Search

Will You Let God Set You Free!?

The Power to Break the Chain of Lies so you can be FREE“ Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” Gal. 4:16! This page belongs to Minister Clarence F. Sargent

Category

Atheistic Thought

My Debate with an Atheist on Sodahead- PART 3

MY ATHEIST FRIEND:
 
“prove this god exists without any biblical references or any writings by others! 

go ahead. i will be waiting.

and again with the insults from a fake minister.”
******************************************************
MY RESPONSE:
 
 
You don’t understand the Laws of evidence do you?

You cannot prove something spiritual to a NON spiritual mind, What I can do is present proof from existing evidences in nature and history that his existence is indeed possible, the rest is based upon ‘knowledgeable understanding’ through faith as it should be. YOU REFUSE TO SEE IT SO HOW IS THAT MY FAULT EXACTLY?

Atheists created an impossible idea and called it PROOF, because they know the same thing, proof is in the eyes of the beholder and anything can be denied so all you have to do is deny everything without explanation and the Christian is left with nothing!

The truth though is the opposite, the PROOF is there and ABSOLUTE, it never changes, it never goes away, its your understanding of it that changes and morphs not the evidence of God. You simply change the rules of interpretation of the evidence to suite you any time it gets close…BUT ITS STILL THERE NONETHELESS!

The ONLY reason the Bible bothers Atheists is because the witness to truth cannot be refuted, therefore its easier to eliminate the evidence than to deal with it. They would rather take their chances with the secondary proof….Nature, History, and Science because they can confuse the ignorant and create skepticism.

It is you who must PROVE HE DOESN’T EXIST since the evidence from smallest to greatest indicates he is indeed possible! I will be waiting as I have for over 30 years now!

We know that we exist because . We are irrefutable evidence that intelligent life exists in the universe, give or take a few of us.

So, is it really that much of a stretch to think that there might be intelligent life capable of creating a universe with form, structure and physical laws that always seem to remain constant? Just as its not a stretch to think that a Car that’s designed might just have a designer.

The fact that we live in a universe with reliable physical laws is a bit ironic, don’t you think? Considering that many scientists believe the universe evolved by random processes that had no intelligence of their own.

How could INTELLIGENCE come from nothing colliding with nothing over millions of years? Life comes from life, that’s simple science but you think that life came from non-life…who’s got more faith? Me or you?

To prove the existence of a higher power, we can begin by assuming there is no higher power.

What kind of universe would we have?

A random one, of course. Everything would happen without a purpose.

Nothing could be predicted; nothing could be relied on.

Mathematics and science would have no value because nothing could be reliably measured or have regularity, that’s what random means and without God everything in life if life could finally come together right would be a mixed up puzzle WITHOUT A SET PURPOSE.

A belief that there are NO ABSOLUTES only leads to disorder [Chaos] not order therefore Evolution cannot be true simply because absolutes are not allowed, the universe is FINE TUNED and even its chaotic elements obey certain order. LAWS are proof absolutes exist, evolution obeys PHYSICAL LAWS so it must have absolutes to function though it denies them outright!

And please, stop with the nonsense about insults, you OF ALL PEOPLE cannot talk, you trample peoples beliefs and feelings with each response here and then cry when your told your ignorant about something, that only means you don’t know as much as you think you know, NOT that your stupid or dumb! I stated before that you ARE smarter than your acting on here, I know that’s true!

*********************************************
MY ATHEIST FRIEND:
 
 
the only reason the big book of fairytales bothers us is because the believers think its true and throw it in our faces as fact all the time!
bible  writing cartoons
 
 
***************************************************
MY RESPONSE:
 

We do what? I didn’t know you existed before you opened YOUR TEXT to insult my beliefs, so I guess I can use that same excuse on why I find Atheism repulsive?

Your religion is just as bad as all religion so stop pretending to be pure apart from religion, your in the same ‘UNHOLY BED’ with the hypocrites you hate!

ITS THE LAW OF THE LAND, if you deny it, well how can you, you have become your enemy….now what?

Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate’s right to start study group.

http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31…

Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/603…

HERE’S GREAT PROOF THAT ITS A RELIGION:
http://debunkingatheists.blog…

I know, I know, you have heard it all before.

I read a blog post that spelled it out pretty well, enough to re post it. Kevin Childs is a DJ at The Rock (Rockc3.com) and he did a post discussing how Atheists belong to a religion.

We, as rational individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves. When, and only when, they understand that they indeed belong to a religion, then we can get down as to who holds the most accurate and truthful religion out there.

For Atheists to attempt to claim “neutrality”, in reference to God, is a complete cop out and disingenuous intellectually. They have indeed picked a side. They choose their religion based on what they believe is evidential to their presuppositions.

Denying what they believe, and hold as truth, may be an easier pill for them to swallow but they are only attempting to deceive themselves.

Childs makes the case:

Atheism is a religion.

Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it.

I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)

A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless.

Consider this:

They have their own worldview.

Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.

They have their own orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

They have their own brand of apostasy.

Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified.

Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”

They have their own prophets:

Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.

They have their own messiah:

He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.

They have their own preachers and evangelists.

And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.

They have faith. That’s right, faith.

They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or dis-proven.

To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation.

There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask:

Why do we have self-awareness?

What makes us conscious?

From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong?

They just take such unexplained things by … faith.

There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.

Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy.

bit.ly/AtheistReligion

I posted this [With Credit to the Author] to prove to others that your as phony as any hypocrite you’ve accused because its really sickening how much contradiction there is in your postings.

You see after becoming a Christian after being Atheistic in thought for years, I used to live and let live UNTIL a group of hit and run Atheists wouldn’t let well enough alone on the insulting and moronic comments THEN I decided from that moment on never to let ignorance rule a conversation. I, like most people get SICK of the crappy presentations by those who hate God!

What should bother you is that pic you used looks exactly like every Dr. of Atheism I’ve ever heard speak along with quite a few dumb religious leaders as well, and that’s a lot! Atheism and Religion without relationship offers us nothing in return for our souls, nice trade off!

Atheistic Moron

 
 
*****************************************************
MY ATHEIST FRIEND:
 
“the fact that you think atheism, no belief in a god, is a religion proves once again how ignorant you are.

we don’t think about proving anything or care about a god. so again you lose.”
 
***************************************************
MY RESPONSE:
 
Part 3- Freedom FROM Sin and INTO New Life!

You TALK BIG but present little proof of ANYTHING, ITS YOUR MENTAL PICTURE OF LIFE AND NOTHING MORE.

I proved it was and is a RELIGION LOGICALLY its not MY BELIEF its the facts presented, but instead of proving it you insult me and my Lord? A religion doesn’t have to believe in a god at all as was stated, you DO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING, Evolution, Survival of the fittest, Mother earth and the Universe are your god because you exalt them as I would God. THAT’S A BELIEF SYSTEM PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

It is impossible to prove that there is no God. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at the nature of the statement, “God does not exist.”

Back up for just a minute and think about the difference between positive and negative statements of fact. The difference can be illustrated by a simple example. Suppose there are 10,000 clovers in a field. Person A declares, “There is a four-leaf clover in that field,” while Person B objects, “There are no four-leaf clovers in that field.” Now, how many clovers does each person have to observe and know about in order to be certain that they are correct?

Since Person A must find only one single four-leaf clover in order to be correct, in theory he could prove his statement after observing only one clover, provided that it had four leaves on it. But Person B, in order to know for a fact that she is right, has a lot of work to do! That’s because until all 10,000 clovers have been inspected, there would still be the possibility that among the clovers which remained “unknown” to her was one which boasted a fourth leaf. She could never be certain that she was right until she knew everything there was to know about that field and the clovers it contained.

The same principle holds for statements such as, “There is a God,” and “There is no God,” only this time on a cosmic scale. In order to prove the claim, “There is no God in the universe,” one would have to know everything there is to know about the universe. As long as some body of knowledge remains unknown to anyone making that statement, there will always be the possibility that sufficient evidence for the existence of God is out there, despite the individual’s ignorance of it.

