Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?


Monday, July 29, 2013

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


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.

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!



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.