A Stable Universe - In Atheism or Theism?

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

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

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

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

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

Lewotin makes a perfectly foolish unthinking statement at the end when he says that appealing to an omnipotent deity allows that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured.  Really?

Lewontin fails to see that this is perfectly true for atheism, not theism!

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

However, under theism, what is the reason that the regularities may be ruptured? The only possible reason would be the will of the deity.  But then why would an intelligent creator simply screw everything he made from one day to the next?  What reason would he have?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Einstein was not an atheist by any means.
Thank God for that too.

God of the Gaps?

God of the Gaps?

Posted: October 17, 2013 in Atheism, Darwinism/Intelligent Design, Evolution, Existence of God, Logic, Philosophy, Reason, Science
Tags: argument from ignorance, darwinism, evolution of the gaps, god of the gaps

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

Will this kind of thing ever end? Not until atheists finally admit that their position -its not merely a “lack” as they foolishly pretend to themselves- is void of intelligence and in fact annihilates  intelligence itself since atheism cannot have true rationality.

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

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

Atheism says that your so-called rationality, your logic, your reasoning faculties; all together is “nothing but a pack of neurons.  Well, Sir Crick has passed on to the other realm that is much more solid than this one and has been obliged to answer for his crimes against the Deity, so we can’t ask him the obvious question, “Why should we listen to what a pack of neurons is saying?”, or “How can a pack of neurons be true or false?”.
Other interesting questions like this could and should be posed to atheists as often as it takes to get the message, the logical conclusions and implications of their inane position, into their incredibly stubborn heads.
In any case, we must take a quick and dirty look at one Darwinism’s chief complaints against both creationism and Intelligent Design (these are not the same).

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

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

They do not tend to think well at all for themselves, so, having been forced into the standard Darwinian mantra, they simply parrot what they were told by their priests and pastors.  This is because they either cannot or will not think such things through for themselves. So, they need indoctrination and counselling from their priests to know what to believe.

Well, I would love to really get into that little delicacy, just for fun, but I don’t feel like it.
So, on to the infamous parroted “God if the gaps” accusations.

First of all, arguments of the pattern:
“Evolution cannot explain this therefore God did it” arguments, are almost never used by any informed theist and never by any of the major Intelligent Design or creationist debaters, scientists etc on this.
People like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Douglas Marks, Jay Richards etc, do not use “gap” arguments at all.  What they really do is argue from a simplified form of “statistical mechanics” (for lack of a better term). This means that when an IDist says anything like, “no evolutionary evidence exist for this, no known evolutionary pathway exists to explain this, no known mechanism exists that can accomplish this”,  They are not saying “you can’t explain it, therefore God must have done it”.

That is simply and categorically false.

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

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

In my personal experience it is ALWAYS the last 2 options. and sometimes the first as well.
Again, what are IDists saying? Based on the principles of statistical mechanics, they’re saying that we already know that such mechanical sophistication and algorithmic information cannot arise by chance no matter how much time is allotted.  The probability of such machinery and circuitry being constructed, with the plans for making the parts and the assembly instructions for putting them together with all this being algorithmically encoded in DNA, is so astronomically small that it may as well be considered impossible.  It is in fact, statistically impossible by ANY known random or stochastic process including mutations plus selection.

So, this has nothing at all to do with “gap” arguments but is merely stating the obvious based on the laws of probability! Something Darwinian biologists tend to be uniquely inapt at using or even understanding.
Designists are not saying, “we can’t see how this happened therefore God id it” at all; on the contrary!  They are saying, “the laws of probability”, thermodynamics and physics do not allow any purposeless, unguided process to create this kind of integrated functionality.

That is a very different thing from a mere gap argument.  So in fact, they are not arguing from ignorance but from well documented knowledge!  Knowledge of proven mathematics applied to the mechanics of biological machinery.

See?

That is NOT a gap or ignorance based argument at all.  It is a solid scientific empirical method being used to calculate whether nature can even do such things. When facing the odds of events that have estimated with between 1 in 10^20 to 1 in 10^130 to even worse odds, the obvious answer is that blind evolution could not have done it, no matter how much time you allot!
Secondly, there is a humongous hypocrisy at work among the Darwinists when they foolishly choose to use this rebuttal.