And since no one can seriously claim to know everything, anyone who is honest will admit that they can never prove there isn’t a God. One Christian author put it this way: “Somewhere, in the vast knowledge you haven’t yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist. . . . If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, ‘Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.'”**

It is the word “believe” in the above quotation which brings us to the assertion made in the title of this article: “Atheism is a faith-based belief system.” To be an atheist, you have to have to rely on belief, not factual knowledge. You could never amass enough knowledge to prove the nonexistence of God, so you must place your faith in the improvable assumption that there is no God. My Christian brothers and sisters, do not ever let an atheist deride you on the basis of your faith in God (as if “faith” were a dirty word!), because atheism is no stranger to the concept of faith, either. Ask your atheist friends what it would take for them to accept God’s existence. Then pray that the Lord will open their spiritual eyes to see the beauty and glory of Jesus Christ, as well as the depravity and hopelessness of their current situation, guilty as they are of sin against a holy and just God. May the Lord grant repentance to those who are strangers to His mercy and grace!

**Quotation taken from Ray Comfort’s book, God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists (1993), pp. 14-15.

**************************************************
MY ATHEIST FRIEND:
 
“you do realize that your fanaticism is BORING?????? or maybe you don’t.”
*****************************************************
MY RESPONSE:
 

Hey! I gave you a way out a long while back……STOP ANSWERING ME AND I’LL NOT ANSWER BACK. It can’t be all that boring to you or you’d have blocked me a long time ago? Right?

Guess that lack of real knowledge is getting you down? Don’t feel bad we’re all in that boat together, the Atheist just spends their time in the boat ALONE BY CHOICE!

If you desire to talk I’m here if not STOP ANSWERING ME, its that simple….no compulsion on my part!

 *********************************************
MY ATHEIST FRIEND:

“the lack of knowledge is all yours. since this is my poll,why don’t you stop answering me? you are the guest,and they definitely stink after 3 days.”

************************************************
 MY RESPONSE:


I will not stop answering until you do, your current poll has NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CONVERSATION!

You’ll notice I said plainly that we are ALL in that boat together you simply choose to be alone with your little bit of understanding. I choose to learn more and grow.

BLOCK ME THEN!

But know I will not block you, I believe blocking UNLESS FOR PERSONAL HARASSMENT is the Cowardly way out! Anyone is allowed to attack a point made on either side, that’s the point of Sodahead in the first place.

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

MY ATHEIST FRIEND:

“wow, a liar too! typical of fanatics,they go on and on after anyone has lost interest. you must have a sad boring little life.”

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

MY FINAL RESPONSE:

I beg to differ with you, and consider this my last response sense I’m bored with your lack of Interest!

You have no interest?
You can’t lose what you never had!, which brings me to the question WHY FIGHT IT IF ITS NOT REAL. There’s something real and you can’t prove it’s not, so it bothers you, get over it you’ll never prove God isn’t there!

 

My life is full of Joy because of Christ, and I’m CERTAIN with absolute certainty that he is real. That’s something you as an Atheist cannot say about ANYTHING, if you do you have to admit that Absolute truth exists and if it does that it points to an absolute idea in life.

Because you reject the idea of a personal maker you must believe that an impersonal one — chance — has determined your reality, that is truly sad and boring!

Either:

1. There are no absolutes that define reality. Everything is relative, and thus there is no actual reality. There is ultimately no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative; right or wrong.

Or:
2. There are absolutes that define what is real and what is not. Thus, actions can be deemed right or wrong based upon how they measure up against these absolute standards.

Hence, the chance that forms your reality (which by definition has no standard or objective sense) is the only “real” thing in the universe.

Everything is a chance occurrence, including your ability to understand who and what you are talking about!

Your “Meaning” is a fantasy. There is no way to derive a standard of truth that has any authority. Anything goes!

Because I believe that a personal God created all things, I can know:

–I was created for a purpose

–My level of fulfillment in life will be based on how well I accomplish the objectives (“will”) of my Creator.

–Some actions are right, while others are wrong. I can discover this difference by learning about the Creator’s plan.

–I am accountable to the Creator for my behavior.

