Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Talk About Irony

In a desperate search for ways to avoid the Big Bang Creation Event, and its distasteful metaphysical implications (An Immaterial Creator Exists), atheists have devolved into creating Atheist Origin Of The Universe Mythologies (See below).

I have tried to point out that science itself has shut the door on ANY of these mythologies. They simply are not workable. So desperate are atheists to rid the universe of God as Cause, these mythologies are only a small example of what atheists are willing to believe (more examples below). For example, Atheist High Priest, Richard Dawkins is on record as saying that nothing - literally nothing - “evolved.” Many atheists of course can’t admit that at one time nothing existed. So powerful is this denial that one atheist told me, “The molecules that existed before the Big Bang evolved and changed.”

That just makes me cringe with embarrassment for atheists.

An atheist told me yesterday that a “concept” something like the concept of infinity is what brought energy / matter into existence.

That is no less embarrassing.

Here are the facts: Borde, Guth and Vilenkin have been able to extend the conclusion of the past-incomplete cyclic universe to the following atheist Origin Of The Universe Mythologies.
Oscillating universe -

Baby universes -

Multi verses -

The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario -

The Chaotic Inflationary universe -

Brane-cosmology -

Inflationary multi-verse -

Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum -

The many worlds hypothesis -

The black hole hypothesis -

Quantum gravity models -

Vacuum fluctuation models -

Imaginary time and imaginary space -

The conclusion they reached is that ANY model of an expanding universe, be it theoretical like the ones just mentioned, or real, such as our own, is geodesically incomplete, or past-incomplete without a past finite space / time boundary. What the atheists who are challenged in this area don’t understand is that the phrase, “past-incomplete implies the need for an initial singularity. That means that ANY model of an expanding universe cannot be past-eternal.

The material infinite does not exist:
Even if you believe that there were a bzillion universes prior to our own, or that there are a bzillion other universes besides our own, because there cannot be a material infinite there had to have been a FIRST universe and that first universe began with a singularity, a creation event, a beginning, a definitive space / time boundary.

Now it used to be the case that those atheists who were rightly terrified of the implications of a universe with a beginning could hide behind our ignorance of pre Planck time events. In fact, those who remain ignorant regarding this theorem continue to say, “We just don’t know,” as though that somehow makes universes extending into the eternal past possible. It does not.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem does not depend upon any physical description or knowledge of the pre Plank time era. This theorem rids atheists of any hope of avoiding a singularity, a beginning, a Big Bang Creation Event. This is true PARTICULARLY for Dawkins’ favourite myth, the eternal inflationary multi-verse.

“It is said that an Argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a Proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.” Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One - The Search for Other Universes,” 11

At some level, atheists know that Everything coming from Nothing by Nothing is impossible.

At some level, atheists know that matter cannot create itself or bring itself into being.

At some level, atheists know that the material infinite does not exist.

Yet, an a priori decision to rule out everything but the material, causes atheists to repeat their “material cause” theories over and over and over again, ad nauseam. Like someone repeatedly checking their pockets for keys that haven’t been there during the previous eight times they checked, atheists go on repeating, It was a material cause, the universe has always existed and other absurdities unique to atheism.

Hence the atheist’s deliberate misunderstanding regarding - nothing.
The divide that separates Something from Nothing, is greater than infinity itself. Yet that fact seems to be beyond the ability of the average atheist to understand. Atheists have described the "nothing" from which the Big Bang arose as everything from:

. An intensely hot and dense speck of energy (They don’t say where the speck was) - to

. A Quantum event - that came out of “nothing”
The atheist who said that the Big Bang was a Quantum Event says of his proposal, "I think the way I look at it has merit."

To be fair, atheists really are caught in a true dilemma. We know from science that from literally nothing, everything came. But how? The most logical conclusion is that "something" existed outside of matter, space, time and energy and that "something" had to be the cause of the universe. After all, the Law of Causality is the defining Law of science (What is science if not a search for cause?)

