wiring, would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. No one, for example, would suggest that the neural connections should be placed in front of the photoreceptor cells -- thus blocking the light from reaching them -- rather than behind the retina."
Funny thing, he talks like he knows how to create a better eye. I would challenge Mr. Shermer to go ahead and create a better eye. (Science has made several attempts and FAILED.) All so Mr. Shermer, why don't you call your eye doctor and have him rewire your eye and see what happens. Odds are, you're going to be blind.
They also make these assumptions.
"The result of this design is a blind spot in the human eye. The Mollusc eye has better vision and no blind spot."
People, the Mollusc is a snail. Now, snails die when you pour salt on them. Do you hear them complaining? It's not logical to compare a human to a snail. Here's the problem with arguing the errors of the eye to the perfect eye of the mollusc. If Darwinian Evolution were true, that means we came from simplicity to complexity, then why is it that the eye of the mollusc a more simple creature's eyes are far better than our own? I will tell you why, because we are designed according to our own species.
They also give this example..
"David Hitt asks an interesting question: "we are surrounded by examples of eyes at all stages of development, from the highly developed (but still flawed) human eye to simple light sensitive cells on some creatures, and everything in between. If they were created, why would God limit some creatures to poor sight and give good sight to others?"
This question or statement assumes that all creatures have a need for perfect sight. That is not true. The reason for it, and I'll say it again..is because we are designed according to our kind, and our needs.
One more..
"Turtles see in 4 primary colors whilst humans only see in three. The turtle therefore also has a better eye than a human."
Here's my response to this. So?? Do you hear anyone complaining that they don't see that 4th primary color? NO. This argument is more like that of a whining or jealous child. I'm reminded of the feisty Verruca Salt from Willie Wonka, who wanted everything better than the other kids or wanted more then what they had, because she felt she deserved it. This argument does not disprove the existence of God, but more proves that those who complain are more like that of an ungrateful child. It has no logic at all.
Now, I would also like to get back to the second part of the reasons the young Atheist/Darwinist gave me. If you recall he mentioned the eye and it's flaws. But he also mentions the giraffe. Here he states...
"hat giraffes have 6 meters of tangled nerves, resulting in an inability to say anything (they're mute)."
Now, here's my question. Since when do giraffes have any kind of need to say a word?? Anyone? He's basically saying that because giraffes can't talk, then that is part of the reason why he doesn't believe in God. Does that make much sense? NO. I will go into detail on a few things regarding the giraffe. Why is it that only this animal is designed the way it is? Let me show you what I mean.
Why is the heart of the Giraffe so big? Because the neck of the Giraffe extends so high into the air, the heart must contain an extraordinarily strong pump to force the blood from the lower body to the highest reaches of the brain. Thus, the first capability unique to the giraffe is a heart that is also a most powerful pump.
However, when the giraffe lowers its neck to drink, the blood that is circulating in its neck will suddenly come rushing down by the force of gravity. This sudden rush of blood is so strong, it would quickly cause the giraffe to suffer a brain aneurysm, killing the animal instantly. Therefore, the second capability is that spigots are built into his neck arteries that instantly close down whenever the animal lowers its neck to drink water.
However, when the giraffe abruptly raises its head after drinking, the blood would flow so rapidly downward through the force of gravity that the animal would suffer a sudden loss of blood to the brain, thus causing him to pass out cold. However, God has built a third capability that prevents this from occurring. The brain has a sponge-like material just behind the brain that has gradually been absorbing blood all the time the giraffe has been drinking. When the giraffe suddenly raises his head, that blood very slowly drains out of the brain, thus keeping the giraffe from passing out, while the spigots open up and the blood begins to flow naturally.
Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe.
The Giraffe also by itself utterly disproves Evolution.
Now, you see where the Atheist/Darwinist fail to use their logic. It is logic that points to a divine creator, an all knowing, all loving God. I'll show you one more argument,and I'll make this one quick. This is another debate by a gentleman by the name of Matt, who debated an Atheist.
Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.
Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
Matt: Then you know there is no God?
Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes..Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism... Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist...
Matt: That is what I said...which are you?
Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained...
Matt: So, you know there is no god?
Atheist: Yes.
Matt: How can you know that?
Atheist: It's a reasonable assumption. If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.
Matt: Then you cannot KNOW there is no God. Your strong atheism is illogical.
Atheist: Let's look at Christianity. It runs on faith. Faith is not logical. It gives credence to unicorns, goblins and thing s that go bump in the night.
Matt: Nope. The subject is your atheism. Please don't try to change the subject.
Atheist: The subject can jump where ever.
Matt: Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God.
Atheist: I will defend, but also place in attack. Try to defend faith
Matt: One subject at a time....You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
Atheist: You can never see all evidences but that does not mean there is a god.
Matt: Correct.
Atheist: No, that means there is not enough information for a conclusion. So we make assumptions as best we can according to our knowledge...
Matt: But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical.
Atheist: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe there is no god...
Matt: Then that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.
Atheist: And so must you... But you picked a side.
Matt: Then it [your atheism] is not logical, but only assumptions you base your atheism on. Your atheism is untenable.... You must admit that agnosticism is more logically viable. If you admit that, we can discuss my faith.
Atheist: I'm not ignorant to say I don't use faith. But only the usage of faith in a situation that remains provable.
Matt: So, are you agnostic or atheist? which is it?
Atheist: Atheist.
Matt: You've lost the argument. Sorry...
Atheist: Wrong. What you're doing is a ploy. You bring me over.. but you stay the same. Either you must move over as well or the argument is mute in the first place. One can not keep faith and call his beliefs logical. For a bit I will stray over to the agnostic side. But I am willing to state instances where I believe prove my contention that there is no god.
Matt: You have been cornered.... It is not logical for you to claim strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God's existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation.
Now, I don't know if you noticed but there are two problems with the Atheist. One was his tactic. He tried to divert the conversation away from the error he makes regarding his atheism. Two, he inadvertently admitted that it takes faith to believe there is no God.
In conclusion, you have seen the arguments that Atheists/Darwinist make. They use no logic, but what they do use is a blind faith. As our Christian faith is built on what we experience, and that experience is salvation, for Christ is our foundation in which our faith is built upon. Where the faith of an Atheist, has nothing to build on. It is a faith built on sand and not evidence or logic. Our faith stands on the word of God, proven through out history. It is all logical.
I hope you enjoyed this post, I know this was one of the longer ones. I hope you found it interesting. My next post in this series will be on Science and Pseudoscience. Thank you for reading. Remember, logic is a understanding. To know, to understand your purpose, your reason. To see logically that it takes an infinite mind to understand who you are. The logical thing to do, is to seek He who created you and allow Him to show you who you really are.
God bless...
Friday, May 29, 2009
The truth of words.
Hello all who dare to read here. :)
I'm here again continuing my series on Creation vs Darwinian Evolution/God vs Atheism. This is probably one of the shorter parts of this "series" since I've discussed much of it in my previous post, Atheists/Darwinist redefining words. In this post I wanted to discuss the truth of words. As I sit here and think, and think, and think...I come to the conclusion that words are bridges. They bridge the gaps from questions to answers. From being oblivious to being aware. They are part of the growth of knowledge. I have said that there are always two truths, a false truth and factual truth. Both can be denied..where as one can be discredited the other can not, but still, even when it can not be discredited it can still be willfully denied.
In my debates with Darwinist, I have found that they within their belief have their own definition of words. It is interesting when I point out to them in our discussion of Darwinian Evolution, I often put forth that an animal can never mutate into something other than it's kind. Now, I feel that anyone of logical mind would know what the word "kind" meant when regarding a specific animal.
Darwinist: "Furthermore, I challenge you to define "Kinds".