Notice that Darwinists have NEVER, not even once, provided a viable mutation/selection pathway for the existence of even the smallest living things.  This means that the ONLY way they can claim that any living thing evolved is through speculation and conjecture -most of the time just wishful thinking and vivid imaginations are all they have.

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

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

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

Because they simply invoke evolution of the gaps! They do this everywhere, “evolution did it”. Oh, sorry, they use slightly different terms but the answer is always the same – evolution did it!
In other words, Darwinists are the WORST offenders of “gap”, ignorance-based arguments!  They never have any viable mutational-selection pathways to explain anything but the very very trivial!  So, without a grain of empirical evidence that really does explain how vision systems developed without a “seeing” intelligence, they simply claim -loudly and with much bombast and pompous fury against any other theory, “evolution did it!”
“Proof?”
“We don’t need proof!! We KNOW evolution did it!”
“How do you know this, without proof?”
“Because no God exists! “

Oops.  There you have it.  The cat is out of the bag.  The whole system is 99% religion based. Metaphysical Naturalism. In other words. The religion of atheism.
Don’t believe this? Well then you’re being incredibly naive and demonstrating a very profound ignorance.
Just to help you out:

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

Wow, if that isn’t clear enough, nothing is.  So, Darwinists are in fact religious adepts of Naturalism (materialism), a very very old heathen religion.
Therefore it must be illegal, in the USA, to teach Darwinism is public schools.  So why isn’t it?

Another Headache for Darwin

In 2008 scientist Vladimir ShCherbak published information his book “The Codes of Life” with a chapter entitled “The Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code”.  (Biosemiotics Volume 1, 2008, pp 153-185 – http://www.springerlink.com/content/t85w0h771510j187)

The discoveries covered in this are yet another wonderful refutation of Darwinism.
Of course, we know beforehand that the Darwinians will deny these clear implications, as they always do when any discovery challenges their secular humanism (a religion) based theory.  That’s because Darwinism is materialism’s origins myth.
For example shCherbak writes,

“There seems to be but one conclusion: the genetic code is itself a unique structure of arithmetical syntax. The arithmetical syntax is separated from natural events by the unbridgeable gap between the fundamental laws of nature and the abstract codes of the human mind (Barbieri, 2005). Chemical evolution, no matter how long it took, could not possibly have stumbled on the arithmetical language and initialized the decimalization of the genetic code. Physics and chemistry can neither make such abstractions nor fit the genetic code out with them.”
“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

“First, a general and the most forcible argument: it has been found that the genetic code is governed directly by the arithmetical symbol of zero. This striking fact is verified simultaneously by several independent orderlinesses – logical, arithmetical, and semantical… Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.”

Zero is indeed and abstraction, as is the decimal point.  Only minds can entertain abstractions. Nature, being mindless, cannot therefore create or use abstract data like this. Abstractions don’t exist in nature’s matter and energy.
Indeed, the very definition of the word abstract is as follows:

1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty,  and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.
…
8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.
9. an abstract work of art.

Note: removed unrelated definitions (related to arts)

Abstractions are only and always conceptual, requiring a mind.  Thus Nature, DNA and life as a whole, cannot know or understand abstract concepts like zero and the decimal point.  Matter and energy alone cannot abstract.

The very obvious conclusion of the existence of abstraction being used in the genetic code is a proof – not a mere evidence – that the genetic code was created by a mind, and intelligence.
ShCherbak states this very clearly in his statement- that I repeat for emphasis, “Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.“
An “artificial origin” is the same as “intelligently designed”.
There is no other source for abstraction but mind and only mind can understand it.

Is this thus the end of Darwinism?

