The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Irrefutable reason that proves that God is POSSIBLE and therefore COULD Exist!

This is what Atheists think about the Kalam Argument, watch as they mischaracterize and set up Straw Men to knock over so they can look justified not believing in God!

Watch the above video just to be fair to their opposition to God, but only to learn HOW they reason their ideas out. Do not be fooled by their conviction or confidence because an Atheist is only confident in Natural explanations of a clearly spiritual nature, which by their own admission cannot be done.

 

The spiritual Mind behind Creation that is a part all living things that God created cannot be proven by just looking from a natural viewpoint, that view must be tempered with the clear evidence from faith and reason combined.

 The Natural World isn't equipped to uncover the other side of existence without first opening the spiritual light of Creation, to shed illumination upon why we exist at all! 

 

The arguments above that purport to "TAKE DOWN the Cosmological Argument" once and for all is RIDDLED with ILLOGICAL Conclusions and false assumptions they cannot prove (But it sounds scientific so who cares....right?)

 Look, these attacks don't prove anything more than the world is afraid of this truth getting through to those who really think deeply about how things began. 

 

No argument that a Christian can present NO MATTER how much solid science or historical value it has, will

ultimately prove God to a person that WILL NOT believe, even though they ask for that evidence.

 

 This argument, despite the attacks.... is the top reasonable argument that answers ALL the questions Atheists raise! It fits the science available, it fits the physics we know of and it fits the fossil record perfectly. This evidence presented here cuts at the heart of the evolutionists thinking about HOW things began only because it doesn't fit into THEIR THEORY of life coming from nothing.

"How to defend the kalam cosmological argument just like William Lane Craig

 

You see, Atheists talk of sharing ideas and understanding on the one hand but fail to do it on the other. They insult and laugh, instead of actually digging into the evidence as true science demands of them, the reasoning behind this obviously cowardly approach is expected, if not understood by the Christian.

Trust me, as one to whom this approach has been used many times after presenting a reasonable response to an Atheist claim. This is an act of diversion on their part rather than an act of confidence in their stand on the beginning of life. The Atheist does not have a good position to argue from, that's why they always say it's OUR job to prove it not theirs. They don't have ANY PROOF on their part so it's the easy thing to do to defer the argument back to us, well here goes.......  

 

Does God exist?

 For once we can say yes, simply because

this argument leaves no loose ends, it covers all bases

including the Multi-verse excuse. Atheists are left holding the bag with nothing in it, something they should be quite familiar with.

 

Another question is then answered, is the material universe

all that is, or ever was, or ever will be? Is the universe ETERNAL? 

 

Science's conclusion is absolutely not! So if the universe hasn't been here FOREVER then the time limit to it's energy use (Entropy) is an important question to ask.

Definition of ENTROPY

1

:  a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly :  the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system

 

2

a :  the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity

b :  a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder

 


If the universe was an eternally self-existent thing then it's energy source would have to be also, otherwise it would run down as the Law of thermodynamics indicates. 

 What this means is that evolution CAN NOT have the unlimited time and energy to complete NATURAL SELECTION as Macro-Evolution must have.

 

 

 

 

One approach to answering this question is

the Cosmological Argument.

It goes like this…

 

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause."

 

Is the first premise true? Let's consider…

 

Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you've got a hat and a magician.

 

And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don't we see this happening all the time?

 

No… Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—If something begins to exist, it must have a cause.

 

But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever-"The universe is just there, and that's all."

 

First, let's consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy… and that's the point. If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.

 

This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries…THAT PROVE that the Universe is NOT eternal into the past but has an END approaching it.
 

In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe, this wasn't what Einstein wanted to find out but at least he was an HONEST SCIENTIST unlike most Atheists who claim science as their aim.

 

Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding from a beginning point in the past.

 

Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.

However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe… So, it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time.

More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning." Why is that? It's simple physics, it would run out of gas a long, long time ago. (That's Entropy for the dummies out there, and there is NO WAY around this....Like it or Lump it!)

 

This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.

 

This means that scientists "can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model, so you see no matter how many rabbit trails you come up with "Entropy" is your Kryptonite.

It's quite plausible, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true—the universe has a cause.

And since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. Much like… God. Unless you can prove that "Natural Selection" is somehow supernatural and fits these criteria to a tee, your out of 'Cosmological Luck'!

