Atheists belief system built on foundation of fantasy!
Atheists also live in fantasylandAtheists assert that the universe came into being from nothing. In the beginning there was nothing and unintelligent matter/energy somehow popped into being from a state of non-being without any outside cause. They theorize that a point of singularity of this energy/matter all of a sudden without an outside cause exploded into a big bang giving birth to the universe. (Let me say that I do not deny a big bang as being a possible way that God began the process of creation. God would be a cause in that case.) They then assert that billions of years later all of the complicated requirements for life fell into place on planet earth, and although there was no life, it popped into being very much as matter/energy popped into being. Life one ideal and perhaps romantic night simply came into being from non-life. Then life evolved due to mutations and living organisms became more complicated. Incredibly, evolution holds that as life evolved, complicated organs also evolved slowly. Organs that are necessary for an organism to live took millions of years to evolve to a point of usefulness. Evolution somehow saw a need for an organ millions of years in advance and began the long process of developing that organ.
Certainly something coming from nothing is hard to fathom for the human mind, but asserting that an all-powerful super intelligent supreme being (God) is the cause of the universe introduces a logical reason that makes it comprehensible. The alternative that atheists offer is nonsense that asserts something coming from nothing without an outside cause. Yet, in spite of this kind of fantasy belief system, they mock and ridicule the belief in a supreme being in general and Christianity in particular.
Certainly something coming from nothing is hard to fathom for the human mind, but asserting that an all-powerful super intelligent supreme being (God) is the cause of the universe introduces a logical reason that makes it comprehensible. The alternative that atheists offer is nonsense that asserts something coming from nothing without an outside cause. Yet, in spite of this kind of fantasy belief system, they mock and ridicule the belief in a supreme being in general and Christianity in particular.
20 comments:
Ah, the fruit of total depravity, not wanting to retain God in their knowledge, not wanting to glorify Him as God, not being thankful to Him... Ya know, from this lot come people who can decide for Christ on their own... Ooops, there I go on the freewillies again... Sorry, I got carried away.
W.H., you are right, their belief system seems almost desperate in its attempt at keeping God out of the equation. 'Let's keep the knowledge of God out of the public eye so that we can sin w/o worrying about having to be accountable'. 'Love sin, hate God'.
Love sin...hate God...hate yourself...
Every position on this subject will require a certain amount of faith, since none of us were eyewitnesses, and it is not a reproducible event.
Personally, I even have issues with the big bang theory, because I cannot find a way to reconcile it with the Genesis account.
Most of my life, I was a theistic evolutionist, but the six literal day creationist position is quite convincing if it is seriously investigated.
My favorite extrabiblical resourse for this kind of thing is Answers In Genesis. I also like the commentary by Henry Morris called The Genesis Record.
hi Jazzy Cat,
read over on Bluecollar's blog , about your wife's up coming , surgery, praying all will be well!
Thanks Mark, J.D., Craver, and Jel for your comments and prayers.
"Evolution somehow saw a need for an organ millions of years in advance and began the long process of developing that organ."
This is rich!
And the question still remains: If man evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?
The picture reminds me of an illustration by Cornelius Van Til: the atheist is like a child sitting in the lap of her father, slapping him in the face while he is all the while upholding her.
Well said, thanks!
Awesome post, Jazzy! Awesome post!
Thanks Jonathan, Gayla, Steve, and Douglas.....
How would you propose to speak of God as "cause" when "cause and effect" are temporally derived concepts? That is, if cause and effect are proper and essential with temporality, how can one speak of God as "cause?" To do so would require that one could locate this mechanism of supernatural activity in that which is other than supernatural. However, as the very nature of super-naturality precludes the possibility of verifiability on the basis of temporally defined criteria (for temporally defined criteria and measuring devices can only measure and compute that which is proper to them), I do not see where this language gets us anywhere.
Would replacing the word cause with the word creator satisfy your objection?
The only alternative I see to a creator supreme being creating the universe would be for matter/energy to come into being from non-being or either to have always been. Absent intelligence, I think these alternatives are nonsense.
Would replacing the word cause with the word creator satisfy your objection?
Well, if the underlying conception of causality were "replaced" as well, perhaps.
The only alternative I see to a creator supreme being creating the universe would be for matter/energy to come into being from non-being or either to have always been.
Interestingly enough, this is precisely what the Judeo-Christian notion of creation ex nihilo says. That is, as all that exists has not existed eternally, one must inevitably affirm that matter/energy did, in fact, arise from non-being. As I see it, a naturalistic description of universal origins in no way excludes the infinite participation of God as source and sustenance. However, as humans--as finite beings--do not have the capacity to identify nor explicate precisely what the intersection of divine and finite reality entails (after all, think of the Incarnation and how much we do not understand about that...), I simply think the assertion that naturalistic cosmologies and a full-blown, robust theism are mutually exclusive is a bit of a non-sequitur argument.
Absent intelligence, I think these alternatives are nonsense.
I'm not sure I understand how "intelligence" would make a better way for a sensical argument. After all, upon what basis are we defining "intelligence?" Perhaps God's intelligence is such that matter arising from nothingness is the most reasonable thing possible.
If you are interested, I will be posting an essay on my site soon that discusses what I call the "hegemony of design." It will more fully explicate my brief comments here.
I will check it out... I believe we would agree that matter/energy in and of itself has no power or ability to have come from nothing. I would also submit that it is nonsense that matter/energy has always existed.