Well the truth is that Darwinism died many years ago with the discovery of the genetic code itself.  How so? Code is a symbol system.  Codes do not write themselves. Codes are conventions of symbols contrived to represent something other than themselves.  Algorithms cannot create themselves. No random process can create algorithmic symbol systems. Algorithms, being instructions and how to do something – like make a blueberry pie or build car -  require a mind.
As Dr. David Abel explains,

“Not even Descriptive semantic information is achievable by inanimate physicodynamics (Pattee, 1972, 1995, 2001). Measuring initial conditions in any experiment and plugging those measurements appropriately into equations (e.g., physical “laws”) is formal, not physical. Cybernetic programming choices and mathematical manipulations are also formal.
The specific term PI originated out of a need to qualify the kind of information being addressed in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Shannon measured only probabilistic combinatorial uncertainty. Uncertainty is not information. It is widely recognized that even reduced uncertainty (“R,” poorly termed “mutual entropy”) fails to adequately describe and measure intuitive information. Intuitive information entails syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Syntax deals with symbol sequence, various symbol associations, and related arbitrary rules of grouping. Semantics deals with the meanings represented within any symbol system. Pragmatics addresses the formal function of messages conveyed using that symbol system.” – http://www.scitopics.com/Prescriptive_Information_PI.html

More information and several articles one should read to grasp the concepts discussed can be found here.
Again Abel notes,

“No one has ever observed PI flow in reverse direction from inanimate physicodynamics to the formal side of the ravine—the land of bona fide formal pragmatic “control.” The GS Principle states that selection for potential function must occur at the molecular-genetic level of nucleotide selection and sequencing, prior to organismic existence (Abel, 2009b, d).
Differential survival/reproduction of already-programmed living organisms (natural selection) is not sufficient to explain molecular evolution or life-origin (Abel, 2009b). Life must be organized into existence and managed by prescriptive information found in both genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms. The environment possesses no ability to program linear, digital folding instructions into the primary structure of biosequences and biomessages.
The environment also provides no ability to generate Hamming block codes (e.g. triplet codons that preclude noise pollution through a 3-to-1 symbol representation of each amino acid) (Abel and Trevors, 2006a, 2007). The environment cannot decode or translate from one arbitrary language into another. The codon table is arbitrary and physicodynamically indeterminate. No physicochemical connection exists between resortable nucleotides, groups of nucleotides, and the amino acid that each triplet codon represents. Although instantiated into a material symbol system, the prescriptive information of genetic and epigenetic control is fundamentally formal, not physical.”

What he is saying, for those not used to the terms of reference and concepts of the laws and nature of information, is that Darwinism cannot be true because matter + energy, random mutations + “selection” (a mere filter) cannot create abstractions like codes and symbol systems.  It just doesn’t happen. No more than your rose bush can do arithmetic.  Math is abstract in itself, nature knows nothing out it.

Therefore this arithmetical nature of the genetic code, with its zero and decimal, its algorithmic information, cannot be natural. This is a defeater for Darwinian evolution – period.

The current generation of elder Darwinian fanatics will never accept these obvious facts, it counters their whole world view and makes them nervous and insecure.  That’s why the Darwinistas are so enraged, utterly out to lunch, LOUD and adamantly resistant.  They are the new inquisition. It’s about religion for them, not science, whether they confess this “sin” or not.

This was revealed by one of their own, who at least was honest enough to admit it. Richard Lewontin,

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.’ – Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.

Well we can take his word for it, right? Well um … if you can trust a scientist that tells you that he lies!   This is nevertheless a very strange statement. He says the materialism is absolute, and we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. But atheism has no absolutes!

The Darwinists only logical response to this is to claim panspermia, an extra-terrestrial origin for DNA.  But that only pushes the problem back one step, for then we need to ask, “How did they get here?” Now, supposing that the ETs themselves are DNA based will only leave us with the same question of the origin of life.

It will of course take a long time before these perfectly logical conclusions are accepted – perhaps the next generation of students of biology and other related domains will accept the truth. We’ll have to wait till this generation dies off.

A Theory In Ruins

The Darwinian propaganda juggernaut is a lot like a T-Rex: huge, stupid, vicious and utterly intolerant of dissension.  But it's slowing down.

Its engine is broken down to the point that it can no longer provide the force necessary to keep its velocity.  The engine runs on gas (hot air) and the hot air is the only thing keeping the machine from completely falling apart.

On the Problem of Evil & Suffering

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

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

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

So how does one answer this type of objection?

