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

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Atheists and Micro vs. Macro

I’ve written often about Atheist Origin of the Universe Mythologies. You know. The twelve or so stories that have been advanced and discarded as to how the universe came to be - specifically without a Creator.

That’s the whole point, you know.

Atheists must have a universe without a definitive space / time boundary (the material infinite) or else, well, or else it proves there had to be a non material Creator. And yes, each and every one of the Atheist Origin of the Universe Mythologies have been discarded precisely because they all break down to a point where they show that a definitive space / time boundary does in fact exist. They simply cannot get away from that reality. Nevertheless, atheists committed to Mythology cling to any one of these stories as true.

AOUM’s are an extension of Oakham’s Razor which says in part that it makes sense to choose the least complicated solution to a problem. Fine. No problem with that. The other part of Oakham however is that as soon as you find a natural explanation that might be usable, you can dispense with the whole Creator God idea.

So each Origin of the Universe Mythology has been hailed as “The One” that sets us completely free of God, only to be set on the shelf when proven unworkable. This leaves atheists to wait for a new natural saviour. Not to worry. There’s no shortage of them. In fact atheists have gone so far as to throw out Oakham and simply declare, “There IS a natural explanation for how the universe came into being. We just don’t know what it is.” Some have even accepted, “If you use imaginary time and imaginary numbers and imaginary space, you don’t need a beginning for the universe.” Thank you Stephen Hawking for that brilliant observation.

Atheists say things like this because if you need a beginning ex nihilo of a natural universe, then you also need a non natural Beginner. That is not allowed in atheism. It causes atheists to twist science something awful. They say things like, “Some things don’t need a cause to begin to exist,” and “Out of nothing doesn’t mean literally nothing.” In the same manner that atheists don't understand the difference between something and nothing, they don't understand the gap between life and non life, nor the difference between adaptation within a species from the huge leap from one species into another species.

Adaptation within a species has been declared, by atheists as proof of macro evolution from one species into another. Evidence for adaptation has taken us to the point that, “We don’t have a natural answer - yet - but we KNOW that we will have an answer some day.” Even though all we should have are transitional stages of animals running around and even though all we should see are transitional fossils, several hundred years is not enough time to find them. And as per Mr. Oakham, we now have atheists saying, “Because evolution is the only natural answer we'll accept, we declare, that’s what happened.”

I wouldn’t worry about this too much. Positing an alternative to God is the life’s work and goal of the atheist. And that’s ok. We all need something to do. Speaking of which. I’ve blown out the lawn sprinklers which means that I’m free until spring. Although I might have to clean off my Dresser sometime in December. And maybe roll coins in January. There’s no way I’m going to force both of those jobs into one month.

Gotta go to the lake - it's 33 degrees and not a cloud in the sky. Enjoy!

1 comment:

  1. Yep, exactly what I said.
    You have to deny evolution because it does not fit with your pre-conceived notion that God put morality in us... magically!!