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 1 -The Doorway to Belief: How FAITH Opens the Proof of God!

Every Atheist, Agnostic, and Skeptic of every stripe DEMANDS "Prove God Exists, then I'll believe!" or "I'll believe it WHEN I see it or feel it for myself!"

SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS? 

WHY IS IT THAT THEY WANT ALL THE EVIDENCE REVEALED BEFORE THEY WILL BELIEVE?

Well, the main problem should be obvious to all but it isn't, NOTHING in life that we do everyday works this way, NOTHING happens by faith until we FIRST ACT. 

Do you FIRST wait to see the specks on the chair your about to sit in to find out if it will break when you sit in it?

Do you wait to get all the info and proof from your car that you will not get into an accident when you go to work?

Before you get up in the morning, do you wait to gather every possible bit of information for the day or do you in faith get up and face the day?

This will be said to be to simplistic by those who don't want to be painted into a corner by Logic but it clearly is an example of how we hypocritically expect God to be different than the rest of life, to have different rules for Him and what he expects from everyday life and what we naturally do in life. We don't ever work our life the way we expect God to rule our life, its just an unfair standard for anyone to expect all the PROOF BEFORE we start to act upon his expectations. 

Why does our mind expect proof before action here and absolutely NO PROOF before doing mundane everyday life?

The Bible plainly teaches us WHY, because the Doorway into Belief is THROUGH GOD'S KIND OF FAITH. Why do I say "God's Kind"? Its simple, what we term faith is completely different from BIBLICAL FAITH in its power, but it works the same as everyday faith in results by requiring us to jump into action without the proof the chair we're going to sit in will break, the car we're getting into to go to work is safe from harm, the next day is going to be safe to live in but we act like it is, and GO anyway, but where is the PROOF of such actions?

Why do we not need to get all the evidence required in our daily walk of life as we seem to require from God before we'll believe? It is HYPOCRITICAL on its face but we don't see it!

Why is the "Daily faith" we practice logical and the Faith of God not logical? They work exactly alike so the requirements are the same, the basic difference is the contents of both kinds of faith are NOT the same!

What do I mean by that? CONTENTS OF FAITH, what are these "contents" and what does it mean in regards to my belief in God. How does the content of the faith I hold make the difference.

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.

Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.  

The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.

 

The term is employed in a religious or theological context to refer to a confident belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being. It may be used to refer to a particular religious tradition or to religion in general.

Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, it is often taken by some people as inevitably synonymous with a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence." 

This is the mistake Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics make in defining "The God Kind Of Faith" with the same definition as everyday Faith that while they WORK in a similar way are "Light years apart" in their content!

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true, belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness. trust or belief'.

Informal usage can be quite broad, and the word is often used as a mere substitute for trust or belief'.

The content of daily faith is a confident trust in those who made the chair we sit in, or the Car we are about to get into, or the next day will be as the day before was and thus we get up to do the mundane!

THIS is a better definition of DAILY FAITH we use all the time than the God kind of Faith in the Bible because it has not mentioned the contents of Biblical faith that the Bible so aptly does!

Here is what Atheists define as Faith from their Web-site:

I will place this from the site completely intact so my readers can see what I'm dealing with and the Logic used to get there, sense this will be answered in many parts over time I can afford the Context of their Argument to be complete.

"faith from the skeptic's dictionary

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so. --Mark Twain, Following the Equator, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

Faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition.

A non-rational belief is one that is contrary to the sum of the evidence for that belief. 

A belief is contrary to the sum of the evidence if there is overwhelming evidence against the belief, e.g., that the earth is flat, hollow, or is the center of the universe.

A belief is also contrary to the sum of the evidence if the evidence seems equal both for and against the belief, yet one commits to one of the two or more equally supported propositions.

A common misconception regarding faith—or perhaps it is an intentional attempt at disinformation and obscurantism—is made by Christian apologists, such as Dr. Richard Spencer, who wrote the following:

A statement like "There is no God, and there can't be a god; everything evolved from purely natural processes" cannot be supported by the scientific method and is a statement of faith, not science "

 (Richard Spencer, Ph.D., associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at UC Davis and faculty adviser to the Christian Student Union. Quoted in The Davis Enterprise, Jan. 22, 1999).

The error or deception here is to imply that anything that is not a scientific statement, i.e., one supported by evidence marshaled forth the way scientists do in support of their scientific claims, is a matter of faith. 

To use 'faith' in such a broad way is to strip it of any theological significance the term might otherwise have.

Such a conception of faith treats belief in all non-empirical statements as acts of faith. Thus, belief in the external world, belief in the law of causality, or belief in the fundamental principles of logic, such as the principle of contradiction or the law of the excluded middle, would be acts of faith on this view. 

There seems to be something profoundly deceptive and misleading about lumping together as acts of faith such things as belief in the Virgin birth and belief in the existence of an external world or in the principle of contradiction.

Such a view trivializes religious faith by putting all non-empirical claims in the same category as religious faith. In fact, it would be more appropriate to put religious faith in the same category as belief in superstitions, fairy tales, and delusions.

Physicist Bob Park explains this difference in a way even the most devious casuist should understand. 

The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, he notes, gives two distinct meanings for faith:

 "1) complete trust or confidence, and

2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites.*

There are reasons for trusting science and there are reasons for religious convictions, but the reasons for our trust in science are called evidence and the reasons for our religious convictions all reduce to hope.

William James, a scientist and a man of faith, understood this distinction well. In his essay "The Will to Believe," James opines that the evidence for God and an afterlife equals the evidence for non-belief and that his hope is for survival of the soul.

In science when the evidence is equal for two opposing propositions, James argued, we should suspend judgment until the scales are tipped to one side or the other. We don't make a leap of faith in such cases, hoping our favored hypothesis is true.

When we do give our assent to one scientific hypothesis over another it is because the evidence compels it, not because we hope it is true.

an erroneous view of faith

If we examine Dr. Spencer's claims, the error of his conflation of two senses of 'faith' should become obvious. He claims that the statement 'there is no God and there can't be a god; everything evolved from purely natural processes' is a statement of faith. There are three distinct statements here. One, 'there is no God'. 

Two, 'there can't be a god'. And three, 'everything evolved from purely natural processes'. Dr. Spencer implies that each of these claims is on par with such statements as 'there is a God', 'Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior', 'Jesus's mother was a virgin', 'a piece of bread may have the substance of Jesus Christ's physical body and blood', 'God is one being but three persons', and the like.

The statement 'there cannot be a god' is not an empirical statement. Anyone who would make such a claim would make it by arguing that a particular concept of god contains contradictions and is, therefore, meaningless. For example, to believe that 'some squares are circular' is a logical contradiction. 

Circles and squares are defined so as to imply that circles can't be square and squares can't be circular. James Rachels, for one, has argued that god is impossible, but at best his argument shows that the concepts of an all-powerful God and one who demands worship from His creations are contradictory. 

The concept of worship, Rachels argues, is inconsistent with the traditional Judeo-Christian God concept.

Rachels makes an argument. Some find it convincing; others don't. But it seems that his belief is not an act of faith in the same sense that it is an act of faith to belief in the Incarnation, the Trinity, transubstantiation, or the Virgin birth. 

The first three articles of faith are on par with believing in round squares. They require belief in logical contradictions. Virgin births, we now know, are possible, but the technology for the implantation of fertilized eggs did not exist two thousand years ago. 

The belief in the Virgin birth entails the belief that God miraculously impregnated Mary with Himself. Such a belief defies experience but not logic. The Virgin birth is conceivable (to make a bad pun), unlike the Trinity. 

All arguments regarding these articles of faith are quite distinct from Rachel's argument. To defend these articles of faith, the best one can hope for is to show that they cannot be shown to be false. 

However, the consequence of arguing that logical contradictions may nevertheless be true, seems undesirable. Such a defense requires the abandonment of the very logical principles required to make any argument and is therefore self-annihilating. 

The fact that arguments such as Rachel's and those defending articles of religious faith are not empirical or resolvable by scientific methods hardly makes them equally matters of faith.

The statement 'there is no God' is quite different from the claim that there can't be a god. The latter makes a claim regarding possibility; the former is an actuality or existential claim.

I doubt that there are many theologians or Christian apologists who would claim that all their faith amounts to is a belief in the possibility of this or that. One can believe there is no God because there can't be a god, but one might also disbelieve in God while admitting the possibility of the Judeo-Christian or any other god.

Disbelief in God is analogous to disbelief in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny. Yet, those who believe in Bigfoot and Nessie, for example, aren't known for claiming they believe out of faith. To say you have faith in Bigfoot or faith in Nessie sounds ludicrous. 

Believers in Bigfoot think there is good evidence for their belief. Disbelievers argue that the evidence is not strong at all and does not deserve assent to the proposition that Bigfoot exists. Disbelievers in Bigfoot do not disbelieve as an act of faith; they disbelieve because the evidence is not persuasive. Belief in God, on the other hand, could be either an act of faith or a belief based on conclusions from evidence and argument.

If the theistic belief is an act of faith then the one holding the belief either thinks the evidence against belief outweighs or equals the evidence for belief, or the belief is held without regard for evidence at all. Otherwise, the belief is not an act of faith but of belief that the evidence is stronger for belief than against.

naturalism

Another scientist, physicist Paul Davies, represents another kind of deceptive misconception of faith: that science and religion are equally grounded in 'faith'. Here is how he puts it:

...science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified. ("Taking Science on Faith," New York Times, Nov. 24, 2007)

The claim that the assumptions of science are of the same kind as the belief in the Trinity, the Virgin birth, or the existence of God is as wrong as Dr. Spencer's belief that the claim that 'everything evolved from natural processes' is an act of faith. 

Davies uses 'faith' to refer to beliefs that are uncertain or can't be proved to be necessarily true, but that is not the essential characteristic of religious faith. We can't prove that it is necessarily true that the laws of nature won't change drastically tomorrow, but that doesn't make the countless instances of experienced order and pattern by countless individuals of no evidential importance. 

Assuming that invisible green angels move objects to appear as if gravity were real is not on par with assuming there are laws of nature. Neither can be proved to be necessarily true but the latter is backed by evidence in support of it. To lump evidence-based belief with beliefs not based on any evidence as both being faith-based is absurd.

If the only alternatives are that everything evolved from either supernatural or natural forces, and one is unconvinced by the arguments and evidence presented by those who believe in supernatural forces, then logically the only reasonable belief is that everything evolved from natural forces. 

Only if the evidence supporting a supernatural being were superior or equal to the evidence and arguments against such a belief, would belief that everything evolved from natural forces be a matter of faith.

Those of us who are atheists and believe that everything evolved from natural forces nearly universally maintain that theists and supernaturalists have a very weak case for their belief, weaker even than the case for Bigfoot, Nessie, the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus.

But, more important, we are convinced by the overwhelming nature of the evidence that natural forces have brought about the universe as we know it. Thus, our disbelief in a supernatural creator is not an act of faith, and therefore, not non-rational as are those of theists and Christian apologists. 

However, if Christian apologists insist on claiming that science is faith-based or that their version of Christianity and the rejections of their views are equally acts of faith, I will insist that the apologists have a non-rational faith, while their opponents have a rational faith. Though I think it would be less dishonest and less misleading to admit that atheists and naturalists do not base their beliefs on faith in any sense close to that of religious faith."

**********************************************************************************

Biochemistry Literature: Biochemistry Journals, Darwin's Black Box, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, Journal of Biological Chemistry

Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

Evolution: Darwin's Dangerous Idea

Evolution is faith-based T-shirt Large White

Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist

Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith

Spiritual Evolution: A Scientific Defense of Faith

The Death of Evolution: Restoring Faith and Wonder in a World of Doubt

God And Evolution: A Faith-Based Understanding

Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith

The Theory of Evolution Judged By Reason and Faith

Creation and the Christian Faith

Darwin's Leap of Faith: Exposing the False Religion of Evolution

Rivers of life, or, Sources and streams of the faiths of man in all lands : showing the evolution of faiths from the rudest symbolisms to the latest spiritual developments (1883)

Genesis, Evolution, and the Search for a Reasoned Faith

Evolution's Chain of Missing Links [VHS]

The Missing Link Is Still Missing - Funny Stickers (Small 5 x 1.4 in.)

Discovery Channel : Galapagos : Beyond Darwin , Biography Charles Darwin : Evolution 2 Pack

I thought I would give their entire Article in fairness to them, so that later on no one could say I took their words out of context, being fair to good points is what good debate is based upon in the first place!