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

Forget all that for now. There is a much simpler way to demonstrate why this argument is utterly flawed.
First you must see that in a universe with no God, there cannot be any absolute moral values. Most atheists admit this. For example:

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

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

"If there is no God, everything is permitted." - Jean Paul Sartre on Ivan Karamazov - Fyodor Dostoevski's character

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

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

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

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

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

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

The atheist thus shoots himself in the head again with such arguing against God based on "there is so much evil".  For such an argument becomes too obviously wrong given that "no God = no evil", (as most atheist philosophers themselves state).

Suffering becomes a mere amoral, purposeless event in a cold uncaring cosmos. Or as Dawkins put it, a blind, pitiless, indifferent universe. Suffering but without God suffering is neither evil nor good nor "bad". Thus we see how the atheist in using the existence of evil and suffering to refute the existence of God is unwittingly assuming the existence of God in the very argument itself!

Therefore, how can one claim God doesn't exist while admitting the existence of evil? If there is no God how does one define evil?  Indeed, how does one claim that suffering is "wrong" in a universe without God?
One might even state,

"Evil exists.  Therefore God exists."

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Evidence for God?

I often encounter atheists who claim that there is no evidence for God.

Question: Is this true?

A: The most obvious answer is a quite resounding no.

No one can claim there is no evidence in the universe for the existence of a supreme being.  Yet, arm chair atheist pseudo-experts and wannabe philosophers say dumb things like that all the time because they never think anything through deeply enough to see how foolish such statement is.

Proof? Ask them to prove there is no evidence for God.  Gee - End of discussion right there - if they were honest, but they are not.

What has been said of lawyers easily applies to atheists - its only 99% of atheists that give a bad reputation to the rest.

It is simply not - by any means - a logical or justifiable claim.   Why?  Well obviously no atheist can possibly offer any evidence for his own claim!  He can't offer any justification for such a stupendous claim, therefore he must bare alone the burden of proof that there is no evidence for God.  Can he? No, of course not.

The atheist positing such thus puts himself in the exact same position that he claims theists are in! Claiming that which cannot be proved.  This is hardly surprising since atheists also vehemently and religiously claim there is no God all while admitting they can't prove a negative!

His position implies that he has indeed searched out and deeply examined all proposed evidences of God and found them all lacking.   Of course there are no atheists who can even be aware of all the evidences that may exist for God, nor even of all proposed evidences since this would require a knowledge of every argument for God that has ever existed as well as all possible other evidences. Yet another knowledge claim that atheists cannot uphold.

To truly know there is zero evidence for God's existence implies that the atheist claiming this knows all possible evidences for God's existence.   No single human being ever has, nor ever will, be able to do this, thus all such flippant dismissals of all evidence for God are mere arrogant pretensions to unavailable knowledge.

That in itself destroys all claims by any atheists that there is no evidence for God.  It also demonstrates what every theist knows - that atheists are almost invariably arrogant blowhards making foolish claims they cannot back up.

Dismissal of all evidence is not an argument against God.  It is mere denial of reality that there are indeed infinite evidences for the existence of a first cause.  Claiming there's no evidence for God is tantamount to claiming to have proved that all proposed evidences, ever,  are wrong.  This has never been done by anyone, ever.

Moreover, claiming that any proposed evidence is wrong or insufficient does not prove that it is in fact wrong or insufficient.   Worse, even if one were able to truly refute all proposed evidence, that still does not imply that there is no God.  There may be other evidences that one is unaware of, the wrong analysis tools and methods may have been used for devising evidence, etc.

Atheist Kai Nielsen stated,

“To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false….All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.” - Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.

The atheist, though he will always deny it, because of personal wishes that there be no God, is always left with nothing to found his own beliefs on.  What do we see instead?  Nothing but denial and lame attempts at shirking his share of the burden of proof.  Atheists always shirk this by mere caviling and, as always,  denial that they even have any such burden. But they do have such a burden anyway - shirked or not, admitted or not.

Atheists tend to assume that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one ought to believe that God does not exist.  False.  What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a knowledge claim "There is no God" as theism's "There is a God".  Thus, as Ravi Zacharias states,

"the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence".