The Cosmological Argument shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist, the problem as always is the fact that Atheists refuse to look at the evidence objectively because it doesn't lead where they want it to go. This is wholly unscientific and completely unreasonable on their part!

Fallacies in Arguments

Here are some examples of fallacies you may encounter when making an argument: of course they will accuse you of these same Fallacies no matter what you say.

Appeal to Ignorance - An appeal to ignorance occurs when one person uses another person’s lack of knowledge on a particular subject as evidence that their own argument is correct. This is a favorite tool to use against believers who don't see it coming. But just remember just because you don't know the details of WHY doesn't mean your argument is invalid.

But it is important to know that Knowledge is power when dealing with Atheists or Skeptics on issues of the spiritual.

We do not start from ignorance so we cannot infer it to prove any point we make. We believe scripture and what it says happened, happened the way it says...we start from knowledge not ignorance. 

On the other hand science, true science, hasn't given even a hint of proof to infer Macro-Evolution, not in the Fossil record, not in the Micro-biological realm, not in the Archaeological realm. SO WHO IS SQUIRMING IN IGNORANCE?

Appeal to Authority - This type of fallacy is also referred to as Argumentum ad Verecundia (argument from modesty). In this case, rather than focusing on the merits of an argument, the arguer will try to attach their argument to a person of authority in an attempt to give credence to their argument.

But let's face the facts here, if your theory was crap before a Ph.D.. handled it what makes you think it will fair better in their hands? Smart people can't make dumb things true they can only divert attention away from the problems using big words and lying really well about the rest. 

This is common among Atheists and Skeptics who sight a vast amount of Scientists and learned academia to prove their illogical assumptions. Simply because the Learned adopt unlearned assumptions as their own only proves to beleaguer the point and push the lie further ahead logic.

Since Creationism hasn't changed it's stand from the beginning, but only waited on science to catch up, our points and inferences still remain strong as the day we believed them. Science which was STARTED by a vast amount of Theists in the past to whom we owe our modern understandings has yet to even infer Evolution as far as MACRO is concerned!

 

Appeal to Popular Opinion - This type of appeal is when someone claims that an idea or belief is true simply because it is what most people believe. 

Creationists cannot use this argument since we are in the minority in both science and popular opinion....MOST BELIEVE THAT NOTHING PRODUCED NOTHING IN THE BIG BANG. So this is a purely Evolutionary fallacy and a very weak one at best.

Association Fallacy - Sometimes called "guilt by association," this occurs when someone links a specific idea or practice with something or someone negative in order to infer guilt on another person.

 This is done whenever an Atheist associates what those who are uninformed say about me, with what I'm saying is true. Everything I put up is backed by science and legitimate scientists but because I'm associated with something made-up or true they have an excuse to avoid my evidence. 

It is still being done to Kent Hovine ministries because of an UNRELATED LEGAL MISHAP he was involved in, now any time his scientific creationism is presented they appeal to the "Alleged illegal activities" and insult his logic which has absolutely nothing to do with his scientific conclusions.

This a cheap trick that a lot of people in government office do to their opponents. What's happening here is they have no valid response and are left with their usual dirty tricks instead of evidence for their case!

Attacking the Person - Also known as Argumentum ad Hominem (argument against the man), this is quite a common occurrence in debates and refers to a person who substitutes a rebuttal with a personal insult.

 Atheists and Skeptics seem to not know that this form of argumentation is the lowest form of human behavior or maybe they do and are low-life's.... who knows. And ANY creationists who engage in this are equally having a "low-life" experience!

Insulting your opponent only tells everyone listening that you HAVE NO LOGICAL way to answer the points they have made. But the intended reason they do it is that it shuts down the argument by causing anger and defense on the part of the opponant. A prime example is found in politics everyday as both parties use this form of point making INSTEAD OF SOLVING THE ISSUES AT HAND!

Everything (In the physical Universe) that begins to exist has a (First) cause. Why? because only something of higher substance could produce SOMETHING of lower substance, if NOTHING could produced anything it would be NOTHING since there is no energy or substance in a vacuum of nothing .

 The universe OBVIOUSLY began to exist BECAUSE SCIENCE SAYS IT DID, THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT the universe must have a cause outside of it's space and time, more powerful than the universe itself. And since Atheists have not presented an alternative that makes any sense compared to the true realities of science....how can they reject our logic so easily, simply because it doesn't follow their line of reasoning?

Naturalism has nothing to offer as far as explaining how life began, at every turn it fails to provide sound scientific data that proves that Natural Selection produced the Natural world. Evolution (MACRO) doesn't happen and it never has, Micro Evolution cannot be used to prove MACRO simply because the two do not compare, one explains changes within species while the other HAS YET TO BE FOUND the change FROM one species into a completely different species.

DOES THIS ARGUMENT..... 

Beg the Question - This type of fallacy is when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the phrasing of the question itself.

NO....

I might ask "What question that any Atheist or Skeptic asks doesn't do this same thing? You are only begging if your logic doesn't connect the question directly to the answer as ours does, IF the universe began and all beginnings have a cause then it follows that the universe had a causality before it began.....it's just plain logic!

 The conclusion of this argument is the logical end of a cause and effect. If the universe were ETERNAL and always existed THEN we would be begging the question because our logic would be failed, because we assumed there was a beginning when there wasn't, but that is not the case from scientific reality.

 

Circular Argument - Also referred to as Circulus in Probando, this fallacy is when an argument takes its proof from a factor within the argument itself, rather than from an external one.

NO....

 

Our argument takes it's conclusion from OUTSIDE the argument itself because the first cause of the universe has to be MORE powerful, must be OUTSIDE of space and BEYOND time itself or that cause could not make what we see, feel, and hear in reality around us.

 

Correlation Implies Causation Fallacy - Otherwise known as Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, this is a fallacy in which the person making the argument connects two events which happen sequentially and assumes that one caused the other.

NO....

This is only bad if your assumptions are based upon no evidence of said assumptions. For instance Evolution ASSUMES things about the Universe that cannot ever be witnessed by science, science can only observe the here and now not the past or the future it can only assume from evidence left behind what is true.

Has anyone ever seen the 'Big Bang' happen? No but we have evidence it occurred nonetheless!

 Has anyone ever investigated first hand 'Macro Speciation'? No but what they ASSUME is that Microevolution proves Macro is true. How can a minor variation WITHIN a species prove that a species can somehow become ANOTHER SPECIES?

 There is nothing to indicate such a thing could or would happen.

 All changes within a species are to cause it's survival as it is not to change it's species with would in effect go against it's survival by killing it off over time. Evolutionist's have the full burden to prove this nonsense not us! They make the assumption so it's their baby to hold.

 

False Dilemma/Dichotomy - Sometimes referred to as Bifurcation, this type of fallacy occurs when someone presents their argument in such a way that there are only two possible options.

 

Actually we think there is only ONE possible option, while evolutionists are always coming up with new options to cover for the old option that hasn't worked out so well, Creationists on the other hand, have always held to ONE option there is no dichotomy.

 

Non Sequitur - A fallacy wherein someone asserts a conclusion that does not follow from the propositions. Every part of this argument follows throughout it's reasoning without problem, so the only thing you can disagree with is the conclusion in the end. Everything throughout your life follows this argument concerning 'First Cause', you yourself are the first cause of many things in your own life.

Those of you that are 'Dad's' are the first cause of your children, now think of this....what if your kid's grow up and decide that you don't exist and cut off all communication with you and move away from you. Would it follow then that you don't exist or would it rather follow that they are simply deceiving themselves for whatever reason into a delusion?

God is the first cause of us and all the denying in the world won't change that fact. Atheists think that if they force all their negative thoughts and actions at a non-existent being, he'll go away somehow.

Now who sounds crazy?

 

Slippery Slope - Assuming that a very small action will inevitably lead to extreme and often ludicrous outcomes. Evolution is loaded with 'slippery slopes' of illogical assumptions and forced evidence.

As you can see, there are many different types of fallacies that you may encounter. Arguing with someone who uses false logic like this can be a frustrating experience, but now that you know these are examples of fallacies, you can identify what they are doing and spot the lapse in logic right away.

 

Is this Cosmological argument a fair and reasonable conclusion of the vast evidence available both in natural law and science?

 You decide for yourself, do not allow unreasonable men and women make eternal decisions for you.

Here's an easy way to remember this argument:

F.R.E.S.H

F- Stands for Famous Equations: 

In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe.

 

Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding.

R- Stands for Ripples of Matter & Heat: 

Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning."

E- Stands for the Expanding Universe: 

1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.

S- Stands for The Second Law of Thermodynamics: 

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.

H- Stands for Heat Eco: 

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left over from the "Big Bang" of cosmology. In older literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination.

With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize.

USE THIS ARGUMENT WITH CONFIDENCE BECAUSE IT'S BOTH LOGICAL AND RESONABLE!!! 

PART 2 : Dealing the Death Blow to Evolution! The COBE Probe

The real issue with Evolutionary thought is that there is no real thought, they assume that the evidence states that evolution is true even if the evidence really says no such thing, THEY TAKE FOR GRANTED WHAT THE FACTS SAY, and because those who do this have many degrees and letters after their names its understood they know it to be true so IT MUST BE TRUE.

 

But to properly understand anything we must do our own homework and not simply TRANSFER SOMEONE ELSE'S  UNDERSTANDING INTO OUR MINDS because as a believer my thought pattern is meant to be the opposite, I try to disprove what I believe and God presents the facts to disprove ME, in that order. It is simple pride in your OWN UNDERSTANDING that prevents you from seeing the opposite understandings facts.

 

Does Evolution challenge my thoughts?

 

YES! Every day! 

 

The real question is does that challenge EVER change my Faith and the answer is a resounding NO! 

 

Evolution has never presented a challenge that could stand the Biblical test of proving God wrong. Why is that? Because as long as I can get an answer to the challenge that satisfies BOTH Scientific understandings and Scriptural FACTS, my Faith remains strong!

The COsmic Background Explorer (COBE), also referred to as Explorer 66, was a satellite dedicated to cosmology. Its goals were to investigate the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) of the universe and provide measurements that would help shape our understanding of the cosmos.

 

If you read the following article you can see the point as I stated above, they ASSUME the facts presented by COBE state that the Big Bang really happened, when the facts state no such thing!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

Unmasking Evolution: The
Resource
Book

by  Laurence D Smart   BScAgr, Dip Ed, Grad Dip Ed

2 The COBE Probe

Evolution Says .....

The COBE space probe found ripples in the background of space which proves that the Big Bang occurred.

The Facts Are .....
(1) Images of space captured by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite have been labelled as the first hard evidence of the proof of the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe. However, the patterns recorded were temperature gradients, which were only about 30 millionths of a degree warmer than the surrounding space - an infinitesimally minute gradient. Sydney Morning Herald, 25/4/92

(2) The 30 millionth of a degree fluctuations in the temperature of the universe has recently had its validity challenged. A member of the team who designed the instrument that took the readings has categorically stated that it was not sensitive enough to take readings that small. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol.  14,  No. 4, 1992  p: 14-15

(3) An article in Science says that the variations claimed in the COBE project are well below the level of instrument noise, a type of background interference that would cover up such readings. It went on to say that the readings were obtained by statistical methods which still need careful checking. Science, May 1, 1992 p:612

(4) George Smoot, the man in charge of the COBE project, admitted in Science that the readings may not be real, and that even if the measurements were real, they could have been caused by other effects such as the motion of our galaxy through the background radiation. Science, May 1, 1992 p:612

(5) Two Yale scientists have stated in Scientific American that the 'bumps' in the readings of background space radiation taken by COBE have no bearing on what the structure of the universe was like billions of years ago. Their theory is that the variations in readings were caused by gravity waves - a prediction of the Theory of General Relativity. Scientific American, October 1992, p:15

(6) An article in Nature concludes that all that can be said is that the readings are consistent with the doctrine of the Big Bang, and that it is a cause of some alarm that the media has announced that "we now know" how the universe began. Nature, March 30, 1992 p:731

Faith: The Proof your looking for and so much more!

When people ask for evidence of God or of Creation they fail to take the most important step to receive it in the first place, as I've said many times Concerning Skeptics of the Truth:

"Until a person accepts Jesus BY FAITH as the bible instructs them too NO PROOF is ever known by them as true, they will COUNTER every evidence presented with counter evidence, they will get mad and curse, they will demand BETTER evidence, they will walk away, BUT they can't see what is in front of them. WHY?

Because FAITH as described in scripture is NOT the same faith as defined by those who fight God or that religion abuses, they are not one and the same.

True biblical Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1,  is where ALL the questions of God and about God are answered completely, where PROOF is found. Faith CONTAINS the proof, First acceptance then the proof not the other way around.
To many times I have seen definitions of Faith from Atheist web pages that are outright FALSEHOODS, distortions of fact that bring their minds rest in the short term but bring NOTHING to the table of debate. It is dishonest to FALSELY-DEFINE your enemies intentions to win a false argument for a short time!

HERE IS THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT BIBLE FAITH!!!

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Now let's see it from the Amplified bible

"NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, [a]the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses]."

If Atheists are going to get their facts right they must first stop defining Faith like this:

"Faith means believing something without proper evidence to support it."

This is the kind of dishonest debate that Atheists practice openly without the least bit of remorse. 

Shady word play and outright lie's define their tactics, now I would ask one simple question here: IF your stand upon your

evidence is that shaky and unfounded that you must lie about the enemy you face, then I think you've already lost!  

This is simply an unfair and inaccurate definition of faith on which to base your denial, it causes you to come to a wrong conclusion concerning God and the evidence before you start.


This may seem like "circular reasoning" to you but it is a fact, its how the system was set up by God, you FIRST ACCEPT his word on faith, by faith and through faith THEN the faith God gives you releases the PROOF of the evidence your seeking.

When I came to this faith I didn't believe anything in the bible was true but once I came to the end of myself and let him deliver me the BLINDERS were removed and I could see the truth.

We can see this principle in regular every day life as well, have you ever looked hard for something, looked in every place it could be and couldn't find it, then decided it wasn't there and got a new one at the store, brought it home and THEN found the old one right where you looked for it at? 

I sure have, and its frustrating at best, but just because I couldn't find it didn't mean it wasn't there!

You had the same eyes before that you had later yet you could not see it, its a matter of perspective, being in hurry, or being angry when you first looked plus we all have internalized presuppositions as to the outcomes and understandings we've grown up with which determine how we look at the world.

Does the statement "I'll believe it when I see it, apply, well I hope not because IT WAS THERE even though I didn't see it and got another one, wasted my money and time, sometimes we CAN'T believe our eyes, they can be very unreliable, as all our human emotions are without being grounded in something greater.

The concept of God is no different, and no matter how long or how hard we seek God after our ways and means the pure and holy means of FAITH is the final frontier of proof!



That Something Greater is FAITH!

Faith takes over where our emotions leave us high and dry, something Christians sometimes get backwards, trusting in emotions can be very dangerous as they are moving as the waves of the ocean. But solid belief that is grounded in an absolute cannot be shaken because you know the source of your belief and trust it.

This may be simplistic but it follows the same premise as God revealing himself in all his glory to you once you follow his plan to get the evidence to reveal the proof.

Religion does not have this absolute source, it mimics it in name only, but is actually only based in what men say God says instead of the source, the Bible.

BOTH sides have evidence that's true, but that evidence must be supported by ALL the facts involved, all the Laws of physics and Science must be obeyed by that evidence or it is not true evidence. 

The Second Laws of Thermodynamics is a LAW, if your evidence breaks this Law then your conclusions on your evidence are wrong plain and simple, no way around it. Evolution breaks the Law outright, "The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, a measure of randomness, cannot decrease in a isolated system. Our planet is not a isolated system." This is the study of heat power; a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.

Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of

Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.

Simply watch the News and you'll see that this is not true, life degenerates into decay and disorder every day but Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.

Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].

Teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of

something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. 

Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? 

It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. 

Matter, itself, is not creative.

Dr. Wilder-Smith:

http://www.christiananswers.n...

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

It is evidence like this that should give pause at the very least, each piece of evidence (This is just one) adds up to proof once Faith completes the circle of evidence. But I know that you will 

not see it this way as yet, I'm only explaining how I see it. Thank you for your time and I hope to talk more soon!

You are absolutely RIGHT if you say:

"I don't believe any Christian can show proof that God exists or doesn't exist; so until any of you can do that, this whole topic is nothing more than personal opinion, or FAITH in what you believe to be truth, but in no way makes any of it absolute."

But you would be totally wrong about one thing I WON'T CONDEMN YOU AT ALL!

I mean that, you have every right to feel that way about religion, IT IS A TOTAL FAILURE in representing God, always has been and always will be because it is owned and operated by Human Beings. What Christians need to learn when talking about this subject is that NO ONE can come to the conclusion of PROOF until it goes from external Talking to internalized FAITH.

Until a person accepts Jesus BY FAITH as the bible instructs them too NO PROOF is ever known by them as true, they will COUNTER every evidence presented with counter evidence, they will get mad and curse, they will demand BETTER evidence, they will walk away, BUT they can't see what is in front of them. 

WHY?

Because FAITH as described in scripture is NOT in any way the same as the faith defined by those who fight God or that religion abuses, they are not one and the same.

True biblical Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1, this is where ALL the questions of God are answered completely, where PROOF is found. Faith CONTAINS the proof, First acceptance then the proof not the other way around.

It is no different than on your Job, your employer requires that you FIRST WORK, then he'll Pays you for the work you've DONE, your employer will not give you the reward first or most would take the money and run.

God is no different, he requires FIRST faith, then the rewards of proof are released by and through that faith.

TRUTH must be absolute or its pointless to even make any statement at all, if Truth is not an absolute then NOTHING anyone says means anything at all, going the way of the NON-Absolute make conversation silly at best there must be a rock solid stating place or its "sinking sand beliefs" of men, as soon as a point is made a counter point is made and NO evidence can stand on ether side of any issue. 

Its not that they don't have good points to make, its that they will not admit being wrong when they are wrong, this is just plain childish behavior. I admit if I'm wrong without fail, because then I can learn a new approach that works better, most FAILURES in reasoning produce a more rounded argument when we are stretched and challenged with our beliefs.

Religion is NOT where the evidence stands the test, yet that becomes the whole ARENA to them, Jesus Christ himself is quoted in scripture HATING MAN'S RELIGION so its not the issue here, its the Scientific evidence, the Historical facts and Changed Lives that CANNOT be hidden to an HONEST seeker that PROVE God is really there.

WHAT IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH? 

At no time have I had a good conversation with a true Atheist, THEY HAVE MADE UP THEIR MINDS before ever listening to your evidence. This is called "Closed Minded Debating" not logical open debate!

I have had better conversations with Agnostics because they at least ARE Honest when presented with REAL evidence they can't explain UNLIKE an Atheist who resorts to insults, and swearing when confronted with something that blows their theory out of the water!

 

Why NAME-CALL if your presentation is so right? This goes especially for believers, at NO TIME should we return evil for evil, this is Satan's trick to make us no better than they are.

Remember if there are no absolute truths, then your "No-god" theory is no more valid than my "There is a God" theory, and we are at a crossroad of no point to the whole argument, that is where Satan likes it to stay! 

If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then no-one can really say, "He should do that" or "She shouldn't do that". 

All you can say is, "A lot of people feel that this action would not make people feel good". So you can't say, "Multinational companies should not exploit the poor and destroy the environment".

If relativists are right, a company executive might respond, "That may be true for you, but it is certainly not true for us". 

Do you see the ethical consequences of throwing out the belief in absolute truth? 

 Christians are not calling people to become gullible, or to throw their minds out by taking an unreasonable "leap of faith".

 

Our faith is not rooted in mystical sayings that sound profound but actually have no real meaning.

 

It is rooted in historical events, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

ABSOLUTE TRUTHS! 

We have good reason to believe all men will die or face the judgment of God when Christ returns. There will be no escape from reality then.

 

This is an unpopular idea, and may drive actually drive some away who are not willing to really investigate and consider honestly and deeply, with courage.

To say that"There is no absolute truth" is that absolutely true? 

If it is, then there is something that is absolutely true - that statement itself. 

If it isn't absolutely true, then why insist that we should all believe it?

 It is logically inconsistent to deny the reality of absolute truth. Even if everyone in the world denied its existence, they would all be wrong, as shown by the arguments above.

 

But if logic itself has no ultimate validity, there is no objective basis for communication, rationality and so much that could give meaning to our world. It is certain that we would never have made any scientific or technological progress at all if we had started out with this kind of thinking. 

But if there is ultimate objective truth, what is it? Even if we know it exists, does not imply that any person on earth actually has it. Everything ought to be examined and tested, as even the Bible says (1 Thessalonians 5:21). 

Hence there are "Big Issues" which ought to be considered by all men. 

Questions like, "Is there life after death?", "Am I an accident or a creation of God?", "What should I be doing?" all make sense only if objective truth and reality exist.

This is the real problem, not that there IS NO PROOF but that no evidence can be accepted as proof because I can simply counter with "There are no absolutes, truth is what I make of it and no more!" 

This is the childish reasoning of the school yard "I know you are but what am I" don't be fooled by unreasonable statements about God.

What the world sees as Christian is NOT Christian at all it is man made false religion, it is a true case of MISTAKEN IDENTITY. 

Most see the church as Catholic and Protestant, but these are simply man invented FAKE COPY'S of the realities that God instituted through Jesus.

They DO NOT represent his word in any way except in using scripture to justify their crimes against God's commands and Man's understanding, in this we agree I'm sure.