Skeptical of Skepticism: The Doorway of Belief!: "Atheist Central"

Monday, July 4, 2011

"Atheist Central" - From Ray Comfort's Blog

The following blog is a re-post from Ray Comfort's blog, and brilliantly says the obvious. Atheist's don't see the issue they are so blatantly against because they are spiritually blinded to the truth.

As I have debated these people I have learned much about their illogical mindsets, as they try so hard to deny the God they say isn't there, they in turn create the persona of God in people's mind's with each attempt to erase him from existence....oops ....I mean from non-existence!

Why is Atheistic thought illogical?

Are there ABSOLUTE truths? If not where does that lead?

Here's a great reply to Communist Atheism!

Stupid statements ANSWERED !

Way to go Dan!

Posted: 03 Jul 2011 01:53 PM PDT

Wait a minute! The sign doesn’t make any sense. I thought atheists didn't believe that God existed. Oops, I mean that "atheists don't see evidence for God." Oops, I mean "evidence for a god" (small "g"). Gotta get the language right.

Once again, I commend my friends at "Free From Religion Foundation" for letting people know that they can be good without God. All you need is to have your own definition of "good." Most people are "good" in their own eyes (see Proverbs 20:6).

You can also be happy without God. Most people know that anyway, but it's good to be reminded.

I was extremely happy without God for 22 years of my godless life. So was a friend of mine who was a millionaire at 16 years old, was world famous, and could have any girl he wanted. Who wouldn't be happy with a lifestyle like that?

The Bible makes it very clear that you and I can be real happy without God. It says that Moses choose to suffer affliction with the people of God rather that "enjoy the pleasures of sin, for a season" (see Hebrews 11:25). Sin gives pleasure. It makes us happy. See also Luke 8:14, 2 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 3:3.

This silly and unbiblical thought that we can't be happy without God is the basis of a teaching I have done for years called "Hell’s Best Kept Secret" (you may like to freely listen to it on www.livingwaters.com ). When my famous friend preached it (from my notes) on TV, our website got over one million hits the following day.

So good work Mr. Dan Barker. Keep putting those (costly) signs around the country--signs that make people think about God, and give us Christians more opportunities to share the gospel of everlasting life with a dying world.

You are doing more for the Christian cause as a professing atheist, than you did for the whole 19 years you pretended to be a Christian.

EDIT: Added: "...for letting people know that they can be good without God. All you need is to have your own definition of 'good.' Most people are 'good' in their own eyes (see Proverbs 20:6)."

For Evangelism Resources, please visit LivingWaters.com.

No comments:

The Bible States:

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things; and He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His offspring.'

"Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:24-31)

Laws of science prove the existence of God! FIND OUT MORE HERE!

Proof #1 expanded:

Laws of science as to how the physical universe operates combined with direct observations as to how nature operates prove that the physical universe had to have a beginning that was caused by a creator/designer who is a non-physical, powerful, intelligent, eternal being.

_________

In this chapter I’m going to present an overall proof of the existence of God from the perspectives of science, logic and direct observations of how nature operates.

Later chapters will be devoted to the many supporting proofs that come from specific sciences, such as geology, astronomy, microbiology, psychology, sociology and logic.

First, let me explain why many vocal proponents of modern science don’t make it to “God” as an explanation of the origins of the universe and why this is an error.

An error that proponents of the most visible modern science theories about the origin of the universe make is they try to explain everything through physical science. (It’s good to remember that they are called “theories”—though they are often presented as facts.)

They accept a Big Bang Theory - which says that the physical universe emerged out of a tiny, very dense piece of matter - and then try to come up with, or hold out for, a physical reason as to where the material and impetus for the Big Bang came from.

The current prevailing theory is that it all came out of a black hole, which is said to be a “tiny, very dense piece of matter” whose gravitational pull is so strong that even light can’t escape it.

But even with that theory they are still left with these basic dilemmas as to the origin of the universe:

where did the black hole, which is envisioned as being physical, come from?

What is behind its specific design?

What caused it, and why was it caused?

Why was it caused to “bang”?

Why did it bang into the specific designs of the physical universe (e.g. galaxies, complex atoms, etc.)?

The way these dilemmas are often dealt with by modern scientists is:

“We can trace the origin of the universe back to a micro-second right after the Big Bang happened. But we don’t know what happened in that micro-second.” The important additional question would be: “What went on before that microsecond?” ... which I’ll give a scientific explanation for in this chapter.