The atheist cannot say, "Well I don't claim there is no God, only that I don't believe there is".  But such would lead to agnosticism, not real atheism.  If one does not know there is no God, one has no grounds to believe there is no God, no ultimate first cause. Back to burden of proof!  Is there evidence that no God exists? No.  None whatsoever.

Is there evidence of a first ultimate cause? Yes, everything that exists is evidence of a first and ultimate cause, by implication of the laws of cause and effect! (Quantum theories notwithstanding).  To say a singularity started it all, or a quantum fluctuation started it all is to say "we have no idea what started it all"!  Fluctuation of what? etc.

Consider the following evidence, for example:

Information is evidence of God.  Information itself is metaphysical.  Logic is metaphysical.  Now, if metaphysical things exist then that itself is yet another evidence for the possibility and probability of the existence of God, who, by very definition, is metaphysical!  But atheists claim there is no such thing as a "metaphysical" something.  All is matter and energy.

Thus atheism is little different than insanity, for claiming that nothing metaphysical exists is as bad as claiming that information doesn't exist! So where does the atheist get this tasty bit of information?!

We know information is metaphysical because it is always other or different from the medium in which it is stored. The ink on the paper in a book, by itself is not information.  It's just a dye.  Ink on paper, by the way it's used and structured to form symbols that, in turn, represent specific concepts and meanings, is merely the container, the medium through which information is conveyed. All symbol systems imply metaphysics and intelligence.  The collective symbols, by the way they are organized on the paper can contain meaningful information, to a mind that knows the symbolic convention, or code, used.

Again, the pixels on your screen are not the information they contain.  They are mere colored light spots. However, the pixels encode information that requires a mind - a mind that has been taught the symbol convention used (say the alphabet or icons) - to interpret it. That information is not random - it isn't a meaningless blotch - but is structured and semantic.  It has syntax, semantics (meaning) and purpose.  No symbolic convention (code) is without purpose. But the very concept of purpose implies intention which implies mind and volition.

Encoded algorithmic information is a symbol system, whether that symbol system be such as the English or Hebrew alphabets or the ATCG chemicals of DNA.  Such symbol systems cannot exist without intelligence (they intrinsically imply intelligent origin) thereby demonstrating that metaphysical intelligence must exist in order to explain the humongous levels of algorithmic information contained in the DNA molecule.

That intelligence - given its complexity, depth and intricacy - is best and most simply (Occam's Razor) explained by what men have always called "God".  The Intelligent originator.

Encoded information

Encoded information

 

An Atheist That Doesn't Get It

Here I will attempt to show how atheists don't understand their own position by using the complaining claims of an atheist that wrote me.  I will try to dismantle their obvious errors.


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

So let's deal with his first, unsurprising because almost universal with watheists (a typical web forum atheist), but utterly wrong claim,

"Evidence for atheism? No, atheism is the default position."

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

1. Who says atheism is the default position?

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

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

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

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

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

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

As one commenter of the book put it,

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

Barrett stated,

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

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

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

Many other recent research articles could be noted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then he added,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ice cores, tree rings, soil layers etc. are information? No they are not.

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

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

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

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

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

Genomic instructions are a form of what Abel (Abel, 2002, Abel and Trevors, 2005) calls prescriptive information. Such a clarifying descriptor of information is necessary to distinguish mere Shannon combinatorial uncertainty and Kolmogorov complexity from functional algorithmic strings. Algorithms steer events and behaviors towards predictable usefulness.  Prescriptive information utilizes a sign system to either instruct or direct compute utility.
…
Artificial life investigators and most applied biologists accepted this reality early on. Steering is required to achieve sophisticated function of any kind. Much of the life-origin research community, however, continues to “live in denial” of this fact.

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

"Now, your last post contradicts your About section"

Right.  Nuff' said.
Then he adds, with equally unimpressive lucidity,

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

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

The only dishonesty witnessed around wen forums where fanatical atheists attempt to debate their "default" non-position is amongst atheist themselves, the most dishonest pseudo thinkers on earth.

He invites me to debate on his blog.

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

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

"You can lead an atheist to evidence but you can't make him think." - Ray Comfort