Also, "Other than it's kind" implies that evolution says a Dog can hatch out a cat. "
So he challenged me to define the word "Kinds" or "Kind" It's the same word. No, I do not imply that evolution says that a dog can hatch out a cat. But the Darwinian theory of Evolution suggests that over time a land animal can and by their beliefs HAS mutated through beneficial mutations to be a Whale. That is what they believe, that whales were all once land animals, yet they have no evidence for this claim. Anyway, lets get back to topic. Since he challenged me to define the word "kind" this was my response.
Me:
Dictionary.com
KIND:
a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.
a person or thing as being of a particular character or class
Synonyms
1. order, genus, species; race, breed; set.
Thesaurus.com
Main Entry: kind
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: class, species
Synonyms: brand, breed, classification, family, genus, ilk, kin, order, race, set, sort, type, variety
Now, there are two definitions to the word "kind". One is to be generous or good. And the other is a species or class. Now, he challenged me to define the words. I think I did a pretty good job don't you think? You would have to be a fool to not know what I mean when I say "kind" in regarding a species of animals. Now, look at what he tells me here.
Darwinist: "However, you bring up the common creationist buzz word "Kind" which I've seen stretched from meaning species, to Genus, to an entire Phylum."
Now remember my definition in which I quoted from Dictionary.com?
Kind: order, genus, species
Now, he said it's a common creationist buzz word "kind" which he's seen "stretched" (he means that it's used inaccurately.) to mean species, to genus. Now, is it I who defined the word? Or was it the dictionary? It was the dictionary that defined the word. The word kind is a truth. It means a species or genus. See what I mean when I say that Atheists/Darwinist twist the truth of words. He made an attempt and failed miserably.
Darwinist almost always twist words to validate their points. They have to, they have no other evidence or facts to back up their beliefs. The truth is skewed and it's getting worse. Remember folks, words have power. Words influence, they pursued, there are words used to trigger peoples thoughts, feelings and emotions. Their memories, smells. If I said. *Oh I remember the days when my mother would make beacon and eggs in the morning. The smells woke me every morning before school. The beacon and eggs crackling. I can taste it right now. Toast with jelly, the sweetness of it. I so loved those things back in the day. I remember arriving at school in the mornings and noticing the smell from the cafeteria, and I thanked God I had an amazing mom to cook breakfast for me every morning.* Now, I KNOW that brought back memories for most of you. I know that you remembered your old home you grew up in. I know that I probably reminded you of your mother. And that amazing breakfast in the mornings, then remembered going to school, and what you used to wear. See, how powerful words are?
Truth, is something that must be sought. Truth is undeniable facts, and words are truth within themselves, their very definitions make them what they are, truth.
"In everything truth surpasses the imitation and copy."
Marcus Tulius Cicero
106-43 BC. Writer, politician and great roman orator.
That is a great quote. As where the Atheists/Darwinist would rather have their own version or definition of the words, like Theory or Consist, or develop, or kind. Our truth surpasses theirs, because we seek it, they develop it for their own personal beliefs.
"Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite."
C. S. Lewis
Remember, always mean what you say, and say what you mean. And when you speak, speak the truth. It's not always easy, but you will form many bridges and close the gaps between ignorance and understanding.
Thanks so much for stopping by. I really appreciate your willingness to read what I have to say. Please, let me know what you think. I would love to hear from you.
My next post will be on "logic" I hope you're looking forward to it as much as I am. Thanks again.
God bless.
I'm here again continuing my series on Creation vs Darwinian Evolution/God vs Atheism. This is probably one of the shorter parts of this "series" since I've discussed much of it in my previous post, Atheists/Darwinist redefining words. In this post I wanted to discuss the truth of words. As I sit here and think, and think, and think...I come to the conclusion that words are bridges. They bridge the gaps from questions to answers. From being oblivious to being aware. They are part of the growth of knowledge. I have said that there are always two truths, a false truth and factual truth. Both can be denied..where as one can be discredited the other can not, but still, even when it can not be discredited it can still be willfully denied.
In my debates with Darwinist, I have found that they within their belief have their own definition of words. It is interesting when I point out to them in our discussion of Darwinian Evolution, I often put forth that an animal can never mutate into something other than it's kind. Now, I feel that anyone of logical mind would know what the word "kind" meant when regarding a specific animal.
Darwinist: "Furthermore, I challenge you to define "Kinds".
Also, "Other than it's kind" implies that evolution says a Dog can hatch out a cat. "
So he challenged me to define the word "Kinds" or "Kind" It's the same word. No, I do not imply that evolution says that a dog can hatch out a cat. But the Darwinian theory of Evolution suggests that over time a land animal can and by their beliefs HAS mutated through beneficial mutations to be a Whale. That is what they believe, that whales were all once land animals, yet they have no evidence for this claim. Anyway, lets get back to topic. Since he challenged me to define the word "kind" this was my response.
Me:
Dictionary.com
KIND:
a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.
a person or thing as being of a particular character or class
Synonyms
1. order, genus, species; race, breed; set.
Thesaurus.com
Main Entry: kind
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: class, species
Synonyms: brand, breed, classification, family, genus, ilk, kin, order, race, set, sort, type, variety
Now, there are two definitions to the word "kind". One is to be generous or good. And the other is a species or class. Now, he challenged me to define the words. I think I did a pretty good job don't you think? You would have to be a fool to not know what I mean when I say "kind" in regarding a species of animals. Now, look at what he tells me here.
Darwinist: "However, you bring up the common creationist buzz word "Kind" which I've seen stretched from meaning species, to Genus, to an entire Phylum."
Now remember my definition in which I quoted from Dictionary.com?
Kind: order, genus, species
Now, he said it's a common creationist buzz word "kind" which he's seen "stretched" (he means that it's used inaccurately.) to mean species, to genus. Now, is it I who defined the word? Or was it the dictionary? It was the dictionary that defined the word. The word kind is a truth. It means a species or genus. See what I mean when I say that Atheists/Darwinist twist the truth of words. He made an attempt and failed miserably.
Darwinist almost always twist words to validate their points. They have to, they have no other evidence or facts to back up their beliefs. The truth is skewed and it's getting worse. Remember folks, words have power. Words influence, they pursued, there are words used to trigger peoples thoughts, feelings and emotions. Their memories, smells. If I said. *Oh I remember the days when my mother would make beacon and eggs in the morning. The smells woke me every morning before school. The beacon and eggs crackling. I can taste it right now. Toast with jelly, the sweetness of it. I so loved those things back in the day. I remember arriving at school in the mornings and noticing the smell from the cafeteria, and I thanked God I had an amazing mom to cook breakfast for me every morning.* Now, I KNOW that brought back memories for most of you. I know that you remembered your old home you grew up in. I know that I probably reminded you of your mother. And that amazing breakfast in the mornings, then remembered going to school, and what you used to wear. See, how powerful words are?
Truth, is something that must be sought. Truth is undeniable facts, and words are truth within themselves, their very definitions make them what they are, truth.
"In everything truth surpasses the imitation and copy."
Marcus Tulius Cicero
106-43 BC. Writer, politician and great roman orator.
That is a great quote. As where the Atheists/Darwinist would rather have their own version or definition of the words, like Theory or Consist, or develop, or kind. Our truth surpasses theirs, because we seek it, they develop it for their own personal beliefs.
"Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite."
C. S. Lewis
Remember, always mean what you say, and say what you mean. And when you speak, speak the truth. It's not always easy, but you will form many bridges and close the gaps between ignorance and understanding.
Thanks so much for stopping by. I really appreciate your willingness to read what I have to say. Please, let me know what you think. I would love to hear from you.
My next post will be on "logic" I hope you're looking forward to it as much as I am. Thanks again.
God bless.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Redefining of words by Atheistic Evolutionists.