Because you believe that “forces” of chance [Evolution] randomness created all things, you can know:

–That nothing is truly knowable, since there is no standard by which to define reality or by which to measure the factual nature of any given idea.

–That no action is any better than another, hence, all actions are meaningless.

–your then life has no value or purpose, because, in a very real sense, it is an accident

–you are not accountable for your behavior, because nothing you do matters.

THIS IS COMPLETELY UNTRUE, BUT ITS WHERE YOUR UNDERSTANDING LEADS YOU. A BORING LITTLE LIFE!

My debate with an Atheist on Sodahead! PART 1

"Atheist Central" – From Ray Comfort’s Blog

The following blog is a re-post from Ray Comfort’s blog, and brilliantly says the obvious. Atheist’s don’t see the issue they are so blatantly against because they are spiritually blinded to the truth.
As I have debated these people I have learned much about their illogical mindsets, as they try so hard to deny the God they say isn’t there, they in turn create the persona of God in people’s mind’s with each attempt to erase him from existence….oops ….I mean from non-existence!
Why is Atheistic thought illogical?
Are there ABSOLUTE truths? If not where does that lead?
Here’s a great reply to Communist Atheism!
Stupid statements ANSWERED !
Way to go Dan!

Posted: 03 Jul 2011 01:53 PM PDT
 


Wait a minute! The sign doesn’t make any sense. I thought atheists didn’t believe that God existed. Oops, I mean that “atheists don’t see evidence for God.” Oops, I mean “evidence for a god” (small “g”). Gotta get the language right.



Once again, I commend my friends at “Free From Religion Foundation” for letting people know that they can be good without God. All you need is to have your own definition of “good.” Most people are “good” in their own eyes (see Proverbs 20:6).



You can also be happy without God. Most people know that anyway, but it’s good to be reminded.



I was extremely happy without God for 22 years of my godless life. So was a friend of mine who was a millionaire at 16 years old, was world famous, and could have any girl he wanted. Who wouldn’t be happy with a lifestyle like that?



The Bible makes it very clear that you and I can be real happy without God. It says that Moses choose to suffer affliction with the people of God rather that “enjoy the pleasures of sin, for a season” (see Hebrews 11:25). Sin gives pleasure. It makes us happy. See also Luke 8:14, 2 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 3:3.



This silly and unbiblical thought that we can’t be happy without God is the basis of a teaching I have done for years called “Hell’s Best Kept Secret” (you may like to freely listen to it on www.livingwaters.com ). When my famous friend preached it (from my notes) on TV, our website got over one million hits the following day.



So good work Mr. Dan Barker. Keep putting those (costly) signs around the country–signs that make people think about God, and give us Christians more opportunities to share the gospel of everlasting life with a dying world.



You are doing more for the Christian cause as a professing atheist, than you did for the whole 19 years you pretended to be a Christian.



EDIT: Added: “…for letting people know that they can be good without God. All you need is to have your own definition of ‘good.’ Most people are ‘good’ in their own eyes (see Proverbs 20:6).”





Part 2 : My response to an Atheist Essay!

“Beresh’it bara elohim et hashamayim vaet haeretz vahaeretz tohu bohu vahoshech al penie tehom veruach elohim merehephet al penie hamayim”
In translation:
“In the beginning God created the land and the sky and land was empty and uninhabitable and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the spirit (or wind) of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”
Thus literally begins one of the most debated passages of the Bible.
No matter if you believe the Earth is YOUNG or OLD as Geology suggests!
The Genesis creation account has been the source of great conflict between Christians and the Scientific Community, BUT that conflick believe it or not has NOT BEEN BECAUSE SCIENCE and the BIBLE DO NOT AGREE!
QUITE THE CONTRARY IS TRUE.
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B003LOCY0Q&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrIt is NOT SCIENCE BUT THE SCIENTISTS THAT ARE AT ODDS WITH THE FACTS OF NATURE and the scientific facts it presents to them because of PRECONCEIVED MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE!
A similar conflict can be seen in church history between Science and the Catholic Church over cosmology. Evangelicals are especially susceptible to this conflict, where many people equate taking the Bible at face value to meaning taking the Bible “literally.”
There are places where the Bible is LITERAL AT FACE VALUE BUT THERE ARE ALSO TIMES WHEN IT IS “COUCHED IN ANALOGY”or “HIDDEN WITHIN A PRECEPT OF DEEPER TRUTH”
Some are intent on preserving the credibility and historicity of scripture, BUT IN THEIR ZEAL THEY have misinterpreted and damaged its credibility substantially. God speaks through two books: scripture and nature. He does not contradict himself.
Unfortunately, the church as the “guardians of Truth” too many times ARE guilty of substituting their own “culturally situated” understandings of Scripture for the inherent word of God and failing to see the difference between the two.

