What Kind of World would Convince us that Atheism is True?

Posted by Hitch on May 9, 2018

“What kind of world would convince you that there is no God?”

This is a question posed a while back by atheist Jerry Coyne and one that pops up once in a while in debates on theism vs atheism.

And the answer is very simple.

No world at all. Indeed, no worlds at all, no universe at all – nothing.

That’s the only rational answer. If literally nothing existed then there would be no one to posit either theism or atheism or anything at all and atheism would be true by default since absolute nothing would also mean no God. However, as soon as you have something, atheism becomes untenable. It can never explain the existence of anything and thus it is too weak a proposition to have any use or credibility.

“Nothingness” is atheism in a nutshell. Atheism is the intellectual black hole of the universe.

Nothing made everything in atheism. Some of them try to pretend that atheism does not really make such a preposterous claim. And yet, they will point to Lawrence Krauss who wrote the book, A Universe from Nothing!  And then they will claim that nothing doesn’t really mean nothing. Um, what?! Say again?

To escape the stupidity of his claims Krauss tries to redefine nothing to mean something. In fact, militant atheists like that are always seeking escape tactics like this to hide the insanity of what they’re saying.  But even in their curious definitions of “nothing” their foolish arguments fail miserably. Since they have defined nothing as something, they still must explain how that something that they call nothing (I’m not making this up) came to exist.  Of course. They cannot do any such thing.

Thankfully the hard sciences and math tell us that the energetic potential of nothing is always nothing. This is the most obvious thing in the ‘world’. Indeed, and using atheist “logic”, we could think that 10^1000 x 0 does not equal 0 but some humongous positive number.

Why is there something rather than nothing is something that blind atheism can never explain. Atheism has its own god. The great god Nothing. It is their posited creator and to their creator they think they are going when they die.

You’ve probably heard the ancient proverb that “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom”.  Well, in the inverse, atheism is the beginning of insanity.  Why? Because it is nothing but denial of reality and wishful thinking. And all the laughable and ill-reasoned, junk philosophy of a Coyne or a Dawkins will never change that. 

As Voltaire stated, 

“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…..” – Philosophical Dictionary

Scientific Atheism

Posted by Hitch on July 14, 2018

I just discovered a web page called “Scientific Atheism”.

Needless to say, I was a little stunned and appalled at the idiotic implied claim of atheism being scientific or atheism having any relation to science.

Let us be perfectly clear. There is absolutely no such thing as “scientific atheism”. Science, real science, is contrary to atheism is every way.

All the founders of modern science were theists, mostly Christians. Contrary to popular but ignorance-based objections by atheists to this fact, they all based their science on their belief in a personal God with an intelligible universe. Yes, their theism had everything to do with their science.

As C.S. Lewis rightly stated, 

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died [I would say has been subtly slaughtered by the idiocy of materialism and secular humanism]…” M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998)

Atheism is in fact, the real anti-science. As we see more and more today.

Scientist W.R. Thompson wrote,

“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. This is already evident in the reckless statements of Haeckel and in the shifty, devious and histrionic argumentation of T. H. Huxley… This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion.”— W.R. Thompson, “Introduction,” to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin’s, Origin of Species (1956 edition).

The situation has only worsened since that was written.

Indeed. We now have an unobservable, unverifiable multiverse, for example, spoken of as though it really exists. We have major name scientists making ludicrous statements like Lawrence Krauss’ and pals, “A Universe from Nothing”.  We have the whole Darwinian theory that is a major disaster in the history of science. We have dozens of purely speculative hypotheses being passed off as though valid theories or even facts.  We have naive theories on star formation and planet formation that are full of insurmountable problems, yet passed off as facts in many science documentaries, magazines, and journals. 

The agnostic physicist David Berlinski has written a poignant critique of this kind of foolishness in his book “The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions“.

On the inside cover of the book, intro­ducing his subject, he wrote, 

“Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence?

Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe and why it is here?

Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe anything so long as it is not religious thought?

Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?

Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?

Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?

Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?

Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual con­tempt?

Dead on.”

Atheism accords absolutely no reason why we should expect law and order and a comprehensible universe and thus no reason for any science at all. If this trend keeps up, the end of pure, rational, observation and logic-based science is in sight. And it will not end well.

Indeed, atheism provides no reason to even believe the universe is rational. A universe without a rational maker should not itself be rational. It has no rationality behind it. Bags of meat, rocks and stars are not rational. Nature is not rational. Rationality itself, just like morality (Wilson, Ruse), in atheism is nothing but an illusion of the brain which according to atheism, evolved of non-rational processes.

As Francis Crick put it,

“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

Really? If atheism is true then yes. But then he should have added that your science and your logic are also nothing but a pack of neurons, the results of a vast assembly of nerve cells and thus have no relation to reality.

That page, and all others like it, should be assailed by knowledgeable theists, debunking the foolishness of the “scientific atheism” nonsense. There is no such thing. It is the latest atheist delusion.

Evidence for the Evolution of a Complex Biological System

Posted by Hitch on October 10, 2020

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books that describe how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.”
Darwin’s Black Box, The Free Press, 1996.

Behe nailed it.
It was true in ’96 and it’s still true – and far more obvious.

There is not one single piece of empirical evidence showing the evolution of ANY real, complex biological system – nothing but truckloads of empty assertions that it “may have, could have, must have, we believe…”

In 40 + years of discussion and debate with evolutionists of every grade and level of education, never once have I ever received a demonstration, with empirical evidence of how any single organism evolved, over millions of years, into a new organism – i.e. a new taxonomic family. Not once. All I have ever seen is evasive maneuvers, much storytelling, hand-waving, empty assertions based on the standard Darwinian circular reasoning, and the very trivial being passed off as proof of the very great.

Darwinists are big on imagination, huge on storytelling, titanic on conjecture passed off as evidence, but minuscule of empirical evidence. And I have yet to meet just one who actually understands the problems of genetic information, genetic decay, cellular combinatorial dependencies, …

And evolutionary biology is literally devoid of any proper mathematical foundations – such as physicists MUST provide to support their theories.

“I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
– Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

“It is an algorithm that lies at the humming heart of life, ferrying information from one set of symbols (the nucleic acids) to another (the proteins). An algorithm? How else to describe the intricacy of transcription, translation, and replication than by an appeal to an algorithm? For that matter, what else to call the quantity stored in the macromolecules than information? And if the macromolecules store information, they function in some sense as symbols.”
– David Berlinski

And guess what? Symbols do not exist in nature. Nature knows nothing of symbolism. Symbolic code systems do not and cannot arise without a founding, guiding intelligence – by definition.
Too bad evolutionists so stubbornly remain in darkness and denial of these facts.

“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.”
– Biosemiotic Research Trends

And materialist evolutionists live in denial of any reality that contradicts their defunct theory.