And he does it again!
One of the things that I’ve noticed, even as a child is that being in rebellion to God seemed to make a person stupid or foolish.
Cool, so I’m a foolish rebel for going against Santa Claus and Russell’s Teapot.
Even today I witness intelligent people doing things that are so obviously going to turn out badly.
It’s called “being human.”
Yet they do them anyway.
When I first began interacting with those who live according to the atheist faith,
Is bald a hair color?
which is by definition in rebellion to Creator God,
So, saying the magical teapot doesn’t exist is to rebel against the teapot? I thought it was just coming to the conclusion said teapot didn’t exist because of a lack of evidence for the magical teapot.
they struck me as dull of mind and slow of thought.
Cool, you think we’re dull and dumb, I like being underestimated.
Yet, because atheists, on average, are no more or no less “sinful” than anyone else, I began to wonder if it was simply one’s alienation from God and not sin itself that causes smart people to do and think in a really stunted manner.
Wait, so those preachers that steal from their churches, the pastors that are meth-addicted closet homosexuals while at the same time telling homosexuals they will burn in hell are “alienated” from God?
Let me give you an example that has been touched on in recent posts.
Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens.
Every single one of them is an intelligent person.
Every single one of them is an educated person.
Every single one of them has asked the kindergarten level question,
Yes, what question?
“Who / What created God?”
It’s a very basic question, where did this entity come from?
Most, if not all atheists have also asked this question. Why? Well, there’s a lot of reasons but one of them is a quirky trait that seems to be shared by all atheists.
Well, honestly, we’re supposed to believe a supernatural entity has always existed outside of space and time, started the ENTIRE universe, and gives two flying fucks about life on this little speck of rock? Where did such an entity come from? Are there more like this entity? Are they the Reptile Men?
Atheists seem to be, to an extreme very literal, black and white, rigid and repetitive, linear thinkers.
Do you have evidence for this? I can tell you for certain that while most aspects of biology are very graded, some aspects of physics (particle spin, for example) is very polarized. In any event, where are you going with this?
If Matthew says that an angel talked to Mary at the tomb of Jesus, and John says the angel spoke in the presence of women, atheists cannot see any other possibility than it must be a contradiction.
…there is no contradiction in that statement; contradictions do exist, but that isn’t one I would point out. The problem is that Matthew (28:2) says they were OUTSIDE the tomb while Mark (16:5), Luke (24:3-4), and John (20:11-12) state it was INSIDE the tomb. That is a contradiction; unless of course a violation of space was going on. You know, being magic and all. Funny how that didn’t destroy all the atoms in the bodies of those poor little humans.
They really can’t do it. Now, some of them are just too stupid to be able to see more than one possibility yet many are at least intelligent enough to have graduated high school.
I would never make such a claim. You bitch and moan when we use any name-calling in generalities, isn’t there a “golden rule” you like to trumpet about?
Nevertheless, the ability to comprehend the nature of anything that can’t be seen or touched is simply beyond the average atheist. Take for instance these scientific facts:
Oh, here we go again…
. Everything that begins to exist has a cause / explanation for its beginning.
Yea, many different types of causes are possible, that doesn’t mean they all exist. Many explanations are possible, that doesn’t mean they are all true. You need evidence to substantiate a claim that your specific cause is the true cause…
. The universe had a beginning.
Already established as a “not exactly” answer…
. Therefore the beginning of the universe had a cause and an explanation for its beginning.
Kind of, there is an explanation, but not for the “beginning” nor a “cause.”
Until they recognised the metaphysical implications of a universe with a beginning, atheists could allow themselves to agree with Hume, “I’ve never asserted anything so ridiculous as to suggest that something could begin to exist without a cause.” That was the old and somewhat more intelligent atheist.
Except, that’s not what any physicist is saying. They are postulating causes based upon known conditions. The problem with the models is that time ceases to exist during the Planck Epoch. It is an unknown. This does not mean your cause is correct. You have no evidence substantiating this.
Realising the spot in which this puts them, modern atheists, the so called New Atheists are actually willing to say with a straight face that something probably CAN just pop into existence without a cause.
Virtual particles do exist… Matter CAN just “pop into existence without a cause.” Not only CAN it, but it DOES. It has been OBSERVED. Neat, huh?
One of the New Atheists even tells his devotees, that Nothing “evolved” into, well, everything.
Straw man of evolution, much? A randomly assembled simple self-replicating molecule is all that is needed to account for life on this planet. What this chemical was is subject to debate, but we have some really good models (which make predictions) such as the RNA World, Iron-Sulfur World, etc. Look, seriously, Wikipedia is a good starting point. It is by no means an end, but it makes for good background reading before delving into more weighty books on the subject. Start there.
When one reaches that level of internal confusion, it’s not a great leap to see how an intelligent person can allow h/herself to ask, “Well, if God made the universe, who made God?”
Where does this entity come from? You’re evoking a magical terminator to an infinite regress. Rather than understand that there is no regress. “universe happens”
Remember, atheists have no problem with saying that something is infinite, or that it has always existed,
Correct, but that’s based upon mathematics and evidence indicating that something (in this case, the fabric of space itself) is infinite in terms of the “four” dimensions we are familiar with. Time actually seems to be just something clocks measure, but that’s a whole other issue entirely.
or that it’s eternal, as long as that something isn’t Creator God.
Any evidence for this? It’s a jump in logic; “we don’t know, so God.”
However, if God exists, then He exists outside of and prior to the universe.