But when we begin to examine what that cause must have been like we wind up with a Greatest Conceivable Being or what we call God. Even though an immaterial creator, or immaterial first cause meets the criteria for where the evidence is pointing, it is just not allowed in the atheist world view. So what’s an atheist to do? Atheists have backed themselves into a corner where they are forced to make the most absurd comments to ever come out of this illogical, incoherent and absurd belief system -
“Nothing caused the beginning of the universe.”

“Some things don’t need a cause to begin to exist.”

“Everything has always existed.”

“Nothing has ever been created.”

“Nothing has ever begun to exist.”

Just yesterday, out of the same mouth came, "The material infinite cannot exist. The material infinite exists."

Since we also know that the material infinite cannot exist, every one of the above statements are atheists checking their pockets for keys that aren’t there, haven’t been there and never will be there.

It’s at this point that some atheists try to introduce Quantum Mechanics or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Why? Certainly not because they’re applicable. Atheists will bring up anything to see if it might help them in their plight to avoid the obvious. They’ll say anything if it might at least change the subject so they don’t have to think about the obvious. Let’s entertain them for a moment.

First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist. In QM, virtual particles come into being IN A VACUUM.

A vacuum is not NOTHING.

In fact it is a sea of fluctuating energy. The energy in a vacuum is endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws.

Second, the vacuum in which QE's are studied is sparked BY A SCIENTIST. There is only one possible Being that could have existed prior to or outside of BB.

Third, The particles that exist in a Quantum Event do so for a period of time INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR MASS. The greater the mass, the less time they exist. So much for the 14 billion year old universe being a Quantum Event.

Fourth, In the case of the Big Bang, there wasn't even a vacuum - THERE WAS NOTHING. No scientist, No particles - Nothing.

Fifth, As stated above, the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.

Sixth, While it’s well known that atheists as a group are easily confused, it is wrong to confuse causality with predictability. Just because the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle describes our inability to predict the location and speed of subatomic particles, i.e., where an electron will appear, that is NOT a case of an electron appearing out of nothing.

There is no QM model that involves a true origination ex nihilo.

Finally, atheists will say that the Big Bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. Reality is, the ongoing and ever increasing trend or pattern of evidence is in favour of an absolute beginning out of nothing.

"It can be said with absolute confidence that no cosmogonic model has been:
. As repeatedly verified in its predictions,
. As corroborated by attempts at its falsification,
. As concordant with empirical discoveries, and
. As philosophically coherent as the Standard Big Bang Creation Event Model."

Yet, because of the metaphysical implications of a universe that came from literally nothing, atheists find themselves rejecting the findings of science.

Talk about irony!

15 comments:

  1. Great post, it does a good job at showing all the arguments that you support and why. At the same time, it shows that you do not understand what atheists like me believe though, so it can lead to interesting discussions. Too bad I don't have time right now...

    At the same time however, each time I try to discuss many points, (or even one...), you avoid some questions, or answers, and go back to attacking a position that I don't support...

    Anyway, I'll try again with just one point for now.

    You said:
    There is no QM model that involves a true origination ex nihilo.

    So you do agree after all that we, humans, have never ever see something being created?

    I'm the one who was saying 'except at the quantum level' but that was just to prevent a rebuttal in advance, because I sincerely do not think that we have seen anything being created... we always see the same matter and energy being transformed.

    You do agree with that if I understood correctly that quote that you put yourself in bold?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Once the universe was brought into existence / created / began, the First Law of Thermodynamics came into effect.

    ReplyDelete
  3. atheistsnackbarMay 1, 2010 at 1:08 PM

    part 1

    I'm going to stray off topic for a brief moment, but worry not, I'll address this post directly...

    First off, I can admit that I'm going to consider scientific theories without god, before considering ones incorporating god. (Not that there are any scientific theories that include god, but still) But for good reason, god has never worked. We consistently see god at the edge of scientific discovery all through history, and god is always fallen back, ALWAYS. What makes the present any different? Now, that's a bit unfair, and cheap, but it needs to be said to illustrate a point. And it's a valid point. It is important to note that religion has been there to try to explain what science doesnt know but later reveals, and religion is batting a zero. So where are we now scientifically? ... well we'll get to that soon enough.