Okay so were back again with my series on Creation vs Darwinian Evolution and Christianity vs Atheism. I hope you find my previous posts on these subjects very helpful and insightful. All tho not all Atheists/Darwinist will agree with me and they will be vocal about it. They will merely spit out aimless words and make accusations that are easily refuted or personal attacks. That is expected. Corner a dog and he comes out biting, that kind of idea. Well anyway, in this topic I wanted to discus "words" yes.."words". Words as we all know are powerful things. The bible says that power is in the tongue, words. The bible also says that the God created the heavens and stars, the earth and the universe with words. Words can bring people down or lift them up. You don't need brains or intelligence to say a word, but you do need intelligence to accurately define a word. The reason I feel this is a very important topic is because how words are used by Atheists/Darwinist. It is apparent that our education system is lacking here in the United States, our schools are still a hot bed, of violence and drug usage. It is a hot bed of intolerance. For example they call it tolerance when a homosexuality is permissible but when a student does not agree with homosexuality then that is considered intolerance. Yet, is it not intolerance to critisize the views of the one who believes that homosexuality is wrong? Yes. Because then one is not tolerant of that persons belief (Homosexuals are not a race of people)so it is not racist it is a choice. The point here is not homosexuality and my views on it, the point is the use of the word tolerant and intolerance. Words are used for peoples own personal purposes, and half of those are lies.
The redefining of words for the benefit of a lie.
As my debates went on I was mostly disturbed with the words used by Atheists/Darwinist, to subvert the truth and the words they used or what is known as obfuscation. As I have quoted before in my firsts posts and will go back to again. I have shown how Atheists/Darwinist redefine words for their own purpose. One must remember when debating an Atheist that it's not about truth with them. All tho they may claim that it is, the truth is..that it is not. It is about their own personal belief and the lengths they will go to, to validate those beliefs. Even if it's under the guise of science.
Let's look at the absurdity of Atheists/Darwinist. If you were to look up the word Evolutionist (Darwinian Evolutionist)in the dictionary you will find a definition.
ev⋅o⋅lu⋅tion⋅ist
Now, what we do know is that the word "Evolutionist" is in fact a valid word. Atheists/Darwinist don't like that word and it is evident in the way they mock people for using that word. Here is an example of a Evolutionist replying to answers about the word on Answers.yahoo.com.
Melting Media
Now, notice he doesn't really attempt to defend his stance he just mocks it. All tho the logic behind it is failed..he says "Vacccinationist" as an absurdity to show how illogical a Creationist is by using the word "Evolutionist" when I have just proven that the word Evolutionist is in fact a word with a definition, given by the dictionary. Yet, he tries to associate Evolutionist with the absurd word of Vaccinationist. When in fact while one has a definition and recognized as a true word, the other is not. See the lie? Let's look at another one.
Q (This is the persons screen name.)
Notice she used the word "Creationists" when in fact that is a true word. Yet, they believe that Evolutionists is not? See once again. As she so strongly accused.."It's amazing what ridiculous things creationists will think up." Ridiculous indeed. We don't redefine words for our sole purpose or to validate a lie.
I'll come back to more of these quotes later and you will see the hatred involved in some of these comments. It is a belittlement of those who believe in Creation. A hatred spewed by the Atheists/Darwinist messiah* Richard Dawkins.(*If I spelled messiah with a capitol "M" then that would refer to Christ. I used a lower case to describe a expected deliverer or a zealous leader of some cause or project.)
The illogical words of an illogical mind
I come to a previous example I gave before. Let's go back and take another look at them. In my debates, I had explained that the Universe consists of matter and energy and the response from the young lady I debated was .."The Universe does not consists of these things it contains them." Now, as I showed in my previous posts that the word consists and contains means the same thing. So in essence she told me that the Universe did not consists of matter and energy but it in fact consisted of them.
Here's another example of a friendly debate I had with an Atheists/Darwinist.
I had asked him..
Me:"So the big bang created the universe?"
Atheists:"The big bang theory does not explain the CREATION of the universe, just the DEVELOPMENT of the Universe with time."
Wait a second, doesn't development and creation mean the same thing?
Let's find out shall we?
Dictionary
cre⋅a⋅tion: production, development, formation.
Thesaurus
Main Entry: creation
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: DEVELOPMENT of entity
An entity is something that exists, living or none. Now, what he basically told me that "The big bang did not create the Universe but created it over time." Now, tell me something. Is that very logical at all? No, it is not. Atheists/Darwinist always fail to see where their logic repeatedly fails them. Why? Because they believe themselves to be the smartest people on the face of the earth. And that YOU the reader who believes in a creator, is not. Here is the evidence for that.
"Creationism is a conspiracy theory. A very absurd one. We should start treating it as such."
"Wise Duck" (That's his screen name wise duck absurd isn't it?)
"I've said it before, and I guess I'll say it again: CREATIONISTS ARE CRAZY!"
No Gods, No Masters (This person doesn't believe in free will,yet he exercises it by choosing freely to believe there is no God.) Remember.."The universe doesn't consists of these things it contains them." or "The big bang did not create the universe it developed it." Excuse me but, who are the crazy ones?
"Creationist are the kind of people who pick and choose what if fact and what is fiction."
Hugh H. Wait, we pick and choose what is fact and fiction? "The Universe doesn't consists of these things it contains them." Oh yes, we do indeed.(Sarcasm)
I would like to pick on this one for a minute because he flat out lies. He also states.
"On a side note, I am getting really tired of creationists claiming Einstein believed in creationism or that he was a Christian... stop spreading this lie, do some research and realize Einstein was no more a Christian than this Atheist!"
Einstein was a deist. That means he did believe in a creator but not a personal God.
Evidence-
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
Einstein.
So, for the sake of validating his belief that there is no God, and further attempting to validate it by ridiculing Creationists or those who believe in God, he also attempts to use Einstein to validate this belief. Remember, it's not about truth. It's about personal beliefs.
He adds at the very end this comment.
"Free your mind from man made gods!"
I agree, for the God I serve is not man made. The bible even warns us to "Stay away from Idols made of men." Why? Because those are man made gods. Now, he's under the misconception that God is man made, a created God. Because he thinks inside the box, and not outside. He thinks within his own world, what he can see...but not outside of it..for what he can't see. Since, he can't see it, he can't comprehend it nor understand it. That is the limit to his knowledge.
Now, you may wonder what this all has to do with words, well, everything I have written about has to do with words. They believed Einstein to be Atheists, and said it was a lie that he was a creationist, they used words to favor their position.
Atheists also like to say that were "Anti-science" Why? Because they believe science to be progress. Science is knowledge. When not all science is. What their doing is using the word "anti" to say that were against knowledge. That is not true at all, and they know it. But remember, they must validate to themselves that there is no God, so they use words like that to make them feel superior. Here's that same young lady "Q"
"I guess they figure it's easier for them to make stuff up than for them to try to understand complex ideas."
So, here's she saying what? That Creationists are indeed simple minded people. We don't understand complexity. Wait a second, Atheists, don't understand the spiritual world, nor comprehend outside of time and space. They can not comprehend that complexity comes from a complex mind, creation takes a creator. Yet, we don't understand in complex ideas? Not, a very logical statement is it? No.
"This conspiracy of elitists is rampant!"
"don"
They call us elitist, yet they fail to know their own history. I will discuss that in my "Dangers of Darwin" post later.
Remember when I mentioned to you the EVOLUTIONIST word? They believe there is no such word. Here's another example.
"I'm a gravity-ist myself."
"Phoenix under the pear tree"
Again as we see here, this one tries to associate the factual word Evolutionist with the absurdity of his word "Gravity-ist" Remember, evolutionist is an actual word, "Gravity-ist" is not.
Here's one that will get you, read it carefully.
"You know, if we weren't restricted by the limits of language, we could accomplish so much more."
"Warrior poo flinger" (Interesting name huh. And yet they claim to be more intelligent?)