Prior to the universe? That’s nonsensical; time didn’t exist before mass or energy because all three rely upon each other to exist.
God is not material. He is Spirit. He does not need a cause.
(read: “He’s magical”)
He has always been. He is infinite. He is eternal.
(read: “I’m just making this shit up as I go, and since I have no evidence for this, this deity MUST be infinite in all aspects)
Asking, “What caused an infinite or eternal Being to begin?”
Better question; how do you know this supposed being even DOES exist?
or, “When did an eternal being begin to exist?” is illogical and incoherent.
How do you know this entity exists, and if you can prove this, how do you know this entity is eternal? Any evidence?
Illogical statements are something that atheists usually take great pains to avoid, except when they’re confronted with the reality of Creator God.
Do I seem to be avoiding it? Nope, I’m reading it, thinking about it, and butchering it.
Then, it seems, all bets are off. The fact remains, and it remains a fact that is based on what science tells us is true,
that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, had its cause from something outside of itself.
I already explained why this is a nonsensical argument.
There are no known exceptions to this observed and consistently verified rule.
Again, virtual particles…
When it comes to the origins of our universe, we must choose between Matter as infinite and Creator God who is Spirit,
The little red “False Dichotomy” flag should be blowing in the hot air right about now…
as infinite and eternal (existing outside of time).
Because without the straw man of “infinite matter,” your “created universe” argument just seems silly. How about this: matter existed as long as time has, but since time and matter and energy and thus the way we think causality seems to flow no longer existed in the Planck Epoch, it’s a completely silly question. Read up about physical retrocausality, that shit will blow your linear-thinking mind. Oh, wait, my mind was the linear one, I forgot, seems I went off on a tangent rather than follow your circle, you’ll find I tend to do that a lot with circular logic.
Reason states that it must be One and not the other for matter cannot pre-exist itself either physically or chronologically,
Again, retrocausality, virtual particles, radioactive decay, gravity, need I go on with these “chronological” events that are so often violated?
nor can matter bring itself into existence or create itself.
Cool, you know more about retrocausality that Feynman, Hawking, Wheeler, etc. Good to know next time I have a question about Minkowski Space.
Again, it is impossible for Matter to be infinite or to exist from eternity past.
Again, atheists used to agree that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause.
Except, there is no infinite regress of causation because causation ceases to be a factor…
Confronted with the reality of the nature of matter, modern atheists, supposedly intelligent atheist insist that Creator God, who is Spirit, must also adhere to the law of first cause.
You see, personally, I think this is a ridiculous argument. If you’re going to make the argument that the universe needs a cause (which I see no reason for it to have a cause since causality could not have existed without matter and energy) then you propose the infinite regress terminator. Without your notion of a deity, no infinite regress exists because of the lack of causality without matter or energy or time.
Again, it is so elementary it’s difficult to understand how these individuals cannot grasp that physical laws do not apply to Spirit.
Spirits exist too, it would seem; evidence?
Since God is by definition outside the universe,
This sounds familiar…
He is not part of any series,
Except, within the Planck Epoch, he/she/it could NOT have caused anything because causality would not exist.
be it regressing or not.
It wouldn’t regress without you invoking causality without causality being possible… You are implying causality is similarly outside of space-time and thus we can say “where did God come from.” That’s the problem with your terminator; it OPENS the can of worms.
That means that the rules of the series, including the rules of causation will not and cannot apply to Him.
But they would; if causality applies to the origin of the universe (when causality would not exist) then causality must be outside of space-time. Causality would then apply to your deity of choice.
1) Matter is eternal – or
Creator God is eternal
2) If Matter isn’t eternal then Matter is able to bring itself into existence – or
Creator God brings matter into existence
Q:”either matter is eternal or it isn’t” A: “it isn’t”
Q:”how can some entity cause a something to exist without the causality being applicable to said entity?” (for this, I have no answer)
3) Matter, against impossible odds, accidentally or purposely produces life – or
Creator God purposely produces life from Matter
Neither; matter, under certain conditions, can (inefficiently) self-replicate, this inefficient self replication results in diversification and differential “survival” given limited resources resulting in a selective pressure.
4) Matter arranges and designs itself exquisitely and intricately – or
Creator God arranges and designs Matter exquisitely and intricately
5) Matter produces a life of meaning and context and purpose – NOT! – or
Creator God produces a life of meaning and context and purpose.
Purpose? Meaning? You mean you are given meaning and purpose, what is it? Is it universal? I consider my purpose in life is to explore the world around me and use what I learn to help as many people as possible to live healthier, happier, more intellectually satisfied lives. What’s your purpose again?
Modern atheists will tell you that since the first supposition is impossible and the second is unpalatable, “Nothing caused the universe to come into being. It just happened an we need not consider it further.”
That is precisely NOT what atheists are saying. We are saying to explore the universe, probe the puzzling questions. How does matter behave on the Planck timescale? What is the minimum requirement for “living organisms” and where else might they be found? What is the nature of time?
What question does your model raise? Oh, right “God did it, so we need not consider it further”–I have a question, are you looking in a mirror and thinking of yourself as this mysterious atheist whom you base your strawman upon?
“So vast, without any question, is the divine handiwork of the Almighty Creator.”
Ahh, Copernicus, yes, because he truly understood how big the universe was… Also, it’s possible he was sucking up to those in power, let us not forget what happened to Galileo Galilei when he supported Copernicus’ ideas.