Upholding the Authority of Scripture from the very first Hebrew Word
——————
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B00140W1Y8&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrEven A non-believer knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and related positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a believer, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means too prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a believer and laugh it to scorn.
Augustine on the “literal” meaning of the Genesis Account. 12th Century A.D.
Simply put, evolution can be defined as the developing of new and complex forms of life, from simpler forms by natural processes rather than specific creation. 
God is thus replaced by Nature; and evolutionists claim that all the amazing diversities of life on the earth do not speak of His wonderful creative Power, but of chance! 
What they do NOT account for is the UNIVERSES PERFECT Fine Tuning?
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0664255310&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrSkeptics like to say that fine tuning cannot be proven by science, since we have only one universe to study. However, the discovery and quantification of dark energy has puzzled a number of scientists, who realize that its extremely small value requires that the initial conditions of the universe must have been extremely fine tuned in order that even matter would exist in our universe.
By chance, our universe would have been expected to consist of merely some thermal radiation.
How does this discovery impact atheists?
Those who favor naturalism had long sought to find the simplest explanation for the universe, hoping to avoid any evidence for design. 
A Big Bang model in which there was just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe would have provided that. However, for many years, it has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. 
A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning.
The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. 
How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10120, which is:
1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Atheists’ reactions

Here is a quote from a recent article:
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”
Atheists see a conflict because this level of design is something that one would not expect by chance from a universe that began through a purely naturalistic mechanism or The construction of a machine, engine or instrument, intended to apply power to a useful purpose; the structure of parts, or manner in which the parts of a machine are united to answer its design. “Common wisdom” is common only to those who must exclude a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe.
Yet another study confirms the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation, left over from the Big Bang. The standard inflationary model predicted that the background radiation should be polarized when it interacted with matter, nearly 14 billion years ago. 
John Carlstrom, the S. Chandrasekhar Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, announced the discovery and made the following admission:

“Polarization is predicted. It’s been detected and it’s in line with theoretical predictions. We’re stuck with this preposterous universe.”