Notice here he is saying that we should not limit their language so that they can accomplish more? Wait a second, were not limiting the language, were questioning the validity of the words they use. We want' factual truth, not words used for their own purpose and redefined for their own beliefs. So in other words what he's saying is, they don't want us to stop them from redefining words, because then they can't accomplish their agenda.
One last thing, 80% of the people who left these comments were under the age of 25. Their teaching your kids this in school. And their eating it up, like blind sheep.
Theory vs Scientific Theory..
Finally, I want to touch on the word that they so love to redefine, theory.
The dictionary gives many definitions of the word, so lets look at these.
Theory:
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.(Now, the word propositions is used here. Propositions means A plan suggested for acceptance; a proposal.) So they are suggestions, not facts.
Here's another definition of the word theory.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Remember, a PROPOSED explanation whose status is what? CONJECTURAL, meaning, speculative, theoretical, doubtful. So, no facts still, just assumptions. Right? Let's keep going.
More of the definitions of the word theory.
contemplation or speculation.guess or conjecture.
So, a theory is a GUESS. Now, to validate their belief they use the term "Scientific theory" Let's look at the definition of scientific theory.
Scientific Theory: Oh oh, there is no definition in the dictionary for the word "scientific theory" Oh oh. Someones got problems here.
The only place you're going to find the definition to the term "Scientific Theory" are on the web pages of Darwinist/Atheists.
But since Atheist/Darwinist love to claim that their are scientific, lets look at the scientific method.
scientific method
–noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
So, basically, It is simply a description of the process of learning that involves observation, hypothesis, testing, and revising.
"When we learn something new about our environment, we first observe or sense something through our senses. We then propose a hypothesis in our mind that explains this observation. A hypothesis makes certain assumptions or predictions about the future. If these predictions hold true, the hypothesis is strengthened in its usefulness as a predictive tool, but it can never be absolutely confirmed since we remain subjective creatures (subject to our senses and to indirect interpretations of what they are telling us).
The strength of the scientific method is found not so much in its ability to detect truth, but in its ability to detect error. It has the ability to rule out those hypothesis and theories that are definitely wrong. For instance, someone might observe a man scratching his nose and then rolling a pair of dice - which end up on double six’s. One might then hypothesize that this man’s nose scratching caused him to roll double six’s. The prediction could then be made that this will always hold true in the future. If the man roles double six's again after scratching his nose, the hypothesis is strengthened, but not absolutely confirmed. This could have been a coincidence after all. However, if this prediction holds one hundred times in a row, one might become more confident, but never absolutely certain. All one can do is point to the past predictive usefulness of this hypothesis. But, if this man happens to roll a two and a five after scratching his nose, the initial hypothesis has clearly failed and either needs to be revised or even replaced by a different hypothesis.
It is commonly stated that religion should be left to theologians while science should be left to scientists. This argument assumes that some important truths are beyond scientific investigation and are thus matters of "faith." What many do not seem to realize is that all human knowledge is a matter of faith. All human theories are statements of faith - even when it comes to the "purer" sciences of physics and mathematics. Human theories may be backed up by a greater or lesser degree of evidence, but, like all human attempts to search out truth, no one and no theory has ever achieved absolute perfection in any aspect of human knowledge concerning the external world. Obviously then, without access to absolute knowledge, a degree of faith remains when one holds a particular position to be true - be it a "religious" or a "scientific" position."
Sean D. Pitman M.D.
Therefor Darwinian Evolution is not a fact, but rather an assumption. The word theory is not a word that represents fact, but..a word that is what it says it is, a guess. Now, I do admit that believing in Christ and God takes faith. I will never deny that, nor will I ever deny that I have faith. But for an Atheists/Darwinist to say they do not go by faith but facts, is entirely not true. They claim to be scientific, logical, and superior. They claim to have science on their side. What they claim and what they really have are two different things.
Conclusion.
If we allow Atheists/Darwinist to stand in the way of truth, we will grow into a nation of blind bats. Not knowing what truth is. Truth is knowledge, and true knowledge comes from understanding the word and that word is God. If we seek the kingdom, we will ultimately find that who is the giver of all knowledge.
"Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!" Isaiah.
My next post will be on the truth of words, which will be very short. Since we have covered a lot of it here. I hope you enjoyed this. God bless.
The redefining of words for the benefit of a lie.
As my debates went on I was mostly disturbed with the words used by Atheists/Darwinist, to subvert the truth and the words they used or what is known as obfuscation. As I have quoted before in my firsts posts and will go back to again. I have shown how Atheists/Darwinist redefine words for their own purpose. One must remember when debating an Atheist that it's not about truth with them. All tho they may claim that it is, the truth is..that it is not. It is about their own personal belief and the lengths they will go to, to validate those beliefs. Even if it's under the guise of science.
Let's look at the absurdity of Atheists/Darwinist. If you were to look up the word Evolutionist (Darwinian Evolutionist)in the dictionary you will find a definition.
ev⋅o⋅lu⋅tion⋅ist
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution
Now, what we do know is that the word "Evolutionist" is in fact a valid word. Atheists/Darwinist don't like that word and it is evident in the way they mock people for using that word. Here is an example of a Evolutionist replying to answers about the word on Answers.yahoo.com.
I'm a Vaccinationist who accepts the theory of flu shots.
Melting Media
Now, notice he doesn't really attempt to defend his stance he just mocks it. All tho the logic behind it is failed..he says "Vacccinationist" as an absurdity to show how illogical a Creationist is by using the word "Evolutionist" when I have just proven that the word Evolutionist is in fact a word with a definition, given by the dictionary. Yet, he tries to associate Evolutionist with the absurd word of Vaccinationist. When in fact while one has a definition and recognized as a true word, the other is not. See the lie? Let's look at another one.
No. It's amazing what ridiculous things creationists will think up.
Q (This is the persons screen name.)
Notice she used the word "Creationists" when in fact that is a true word. Yet, they believe that Evolutionists is not? See once again. As she so strongly accused.."It's amazing what ridiculous things creationists will think up." Ridiculous indeed. We don't redefine words for our sole purpose or to validate a lie.
I'll come back to more of these quotes later and you will see the hatred involved in some of these comments. It is a belittlement of those who believe in Creation. A hatred spewed by the Atheists/Darwinist messiah* Richard Dawkins.(*If I spelled messiah with a capitol "M" then that would refer to Christ. I used a lower case to describe a expected deliverer or a zealous leader of some cause or project.)
The illogical words of an illogical mind
I come to a previous example I gave before. Let's go back and take another look at them. In my debates, I had explained that the Universe consists of matter and energy and the response from the young lady I debated was .."The Universe does not consists of these things it contains them." Now, as I showed in my previous posts that the word consists and contains means the same thing. So in essence she told me that the Universe did not consists of matter and energy but it in fact consisted of them.
Here's another example of a friendly debate I had with an Atheists/Darwinist.
I had asked him..
Me:"So the big bang created the universe?"
Atheists:"The big bang theory does not explain the CREATION of the universe, just the DEVELOPMENT of the Universe with time."
Wait a second, doesn't development and creation mean the same thing?
Let's find out shall we?
Dictionary
cre⋅a⋅tion: production, development, formation.
Thesaurus
Main Entry: creation
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: DEVELOPMENT of entity
An entity is something that exists, living or none. Now, what he basically told me that "The big bang did not create the Universe but created it over time." Now, tell me something. Is that very logical at all? No, it is not. Atheists/Darwinist always fail to see where their logic repeatedly fails them. Why? Because they believe themselves to be the smartest people on the face of the earth. And that YOU the reader who believes in a creator, is not. Here is the evidence for that.
"Creationism is a conspiracy theory. A very absurd one. We should start treating it as such."
"Wise Duck" (That's his screen name wise duck absurd isn't it?)