    Now I'm going to stay off subject for a bit longer, but relax.. I'll get on to the post, but I want to reinforce something here. Mak, always says that Atheists are "desperate" to ignore god, or that we ignore facts to fit our worldview... but who is more guilty, really? Who finds facts to shape belief, instead of vice versa? Now, all theist arguments are fine and dandy, we'll go through the kalam cosmo argument, fine tuning, the moral argument, and the ontological argument and at the end of the day, what have the religious accomplished? Even if they were 100 percent correct about all that stuff, where would they be? where would mak be if his contention was right about the physical laws of the universe? Deism, no further than that. Mak builds his entire life around a theistic belief that has nothing to do with a singularity, the big bang, fine tuning constants, none of it! So what does the cosmological constant have to do with Jesus walking on water? ... nothing, absolutely nothing. There is no scientific evidence for that. What does this tell us about this kind of personality? Well, its quite clear that Mak will follow any scientific evidence, as long as it vaguely points to his religion. There is no scientific evidence for Christianity, none. Mak must back into the corner of faith, and stay there, when it comes to theism, thats why his arguments stay at the "cause" argument, repeating anything William lane Craig wrote. So of course he's going to try to hold onto the one thing he THINKS he has an advantage over.

    ReplyDelete
  4. atheistsnackbarMay 1, 2010 at 1:09 PM

    Part 2

    But here's the secret, and this pertains to the post... His logic is FATALLY flawed. What he does is go to the edge of scientific knowledge and set up a flag. He'll use common sense logic and play on our intuition. He'll say everything must have a cause. Well, we'll argue back and forth about that. He'll say, if all these constants didn't EXACTLY fall on the values that they do, the universe would have been a completely different place, unfit for life. And we'll argue back and forth about that too. But let's assume something must have a cause, and lets assume existence did have to be finely tuned. Now what? well mak will tell you. IT'S GOD! certainly the cause must be immaterial, he'll say. What the hell does immaterial mean? well it means, not consisting of matter. what position is mak in, to make ANY assumptions about what something can "do" if "it" does not consist of matter? then we atheists ask, "how can a timeless "it", perform any action, when actions are stictly temporal? And mak will, like the follower of a cult, then state, that it's silly to think that we need to explain god in that way, he's god! Mak is all for making scientific claims up until that point, but there is a large gap between science and god, that mak thinks he can build a bridge for that gap. He says silly things, like god is spirit, obviously. Why would somebody who thinks that science proves god, all of a sudden say something like that when questioned about god? "God is obviously timeless"... ...like mak has any authority to say he absolutely knows, what timeless means from the vantage of the temporal. observation and logic itself are temporal. He insults atheists for making speculation, when he makes the biggest speculations in the room. What happens when we ask him, "why is it okay for god to be infinite, and nothing else?" your going to get an arrogant answer. He'll tell you, well, the infinite material cannot exist, THEREFORE, the infinite immaterial must be the answer. But you see, mak doesn't know what immaterial is, only that to him, it sounds like what god is. But immaterial just means, "not matter". And "not matter", is nothing.. is mak saying the universe came from nothing?

    ReplyDelete
  5. atheistsnackbarMay 1, 2010 at 1:10 PM

    Part 3

    Then mak writes down a list of scientific theories and calls them mythology... These are theories, that means they may or may not be accurate, and WE KNOW THAT. We aren't congregating every Sunday singing songs about many worlds quantum theory. We form hypothesis and test them if we can. If they turn out to be false, we discard them. Not like actual mythologies, like Christianity. The bible says something really silly and Christianity is not discarded. What happens is, the believer comes up with some clever reason why its okay for the bible to say such a thing. And they've had a lot of practice.

    If there was a creator, what conclusions can we make about him? that he's loving? that he cares about what you do? there is no scientific indication that he would even care. there's no scientific indication that he's "still around"...
    Mak makes claims that our top physicists could not make. then he says, "only one possible being that could have existed prior to or outside of the bb." wow... how scientific. Mak seems to think he has the scientific knowledge that not one physicist on earth has. He can magically explain the "physics" of something prior to our container of temporal material, then call it "obvious". Maybe next he'll tell us what god wore to bed last Tuesday. He has opinions on quantum mechanics and "magic spirits" in the same breath.