To believe God has always existed, at the very minimum adds the ingredient of supreme power and intellingence which the human mind cannot grasp.
I will check it out... I believe we would agree that matter/energy in and of itself has no power or ability to have come from nothing. I would also submit that it is nonsense that matter/energy has always existed.
To believe God has always existed, at the very minimum adds the ingredient of supreme power and intellingence which the human mind cannot grasp.
I believe we would agree that matter/energy in and of itself has no power or ability to have come from nothing.
Well, the way you have worded this again falls into the hegemony of causality--for to suggest that matter/energy cannot come from nothingness "in and of itself" presupposes an underlying assumption about the need for matter origination to be "caused."
I would also submit that it is nonsense that matter/energy has always existed.
In a sense, matter/energy have always existed, for if the duration of existence is measured linearly and by the strictures of finitude, there is no space in which to speak of a time in which the universe did not exist.
To believe God has always existed, at the very minimum adds the ingredient of supreme power and intellingence which the human mind cannot grasp.
Yes, but in what way does this necessitate the same as the "cause" of the origination of matter/energy?
Exist,
Let me put it this way....
If there were ever a time when there was nothing, there would be nothing today. Therefore, something has to have the power of being in and of itself. This something cannot 'not be'. This something has always existed. This existence may have been in another dimension or some other way we do not understand, but it has to have had the power of self-existence.
There are two basic choices:
(1) a supreme being with intelligence and power.
(2) inert powerless matter/energy
I believe that intelligence/power trumps matter/energy even without special revelation.
Let me put it this way....
If there were ever a time when there was nothing, there would be nothing today.
Jazzy, look at the language you have used. The concept of "time when there was no time" does not make sense, for time only makes sense within the confines of a system that presupposes the existence of time. That is, there was never a "time" when the universe did not exist, for the existence of time is essential with the existence of the universe and is only intelligible within the paradigm of that which is "time-d."
Therefore, something has to have the power of being in and of itself. This something cannot 'not be'. This something has always existed. This existence may have been in another dimension or some other way we do not understand, but it has to have had the power of self-existence.
You are here advocating an argument similar to Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument which posits that the perfect being must exist because perfection requires existence. However, even this argument presupposes a certain quality of "existence" and posits such a quality in the finitude of existence which is the human paradigm. That is, being and non-being are only intelligible in that one presupposes certain values for "being" and "non-being." As humans, located within a finite universe, do not have access to such absolute, unqualified realities, it is questionable whether or not we could speak propositionally about the reality (or non-reality) of such concepts.
There are two basic choices:
(1) a supreme being with intelligence and power.
(2) inert powerless matter/energy
I believe that intelligence/power trumps matter/energy even without special revelation.
This juxtaposition of options is only necessary if one assumes that existence must correspond to causality, which presupposition I reject.
Exist,
Cut me some slack on this time thing. Before the universe, before time, before space, above time, whatever parameters you use something had the power of being in and of itself. Something could not 'not be' and that something can either be one of the two choices I gave.
I agree with your last statement as regards to a supreme being. This is my point of proving a supreme being. However, if you want to apply it to matter, then it is pure nonsense. Matter is always 'changing and becoming' and is not static. This proves it does not have the power of being, but is always 'becoming'. It is 'becoming' because it is being effected by causality.
Can you name me one thing in the universe that is not changing due to causes?
Cut me some slack on this time thing.
I am only pointing out how the language we use when talking about these things can helplessly obscure the thing being discussed. You might be frustrated by my insistence on this "technicality," but it is a hugely important issue. One cannot speak of time apart from the universe, at least not within a linear, causally understood framework, for it is this very framework that gives intelligibility to the concept of "time." Therefore, to speak of existence apart from such parameters on the basis of these same parameters dissolves quickly into absurdity.
Before the universe, before time, before space, above time, whatever parameters you use something had the power of being in and of itself.
I'm not sure how this follows as a necessary conclusion. After all, to assert that something has the power of existence "in and of itself" would seem to logically require the presupposed existence (or nonexistence) of that over and against which the self-existent exists.
Something could not 'not be' and that something can either be one of the two choices I gave.
I agree with your last statement as regards to a supreme being. This is my point of proving a supreme being.
But that's just the point--there is no way in which to "prove" a supreme being, for the very criterion by which one would attempt to do this mitigate the possibility of the desired conclusion. After all, if human constructs of proof and verifiability are the determination of the actuality of the existence of God, the only thing that one has proved is that something quantifiable by human reasoning exists. However, as divine being explodes the capacities of human reason and intellect to grasp and imagine, it is wholly impossible that any version of "proofs" could be trumpted that would in any way correspond to what God is the divine nature.
However, if you want to apply it to matter, then it is pure nonsense. Matter is always 'changing and becoming' and is not static. This proves it does not have the power of being, but is always 'becoming'. It is 'becoming' because it is being effected by causality.
Affected by causality? You are speaking as if causality is something foreign to the universe which operates from the outside upon the universe. As I have argued, however, causality is essential with the universe, and cannot be extended beyond the conceptual framework evidenced within the universe. Does this mean that God cannot be spoken of, nor as Creator? Of course not. However, it does require that one be a bit more critical in speaking of it without resorting to language of brute causality when speaking of the creative acts of God in relation to space/time.
Can you name me one thing in the universe that is not changing due to causes?
No, nor do I see any reason why one would wish to try to identify such a thing.
Post a Comment