"I've said it before, and I guess I'll say it again: CREATIONISTS ARE CRAZY!"
No Gods, No Masters (This person doesn't believe in free will,yet he exercises it by choosing freely to believe there is no God.) Remember.."The universe doesn't consists of these things it contains them." or "The big bang did not create the universe it developed it." Excuse me but, who are the crazy ones?
"Creationist are the kind of people who pick and choose what if fact and what is fiction."
Hugh H. Wait, we pick and choose what is fact and fiction? "The Universe doesn't consists of these things it contains them." Oh yes, we do indeed.(Sarcasm)
I would like to pick on this one for a minute because he flat out lies. He also states.
"On a side note, I am getting really tired of creationists claiming Einstein believed in creationism or that he was a Christian... stop spreading this lie, do some research and realize Einstein was no more a Christian than this Atheist!"
Einstein was a deist. That means he did believe in a creator but not a personal God.
Evidence-
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
Einstein.
So, for the sake of validating his belief that there is no God, and further attempting to validate it by ridiculing Creationists or those who believe in God, he also attempts to use Einstein to validate this belief. Remember, it's not about truth. It's about personal beliefs.
He adds at the very end this comment.
"Free your mind from man made gods!"
I agree, for the God I serve is not man made. The bible even warns us to "Stay away from Idols made of men." Why? Because those are man made gods. Now, he's under the misconception that God is man made, a created God. Because he thinks inside the box, and not outside. He thinks within his own world, what he can see...but not outside of it..for what he can't see. Since, he can't see it, he can't comprehend it nor understand it. That is the limit to his knowledge.
Now, you may wonder what this all has to do with words, well, everything I have written about has to do with words. They believed Einstein to be Atheists, and said it was a lie that he was a creationist, they used words to favor their position.
Atheists also like to say that were "Anti-science" Why? Because they believe science to be progress. Science is knowledge. When not all science is. What their doing is using the word "anti" to say that were against knowledge. That is not true at all, and they know it. But remember, they must validate to themselves that there is no God, so they use words like that to make them feel superior. Here's that same young lady "Q"
"I guess they figure it's easier for them to make stuff up than for them to try to understand complex ideas."
So, here's she saying what? That Creationists are indeed simple minded people. We don't understand complexity. Wait a second, Atheists, don't understand the spiritual world, nor comprehend outside of time and space. They can not comprehend that complexity comes from a complex mind, creation takes a creator. Yet, we don't understand in complex ideas? Not, a very logical statement is it? No.
"This conspiracy of elitists is rampant!"
"don"
They call us elitist, yet they fail to know their own history. I will discuss that in my "Dangers of Darwin" post later.
Remember when I mentioned to you the EVOLUTIONIST word? They believe there is no such word. Here's another example.
"I'm a gravity-ist myself."
"Phoenix under the pear tree"
Again as we see here, this one tries to associate the factual word Evolutionist with the absurdity of his word "Gravity-ist" Remember, evolutionist is an actual word, "Gravity-ist" is not.
Here's one that will get you, read it carefully.
"You know, if we weren't restricted by the limits of language, we could accomplish so much more."
"Warrior poo flinger" (Interesting name huh. And yet they claim to be more intelligent?)
Notice here he is saying that we should not limit their language so that they can accomplish more? Wait a second, were not limiting the language, were questioning the validity of the words they use. We want' factual truth, not words used for their own purpose and redefined for their own beliefs. So in other words what he's saying is, they don't want us to stop them from redefining words, because then they can't accomplish their agenda.
One last thing, 80% of the people who left these comments were under the age of 25. Their teaching your kids this in school. And their eating it up, like blind sheep.
Theory vs Scientific Theory..
Finally, I want to touch on the word that they so love to redefine, theory.
The dictionary gives many definitions of the word, so lets look at these.
Theory:
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.(Now, the word propositions is used here. Propositions means A plan suggested for acceptance; a proposal.) So they are suggestions, not facts.
Here's another definition of the word theory.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Remember, a PROPOSED explanation whose status is what? CONJECTURAL, meaning, speculative, theoretical, doubtful. So, no facts still, just assumptions. Right? Let's keep going.
More of the definitions of the word theory.
contemplation or speculation.guess or conjecture.
So, a theory is a GUESS. Now, to validate their belief they use the term "Scientific theory" Let's look at the definition of scientific theory.
Scientific Theory: Oh oh, there is no definition in the dictionary for the word "scientific theory" Oh oh. Someones got problems here.
The only place you're going to find the definition to the term "Scientific Theory" are on the web pages of Darwinist/Atheists.
But since Atheist/Darwinist love to claim that their are scientific, lets look at the scientific method.
scientific method
–noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
So, basically, It is simply a description of the process of learning that involves observation, hypothesis, testing, and revising.
"When we learn something new about our environment, we first observe or sense something through our senses. We then propose a hypothesis in our mind that explains this observation. A hypothesis makes certain assumptions or predictions about the future. If these predictions hold true, the hypothesis is strengthened in its usefulness as a predictive tool, but it can never be absolutely confirmed since we remain subjective creatures (subject to our senses and to indirect interpretations of what they are telling us).
The strength of the scientific method is found not so much in its ability to detect truth, but in its ability to detect error. It has the ability to rule out those hypothesis and theories that are definitely wrong. For instance, someone might observe a man scratching his nose and then rolling a pair of dice - which end up on double six’s. One might then hypothesize that this man’s nose scratching caused him to roll double six’s. The prediction could then be made that this will always hold true in the future. If the man roles double six's again after scratching his nose, the hypothesis is strengthened, but not absolutely confirmed. This could have been a coincidence after all. However, if this prediction holds one hundred times in a row, one might become more confident, but never absolutely certain. All one can do is point to the past predictive usefulness of this hypothesis. But, if this man happens to roll a two and a five after scratching his nose, the initial hypothesis has clearly failed and either needs to be revised or even replaced by a different hypothesis.
It is commonly stated that religion should be left to theologians while science should be left to scientists. This argument assumes that some important truths are beyond scientific investigation and are thus matters of "faith." What many do not seem to realize is that all human knowledge is a matter of faith. All human theories are statements of faith - even when it comes to the "purer" sciences of physics and mathematics. Human theories may be backed up by a greater or lesser degree of evidence, but, like all human attempts to search out truth, no one and no theory has ever achieved absolute perfection in any aspect of human knowledge concerning the external world. Obviously then, without access to absolute knowledge, a degree of faith remains when one holds a particular position to be true - be it a "religious" or a "scientific" position."
Sean D. Pitman M.D.
Therefor Darwinian Evolution is not a fact, but rather an assumption. The word theory is not a word that represents fact, but..a word that is what it says it is, a guess. Now, I do admit that believing in Christ and God takes faith. I will never deny that, nor will I ever deny that I have faith. But for an Atheists/Darwinist to say they do not go by faith but facts, is entirely not true. They claim to be scientific, logical, and superior. They claim to have science on their side. What they claim and what they really have are two different things.
Conclusion.
If we allow Atheists/Darwinist to stand in the way of truth, we will grow into a nation of blind bats. Not knowing what truth is. Truth is knowledge, and true knowledge comes from understanding the word and that word is God. If we seek the kingdom, we will ultimately find that who is the giver of all knowledge.
"Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!" Isaiah.
My next post will be on the truth of words, which will be very short. Since we have covered a lot of it here. I hope you enjoyed this. God bless.
Who Created God?