So a problem with modern science is that it limits itself to seeking an answer just through physical science. Obviously an answer isn’t emerging from that mindset.

That is because the answer isn’t within the physical realm. The scientific inquiry must expand to “all possibilities” in order to reveal the answer as to where the physical universe came from.

In a search for that answer, I will now show why we should abandon any kind of physical explanation to the origin of the physical universe.

Any physical explanation has a major problem because it clashes with some proven laws of physics. It is those laws of physics that will give us our first big clue that will lead to showing that God exists.

So let’s start with those laws of physics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics - also known as the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy - says that, “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.”

That is, within a “closed system,” no new energy can be added. And the universe as a whole can be considered to be a closed system because energy has never been observed to enter it or leave it, only to be transformed within it.

Now, we live in a universe that has constant physical motion going on in it … from the largest stars (explosions and drift) down to how the atomic level is perceived (constant whirring of electrons at extremely high speeds).

And just like it takes gas to run a car and food to run our bodies and electricity to run much of what’s in our homes (as a black out will quickly tell you), it takes energy to keep up all the visible (and even some of the invisible) motion in the universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that once the energy has been used, it - like gasoline with cars - is no longer available to be used as energy.

Logic then tells us that if there is only a finite supply of energy in a closed system, and there is no cosmic equivalent of a gas station, at some point it will all be used up.

What important thing does that tell us? It tells us that the physical universe can’t have a past that stretches back to infinity.

Because no matter how slow the rate of energy use, over the stretch of infinity, a finite amount of energy would have been used up by now because no new energy is being added in. Therefore the physical universe had to have a beginning.

On this point, theology and most modern scientists agree - e.g., one expression of that would be the Big Bang theory; another would be that God created the universe.

Where they part is in describing the nature of that beginning, where it came from, and what came before it.

The resolution to that is simple. If the physical universe couldn’t have been created by something physical (as the First Law of Thermodynamics states), then the conclusion is obvious: the physical universe had to be started by something non-physical.

Therefore, any scientific inquiry into the origin of the universe must only look for a non-physical answer and abandon all attempts to determine the origin using physical explanations.

Even if they come up with a new physical explanation, they will still be left with the dilemma: what caused that physical cause (since all physicality has to have been caused … as is stated by the First Law of Thermodynamics, which says that physicality can’t cause itself.)

You might be asking yourself at this point, “Well if there is a non-physical causer, who or what caused the causer?”

I’ll deal with that question in detail in the Logic chapter, but a simple answer for now is: spiritual nature and physical nature (physics) are two different kinds of realities with a different set of properties and laws governing them.

To summarize, laws of physics tell us that the universe had to have a beginning because if the universe was always here, all the energy would have been used up by now.

By the way, as a side note, I did an interview on a radio talk show that focuses primarily on aliens and UFO’s.

My main point on that show was that even if there were aliens, there still has to be a God, because aliens are envisioned as physical creatures, and as I just pointed out, physicality can’t create itself.

Therefore even aliens, if they exist, had to have had a non-physical creator.

I don’t know why this concept that the physical universe had to have a non-physical beginner is so hard to accept by many scientists.

Perhaps it’s because, as NASA astronomer Robert Jastrow said, “Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset.

It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence.”

He also said this about the modern scientist who has refused to acknowledge God and the Bible in the quest for truth.

“He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

And the non-physical causer that I’ve scientifically proven here is what's over that “final rock”.

A conclusion here could be:

Some modern scientists who are atheists could have an other-than-scientific agenda for their stand and is using his or her status as a scientist to try to lend credibility to that agenda.

But as I’ve shown here, that stand is not well founded, either scientifically or logically.

© 2009 Dennis Marcellino

WANT MORE? CLICK HERE!

With this book you get many books-worth of the best proofs that
God exists and the Bible is true
- including new proofs -
all in just one book.

My Blogs of Note: Visit, Study, Be Blessed Today! Get Involved!

TRUTH: Will You Let it Set You Free!?

http://ministerofblog.wordpress.com/

Got Questions? Well...here are Answers to sharpen your mind and build your faith in the Anointed Jesus!

Skeptical of Skepticism: The Doorway of Belief!

http://skepticalofskepticism.blogspot.com/

Can a Skeptic ever really know the proof they seek?

Can the vast evidence available ever be viewed by skeptics as proof positive of God and Creation?

I can prove that what skeptics call an "open mind" is in reality a CLOSED HEART to any evidence that doesn't support a preconceived viewpoint, and thus will not be viewed as "proof" of God's existence!

Light from the Darkness: Hope from despair!

http://hopefromdispair.blogspot.com/

The Light of the true and Living God can and is willing to eradicate your sin no matter what you've done.

Witchcraft's, Occultism, Sexual Abuse, Darkness of ANY kind is no match for Jesus Christ!

"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." Ephesians 5:11

The Popular Vote Matters

http://popularvotecounts.blogspot.com/

We must raise red flags on red ink because more of the same irresponsible spending of ANY President from Either side of the political spectrum will not create jobs or achieve long-term economic recover

Mortgaging our children and their future despite our Constitution will only drive us deeper into the ditch of Progressive Socialism.

Truth in Prophecy: The Historical Facts Revealed!

http://truthinprophecy.blogspot.com/

The Church has LOST her message, the message of hope and turn around.

The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ GIVEN to the Church was never meant as an escapist book but a fair warning to prepare in the last days of History.

It is an Historical book from the early Church forward, its that simple, its not a book of ALL FUTURE EVENTS and a Church-less future.

The Ministerofblog: Will you let TRUTH set you Free?!

http://ministerofblog.blogspot.com/

There is evidence for God available for your eyes to see and your ears to hear...you need only OPEN YOUR MIND & HEART to receive it!

I present to you here...Evidence for your investigation, real investigation to prove for yourself God is real!

THIS IS THE ONE STOP ANSWER FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAITH....TAKE THE CHALLENGE TODAY!

It Stands Unrefuted by Scientists ANYWHERE!

The following reports are in one of three formats. To view the ones in PDF format, use Adobe Acrobat Reader. To view the ones in RTF format, you may use MS Word.

Reports Dealing with Radiohalos

Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML PDF
Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML PDF
Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF
Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF
Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML PDF
Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.
Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. HTML PDF
Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF
Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. HTML PDF
Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML PDF
Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF RTF
Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML PDF
Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. HTML PDF
Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.
Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92.
Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, 89. HTML
Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, 287. HTML
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. HTML PDF
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564. HTML PDF
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Helium and Lead Retention in Zircons

Gentry, R.V. 1984b. "Lead Retention in Zircons" (Technical Comment). Science 223, 835.
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296. HTML PDF
Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Astronomy and Cosmology

Gentry, R. V. 1997. "A New Redshift Interpretation." Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 2919. (This paper was also posted in 1998 on the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: astro-ph/9806280.) HTML PDF
Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: gr-gc/9806061. HTML PDF
Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/9810051. HTML PDF
Gentry, R. V. 2003. "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021. HTML PDF
Gentry, R. V. 2003. "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions Without the F-L Paradigm." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-022. PDF
Gentry, R. V. 2004. "Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4. HTML PDF

The first three astronomy and cosmology papers may also be obtained by going to the the web sites of either Los Alamos National Laboratory or arXiv.org. arXiv.org is currently adminstered by Cornell University.

NOTE: For more information about the Big Bang's fatal flaws and "The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate," please check out our sister site, www.orionfdn.org.

1987 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

Our open letter of March 24, 1987, to Dr. Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Press claimed that "evidence for creationism" has been scientifically invalidated, though he well knew this has not been the case for the polonium-halo evidence. Our letter once again requests him and other evolutionists to publicly explain how the polonium-halo evidence for creation has indeed been invalidated, this time on April 13 at the University of Tennessee. We suggest that Dr. Stephen Gould be the first one to speak on behalf of the academy, given his strong language denouncing the term, "creation science." HTML GIF
Our Knoxville Sentinel ad on April 12, 1987, announcing our presentation on the evening of the 13th at the University of Tennessee. Included in the ad was a copy of the above open letter to Dr. Press. HTML GIF
A press release from the Society for Creation Science, announcing the reading of Dr. Press's written reply that evening, April 13, 1987, at the University of Tennessee. HTML GIF

Year 2000 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

Our letter of March 22, 2000, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Alberts claimed that evidence for special creation has been experimentally falsified.
This letter requests the Academy to publicly explain at Wichita State University on March 30, 2000, why it has chosen to reject the published evidence for the Genesis creation, evidence which after more than twenty-five years still stands unrefuted in the open scientific literature. HTML

Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood?

Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature?

Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?

Skeptical of Skepticism: The Doorway of Belief!

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?

Monday, July 4, 2011

"Atheist Central" - From Ray Comfort's Blog

No comments:

Post a Comment