    And all this talk about something coming out of nothing also plays with the intuition of people that do not know any better. Let's be clear, we currently have no reason to think that actual nothing exists, in any way. The best we can do is a quantum mechanical vacuum. Absolute nothing is a philosophical idea, as far as we know it.

    And the big bang is only PART of the story. By the way, don't let mak fool you into believing that a singularity is the result of the big bang theory. A singularity is part of the penrose-hawking singularity theorems, and only works with the cooperation of relativity, and relativity breaks down before a singularity can be reached. This means that we still need good reason to assume that there even was a singularity. This is why scientists are searching for theories that explain what happened, instead of automatically assuming we already know, like mak. Or perhaps some of our physicists should just ask mak, he seems to know how to unify the fields, and explain quantum gravity. Mak now awaits his nobel prize.

    ReplyDelete
  6. THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!

    hey, atheists don't even BELIEVE IN BOOBIES!!!

    they thought BOOBIES had no effect... WRONG!


    see, I just want to make it clear to the rest of you:


    jen is unable to see that there is a CONFLICT BETWEEN EROS & SCIENCE....

    ________________

    http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/in-name-of-science-i-offer-my-boobs.html

    ETA: follow-up

    http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/quick-clarification-about-boobquake.html

    see how we take a term and convert it into its AUTHENTIC POLITICAL DIMENSION - THAT OF LIBERATION - not just merely harmless expression...

    they thought BOOBIES had no effect... WRONG!
    ____________

    Visit for the BOOBQUAKE:


    http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm





    now, become Marxist Revolutionaries and FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!

    ReplyDelete
  7. “where would mak be if his contention was right about the physical laws of the universe? Deism,”

    Thank you. That’s all that this post and one’s like it have been about. I am truly grateful that you’re honest enough to admit that if what science is telling us about the laws of the universe is correct, then a Creator God does indeed exist and He is the most likely cause of the existence for matter, energy, space and time itself. Having said that -

    Jesus, who IS the Deity who Created the universe is proof that Deism is incomplete and Theism is correct.
    ==========

    “There is no scientific evidence for Christianity,”

    I’m not sure what you mean by that. You don’t think that Christianity exists?

    Or are you suggesting that the only means of discerning truth is observation, verification etc.? Have you never heard of “historical forensic scientific method of inquiry”?
    ==========

    “He'll say everything must have a cause.”

    So give me a list of things that have been brought into existence without an external cause and I’ll start talking about something else.
    ==========
    “When actions are stictly temporal?”

    And, the evidence for that is found where, exactly? Jesus said that spiritual beings were created, by Himself, before energy, time, space and matter were brought into existence. Jesus talked about the interaction between He and God the Father and God the Spirit before energy, time, space and matter were brought into existence. Unless Jesus was a liar, them action is not strictly temporal.
    ================
    “there is a large gap between science and god,”

    That’s like talking about the theory of relativity and neglecting to mention Einstein.

    That's like saying there is a large gap between a mother and her child.

    God is the One who brought matter and the laws of science that govern that matter into being.

    There could not be less of a gap between two things than between science and God.
    ================

    “He insults atheists for making speculation,”

    Because atheists are proverbial in holding themselves apart from and above speculation.
    ==============

    "only one possible being that could have existed prior to or outside of the bb."

    Logic dictates that there can only be one Greatest Conceivable Being. Find something greater and THAT would become the Greatest Conceivable Being. Can't you see that?
    ===========

    “This means that we still need good reason to assume that there even was a singularity.”

    Are you suggesting that we don’t have good reasons?

    ReplyDelete
  8. AtheistsnackbarMay 1, 2010 at 3:02 PM

    I did not say that if science is correct, a creator god must exist. I said if your contention is correct, there is a HUGE difference. And you know what I meant by no evidence for Christianity, no evidence to support the claims that Jesus was the son of god and what forensic evidence might you have by the way?