Hello everyone,
If some of you haven't already known or read, I'm currently on a series or God and Atheism or Creation and Darwinian Evolution. As I have stated before and wanted to remind those of you who just started reading that I have no agenda to convert anyone. My purpose here is to expose lies and bring forth what I feel is truth. Now, there are many truths but I'm talking about absolute truth. And yes there is absolute truth. Absolute truth would be something that is factual. I have often said that truth is irrefutable it is without question truth. But is creation and God truth? Yes, because evidence points to that truth. It is irrefutable truth, and even tho it is irrefutable truth, it is a truth that still brings forth questions. Why? Because without questions there are no answers. So even truth will yield some questions. Those who believe that the truth of God or his existence has no evidence are blind to that evidence. The bible says It takes a keen ear and a determined heart to hear the whisper of God's voice. "Be still," He says, "and know that I am God" (Psalms 46:10).
As you can see, it is only those that are willing to hear. If you are not willing you will neither hear nor see. If you are not willing, you will feed upon the lie and deny the truth. Now, lets get started with..Who create God?
The mind of an Atheist/Darwinist..
Now, many times in many debates I have it never fails that an Atheist/Darwinist would ask me "Who create God?" The thought process of one who asks that question is a little skewed. Mine was as well when I asked that question many many years ago as a child. The question suggests many things. It is a question that is basically designed to trap the creationists or the believer. Since a creationists believes everything is created then one must believe that even God himself needed a creator. The logic behind the question is a physical idea. All things to an Atheist/Darwinist must be physical so that it may be observed and witnessed. It is a logic that they themselves do not use within their own religion of Atheism and the pseudoscience of Darwinism. Because they make all kinds of claims without the evidence to support it. They believe they have the evidence but when one with a logical mind reviews this evidence, then it is no evidence at all. I'll get into that later.
An Atheist/Darwinist can not comprehend the belief in a spirit, since they can not see one, then they are lead to believe there is none. Atheist/Darwinist have trouble believing in something outside of time and space. They do not understand the nature of God, and have no concept of the spiritual realm. If you showed a video of a ghost to an Atheist/Darwinist..they will tell you that it's not real, or find some kind of science to back up their belief. Remember, Atheist/Darwinist use their science to back up their belief. Even when the evidence doesn't support their theory.
Yet, Atheist are more inclined to believe in the big bang theory, something that has never been witnessed, they believe it on faith. They have never once observed a species of animal or insect mutate through beneficial mutation into something other than it's own kind. All tho they believe it on faith. Yet when it comes to the spiritual or supernatural, they choose not to believe it. Why? Because it violates their personal interest. It violates their beliefs, their belief that there is no God, there is no judgment, there is no Heaven or Hell. There is no free will or moral code in which we have been given by the creator. If an Atheist believed in Ghosts, then they would contradict their belief in nothing. No life after death.
Who Created God?
As I have stated in my last post, created things have a cause. Created things have a beginning and therefor have a cause. Einstein said that time is linked to matter and space, so time itself has a beginning. This is the theory of relativity, which in my book is not a theory at all, but a fact. It has much supported experimental evidence to show that it is true, a fact and not just a mere theory. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
"In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
* 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
* 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.
So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down."
Christian Answers.
So, as you see it. No one created God, because he exists outside of time and space. Allow me to bring forth some examples. Your computer, is a world all within itself. There's the internet, where we meet friends and basically live part of our lives and share our lives with them. You see them on the computer, video camera, or pictures. You start to get the sense that there is a community within your pc. There are things like Facebook, Myspace and Twitter. All online communities. But do these people who create these profiles actually live inside them? No. They create a universe of themselves. They bring a part of their lives, but their lives are not in their web pages or the pc. Their lives are outside of it. The person who creates a computer doesn't dwell within the computer, they do not function according to the laws of your computer, they function outside the realm of your computer. So they are not bound by the laws of the pc. A man who creates a watch doesn't function within the watch but outside of it. I once was asked by an Atheist.."What about a house? People build their own houses then live in them." That question was an attempt to trap me and as you guessed it didn't work. That is the difference, a house is created for a purpose that it's designer or creator to live within. God did not create the universe for himself, but for us.
"Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.
Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity."
Christian Answers
Now, as you can see there is no logic to the question. It is understandable for a child to ask that question and it is a question that everyone must ask during their childhood. Like I said it is a question that one must ask to receive an answer to. But as we grow and develop in understanding and knowledge this question is only asked by those who are willfully ignorant. The answer is not sufficient for the Atheist/Darwinist. It's not that it isn't true, it's the fact that it is. That is why they deny it. They deny it because it's true. You can't deny a fact, but you can willfully deny a fact. Their belief that there is no answer forces them to not accept the answer, the truth. I will leave you with this..
"The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called “eternity.” God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.
Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum."
Author Ray Comfort: Christian evangelist, speaker and author. He is the author of over 35 books.
I hope you enjoyed this and found the information useful for you the believer. Thank you and God bless you all.
If some of you haven't already known or read, I'm currently on a series or God and Atheism or Creation and Darwinian Evolution. As I have stated before and wanted to remind those of you who just started reading that I have no agenda to convert anyone. My purpose here is to expose lies and bring forth what I feel is truth. Now, there are many truths but I'm talking about absolute truth. And yes there is absolute truth. Absolute truth would be something that is factual. I have often said that truth is irrefutable it is without question truth. But is creation and God truth? Yes, because evidence points to that truth. It is irrefutable truth, and even tho it is irrefutable truth, it is a truth that still brings forth questions. Why? Because without questions there are no answers. So even truth will yield some questions. Those who believe that the truth of God or his existence has no evidence are blind to that evidence. The bible says It takes a keen ear and a determined heart to hear the whisper of God's voice. "Be still," He says, "and know that I am God" (Psalms 46:10).
As you can see, it is only those that are willing to hear. If you are not willing you will neither hear nor see. If you are not willing, you will feed upon the lie and deny the truth. Now, lets get started with..Who create God?
The mind of an Atheist/Darwinist..
Now, many times in many debates I have it never fails that an Atheist/Darwinist would ask me "Who create God?" The thought process of one who asks that question is a little skewed. Mine was as well when I asked that question many many years ago as a child. The question suggests many things. It is a question that is basically designed to trap the creationists or the believer. Since a creationists believes everything is created then one must believe that even God himself needed a creator. The logic behind the question is a physical idea. All things to an Atheist/Darwinist must be physical so that it may be observed and witnessed. It is a logic that they themselves do not use within their own religion of Atheism and the pseudoscience of Darwinism. Because they make all kinds of claims without the evidence to support it. They believe they have the evidence but when one with a logical mind reviews this evidence, then it is no evidence at all. I'll get into that later.
An Atheist/Darwinist can not comprehend the belief in a spirit, since they can not see one, then they are lead to believe there is none. Atheist/Darwinist have trouble believing in something outside of time and space. They do not understand the nature of God, and have no concept of the spiritual realm. If you showed a video of a ghost to an Atheist/Darwinist..they will tell you that it's not real, or find some kind of science to back up their belief. Remember, Atheist/Darwinist use their science to back up their belief. Even when the evidence doesn't support their theory.
Yet, Atheist are more inclined to believe in the big bang theory, something that has never been witnessed, they believe it on faith. They have never once observed a species of animal or insect mutate through beneficial mutation into something other than it's own kind. All tho they believe it on faith. Yet when it comes to the spiritual or supernatural, they choose not to believe it. Why? Because it violates their personal interest. It violates their beliefs, their belief that there is no God, there is no judgment, there is no Heaven or Hell. There is no free will or moral code in which we have been given by the creator. If an Atheist believed in Ghosts, then they would contradict their belief in nothing. No life after death.
Who Created God?
As I have stated in my last post, created things have a cause. Created things have a beginning and therefor have a cause. Einstein said that time is linked to matter and space, so time itself has a beginning. This is the theory of relativity, which in my book is not a theory at all, but a fact. It has much supported experimental evidence to show that it is true, a fact and not just a mere theory. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time. Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
"In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
* 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
* 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.
So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down."
Christian Answers.