Naturalism fails the test

In another article entitled,
“Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant”
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B000RSJ9VQ&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrresearchers from Stanford and MIT examined some of the “problems” associated with a cosmological constant. In their paper, they stated that the implications of a cosmological constant “lead to very deep paradoxes, which seem to require major revisions of our usual assumptions.” 
They admit that “there is no universally accepted explanation of how the universe got into such a special state” and that their study, “Far from providing a solution to the problem, we will be led to a disturbing crisis.” They also admit, “Some unknown agent initially started the inflation high up on its potential, and the rest is history.”
In examining problems with the cosmological constant, the authors are concerned that ultimate fate of the universe is complete entropy with all the matter and energy distributed over maximally expanded spacetime. They cite the ability of the universe to undergo “Poincare recurrences” as a possible “solution” to one of the “problems.” 
There is a certain theoretical possibility that after the universe is maximally expanded that it would come back together again into one point. Think of it like this. Let’s say you are in a room with air molecules randomly moving around in the room. There is a certain probability that the random motion of the molecules could cause all of them to travel to one corner of the room, leaving you in a complete vacuum.
Obviously, this would not be a good thing to happen, but it is possible, with an interval on the order of once every 1060 years. Since we only live 102 years in a universe that has been around for only 1010 years, it is practically impossible.
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004089DXI&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrSo, what is the time it would take for a fully expanded universe to come back into a single point?
The authors calculate the value as e10120 years, which they comment “seems like an absurdly big time between interesting events, which, by comparison, last for a very short time.” Recent evidence suggests that even this estimate is very optimistic. 
Some scientists believe that the universe will be permanently destroyed within 22 billion years, with no possibility of reassembly. Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth College says that the dark energy of the universe is increasing at a rate that will rip the universe apart and even the atoms themselves.
However, it is the nature of inflation and the temperature of the universe that deeply concerns these cosmologists. This is what they have to say about the nature of our current universe, among all other possible universes:
“In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures.
However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1857922832&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrmore of them than those that evolve without “miracles,” that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. 
We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely.”
Appealing to possible alternative ways that the universe might have evolved do not make fine tuning untenable. In fact, the vast majority of possible universes would contain no matter at all – just energy! Here is what Dyson says about the probability that our universe would be the way it is:
“The vast majority of the space consists of states which are macroscopically “dead de Sitter;” that is, nearly empty de Sitter containing only some thermal radiation. A tiny subset of the states are anthropically acceptable, meaning that they contain complex structures such as stars and galaxies, and a very small subset of those are macroscopically indistinguishable from our universe (labeled MIFOU in the figure). 
Inflationary initial conditions occupy an even smaller fraction of the space. Trajectories which pass through the inflationary patch will almost always lead immediately to the MIFOU region, “mixing” into it in a “porous,” phase-space-area-preserving manner. The vast majority of the points in the MIFOU region did not come from inflation, but rather from unstable trajectories originating in the dead region.
Finally, any trajectory in the dead region will remain there almost all of the time, but will http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1419602535&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifroccasionally enter the anthropically acceptable region, and very much more rarely the MIFOU region, and almost never the inflationary region. Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the “miraculous” states discussed above.”
THIS ALONE “TOTALLY DISPROVES”EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT,WHICH SHOULD HAVE THEM ALL WORSHIPING GOD, SO WHY DON’T THEY?
WELL THE PROBLEM THEY HAVE IS “SPIRITUAL IN NATURE NOT MENTAL”, THUS NO MATTER HOW IMPOSSIBLE THE ANSWER IS, THE HARDER THEY FIGHT THE RESULTS!
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0231128479&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrHere’s a great riddle for ya! Who FIRST started Atheism? Was there a Cave-Man or Women, somewhere in the world who first thought ‘There are no gods?’, or was this idea INVENTED by Satan himself?
DID you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source? Not even the most “educated” atheists – particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated. They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetrators in different cultures; but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.
The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon. But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin – that it had its birth in another sphere before this state of time.
Atheism is not a man-made doctrine but a doctrine of the demons. Its originator is none other than the old serpent himself, namely, Satan. It had its origin from the very one it deceptively denies exists.
It is a doctrine which denies the authorship and existence of its own author! This accounts for http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1405189630&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrthe absence of information in any literature embraced by atheists that identify both a human author and earthly time of origin for atheism.
SEE, ALL THAT DENIAL HAS A PRICE DOESN’T IT? 
RESEARCH THE “BEGINNINGS OF ATHEISM” and you’ll FIND EVERY ANSWER YOU’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR REVEALED!
 
If Satan is not the author of atheism, I hereby challenge the most educated and capable of them to prove that Satan is not its author and prove that it had an earthly origin.This may be the hardest thing any Atheist will ever do is to solve it’s own origin problem! Are they going to say that it began when the age of reason began?
Were human beings that stupid before that time, millions upon millions of people and not one Atheist? That’s just Unreasonable to think that no Atheism existed before their chosen few made it famous, there must have been a few Atheist cave http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B00175GAIS&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrmen around surely?
Creation 1 Evolution 0 , without a doubt then THIS IS PROOF POSITIVE THAT THERE IS BOTH A GOD and A CREATION HE CREATED, BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT SUPPORT A NATURALISTIC PROCESS ALONE FOR IT’S BEGINNING.
As I stated before all the PROVING IS IN THE COURT OF THE ATHEIST NOT THE CHRISTIAN!

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: