Pg. 1 of 4
How and why do we exist? Some say we don't know. Well, "don't know" is not a hypothesis, and it ignores science and logic. Many scientists say we are simply the result of natural processes, which are "all there ever was, is, and will be." Really? That is contradicted by what science says about those processes. Namely, all of observed and theoretical nature (i.e., the entire cosmos from subatomic to multiverse and relativity) exists as a series of regressively dependent material events and/or energy. Given that, overall entropy and the impossibility of an infinite regress of dependent events  it logically follows: (A) Nature has not always existed. (B) So, nature exists now only because it began. (C) Nature could not have begun itself. (D) So, only some ‘whatever’ outside of nature (i.e., supranatural) could have begun nature. (E) So, nature’s existence proves ‘whatever’ exists. (F) So, there is more to reality than nature, and (G) the natural sciences can’t ever explain it or show it to you because they/we can’t see outside of nature. (H) So, (despite the hype) naturalism is false because (as shown herein) (I) all natural cosmogonies are logically and functionally incomplete. Better to think outside that box.
 E.g., Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980; Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing 2012.
 Unlike real time, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, observational science, e.g., chemistry, aeronautics, etc., many theories about the distant past or future are little more than speculation dressed up in a lab coat.
 All of space/time/energy/matter in motion. (see end note i)
 Caused, uncaused, determined, random, etc., all; from micro to macro, are dependent upon their ‘priors’. E.g., even random uncaused virtual particles are dependent upon the preexistence of vacuum energy, which is dependent upon…? See fn. 7.
 In the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, total entropy in an isolated system (which the univ/multiverse is in naturalism) always increases (i.e., less energy is available to do work). (http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html).
 Invoking (infinite) ‘prior’ dependencies to account for subsequent ones is fallacious because each one extends rather than solves the dependency problem. (Not to be confused with mathematical infinities, which are “needed to complete mathematics, but occur nowhere in the physical world.” Re. mathematician David Hilbert, Nature 12/16/14. Mathematics may describe/predict phenomena, but it does not create them).
 Given the above and useful energy depleting to zero over time, if nature/the cosmos has always existed there would by now be no stars, galaxies, etc.). Attempts to avoid that through infinite material or energy reversal cosmogonies (again) commit the fallacy of infinite dependent regress. See Google Scholar; the observed 2nd law; R. Mortimer, Physical Chemistry Academic Press, 2008, pg. 106. Also, Alexander Vilenkin Many Worlds in One pgs. 174-177, 203-205, and W. L. Craig Reasonable Faith 2008 pgs.125-150, and Creation out of Nothing 2005 Copan/Craig. (end note iv)
 That which does not (yet) exist is nothing, and nothing can’t be or begin or do anything. Some Hindus say otherwise, but all observations show that nothing produces nothing. E.g., even ‘new nothings’ fail: Krauss’ ‘nothing’(A Universe From Nothing 2012) is a ‘vacuum’ filled with pre existing energy which ‘virtual particles’ borrow and return as they pop in and out of existence (Tom Sigfried, Strange Matters 2002 pg.102). (Krauss /Craig 2011 You Tube). Stephen Hawking’s ‘nothing’ (The Grand Design 2010) is preexisting matter and gravity mathematically cancelled to ‘zero’, but like enormous weights balanced on a see saw, that (like Krauss’) is not nothing (J. Lennox God and Stephen Hawking Oxford, 2011 pgs. 29-32.). Alexander Vilenken’s ‘nothing’ (Many Worlds in One 2006) is a preexisting multiverse and physics. Such ‘nothings’ are ‘bait and switch’ and ultimately don’t account for anything. Krauss admits his is a “lure” to draw people in (Krauss, Atlantic 4/23/12).
 No series or system of dependent events can produce itself. E.g., a row of dominoes cannot ‘fall’ - much less exist - unless some sufficient outside force makes it happen. So too with nature/cosmos. Dismissing that as "classicism" by appealing to various relativity and quantum interpretations does not negate dependence, source, and production necessities (fn. 20). Tyson & Goldsmith Origins 2003 pg. 44; Vilenkin pg. 204 Scientific American March 2008 pg. 50 (inset); Francis Collins The Language of God 2006 pgs.54-67, Craig 2008, pgs. 150-156.
 On the ‘front’ end, at the very least. See pg. 1,2 and website for more.  Plus, much of the distant past in nature is unobservable, conjecture, [or politics] or worse, Nature 12/16/14 Defending the Integrity of Physics. Unlike real, testable, repeatable science, e.g., chemistry, aeronautics, etc., no one can show you an always existing multiverse.(fn. 9).
 Big bang animations implying cosmic origin only depict post Bang development: not ultimate origin. Animating that is impossible because (as shown above) natural origin is impossible.
 Metaphysical/ontological naturalism and scientism are question begging, artificially restrictive, logically impossible belief systems dressed up in a lab coat. So, much of what is based upon them is also false or incomplete and thus not qualified (e.g., much of the humanities and social sciences) to say how/why we exist, how we should live, and what all happens after we die.  Some say, e.g., the universe has always existed: in a steady state, or as a multiverse, or is cyclical, or, began or ‘came from’ a quantum vacuum fluctuation, or singularity, or big bang, or chaotic inflation, (loop) quantum gravity, or a natural low entropy state, strings, branes, or “nothing”, or it “just is” or, they “don’t know”, etc., [but know it wasn’t God], and/or say there was no time before the big bang, as if that somehow solves the problem. As Stephen Hawking says, "asking what was before the big bang is like asking what is south of the south pole." An intriguing word picture, but it is deceptive, for there is (now, at the very least) enormous space, etc., 'south' of the south pole. Regardless, his 'explanation' does not explain what ultimately produced the bang or any of the other above phenomena. (See end note ii, iii). ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
pg. 2 of 4
So, what is 'whatever'? (J) The above shows precisely why ‘it’ can’t have any natural qualities, otherwise, ‘it’ would extend rather than solve the regress dependency problem. (K) So, ‘whatever’ can’t have any material, or events, or series, (L) but minimally must be completely independent, enormously powerful, and able to organize that power to begin nature. (M) As such, nature's constraints do not/cannot apply to 'whatever', so, unlike the series of regressively dependent events that is nature, there is nothing about ‘whatever’ which could or needs to begin in order for ‘it’ to exist. (N) So, unlike nature, the only way this necessary ‘whatever’ could exist is to have always existed.
Now, some people deny all that because it smacks of God, even though they can't refute it or provide equally sound or better explanations. They hate the idea of a God who as creator and owner of nature/the cosmos has the right and the power to intervene in 'His' creation and say and judge how we live (much like ingrate ants and termites in your home don't respect you and 'hate' you judging them. All they want is to be who they are and eat your stuff. That's why, when they go too far, you kill them,  even though they don't understand why you do it, or the suffering that results). Nevertheless, such a God (unlike naturalism, polytheism pantheism,  etc.) has all of 'whatever's' necessary qualities, and thus logically and uniquely solves nature's dependency problem.
 How is that possible? If you are looking for naturalistic explanations you are missing the point. (see end note vi)
 Here, existence is different from doing. Unlike nature, a ‘whatever’ with no moving parts doesn’t need to do anything in order to exist. So if ‘it’ ‘later’ creates, that cosmogony (unlike nature’s unexplained gazillions of parts) is rational and Ockham’s razor simple.
 Richard Dawkins The God Delusion 2008 mockingly misunderstands, (pgs. 102, 161,174-175, 186, etc.) and does not refute that the only known way to avoid the infinite dependent regress ‘fallacy’ is with a past eternal non material ‘cause’ which is able to delay and ‘later’ initiate its effects; otherwise, the effect - nature - would also be eternal. (Only intentional free agency is known to do that. Craig 2008 pgs.150-156. (end note xvi, Google Scholar) Unlike real God of the gaps fallacies (e.g., lightning/thunder), it is a nature/science of the gaps fallacy to think that nature, when it did not (yet) exist, could have begun itself.
 Unlike real god of the gaps fallacies (e.g., lightening and thunder - god is angry), it is a nature/science of the gaps fallacy to think that nature, when it did not (yet) exist, could have begun itself.
 Using incredulity, appeal to ridicule, argumentum ad lapidum, ad hominem, and argument from ignorance objections to deny what is shown above is ironic, deflective, and disingenuous.
 “We don’t know”, or contrary to Hawking (pg. 180), Vilenkin (pg. 205) “Laws of nature (and(thus) logic) do not apply ‘before’ the Big Bang’ or they’re ‘Different’, or ‘Everything came from nothing’ or a ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ [which is itself a dependent series of events]. Such assertions have a burden of proof/evidence, which they do not supply. Worse, they lack definition and completeness by ignoring naturalism’s self contradiction (pg.1). Resolving that by “working on it” is just as logically impossible as making a square circle. So too are relativity and quantum interpretations which deny dependence, source, and production necessities.
 They don’t care about you. All they want is to be who they are and eat your stuff. And when they go too far you kill them, without warning, reasoning it is your right and duty to do so, because if you don’t they will wreck your home. (Imagine them denying your (unperceived) existence and/or your right to judge them.) Does not God on His earth have even more right to judge us? (end note viii)
 E.g., in the beginning, the God of the Bible made the world with no suffering. That came later when humans ignored God’s warnings (far more than we give ants and termites) and chose to sin. Sin has consequences. (Gen.1:29-31, chp.3; Rom.1:18-32, 6:23, 8:20-23; end note ix)
 Includes monotheism, deism, and henotheism (one ‘big’ god and subordinates). Supernatural is natural on steroids, supranatrural is outside of/beyond nature.
 Unlike ‘whatever’, traditional polytheistic gods don’t necessitate or enable their own existence, so getting that from each other is circular. Multiple ‘whatevers’? One gets the job done, so why ignore Ockham and (like Ptolemy) needlessly/erroneously multiply entities? (end note vii)
 Lawrence Krauss concedes a Deist God may have created, but tellingly rejects accountable monotheism, Christianity in particular (2011 Krauss/Craig youtube). But Dawkins says ‘God’ can't create because ‘He’ lacks mechanism, and, claiming ‘God’ doesn’t need one is special pleading. Well, mechanism is a natural property, not a supranatural one, so, such objections are category mistakes. Mechanism is part of nature’s dependent regress fallacy (pg.1) which has no natural solutions. Thus ‘God’ necessarily creates supranaturally without mechanism, and why attempts to ‘explain’ such with mechanism are oxymoronic.
pg. 3 of 4
Now, given humans/science can't see outside of nature how can we know if this God is more than logic and preference? By observing God’s supranatural miracles within nature, largely through the uniquely prophesied Jesus Christ, whose claimed Incarnation fills the gap between a holy God and human nature. Doubt that? He proved it (and refuted Deism) with instantaneous supranatural miracles seen by thousands of people. They crucified Him. Three days later He rose from the dead. But that’s not natural? Exactly. Then why believe such things? Because many saw Him alive afterwards and ever since then millions have seen His miracles, and because the supranatural began nature, and because if you are willing to take Him at His word He can prove it to you with miracles you can see in your own life with your own eyes. Would you doubt that too?
 Like it would be with ants and termites, thinking reality is limited to what we perceive is naïve and hubristic.
 Phil. 2:5-11; Jn. 1:1-14; Is. 7:14, Is. chp. 53 → Mt. 1:20-23; 1st Cor.1:18-31; Rom. 5:8-21, 6:23, 8:20-22; Gal. 1:5; 2nd Tim. 2:26; 2nd Pet. 2:19; Heb.9:22-28.
 1st John 1:1-10; John 1:10-13, 2:1-11, 7:37-38, 11:1-45, 14:11-17, 21:4-6:25; Matt.2:1-12; 4:23 -41, 9:18-38, 14:15-21, 17:14-21, 16:15-18; Luke 5:23-25, 7:20-23.
 1st Corinthians 15:1-3.
The Resurrection of the Son of God N.T. Wright 2003, Cold Case Christianity J. Wallace 2013, Gary Habermas (many). Matt. chp. 28, Mark chp.16; Luke chp. 24; John 1:1-13, 3:1-21; 6:35-45, 8:31, chps. 5, 20, 21; 1st Cor. 15:1-9.
 Miracles Craig Keener, 2011, Miracles Eric Metaxas, 2014. Such data is often denied a priori by naturalists. Some admit miracles could happen, but cling to discredited naturalism anyway. Why is that? Romans 1:18-32 (end note x).
 See all the above, footnotes, and end notes.
 2nd Chrn. 16:9a; James; 1st5 Pt. 2:1-2; Lk. 12:15-21, Chp 24; Eph.2:8-10, 3:14-4:32; 2nd Th. 3:10-15; Rm. 3:10-24, 6:23, 8:1-17, 10:1-17, 12:1-2; Jn.1:1-13, 3:1-21, chp 5, 6:35-45, 8:31-36, 13:8, chp. 9, 10, 14-16; Mt. Chp. 4-7, 11:27-30, chp. 13, 20:25-28, 22:1-14, chp 25; 1st john; 1st Cor. 1:18-21, 2:1-14, 4:20-21, 6:9-10, chp.15; Acts 4:7-12, 5:29-32; Ps. 1:1-6, 25:12-14; Prov.; Ec. 12; Is. 6:11-12, 30:20-22; Ti. 3:3-11; Col. 2:8-9; 2nd Cor. 10:5, 11:3-4; Heb. 2:1-4, 3:7-19, 9:27-28, chp 10-12, 13:8; 1st Tim 5:8. "When you do what the Bible says, you get what the Bible says you get."  Direct observation and logic are our best human knowledge. (Here Dawkins unwittingly agrees. See “…reveal…” ibid, pg. 73) Some people deny that by denying sense experience. I ask you; are you reading this, are you not breathing? Do you not look both ways before you cross a busy street? Come on! Plus (unlike a rock or a toaster) Jesus has a mind of his own, so, seeing His miracles in your life is a function of relationship, not mechanics. Some dismiss that as anecdotal. Well, contrary to inflated scientism, not everything is mechanical. Personal relationships are anecdotal, and they are real. Luke10:21-24; Matt. 13:10-23; 1st John 1:1-10.
pg. 4 of 4
All the above and other fulfilled propheciesare far more observed, proved, real and complete than anyone has ever seen from the
preachers of natural cosmogony, abiogenesis, macroevolution other religions (and far better than Hollywood, hedonism, nihilism, alcohol, drugs, pot 'education' and other ruses from Satan). Death and the risen Jesus trump them all. So, why not follow the data, and Him?
They hate me (Jesus) because I testify that their deeds are evil... (And yet) God so loved the world (us) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son to judge the world; but that the world would be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment,that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come to the Light lest his deeds be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light… This is eternal life, that you may know Him, the only true God, and Jesus whom He has sent… 
Want what He offers? Thank God for creating the heavens and the earth, and you. Admit you've sinned, repent of them and turn to Jesus. Thank Him for ransoming your life with His so you can be forgiven, cleansed and freed from sin. Ask Him to be your Savior and Lord, to fill you with the Holy Spirit, and to help you walk truly with Him. Then, slowly read the Bible, and do what He says.
Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your heart.[Heb. 3:15]
 Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy 1980 J. Barton Payne, Ancient Prophecies Revealed (500 listed in order of Fulfillment) Ken Johnson, 2008.
 Carl Sagan famously said that “extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.” Well his claim that “The cosmos [universe] is all there ever was, is, or will be” is also extraordinary, and is refuted by evidence presented herein: e.g., no cosmogonies are observable, and all natural ones are logically and functionally impossible (pg. 1 and notes). Thus, using such ‘natural uniformitarian processes’ to ‘date’ nature/universe is fallacious. (E.g., ignoring the above and saying that our (unobserved) big bang (CMB is observed, but it is a post bang event) occurred 13.8 billion years ago by inferring backwards from rates only recently observed (which total less than one five millionth of the alleged timeline) is an unwarranted extrapolation refuted by the above impossibilities. Unlike them, Biblical creation can be rationally defended: a supranatural creation by the God of the Bible, spoken into existence over six days of extremely accelerated rates of development and decay (VSL cosmology? E.g., J. Magueijo, Moffat, Albrecht) followed by God and nature resting at slow uniformitarian speed ever since then would mean that nature has existed in two different speeds: work speed and rest speed (Gen.2:2). Though (also) unobservable, it is a complete and coherent explanation for the existence of the universe and why it looks old to some, but isn’t. E.g., a modern uniformitarian who unknowingly time travelled to the early Garden of Eden would think tall Sequoia trees were hundreds of years old, but would have no way of knowing they were only, say, two weeks old. Same with decay. Deception? It’s self induced, by rejecting the above (Thousands, not Billions De Young, 2005, True Origin Archive) in favor of naturalism; where humans are simply bags of chemicals; even our best ideas (uniformitarianism?) are merely predetermined /random brain states with some micro adaptive value, but no macro truth. (Rom. 1:18-23, 8:18-23) (end note xii)  Never observed. E.g., trueorigin.org/abio.asp. M. Behe Darwin’s Black Box pg. 154-156. Collins ibid. Dawkins allows life from aliens (but doesn't say how they got it; which doesn't resolve anything) but not from God (Expelled 2008)). See end note xiii, and especially: www.jmtour.com (personal topics; evolution/creation).
 Never observed. Dawkins claims macroevolution happens “before our very eyes” (The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009), his best evidence being artificially selected variations observed in dogs and bacteria as they happen (chps. 2&5). But, his dogs remain dogs and bacteria remain bacteria. Ironically, that is evidence for [Biblical] stasis (Gen. 1), not macroevolution. (Moreover, these variations lower the overall fitness of such in natural environments, which arguably is irreversible without cross breeding, e.g., poodles back to wolves.) Undeterred, Dawkins says if you add ‘millions of years’ to that it is easy to accept that a fish “could” turn into a human. pg. 82. Well, could and millions of unobserved years are not evidence, they are question begging invalid inferences which ignore his own evidence! “[Macro] evolution is largely a mental construct built upon imagination, because the time scale of animal evolution is immense relative to the time available for observations.” (Bejan & Lorente, 2014 Journal of Applied Physics 116 (4):044901); “In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs [or how/if macroevolution actually occurred]; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” Why Evolution is True, Jerry A. Coyne, 2009; The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Johnathan Sarfati 2010; Micheal Behe The Edge of Evolution 2008; Behe’s Blog, Evolution news.org, Jan 11, 2012; Evolution, Still a Theory in Crisis 2016 Michael Denton (end note xiv)
 Unrisen others can’t show you the power of God because they are dead (e.g., Mohammed, Buddha, etc.). Instead, they appeal(ed) to your ego/self righteousness by having you do ‘good deeds’ (e.g., Islam), or self diffusion (Eastern religions) or unaccountable Deism (refuted by fn. 24-28). But none of that can save you because it ignores the holiness of God (Rom. 6:23; Heb. 9:22-28), (end note xv, xvi).
 John 1:1-14, 3:16-21, 7:7, 17:3; Mark 1:14-15; Rom. 6:23; Hebrews 3:15; 1st John.
 Luke 24:44-53; Acts 5:32, 17:20-32; Rom. 1:18-32, 8:1-14; 1st Cor. 2:9-16; Matt. 4:4.
(i) Some people don’t want to deal with the how and why question because they don’t like its philosophical/metaphysical implications, and/or they say “we are here now and that’s all that matters”, as if the context of our existence is irrelevant. Similarly, others say the question is meaningless, perhaps to cover that their methodologies cannot handle the question. (See David Albert, Professor of Physics and Philosophy, Columbia University, in New York Times Review of Books (Lawrence Krauss A Universe from Nothing) March 23, 2012).
(ii) Michael Shermer says "If God were using some presently unknown natural forces that we will someday understand but as yet do not, then those would still be within the realm of natural science, or at least future science. [But] if God uses forces that we cannot even in principle understand no matter how far science develops in the future - then the only way for us to know them would be to become God-like in our ability to transcend this world into another world. This would require more than just reaching the singularity of human /artificial intelligence, or the Omega point of infinite knowledge. It would require that we would become supernatural beings ourselves. At this point we are completely off the page of science and into some other book of speculation and conjecture, or perhaps the realm of theology." Skeptic Vol. 20 No. 2 2015 pg. 37.
(iii) No one can e.g., observe an always existing universe, or, 'pre' big bang: Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time 1980 and others define 'space time' as relationally intertwined with matter, energy and objects, so that if they don't (yet) exist then neither does time. Thus he says time began at the Big Bang (because that’s when matter/energy/objects began), so it is meaningless to ask what existed ‘before’ the Bang, because doing so is like asking what is south of the South Pole. An intriguing word picture, but it evades the main issue: what produced the matter/energy/objects in the ‘first’ place? Hawking, oscillating and multiverse theorists do not answer this question. In the spring of 2011 the Physics Department at the University of California San Diego gave a public lecture in the Great Hall auditorium on the Big Bang. In response to a question during Q&A after that lecture, Department Chairman Dimitri Basov (?) stated, “Physics cannot tell you where the Big Bang came from. If you want to pursue the topic further I suggest you consult the Philosophy Department, or the Religious Studies Department.”
(iv) Not to be confused with traditional cosmological/contingency arguments, or with mathematical infinities, no series of dependent events (i.e., nature) can account for its own existence, i.e., none can have always exited, nor can they have begun/produced it themselves, because every event within that series is dependent upon its prior. So, this dependency problem within that series can never be resolved, even if taken back to infinity, because each one extends rather than resolves the dependency problem. Same with energy; if it is to be replenished by [questionable] energy reversals, every one of them is dependent upon a 'prior' reversal, i.e., it's another series of fallacious dependent (energy) events). That is why they are functional fallacies (of infinite dependent material regress, IDMR, or infinite dependent energy regress IDER), because both are logically and functionally impossible. So, nature, as a series of dependent events, can exist only if some sufficient source outside of that series (i.e., outside of nature) makes it happen. Now, some people deny that and say IDMR/IDER are not functionally fallacious. If you think that, try this thought experiment: imagine 100 dominoes standing end to end as a potential series of dependent material events. Can you think of any way they can “fall” by themselves without any outside influence? (Wind, etc., are outside influences) [Some say wooden dominoes will eventually decompose and then 'fall' by themselves. Not so. With 'no outside influence' - like in a vacuum, there is no decomposition, and thus no 'fall'. Plus, we are attempting here to account for the composition /origination of stuff, not the decomposition of stuff that already exists.] The reason you can't think of a way to get them to fall by themselves is, as stated above, because every ‘faller’ is completely dependent upon its prior. But, many naturalists essentially think they can solve this dependency problem by adding more dominoes to the mix. Will ten more dominoes do it? No, dependency is still there. How about 1000 more? No. A billion? No. A trillion? No. An infinity of dominoes? Here, some say yes – no outside influence is needed because the dominoes have always been falling (‘always’ in the macro sense, not just micro as in end note vi). Well, ‘always’ does not solve the dependency problem, it simply ignores it, begs the question, and ‘kicks the can down the road.’ The weakness of this ‘out of sight out of mind’ move is demonstrated by its proponents – they cannot rationally say/specify what happens somewhere between ‘a trillion’ and infinity that solves the dependency problem. They need some mechanism that can actually produce the necessary material work to get a/the dominoes to fall. Without that, nothing will happen. And, they don't have one. Here, some appeal to mathematical infinite regress, saying it works with numbers. That is true, but it misses the point. Such mathematical abstractions are categorically different from IDMR. They are not (serially) dependent in the way that a material regress is, e.g., the number 4 is not dependent upon the number 3, and, numbers don’t/can't produce anything material (yes, 4 is the ‘product’ of 2+2, but it is not a material product. Try writing the equation 2+2=4 on a piece of paper and see if it produces any material quantity). That is why mathematical infinities are logically possible, and IDMR/IDER are not. (See Oxford mathematician John Lennox in God and Stephen Hawking 2011 pgs. 29-32, and God’s Undertaker 2009. See also Nature 12/16/2014 re. mathematician David Hilbert: infinities are "needed to complete mathematics, but occur nowhere in the physical world." (See also Microsoft Academic; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cosmological Argument) Some object that this domino analogy does not apply to nature, for nature is not static like standing dominoes, but unstable and/or dynamic, i.e., nature moves on its own and thus will ‘fall’ on its own. If that is the posit, then it misses the main point: the issue here is primarily not one of motion, but of ontology. i.e., it’s primarily not about how dominos, or e.g., electrons move– it’s about how it is that they exist. So, if we deny the fallacy of IDMR/IDER, then we are left with ‘eternally’ self existent dominos/electrons (and everything else), which, as seen severally on this site, is logically/functionally impossible. It also violates the second law of thermodynamics on overall entropy; in a closed system (which nature is in naturalism's "nature is all that there is") useful energy depletes to zero over time. So, using various interpretations of quantum mechanics and/or special/general relativity and/or singularity theories to ignore that and/or negate IDMR/IDER fallacies, overall entropy and the necessities of source/production is a composition fallacy, category mistake, and a red herring. E.g., as noted previously, even uncaused 'virtual particles' are regressively dependent: upon the prior existence of a vacuum, etc. (W.L. Craig Reasonable Faith 2008 pgs. 150-156). Physicist Lawrence Krauss objects in a 2013 Melbourne Australia debate with Craig. Citing personal correspondence with Alexander Vilenkin, Krauss says Vilenkin doesn't argue for a finite past (beginning). But further examination showed Krauss intentionally misrepresented Vilenkin, who does argue for a finite past. (See also Craig’s Q&A 336 “Honesty, Transparency, and Full Disclosure of the BGV Theorem”). Others object to the IDMR/IDER fallacy using Zeno’s paradox, saying that since his arrow does make it to the target, the ‘halving’ of the distance which says that it won’t is false and, so too then, is the fallacy of IDMR?IDER. But this is a non sequitur. IDMR/IDER makes it impossible for naturalism to rationally say what is the source of nature's ontology and motion, which is the issue. But with Zeno, the source of the arrow’s ontology and motion is already rationally furnished - by the archer and his bow, which is why the arrow is on its way (unlike naturalistic cosmos 'explanations'), and (barring obstacles) why it will arrive at its target regardless of Zeno's 'mathematics'. If you doubt that, try standing in front of the target and see what happens.
(v) Nature which does not (yet) exist cannot produce itself, because it is nothing, and all the evidence there is shows that nothing can’t be or produce anything. Yet, Krauss, Hawking, and Vilenkin (end note iv) disagree, saying that their ‘new nothings’ do produce. But, they equivocate/bait and switch. E.g., Krauss’ ‘nothing’ is actually a pre existing ‘vacuum’ already filled with energy, where virtual particles’ (are said to) pop in and out of existence as they borrow and return that energy. Well, that energy is something rather than nothing, and Krause never explains where it came from. (See Tom Sigfried, Strange Matters J. Henry Press/National Academy of Science, 2002, pg. 102, David Albert, Columbia University, New York Times Book Review of Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing, and Krauss/Craig 2011 Youtube debate. Krauss admits his 'nothing' is a "lure" designed to draw people in (Atlantic 4/23/12.) [Given all of that it is interesting that Dawkins nevertheless praises Krauss in his afterword to Krauss' book (pg. 191) “If the Origin of Species was biology’s deadliest blow to the supernatural, we may come to see A Universe From Nothing as the equivalent in cosmology.” An ironic statement indeed, given that despite the hyped titles of both books, neither Darwin or Krauss deal with actual origins in biology or cosmogony.] Stephen Hawking says that because there is a law of gravity the universe can and will create itself out of nothing (The Grand Design ibid. pg.180). Well, Hawking’s ‘nothing’ is actually pre existing positive and negative energy (matter and gravitation) which he mathematically cancels out to ‘zero’. (ch. 8). But, like enormous weights balanced on a see saw, that ‘zero’ is not nothing. And if his law of gravity is anything more than a mere after the fact human description of how gravity behaves once it and the objects it interacts with exist, then it too is something rather than nothing. Hawking responds that “absolute nothing” is a falsehood concocted by philosophers, and that what fundamentally exists in nature is (the above) energy, that it precedes all else, and that it doesn’t come from anywhere because it has always existed. Well, if that is so, then, since in Hawking’s cosmology time began at the big Bang, his ‘always’ is micro, i.e., his energy has ‘always’ existed only since the big Bang. But that is contradicted by his assertion that energy precedes all else – which would include the Bang. This temporal contradiction is further/again contradicted by his energy: it is dependent upon the pre existence of matter and gravitation, which in turn is dependent upon the pre existence of the energy, etc. Well, such contradictions and bootstrap circularities can’t produce anything, let alone a ‘zero’ energy ‘nothing’ that has ‘always/not always’ existed. (See end note vii, and Oxford mathemetician John Lennox in God and Stephen Hawking 2011 especially pgs. 29-32, and in God’s Undertaker 2009.) Moreoever, his energy is further contradicted by the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, which says that within a closed system (which if you are a naturalist is what the entirety of the cosmos is) useful energy depletes over time. Therefore, useful energy, like matter, has not always existed. Others object, saying that the 2nd law is statistical, and that given enough time entropy/useful energy can/will and has reversed, so energy has always existed (even in the macro pre bang sense). Well, the above shows why Hawking’s energy refutes itself and thus cannot exist at all, let alone ‘always’ (micro or macro). Plus, no energy reversal has ever been observed (R. J. Mortimer ibid pg. 106). Nor is it likely that such a reversal will ever be observed given the billions of years its proponents say is necessary to see even one. So, it’s not real science, especially where it matters most - on the necessary cosmological macro time level. But the real killer here is that any such hypothetical cosmological energy reversal would be an event, which would then be dependent upon a prior energy reversal event, etc., etc. Such a series of dependent energy reversal events is in principle no different than a series of dependent material events. Both commit the fallacy of infinite dependent regress by attempting to solve the dependency problem by appealing to (infinite) prior dependencies (e.g., oscillating/cyclical cosmologies, energy reversals) and are thus logically impossible. Thus, reversal theories cannot ultimately explain the existence of energy or matter, even in principle. (for discussion of different laws of nature and/or logic, see end note xvi) Now, add to all that Hawking's philosophy of science - 'model dependent realism,' wherein he says, "it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation" (pg. 46). So, since Hawking's model does not agree with observation or logic, then it, by his own criteria is inferior to the Biblical model, which does resolve the above infinite regress issues. Lastly, Vilenkin’s ‘nothing’ is likewise incoherent. ‘It’ has no mass, no space and no time, yet ‘it’ follows pre existing natural law to randomly tunnel through a pre existing energy barrier and inflates to become our universe (pg. 179-182). So Vilenkin’s ‘nothing’ is dependent upon pre existing energy, pre existing natural law (pg. 205), and the pre existing multiverse (pg. 203-204). Yet, he (too) cannot say where any of them came from. Thus, since all three of the above ‘nothings’ do not account for the energy or the natural law or other ‘stuff’ their ‘nothings’ depend upon, none of them ultimately explain the origin/existence of the cosmos or, thus, anything else. ↩
(vi) Producing ‘all’ logically requires all power, which here (also) means that 'before' the universe existed there ultimately was no power 'anywhere' outside of 'whatever'. Many concede that the above points a) through f) (i.e., no matter, no mechanism(s), no events, no series, completely independent, and enormously powerful) could originate/produce the universe(s) but reject g) (some way of organizing and initiating that power) saying it begs the God question and is unnecessary. Well, can power by itself begin/produce the universe(s)? Even naturalists (E.g., Hawking, Vilenkin) say no; an ordering principle - natural law - is needed. Others deny that, pointing to biology as an example of how random ‘power’ eventually produces functionality, and they seek to use that as a model for cosmogony (e.g., Dawkins “universal natural selection” 1983). But they miss two points - natural selection in biology (and everywhere else) follows natural law, and, more importantly, it merely selects stuff that already exists, it doesn’t originate the stuff in the first place – which is the issue in cosmogony. So, what they need is some form of random origination. But, originate from what? Well, there are only two naturalistic options: 1) from an infinite regress, and 2) from nothing. End notes x and xii show that both are logically and functionally impossible. Thus, random power could not have originated the cosmos – whether it be a universe, multiverse, or…? Neither can natural law, for, descriptive natural laws have no power to do anything, they merely describe, after the fact, how nature behaves – once nature already exists. And, supposing pre existing prescriptive natural laws do exist and have power over matter/energy, they are nonetheless null because, as just shown above and by definition, before origination there is nothing for those laws to act upon. So, no combination of natural power and/or randomness and/or natural law could have originated the cosmos. Another problem for natural cosmogony is, as also shown above, nature/the cosmos is not eternal in the past, but its cause or source must be. So, that cause/source must be able to delay and 'later' initiate its effects (otherwise, the effect - nature - would (also) be eternal in the past, contrary to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and the fallacy of IDMR which shows that a past eternal nature is logically impossible). The only causal/source forces known to do that are intentional free agent causation (Craig Reasonable Faith pgs. 150-156). But some object saying that the multiverse provides delay through its series of universes. True, a series of dependent universes does explain the delay of 'local' individual universes, but not the delay of the overall multiverse coming into being in the first place, which is what is at issue here (see end note x). Others say the multiverse has different laws of nature and logic, which could explain overall delay. OK, just what are those laws/explanations, especially for overcoming the crucial IDMR dependency problem? Specifically, what kind(s) of laws of nature or laws of logic could possibly explain how any event is not dependent upon a prior, or where the overall multiverse came 'from', and why/how was that delayed and initiated? Here some say that a non agential "pulse" that has all the properties of the above a) through e), but no f) could do it. In this model 'it' is eternally pulsing out universes, which accounts for all local delays, and is not subject to overall delay because 'it' eternally exists/pulses. But, this violates c), i.e., 'it' is a series. They agree, but say this series, unlike IDMR, is not dependent, because series is part of what 'it' is. But, that is the problem - 'it's' defined existence is dependent - upon that series, unlike the above 'whatever'. So, unlike 'whatever', a pulsing 'it' doesn't meet the above criteria and thus does not work. So then... no hypothetical/theoretical multiverse dependency and delay solutions and no observational evidence = no science. In fact, it is not even a coherent idea. Nevertheless they assert 10 to the 500th universes, within which every conceivable outcome will be realized in one or more of them. That would mean e.g., that somewhere out there a moon really is made of green cheese, pigs fly, and Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist Christian. Really? Is he OK with that? Depends on what universe he lives in? Well then, though he does not acknowledge (or recognize?) it, in his view there is no truth – only local manifestations, which means that in the macro sense he has no grounds to assert or deny anything. “Angels dancing on the head of a pin” pale in comparison to such musings, which show the lengths some people will go to avoid the simplicity and implications of Ockham (endnotes x, xx, xxii). Namely, despite the hype, no naturalistic cosmogonies can ultimately accomplish anything because none of them, including multiverse, can logically get around the IDMR problem. But the above all powerful supranatural agent can - simply by intending to create and doing it. And unlike naturalism and contrary to popular opinion, such an agent would not have created “out of nothing”, but out of His/Her own necessarily enormous supranatural power and wisdom.
(vii) Each god of Polytheism (e.g., a tree god, a sky god, a water god, etc.), like each part of nature, is limited: there is nothing in any of them which necessitates or enables their individual existence, and getting that from each other is circular. So, ‘cooperating’ to overcome that is nonsense. However, some argue for a non dependent form of polytheism, with multiple gods having all six properties described above (1-6) and in end note xvi - i.e., multiple 'whatevers'. They say that multiple 'whatevers' could have always existed, just like one ‘whatever’, and each could have originated their own universe. Well, such gods would be independent within their own universe, but not overall, for their existence and the existence of their individual universes is part of a larger whole, the cohesion of which is the antithesis of independence. Moreover, (if) one God gets the job done (how does it not?), why ignore Ockham and multiply gods (like Ptolemy's epicycles) needlessly?
(viii) Now, why cling to logically impossible naturalism instead of believing that which is logically necessary? Well, some people simply don’t want there to be a God. E.g., Dawkins and others revile God (partly) because He judges people and, they say, He causes and/or allows suffering. Well, never mind that in the beginning there was no pain or suffering (Gen. 1:29-31). That came later when humans choose to sin (Gen. chp. 3). Sin has consequences (Rom. 6:23, 8:20-23). Dawkins nevertheless thinks we should reject God and have fun by being who we are. Yet Dawkins doesn’t practice what he preaches. Instead, when he is in charge, he judges the behavior of others. Like when ants are having fun being who they are by swarming a piece of pie in Dawkins’ kitchen, or termites by eating his wood framed house, he reasons that as owner of the house he has the right and the obligation to keep it in good order. So, without warning, he kills them. Yet Dawkins and others deny that God on His earth has the same right/obligation to judge us when we do things He doesn't like, even though God gives us plenty of warning, and even though in proportional equivalence, we are far smaller compared to God than ants and termites are compared to us. Dawkins objects, saying that his ants only suffer for a moment, then are gone, but humans suffer the pains of hell forever. Well, unlike with the ants and termites, none of that will happen to you if you accept His Way out. But if after a lifetime of persuasion you still refuse - you're a rebellious ant - what else do you expect? (Romans 1:18-25)
(ix) 1st John 1:1-10, John 2:1-11, 7:37-38, 11:1-45, 14:11-17, 21:4-6:25, Matt. 2:1-12, 4:23-41, 9:18-38, 14:15-21, 17:14-21, 16:15-18, Luke 5:23-25, 7:20-23, Acts chp. 2. Now... imagine that God made possible everything we will ever experience and more (“The heavens declare the glory of God” (ps. 19:1), not our insignificance). As such, we owe Him everything. And yet some people, even while they breathe His air, drink His water, and eat His food, etc., think it is He who owes us. Namely, if He is “all powerful” and “all loving”, He should stop all the pain and suffering in the world – but, He doesn’t. Or He should have made it good to begin with, but He didn’t. And He is oppressive, and shouldn’t be (ants and termites notwithstanding). So, they say, God has or is a “problem of evil”. Well, “all powerful” and “all loving” aren’t Biblical concepts. These and other false dilemmas are often raised in an attempt to make God look bad. Well, the Biblical narrative is that in the beginning God made the world “very good” (Gen. 1:26). Part of that good is that He made us as human beings with free will instead of making us as robots or appliances (‘want’ to be a toaster?). So, because real free will necessitates real choice options (unlike Henry Ford, who offered his Model T cars in “any color you want, as long as it’s black”) God must offer to real choice to everyone, unimpeded, along with the consequences. So, that fullness is what God offered to Adam and Eve, urging them to enjoy His creation, and to walk in His Word - warning them of the unavoidable consequences if they did not (Gen. 2:16-17, Gen. chp. 3, Rom. 8:12-23). And yet, they chose ignore what He said, and ever since then humans and nature have reaped the resulting disasters, calamities, plagues, sickness, and death – they very things God sought to keep us from in the first place. That’s not much different than a mother who urges her children to go out and play, but not in the street. If they defy her and get run over, that doesn’t make her evil. Instead, it shows the consequences of them ignoring her wise love for them. Some disagree, saying that had she exercised more control over her kids they would not have been killed. Yet many of these same people don’t want God to do that with them. They (like the children) want it both ways – freedom to do wrong and no adverse consequences. How would/could that work? Some people think that an all loving all powerful God would/could allow us to do whatever we want, e.g., step off tall buildings (without a parachute, etc.), and then He should/could/would fly in and swoop us up to avert the pain of impact, or, of stubbing our toe, or being dumped by our spouse, etc. Well, the world is able to function and to sustain life only because it follows certain regularities/laws. Without them there would be only chaos and oblivion, even if part or all of that chaos is an ‘all loving all powerful’ God intervening all over the world billions of times per second to avert pain. No one would ever learn much of anything. (Like alcoholics who learn only to use enablers so they can get another drink – it just gets worse over time) A most unloving result. Others say God should have made it so that all of us always freely chose only good – so that there would be no suffering and only blessing in this life and in the next. Well, ‘making it so that we freely always’ is an oxymoron. It is determinism, not free will. E.g., imagine freely flipping a coin 1000 times. What are the chances that it will always freely land on heads? Virtually zero. That’s why we know if it always comes up heads the game is rigged, i.e., determined - the antithesis of free choice. So too is the above. Given all of that, it is far better to accept and respect the holiness of God for what it is (like we do with gravity) and choose to do things His way. But, we are not holy. Unlike God, we sin against others, and others sin against us. And because we’ve all sinned, sometimes we forgive each other, sometimes without exacting payment, because we don’t want to pay for what we ourselves have done. Naively, some of us expect God to do the same with us, and think Him immoral for not being as forgiving with us as we sometimes are with others. Well, necessarily, the God of creation is holy, without sin, which is precisely why He cannot/will not forgive without payment, much like the law of gravity does not ‘forgive’ us when we disrespect it. So, when we sin and/or are guilty of a crime, no matter how sorry we may (or may not) be, justice (like gravity) demands we pay whatever penalty the Law/Judge demands. All the more so with a Holy God, who has amply forewarned us that the penalty for our sin is separation from Him, and death. That condition is permanent unless we accept Jesus’ uniquely qualified restitution and payment for our sin (1st Corinthians 1:18-31). Many people deny that, the above reasons for it, and the above solution, as if pursuing lesser things out of context is a good idea. Denial is never a good idea. Rom. 5:12, 6:23, 8:20- 22, Gal. 1:5, 2nd Tim. 2:26, 2nd Pet. 2:19, Heb. 9:22-28, 1st Cor.1:18-31 and chp.15.
(x) Despite objections to the contrary, there is no better overall proof of anything - natural or supranatural - than to see it happen with your own eyes. Think about it next time you cross a busy street. But, many people say they are or were Christians and have never seen miracles. When I ask them what they mean by ‘Christian’, they tell me they believe(d) in Jesus and/or went to church, and/or prayed and/or read the Bible. I then point them to the sample of verses in end note xxvii. Then I ask them if they have ever stopped and pondered them at length, and lived by them. None of these people said they have done so. That makes it impossible for them to have ever known Jesus, for, He is the Word of God (John 1). So, if they don’t know and live His Word (Mt. 7:24-27) it follows that they can’t know and/or properly experience Him. Now, some will say that this explanation is a ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. Well, no matter how much one may ‘talk up’ the virtues of say, electric cars, it is irrational to expect one to take you very far if you don’t/won’t believe in electricity and charge up the battery. Luke 10:21-24, Matt. 13:10-23. Conversely, others (some citing David Hume) say ‘miracles’ do not occur, that they are merely nature behaving in unusual ways, for which there is a naturalistic explanation, even though we may not yet know what it is yet (nature/science of the gaps?), but those who want to believe there are miracles do so anyway (conformation bias). This is simply a reassertion of metaphysical naturalism as the default explanation for all things – a disconfirmation bias, which ignores the shown fact that naturalism is a non starter which cannot account for the existence of nature in the first place. Instead, as shown, the existence of nature is dependent upon the supranatural. Therefore, the supranatural is the logical default position, not naturalism. Thus, the reassertion is false and genuine supranatural miracles are possible in the micro, and necessary in the macro, as shown severally above.
(xi) Webster's dictionary defines proof as "showing the existence, truth, or correctness of something by using evidence or logic...showing that something or someone has a particular quality, ability, or actuality." (Here Dawkins unwittingly agrees. See: “…reveal…” ibid pg. 73.) Unlike atoms, rocks, and planets, Jesus has a mind of His own. Thus, with Him proof and repeatability are a function of relationship, not mechanics. E.g., if my wife seems distant and/or does not respond to me, I don’t assume that she does not exist. I assume there is a problem in our relationship and I try to find out what it is, and then seek remedies. Similarly, your relationship with Jesus can begin (or be restored) when you realize that your life is not yours – it’s His (1st Corinthian 6:19). That’s because none of us created ourselves, or the universe we live in. As shown above, all of that and everything we know is made possible by Him. So, why not acknowledge and deeply respect that rather than be duped into the popular lack of perspective, thinking only about your immediate circumstances and short term ‘happiness’ (like the above ‘ants on pie’), or transient culture and fashion? Far better to see our brief lives in the real context of eternity and Him who made it all possible. Far better to bond with Him who endures forever. Jeremiah 9:23-24, John 17:3, Mt. 11:28-29.
(xii) How old is nature/the cosmos? Naturalism says it is billions of years old. Well, the age of nature is completely dependent upon the source of nature. And, since we've seen that that source cannot be the slow natural uniformitarian processes which we observe now, using them to date the age of nature is fallacious. (E.g., deriving 13.8 billion years by ignoring all the above and instead inferring backwards from rates only recently observed - which total less than one five millionth of the alleged time scale) Conversely, unlike the above, a supranatural creation and timeline by the God of the Bible is a consistent, rational, complete and coherent cosmogony. Here God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and then He rested. That would mean He was working on the heavens and the earth, i.e., all of nature, for six days, and then He rested. Now, when you are working you are moving faster than when you are resting. So, for those six days God and nature were moving faster than they have ever since. That would mean that contrary to uniformitarian assumptions, nature has existed in two separate speeds - work speed and rest speed. How much faster is work speed than rest speed? Well, some Variable Speed of Light astronomers, even secular ones (e.g., Moffat, Albrecht, Magueijo) say that in the beginning the speed of light moved as much as 60 orders of magnitude faster than it does now (numerous citations listed Wikipedia, accessed 05/02/16. See also AIG Answers Book #4 pg. 262). So too then would everything else tied to it(?). Thus, development and decay would have occurred billions of times faster than what we observe today. I.e., a lot would be accomplished in six days. That would account for why nature looks very old to uniformitarians, but isn't. For example, let's say we somehow time traveled a 21st century uniformitarian scientist back into the garden of Eden on say, day 9, without her knowing that's what happened. As she routinely observed say, a 200 foot sequoia tree, her uniformitarian assumptions would lead her to conclude it was hundreds of years old. But, she would be wrong. Even if she examined (the accelerated ) tree rings etc., she would have no way of knowing it was only, say, nine days old. Some reply that God is thus a deceiver. Well, not if He told us that is what He did (Gen 1). Instead, the deception would be self induced – believing in uniformitarianism despite all its problems (noted above and elsewhere). (See Thousands, not Billions De Young 2005.) Rejecting such for the non starter of ‘all is matter in motion’ would mean humans are simply bags of chemicals, where, even our best ideas, emotions, values, etc., are merely predetermined/random brain states, so none of them could be true - including naturalism and uniformitarianism. At best they’d be 'adaptive' in some micro environments, but not, as shown, in larger issues.
(xiii) Abiogenesis has never been observed. Moreover, there isn’t even a consensual theory about how life could have come from non life. See trueorigin.org/abio.asp. Micheal Behe Darwin’s Black Box 1996 pg. 154-156, Micheal Behe's Blog, Collins ibid. Dawkins says that maybe life came from aliens (without saying how they got it), but not from God. Expelled Premise Rampart 2008. ↩
(xiv) Macroevolution has never been observed. The problem with historical ‘science’ (unlike real, testable, repeatable, observable, operational science, e.g., chemistry, aeronautics, etc.) is that no one can observe the phenomena in question. Dawkins objects, saying in The Greatest Show on Earth 2009 that we can see macro evolution occurring “before our very eyes.” His “best evidence” for that are the many different breeds of dogs observed to have been produced in just a few hundred years through artificial selection (chp. 3). And he also cites bacteria that have been observed to acquire the ability to eat citrate (chp. 5). From this Dawkins says that it is not hard to imagine that over millions of years more such variation "could" transform fish into humans (pg.82). Well, how does he know that? He doesn’t. “Could” is not evidence, nor are millions of unobserved years. He is merely wishfully thinking - and contradicted by his own data. Namely, his dogs remain dogs, and his bacteria remain bacteria (with citrate ingestion the result of already existing capacities (Sarfati, 2010 pgs. 65-67)). Well, none of that is evidence for macroevolution. Ironically, it is instead evidence for [Biblical] stasis. Nevertheless, Dawkins adds “millions of years” to that as an inscrutable safe harbor, from which (in further irony) he then twistedly labels as “history deniers” those who don’t believe what he only pretends to demonstrate. Well, contrary to Dawkins, real history is written by people who actually saw what they are talking about (e.g., the Holocaust), not the politically correct ad hominem question begging invalid inferences asserted by Dawkins. See Evolution, Still a theory in Crisis Michael Denton 2016; The Greatest Hoax on Earth? J. Sarfati 2010; The Edge of Evolution (the search for the Limits of Darwinism) M. Behe 2008; Icons of Evolution J. Wells, 200; Genetic Entropy J. Sanford 2008; Explore Evolution: the Arguments for and against neo Darwinism Steven Meyer, et al. 2007; Evolution vs. God Ray Comfort 2013.
(xv) Unrisen others can't show you the power of God because they are dead (e.g., Buddha, Mohammed, etc.) Instead they promote(d) self righteousness by having you do 'good' deeds (e.g., Islam) or self diffusion (eastern religions) or unaccountable deism (refuted by fns. z-gg), but they don’t save because they ignore sin/justice/penalty and the holiness of God. Namely, when we are guilty of a crime, no matter how sorry we may (or may not) be, justice demands that we pay whatever penalty the law and the Judge demands. E.g., suppose I raped and killed a child when I was 22, then escaped to Europe where I lived an exemplary life for thirty years, when I was then found out and deported back to the US to stand trial. And when the judge asked how I plead, I sorrowfully admitted my guilt, and then cited my life of good deeds ever since my crime. If the judge dismissed the charges against me because of that, everyone would protest that his decision was unjust. All the more so with a holy God, who has amply forewarned us that the penalty for our sin is separation from Him, and death. That is why there is so much suffering in the world, and why our condition is permanent unless we receive Jesus’ unique restitution. Gen. 2:16- 17, Acts 2:37-40, Rom. 5:12, 6:23, 8:20-22, Gal. 1:5, 2nd Tim. 2:26, 2nd Pet. 2:19, Heb. 9:22-28, 1st Cor.1:18-31, and chp. 15.
See also Creation Myths, including naturalistic ones, (David and Margaret Leeming, Oxford, 1994, pgs. 113-115). And, no other monotheisms claim you can/will see the kind of instantaneous supranatural miracles (google supernatural miracles) noted in fn. 33, or the fulfilled prophecies noted in fn. 26,34.
(xvi) Philosophy can be interesting, gratifying to the ego (I can do this, therefore I am smart) and deceptive. E.g., as mentioned in end note (ix), the canard “all loving and all powerful” is not in the Bible, but some people imply it is anyway, as if seeking to use suffering in the world to make God/the Bible look bad and/or incompetent and/or contradictory. Well, as shown in (ix), this false dilemma is a straw man fallacy. A similar false dilemma is “if God is all knowing how can we have free will”? This ignores the difference between being able to know ahead of time what someone will do, versus making that person do such. “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form”. (Col. 2:8-9) “I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.” (2nd Cor. 11:3) “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (1st Cor. 1:18-21) “…because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved… God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.” (2nd Thess. 2:10-12). So, why let “education,” mockery and other imposters exploit your lusts and hormones? (See miracles section of this web site) Why lose everything to the deceptions, pollutions, addictions, and consequences of sin? Numbers 35:33, Psalms 14:1-3, 106:38, Prov. 25:26, Is. 24:5, 59:1-2, Jer. 3:2, 9, 5:31, 16:18, 23:11, John 3:4-10, 8:34-47, 10:10, Duet. 30:11-20, 2nd Tim. 2:22-26, 3:1-5, 2nd Pet. 2, 3:1-4, Jude, 1st Jn. 3:7-12, Rom. 1:18-32, 2nd Cor. 11:14, Eph. 6:10-17, 1st Pt. 5:6-10, Acts 17:19-32, Matt.11:27-30, Rev. 20:11-21:8, 22:11-31.
"The first gulp of natural science will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
Warner Heisenberg (?)