So, as you see it. No one created God, because he exists outside of time and space. Allow me to bring forth some examples. Your computer, is a world all within itself. There's the internet, where we meet friends and basically live part of our lives and share our lives with them. You see them on the computer, video camera, or pictures. You start to get the sense that there is a community within your pc. There are things like Facebook, Myspace and Twitter. All online communities. But do these people who create these profiles actually live inside them? No. They create a universe of themselves. They bring a part of their lives, but their lives are not in their web pages or the pc. Their lives are outside of it. The person who creates a computer doesn't dwell within the computer, they do not function according to the laws of your computer, they function outside the realm of your computer. So they are not bound by the laws of the pc. A man who creates a watch doesn't function within the watch but outside of it. I once was asked by an Atheist.."What about a house? People build their own houses then live in them." That question was an attempt to trap me and as you guessed it didn't work. That is the difference, a house is created for a purpose that it's designer or creator to live within. God did not create the universe for himself, but for us.
"Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.
Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity."
Christian Answers
Now, as you can see there is no logic to the question. It is understandable for a child to ask that question and it is a question that everyone must ask during their childhood. Like I said it is a question that one must ask to receive an answer to. But as we grow and develop in understanding and knowledge this question is only asked by those who are willfully ignorant. The answer is not sufficient for the Atheist/Darwinist. It's not that it isn't true, it's the fact that it is. That is why they deny it. They deny it because it's true. You can't deny a fact, but you can willfully deny a fact. Their belief that there is no answer forces them to not accept the answer, the truth. I will leave you with this..
"The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called “eternity.” God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.
Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum."
Author Ray Comfort: Christian evangelist, speaker and author. He is the author of over 35 books.
I hope you enjoyed this and found the information useful for you the believer. Thank you and God bless you all.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Creation: What is created, what is it's purpose and what is it's cause?
Once again I return to thinking and relaying that thought process to you the readers. You must forgive me for misinforming you on something that I said in my last post on morality. I stated that my next post would be on the topic of Who created God? When actually the topic is creation, cause and purpose. I will discuss Who created God, on my next post.
In many of my debates or past debates I have had with Atheist/Darwinist about God was the matter of cause and purpose and of course creation. Now, I have been challenged many times by Atheists to debate but lately I have turned many of them down, reason being, that they have no reason. They are illogical and basically a waste of effort or time. Now, I will make an exception from time to time, but not often. So, if you ever find yourself in a debate with me consider yourself blessed. :) Let's get started shall we?
Creation: What is created, what is it's purpose and what is it's cause?
Now I find myself perplexed at the many answers I receive from Darwinist or Atheists on this matter because the answers themselves indicate a failed reason or logic within the mind of the individual giving the answers. When I ask for them to name me one thing that is not created. Can you answer that question? Name me one thing that has no creator, it doesn't have to be a intelligent creator, and the objects do not have to be alive and breathing. For example, the color red and yellow make Orange. Red does not know that it makes orange with yellow, and neither does yellow and Orange does not know that red and yellow create it. I gave that same example to an Atheist/Darwinist in a little different analogy. I added into the equation that if you left a lump of red clay and yellow clay in a room, what are the odds of that clay creating orange all by itself in one million years? His answer was this.."None, but what if the room was spinning? Then the odds are better." Well, yes of course but that is a lot of spinning and lets say that whatever formed the universe from the big bang was spinning, then that would defy the laws of the conservation of angular momentum. (The Conservation of Angular Momentum is basically this..in layman's terms, lets say that you have a top, and this top has small pennies on it, now when you spin the top the pennies come flying off and all rotate within the same direction of the top.)Because when you look at the planets like Venus it spins in the opposite direction. So that is contradicting the idea of a spinning room, because if the universe was a room and spinning, then Venus would not spin in the direction it spins in. His response.."Well, well between the big bang and the formation of the universe is 9.2 billion years, anything can happen between that time." Wait a minute here. Am I to believe that the big bang is fact and Venus spins in the opposite direction because "anything can happen." ??? Why is it that when a Christian speaks about God and miracles, the Atheist mock them? But when they say.."Well anything can happen." Is that not a belief in a miracle as well? Anything can happen? You mean like a miracle that Venus decided to spin backwards all by itself without any guidance? Illogical. Here's a response I read to that question as to why does Venus spin backwards.
"No one knows for sure, but they think that a very large asteroid many years ago crashed into it sending it spinning backwards. Since it's going against it's gravity and original spin, it spins very slowly and a day on Venus is longer than a year. There are many theories about it, but that's the most popular theory. It did in fact start by spinning normally." May
Now, lets take apart this answer shall we? First she says, "No one knows for sure, but they think that a very large asteroid many years ago crashed into it sending it spinning backwards." Okay now she is admitting that no one really knows. So to assume that an asteroid hit Venus is possible but there must be evidence, in which they haven't found. So, that theory is a guess. Can we believe it? No, because it's not fact. Then she goes on to say.."Since it's GOING AGAINST IT'S GRAVITY and ORIGINAL SPIN, it spins very slowly and a day on Venus is longer than a year." Okay, what she says here is a half truth and the rest is speculation. Yes, a day on Venus is longer than a year here, that is observed. BUT..she also states that Venus is GOING AGAINST IT'S GRAVITY and ORIGINAL SPIN. Question, how does she know what the gravity on Venus is like when no one has ever been there? And how does she know how it spun ORIGINALLY since she was not present nor was anyone else present when it first originally spun? So, she goes from a guess, to attempting to provide facts and does so falsely. Now to the rest of her statement. "There are many theories about it but that's the most popular theory." Yes, and the most popular theory amongst scientist was that the coelacanth was extinct until one was found, so what's the most popular amongst scientist isn't always the right theory. Finally she ends with this.."It did in fact start by spinning normally." And she knows this how? So, as we see it went from an assumption to a fact. They have bigger problems than cat stuck in a dog pound. So, they can't answer the question of naming one thing that is not created. One answer I received was this. "The Universe, is not created." The problem here is that how do they know? Here's another problem for Darwinist. Created things are formulated, created things have working parts to them. Created things are formed by objects. For example if you had a watch with all it's parts in a box, would it be a watch or just parts of a watch? It would be parts of a watch because together these parts make a watch, they create a watch. Without these parts is there a watch? No. So the Universe consists of matter, energy, planets, stars. Those things make up the Universe, the Universe consists of these things. When I made that statement,the reply to that from an Atheist was this..."No, the Universe does not consist of those things it contains them!" Now, I put the exclamation point there because this young lady was actually irritated with me for making that true statement and she had to reply with a stupid answer because if not then she would have to admit I'm right.
Here's the problem with her statement. "No, the Universe does not consist of those things it contains them!" Let's look in the dictionary shall we for the definition of the word consist.
Ready for this?
con⋅sist: to be made up or composed. to be comprised or CONTAINED.
Let's look in a Thesaurus.
Main Entry: consist
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: exist, reside
Synonyms: abide, be, be CONTAINED in, be expressed by, be found in, dwell, inhere, lie, repose, rest, subsist
So what this young lady basically told me is. "No the Universe does not consists of these things it consists of these things!" So this boils down to semantics, in which we will get into in a later post, where I will talk about words and their meanings according to Atheist/Darwinist. But anyway, do you see her logic? No? Neither do I because it's illogical that means there is no logic to her reply. They real reason she made that very dumb statement was because she HAD to disagree with me, because she could not admit that a God fearing Christian was right. That's why.
So, it is correct or a fact that the universe is created, why? Because created things are formed. Now, an Atheist/Darwinist would lead you to believe that formed objects happen by accident. So, that defeats the purpose of them. Atheist and Darwinist are faced with this problem, nothing is created because it all happen by chance or accident. Since the Universe is a entity that is not conscious, then anything that is not conscious can be put together by accident or by chance, and then the Atheists and Darwinist will take this one step further, since a non living entity can be created by accident or chance, then so can a living entity. Even tho the odds are mathematically against them, they believe this to be fact.
