Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?

THINK THIS ARGUMENT WORKS? WELL..NOT REALLY!!

Where in the World?

PROOF OF THE REAL MOUNT SINAI IN ARABIA!

The Bible bends all natural laws and rules because it is a supernatural book.
It cannot POSSIBLY be understood by a natural mind focused upon natural understanding. That is what Nicodemus discovered when he came to Christ trying to understand, with a natural mind, supernatural events and teachings.

Because scientists being naturally skeptical, have minds trapped in the box of the five physical senses they cannot focus therefore on the supernatural aspects to understand the biblical 'Birdseye view' of God, who sees things from OUTSIDE time and space, the box that we as finite are limited within .

There was a reason why Jesus said you must be born again. It is a SPIRITUAL rebirth [Both of Mind and Spirit] that is needed to release the hidden evidence of things we cannot witness from inside this physical 'BOX' universe.

I KNOW from personal experience that the Bible is true but I cannot convince you, you must find the truth yourself. THAT'S HOW LIFE WORKS!

Spend less time developing your skeptical natural mind and THAT'S WHAT YOUR DOING, and more time focusing on what Christ taught and you will discover as I have, the truth. You can only interpret the Universe through the shaded lens of your own understanding!
There was an error in this gadget

Monday, July 29, 2013

Cosmological Skepticism: Can it be revearsed? Is the Argument Valid?

ATHEISTS AND THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

 
Cosmological argument —    an argument for the existence of God, asserting that the contingency of each entity, and of the universe composed wholly of such entities, demands the admission of an adequate external cause, which is God. n philosophy ontological argument Compare teleological argument one of the arguments that purport to prove the existence of God from empirical facts about the universe, esp. the argument to the existence of a first cause.
 

36 Arguments for the Existence of God: Goldstein on the Cosmological Argument

William Lane Craig



 

God's DNA that he put in ALL life on this planet stands against all arguments of the skeptical mind. I have heard the roundabout arguments against DNA saying that it is not a CODE but that is crap response and they know it, it is a code much more complex than and computer code ever invented!

Therefore since this factual evidence cannot be refuted by mere denial or rearranging of the facts it will stand as proof that God is creator and Lord! I know this enrages Atheists and inflames the skeptical mindset that is made-up already against us but....quite frankly I don't care. This Evidence is proof and proof is what THEY say must be presented.

Why do people reject the Christian argument of creation and God? The biggest of reasons why people reject it outright are usually the most superficial and based upon caricature's of the argument NOT the actual argument itself.
 

Atheist's are masters of the counter claim, they love to mix it up claiming to have knowledge about things they most certainly do not have. The most famous argument they like to push at Christians is in saying that "the burden of proof is at the feet of the Christian NOT THE ATHEIST because WE make the claim that God does exist" thereby releasing themselves of having to prove that they CLAIM God does not exist, WHY? Because we claimed first, sounds like a schoolyard game of tag and your it. So instead of having to prove a negative which they cannot do they kick the can to us and the game never ends.

The problem is no matter how much proof is shown they counter it with nonsense argumentation like children not wanting to lose a game not realizing that proof ends the debate in its tracks, DNA is so infinitely complex as to solve the debate with only a little research only a prime, infinite God could have designed our DNA, natural selection couldn't in billion, billion, billion years solve the simple cell it's complex nature let alone the entire universe!

********************************** 

It is obvious to any thinking person that the logic at which they arrive is fatally flawed, because while this puts them in the advantage in any response we make since we start from the defensive side, it proves nothing in the end but for a lack of understanding about God. Atheists have muddied the water about God in the first place, mixing the True God and his word with the plainly stupid and ignorant gods of men's imaginations. This puts the response of Christian behind thousands of years of bad press and imaginary gods that REALLY DON'T EXIST!

Having dealt with this argument many times I have resigned myself to the fact that Atheists are completely afraid of the fact that God alludes them in every turn, no amount of word playing, denial, or otherwise mixing points together can rescue them from that basic FACT. God cannot be dis-proven and that alone proves He must exist, logically something that does not exist could easily be dis-proven over time. Just as the flat earth was, just as the earth being the center of the Solar System was, just as most fairy tales will or have been......BUT God has eluded the skeptics arguments for thousands of years and will for thousands more since there is no way to prove otherwise.

*************************************************
 
What about the Cosmological argument for God's existence? Does it follow logically that there is a universal causation, a first cause of all life and matter? I believe it most certainly does but first let's deal with the illogical statements of Atheists. They say that "the argument must fail on the grounds that it contains not one but two Logical Fallacies:
 
 
 
 
 
1.) Special Pleading because it contains a rule that only God is exempt from and is able to break which by the way a God such as ours could do quite expectantly because of who he is described to be from scripture UNLIKE any god of man's creation or mankind itself, who are limited by the fact they are bound within time and space.

God on the other hand is ALL POWERFUL, UNLIMITED AND OUTSIDE SPACE AND TIME so naturally he can MAKE a rule within space and time he himself is not bound too! This most logical and very much in keeping with the biblical standard, so Atheists have a great hurdle to jump over in order to make their argument make any sense. 
 
 
 
 
 
Forgive me but no human beings are more guilty of this Fallacy than Evolutionists and Atheists because whenever counter rules of science are presented that defy evolution (The 1st and 2nd Laws of thermal dynamics) and fully prove beyond doubt that evolution cannot be the explanation for life they simply say "That particular Law of real science doesn't apply here because.......!" Isn't that simply a restatement of special pleading when they need it?

The rules of evolutionary science were created by men so it follows that men CANNOT have it both ways, creating the rules of science and then conveniently breaking those very rules to appease their argumentation later!
 
2.) The Fallacy of Composition because it creates the problem of assuming that because a part of the universe has a reason for its existence then the whole universe must by association have that same reason to exist"

What is missed here is the FACT that scripture TELLS US how the universe was created so there is NO ASSUMPTION on our part concerning our solar system and the whole universe. God stated plainly how it was done for the WHOLE (Universe) just as he did for the PART WE LIVE IN (Earth) so the argument is not valid!
 
 
 
 
 
Hmmm, seems to me that that is a perfect example of evolutionary thought, don't they believe that natural selection acts across the universe the same way as it did on earth. That my friends is an ASSUMPTION OF THE HIGHEST ORDER OF COMPOSITION! How can they deny God on the same grounds that they accept their own god of evolution? It's very simple actually, most Christians do not think enough to call them on it, but I will. THEY DO NOT KNOW for a fact anything they believe but the true Christian (NOT the religious fake) KNOWS FOR INTERNAL FACT THAT GOD NOT ONLY EXISTS BUT THAT HE CARES DEEPLY FOR THE ATHEIST AND THE SKEPTIC, not their mindset but their lives and what they decide to do with it.


3.) The False Dilemma - meaning that it says that the universe HAD to either come from God or it wouldn't have existed in the first place. Now let's look closer at this bad debate tactic!

 How can they say this when they turn around and then say that the universe was made by a any one of a number of ways, so what is the difference between us saying it was God as the prime mover and them saying it was "The Quantum Tunneling THEORY" "The Black Hole THEORY" "The Multi verse Hypothesis or Bubble THEORY" "The Oscillating Universe THEORY" "The Ekpyrotic Model" "The Eternal Universe THEORY" that created what we see? The answer is simple there is no difference between their forms of argument and ours except ours fits better what is known of the universe.
 
Listen to the argument over and over until it's truth sinks in, understanding it as it was meant to be understood frees the mind greatly. Atheists love to say it's OK to NOT KNOW HOW IT ALL BEGAN, but that is not a true scientific thought process for while not knowing is fine for a time the heart and mind of the scientist is ever-reaching for an answer. Once we stop seeking truth we will stop growing and eventually stop caring.
 
 It is disingenuous at best and just plain deceptive at worst for Atheists to use the very things they say we are doing wrong, using it for their own advantage and all the while calling those same arguments illogical for our use! All of their arguments for the beginning of everything rest upon UNPROVEN THEORIES NOT SOLID SCIENCE, I mean where is the science I keep hearing about, all I've seen is the word "Science" mentioned in connection with theories ABOUT Science-fiction ideas but no real science.
 
THIS IS SCIENCE:
 

The study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment.

A branch of science: a particular area of study or knowledge of the physical world.

A systematic body of knowledge: a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject.

 
Science is completely limited to the physical world and Universe around it, but acts like it knows more about the other side than we who are spiritual do, while they deny it's very existence in the same breath. Science must start to understand it's limits and stop trying to speak to things far away from it's knowledge!




 
 
 
 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please, if you are a skeptic, DO NOT swear or name call, if you cannot be civil then your comment will not be seen. If your evidence is that weak, then my point is made before you comment!

Popular Posts

About Me

My photo

Before you look at the links below know this about me, I do not know everything about anything, I know only what God has revealed to me.

Proving God exists CANNOT be done for the person who is not open to hearing and seeing the evidence as God sees it. Faith is the KEY to releasing all the evidence contained in creation, in man's heart and his mind. Without FAITH no one can ever please God so to throw away faith as unimportant destroys our receptivity to the evidence!

I was a hypocrite, a sinner and a fool, sometimes even as a believer but as long as God is in control I'm forgiven and healed of every form of human shortcoming. Nothing can stand before the evidence contained in Faith.....NOTHING!


LEARN MORE ABOUT ME AND MY MINISTRY HERE!

http://hopefromdispair.blogspot.com/

http://skepticalofskepticism.blogspot.com/

http://truthinprophecy.blogspot.com/

http://affiliatesgoldenchest.blogspot.com/

http://endwashingtonwaste.blogspot.com/

http://alltheusefulidiots.blogspot.com/
WebRep
Overall rating
 

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

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF
  4. Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF
  5. Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML PDF
  6. Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.
  7. Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. HTML PDF
  8. Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF
  9. Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. HTML PDF
  10. Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML PDF
  11. Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF RTF
  12. Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML PDF
  13. Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
  14. Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
  15. Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
  16. 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
  17. Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.
  18. Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92.
  19. Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, 89. HTML
  20. Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, 287. HTML
  21. 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
  22. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564. HTML PDF
  23. 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

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1984b. "Lead Retention in Zircons" (Technical Comment). Science 223, 835.
  2. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296. HTML PDF
  3. 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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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?






Watch a real debate about God right here!

Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head-to-head once again for another remarkable match of intellect.
This time, the same two Oxford Professors who debated in Birmingham's 'God Delusion' Debate are at it again on their home turf at the site of the famed 1860 Evolution debate between Huxley and Wilberforce.