    Jesus talked about bring matter into existance before space/time? Wow, look mak your reply is extremely week buddy, and I'm frankly dissapointed that your argument has dissolved down to such a stupified level. You've resorted to replying with "well Jesus is not a liar", skipping major points of my arguement, and attempting to make points with analogies that only have validity if your point is true. You'll say science is not seperate from god BECAUSE that's like seperating mother from child. Well, you didn't quite explain anything did you? You just kind of threw out an analogy and expected it to make your ridiculous points true. But underneath all your retort about what you've read from people like Craig, you really don't have much to say, when we peel away all that, we reveal the usual stuff, we reveal "because the bible tells me so."

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wished I'd kept track of all the times someone has said, "Well, all you've shown is that a Deistic god might exist."

    That all I've shown.

    That's all.

    Dawkins says, "A really good case could be made for the existence of a Deistic God."

    That's all.

    Nothin to see here folks.

    Only a Being who brought everything into existence.

    That's all.

    Good night.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AtheistsnackbarMay 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM

    You didn't show evidence for a deistic god mak, I said THE BEST YOU COULD DO if we were to somehow prove your contention. I was trying to point out the theist/deist seperation and how your bias outlook makes a connection where there is none. But go ahead and continue to ignore the actual arguement, it makes you look more silly. Oh I know, you could always just post more blog entries and drown this one out so it goes away...

    ReplyDelete
  11. IF you were correct, Rod, IF. You've never provided one single piece of positive evidence for any of your ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  12. AtheistsnackbarMay 1, 2010 at 5:07 PM

    What's greater than the greatest concievable being? How about two of the greatest concievable beings? Or three? Or a zillion? And saying atheists do not speculate is plain ignorant, if no speculation was made, how would we make scientific progress? The difference is, we don't dress up every Sunday and sing about speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Atheistsnackbar

    But go ahead and continue to ignore the actual arguement, it makes you look more silly. Oh I know, you could always just post more blog entries and drown this one out so it goes away...

    You know that this is exactly what will happen...
    Good contribution to the conversation anyway Atheistsnackbar; your long comment was up to the point.

    There is one thing I would say otherwise though. You wrote that:

    ...This means that we still need good reason to assume that there even was a singularity.

    I would go a step further than that and say that it's actually because the current models point to a singularity that we have to be humble and say 'I don't know' at some point, because a singularity is conceptual. It represents the fact that our mathematical equations, as you said, break down at this point.

    That's something I had already written in a way, and to which Rod replied, indirectly, when he said that some stupid atheist thinks that a concept created the universe... *face palm*

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Thesauros

    You replied to my question with this:
    Once the universe was brought into existence / created / began, the First Law of Thermodynamics came into effect.

    That is not an answer.

    Let me repeat the question, and write a full blog post on it if you prefer that to commenting, I don't care, but the question was:

    Do you agree that we, humans, have never ever seen something being created?

    Let me remind you that I asked that after you said yourself:
    There is no QM model that involves a true origination ex nihilo.

    ReplyDelete
  15. let me show you the end results of this particular *ONE-DIMENSIONAL SCIENTIFIC MODE*
    of thinking that is called *CRITICAL THINKING*, which is completely divorced from
    any human objectives...

    this style has been perfected by dawkins, pz, randi and the other *NEW ATHEISTS*


    THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!

    hey, atheists don't even BELIEVE IN BOOBIES!!!

    they thought BOOBIES had no effect... WRONG!


    see, I just want to make it clear to the rest of you:


    jen is unable to see that there is a CONFLICT BETWEEN EROS & SCIENCE....

    http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/in-name-of-science-i-offer-my-boobs.html


    http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/quick-clarification-about-boobquake.html

    see how we take a term and convert it into its AUTHENTIC POLITICAL DIMENSION - THAT
    OF LIBERATION - not just merely harmless expression...

    they thought BOOBIES had no effect... WRONG!

    Visit for the BOOBQUAKE:


    http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm




    how about I believe in WHATEVER I want and you little fuckers have nothing to say!

    ReplyDelete