Purpose
I was asked recently by an Atheist.."What about space? (empty space) That ("that" being empty space) is not created and it has no purpose." My answer to him was that of course empty space is created. If you took all the matter and energy out of the Universe you would have a void, an empty space. Would that space be there if all the matter and energy were present? No. Space is created by subtracting. Ever hear someone say.."Let's create some space here." ?? Space is created. It's purpose? To be free of matter and energy, to be space. Without a void there is no fullness or occupation. So the purpose of space is to be present for occupation, or fullness, or filled. So then everything has a purpose. Life has a purpose, we as individuals have a purpose. If you were an Atheist, then nothing has purpose because nothing is created and therefor there is no cause for our presence.
Christ is the cause of our existence, He is the creator who gives us purpose. It's simple logic that Atheist/Darwinist are void of. Now, for my next post I will discuss the question that everyone asked at one time in their lives. Who created God?
God bless...
In many of my debates or past debates I have had with Atheist/Darwinist about God was the matter of cause and purpose and of course creation. Now, I have been challenged many times by Atheists to debate but lately I have turned many of them down, reason being, that they have no reason. They are illogical and basically a waste of effort or time. Now, I will make an exception from time to time, but not often. So, if you ever find yourself in a debate with me consider yourself blessed. :) Let's get started shall we?
Creation: What is created, what is it's purpose and what is it's cause?
Now I find myself perplexed at the many answers I receive from Darwinist or Atheists on this matter because the answers themselves indicate a failed reason or logic within the mind of the individual giving the answers. When I ask for them to name me one thing that is not created. Can you answer that question? Name me one thing that has no creator, it doesn't have to be a intelligent creator, and the objects do not have to be alive and breathing. For example, the color red and yellow make Orange. Red does not know that it makes orange with yellow, and neither does yellow and Orange does not know that red and yellow create it. I gave that same example to an Atheist/Darwinist in a little different analogy. I added into the equation that if you left a lump of red clay and yellow clay in a room, what are the odds of that clay creating orange all by itself in one million years? His answer was this.."None, but what if the room was spinning? Then the odds are better." Well, yes of course but that is a lot of spinning and lets say that whatever formed the universe from the big bang was spinning, then that would defy the laws of the conservation of angular momentum. (The Conservation of Angular Momentum is basically this..in layman's terms, lets say that you have a top, and this top has small pennies on it, now when you spin the top the pennies come flying off and all rotate within the same direction of the top.)Because when you look at the planets like Venus it spins in the opposite direction. So that is contradicting the idea of a spinning room, because if the universe was a room and spinning, then Venus would not spin in the direction it spins in. His response.."Well, well between the big bang and the formation of the universe is 9.2 billion years, anything can happen between that time." Wait a minute here. Am I to believe that the big bang is fact and Venus spins in the opposite direction because "anything can happen." ??? Why is it that when a Christian speaks about God and miracles, the Atheist mock them? But when they say.."Well anything can happen." Is that not a belief in a miracle as well? Anything can happen? You mean like a miracle that Venus decided to spin backwards all by itself without any guidance? Illogical. Here's a response I read to that question as to why does Venus spin backwards.
"No one knows for sure, but they think that a very large asteroid many years ago crashed into it sending it spinning backwards. Since it's going against it's gravity and original spin, it spins very slowly and a day on Venus is longer than a year. There are many theories about it, but that's the most popular theory. It did in fact start by spinning normally." May
Now, lets take apart this answer shall we? First she says, "No one knows for sure, but they think that a very large asteroid many years ago crashed into it sending it spinning backwards." Okay now she is admitting that no one really knows. So to assume that an asteroid hit Venus is possible but there must be evidence, in which they haven't found. So, that theory is a guess. Can we believe it? No, because it's not fact. Then she goes on to say.."Since it's GOING AGAINST IT'S GRAVITY and ORIGINAL SPIN, it spins very slowly and a day on Venus is longer than a year." Okay, what she says here is a half truth and the rest is speculation. Yes, a day on Venus is longer than a year here, that is observed. BUT..she also states that Venus is GOING AGAINST IT'S GRAVITY and ORIGINAL SPIN. Question, how does she know what the gravity on Venus is like when no one has ever been there? And how does she know how it spun ORIGINALLY since she was not present nor was anyone else present when it first originally spun? So, she goes from a guess, to attempting to provide facts and does so falsely. Now to the rest of her statement. "There are many theories about it but that's the most popular theory." Yes, and the most popular theory amongst scientist was that the coelacanth was extinct until one was found, so what's the most popular amongst scientist isn't always the right theory. Finally she ends with this.."It did in fact start by spinning normally." And she knows this how? So, as we see it went from an assumption to a fact. They have bigger problems than cat stuck in a dog pound. So, they can't answer the question of naming one thing that is not created. One answer I received was this. "The Universe, is not created." The problem here is that how do they know? Here's another problem for Darwinist. Created things are formulated, created things have working parts to them. Created things are formed by objects. For example if you had a watch with all it's parts in a box, would it be a watch or just parts of a watch? It would be parts of a watch because together these parts make a watch, they create a watch. Without these parts is there a watch? No. So the Universe consists of matter, energy, planets, stars. Those things make up the Universe, the Universe consists of these things. When I made that statement,the reply to that from an Atheist was this..."No, the Universe does not consist of those things it contains them!" Now, I put the exclamation point there because this young lady was actually irritated with me for making that true statement and she had to reply with a stupid answer because if not then she would have to admit I'm right.
Here's the problem with her statement. "No, the Universe does not consist of those things it contains them!" Let's look in the dictionary shall we for the definition of the word consist.
Ready for this?
con⋅sist: to be made up or composed. to be comprised or CONTAINED.
Let's look in a Thesaurus.
Main Entry: consist
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: exist, reside
Synonyms: abide, be, be CONTAINED in, be expressed by, be found in, dwell, inhere, lie, repose, rest, subsist
So what this young lady basically told me is. "No the Universe does not consists of these things it consists of these things!" So this boils down to semantics, in which we will get into in a later post, where I will talk about words and their meanings according to Atheist/Darwinist. But anyway, do you see her logic? No? Neither do I because it's illogical that means there is no logic to her reply. They real reason she made that very dumb statement was because she HAD to disagree with me, because she could not admit that a God fearing Christian was right. That's why.
So, it is correct or a fact that the universe is created, why? Because created things are formed. Now, an Atheist/Darwinist would lead you to believe that formed objects happen by accident. So, that defeats the purpose of them. Atheist and Darwinist are faced with this problem, nothing is created because it all happen by chance or accident. Since the Universe is a entity that is not conscious, then anything that is not conscious can be put together by accident or by chance, and then the Atheists and Darwinist will take this one step further, since a non living entity can be created by accident or chance, then so can a living entity. Even tho the odds are mathematically against them, they believe this to be fact.
Purpose
I was asked recently by an Atheist.."What about space? (empty space) That ("that" being empty space) is not created and it has no purpose." My answer to him was that of course empty space is created. If you took all the matter and energy out of the Universe you would have a void, an empty space. Would that space be there if all the matter and energy were present? No. Space is created by subtracting. Ever hear someone say.."Let's create some space here." ?? Space is created. It's purpose? To be free of matter and energy, to be space. Without a void there is no fullness or occupation. So the purpose of space is to be present for occupation, or fullness, or filled. So then everything has a purpose. Life has a purpose, we as individuals have a purpose. If you were an Atheist, then nothing has purpose because nothing is created and therefor there is no cause for our presence.
Christ is the cause of our existence, He is the creator who gives us purpose. It's simple logic that Atheist/Darwinist are void of. Now, for my next post I will discuss the question that everyone asked at one time in their lives. Who created God?
God bless...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
