Friday, April 15, 2016

Atheism Requires Miracles And Atheists Like To Call Theirs "Science"

The current atheist-cosmologist ideologues are insisting that the universe can create itself out of nothing BEFORE THE UNIVERSE EXISTED and needing to redefine nothing in order to do it. Stephen Hawkins declarations include both that "nothing" is the law of gravity which would then have had to have existed before the matter that gravity is expressed through existed* and, according to some celebrity cosmologist interpretations that that "nothing" includes the quadrillions and more universes invented by cosmologists.   If you read that link you will note that Michio Kaku kind of gives away the original motive of this stuff.

This gives us a startling picture of the big bang, that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes (the big splat theory), or sprouted from a parent universe, or simply popped into existence out of nothing. [ Which of the three?  Notice that in this game of creating jillions of universes, you're nothing unless you come up with your own denomination of multi-universe or string-M-theory faith.] So universes are being created all the time. (But Hawking goes one step farther and says that therefore here is no need of God, since God is not necessary to create the universe. I wouldn't go that far. See a previous blog entry on my attitude towards that.)

The motive in this, and a rather stunning amount of science, is to try, as the son of Francis Crick put it, "to put the last nail in the coffin of God".   He said that was his father's reason to take up "the hard question" of consciousness, that he believed by coming up with a material explanation of consciousness that he would finally kill off the possibility of believing in God.   Crick's son noted that he and his partner in the effort failed to do so.

A year ago, today, I noted that the atheist's theory of the mind, that it was the epiphenomenon of physical structures required our brains to be doing something similar to what happens in many of the multi-universe fantasies, they would have to create the structures to be ideas before those ideas existed in the skull to tell the brain 

a. that it needed to make a new structure,

b. what that structure needed to be to produce the right idea,

c. how to make that structure to be that idea and not a different structure which would be the wrong idea.  

d. how their proposed process would work in the real time in which we experience thought, with its extremely rapid development of ideas and accounting for the fact that we rapidly and constantly modify ideas, applying them to new contexts, etc. all of which would have to have their own brain-made structures to account for all of those ideas that rush around in our minds.

I will extend those problems with a summary:

Ideas consist of information and under the atheist "brain-only" mind the brain would have to correctly do all of that at the speed of thought WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION IN OUR SKULL INFORMING THE BRAIN OF WHAT TO DO.  

I have been asking those questions here and at other places where atheists congregate for a year and, so far, not a single one of them has done more than incant the words "natural selection" "evolution" "DNA" like the magic charms they are for so many atheists, instead of them having any fixed meaning.   Of course none of those could account for what I asked because any new idea would not have been put in our skulls by any of those, ideas which are entirely original to our species.

The most recent response I've had from someone who wasn't one of the usual, post-literate idiots who troll here was that he didn't have the answer to those questions and that I didn't either (so there!).


Not only that but since the information would have to be present to instruct the brain to make any such structures, that the idea couldn't be reliant on any physical structure that the brain might build but had to exist in the mind, independent of any physical structure built by the brain.

I think the only plausible atheist-materialist work around to this would be the claim that all possible ideas that will eventually exist in the mind would have to already have existed in our skull before we had our ideas and that is as if not more ludicrous than the things that atheist cosmologists have come up with to get round things they don't like because they are afraid people will believe in God.   That would only force the question of what genetic structures there were that could contain that information, I doubt that the entire genome of any individual could account for that amount of information.   The DNA and the associated cellular apparatus would have to have that information in it already and I don't think there is enough matter in them to contain that information.   The idea is ridiculous.   If you have some other means for "DNA" to do it, go ahead, try it, remembering your mechanism would have to work in the real time of our thinking.

If someone arrives at a belief in God because of these observations, that does not a single thing to dispose of any of those questions.  The angry, enraged fear of atheists over this and similar problems with their ideology doesn't change a single thing about the problem being there.  That atheists don't like that doesn't matter a single bit, that doesn't dispose of the problem for their ridiculous and ill considered and ideologically motivated "brain-only" orthodoxy.    I certainly don't mistake this as the "proof of God" I've been accused of mounting,  that so many atheists mistake this exercise of any kind of "proof" merely shows how superficial and shallow their idea of what you have to do to prove something is.  Which could account for why they grasp on to such ideas as "brain-only" and the myriad and self-contradicting schemes of string, M-theory, and multi-universe cosmology like a frightened,abused, tortured lab monkey to a chicken wire and terry cloth mother figure.   I have to ask why they're so afraid of the possibility of God that they'll go to those lengths.   I guess just not believing is no more satisfying to them than it is to anyone else.

* I was told that gravity existed because matter existed, though I'm not interested enough to see how many times they might have changed their mind on that point in the past half-century.   It almost makes you wonder how much they really know about what their terms mean, to start with.

Update:  Apparently this sentence has the brain-only Brain Trusters stumped,

If someone arrives at a belief in God because of these observations, that does not a single thing to dispose of any of those questions.

Apparently it didn't occur to the big-brains of baby blue to read the paragraph it introduces or to discover what observations it refers to.  See what I mean about the post-literacy of the idiots who believe they are the intelligentsia of the modern era?

Update 2:  Why should I restrict myself to sentences that are easy for the Dunc, Tlaz and Simmy set to read?  

Update 3: (Won't make sense to anyone who doesn't know him)  DAS, aka Alberich10,  can do whatever he wants to.  I still go back and look at his old blog once in a while, lots of interesting stuff, wish he'd kept it up.  By the way, I don't think his comment means what you think it does, try reading the first and last words.   Why he still hangs around that meat-head locker, I don't know.  He's old enough to decide for himself.


  1. The irony is, the story in Genesis 1 and 2 is not that God is necessary for creation, but that God is intimately related to Creation.

    Explain the origins of the universe as you wish: the story in Genesis describes the relationship of God to all that is. It doesn't require that God create the universe in order to exist as God.

  2. And the rage against "God", evidenced by your quotes from Hawking and Crick, just prove this issue of "disproving" God is not a legitimately scientific one, nor even a philosophical one: it's a power struggle.

    Science wants to replace religion as the central doctrine of humanity. I'm not sure religion ever was that central, not even in medieval Europe, not even in any culture (the present state of Islam among it's most fanatical and war-like devotees underlines the point. They are not guided by Islam, they use Islam as an excuse to be rapists and murderers and criminals.). Science is engaged in a struggle with a chimera of its own making, what Jungians would call a "shadow self."

    Interesting, that. They don't even see what they are wrestling with.