The Dawkins Shuffle!

Oh yes! I find it interesting how Science postulates that “something came from nothing” such as the Universe. No creator etc. and their dance continues. However I will agree with them on one thing, and that is Hawkings, Dawkins et al have made $$$$ from nothing.

21 thoughts on “The Dawkins Shuffle!

  1. Actually, science is just claiming it all began with something that simply always was: Energy. See, we have demonstrated that there are no processes that can create or destroy energy. The amount of energy in the universe is constant. We have evidence for the existence and eternal nature of energy. You claim the same about your deity, but have no evidence. Science has the superior position of having an observable basis in nature rather than propositions about deities by fallible man.

  2. So then, the atheist view boils down to, “Everything is what it is, because that’s what it is.” Everything is “just there.” Funny how everything could “just show up” and “just happen to work” without anyone planning, designing, or fashioning it.

  3. In all due respect, to state that there is no “living god”, I will agree since you are using the little “g”. However if you are suggesting that there is no “God”, that is where we must part. I absolutely will not debate whether the Creator exists as it is foolish to believe that God does not exist. Do you know everything about the universe to say such a statement? Look at the majesty of the creation! Look at a baby’s ear and how it is shaped! Look at the human eye and the wonder of it’s design! Study the life of a Honey Bee and the miracle of it’s design! The metamorphosis of a Caterpillar to a Butterfly!

    1 Corinthians 1:18New American Standard Bible (NASB)
    18 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.

    Psalm 19:1New American Standard Bible (NASB)
    19 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
    And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

    Thank you.

  4. If life cannot come from non-life, and that is an unbreakable rule, the existence of a living god prior to the creation of life contradicts that rule.

  5. The laws of logic are just there? Sorry but that is a bit of a cop out. As I stated before….”Isn’t logic a process of the mind? Yes. Isn’t logical thought based upon the laws of logic? If logic is conceptual (a process of the mind) and certainly appear to be universally true, then what are the conditions that must be in place in order for the laws of logic to be universally true so that you can cite them and use them? How do the truth statements that we call the laws of logic obtain their universal nature? How do you know that the laws of logic are true? Do you just assume they are true?

  6. The laws of logic are just “there”, like the distribution of prime numbers among the set of all integers. I don’t have to account for or “believe” that 7 and 11 are prime but 9 is not, I just have to understand that they are and proceed accordingly.

  7. You are asking questions that I’m not asking at all. How did we get from life to non-life? I don’t think anyone will ever answer that question. Any possible set of observations of pre-life in the process of becoming life is contaminated by life, since life would consider that food. Your question “what brought the universe into existence?” assumes that time existed before the universe, when I have already stated that time started in the Big Bang, and it doesn’t make sense to ask about what happened “before” there was time.

  8. You didn’t offer me an answer to my last question “How do you account for the laws of logic within your atheism?”
    Even if I was to entertain what you wrote still does not answer even the most basic question: How can you get life from non-life?
    Also what brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.

  9. Understanding is superior to believing. Atheists don’t “believe” in evolution, we understand that descent with modification, and natural selection, elegantly explains the diversity of life on Earth.

  10. Your question is whether atheists believe in an uncaused cause. First of all, atheists do not believe anything, this is the central point of atheism. Rather, atheists understand that space and time had a beginning from a state of infinite density which began to grow less dense. This process continues today as we see galaxies grow farther apart. Since time had a beginning at the singularity, it doesn’t make sense to ask “what caused that?” because it would imply that time existed before that point. It would be very much like asking “What is north of the north pole?”

  11. Yes the earth is hanging in space and it clearly was known to early Christians; “He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing,” (Job. 26:7, NIV).
    This is particularly interesting, considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals.
    So let me get this straight, atheists believe in an un-caused cause?
    Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to “now” you’d have to traverse an infinite amount of time to get to now. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite. Furthermore, without a first cause, there cannot be a second or a third, etc. So, it seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can’t that be God who is always existed and was never caused to come into existence?
    If atheism is true: The universe has laws. These laws cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought, feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot legitimately claim to have meaning in life or free will since his physical brain is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions that must always have a necessary outcome based on the physical laws of the universe.

  12. A long time ago people thought the earth was supported by pillars, and these pillars were on the back of a turtle, and the turtle was on the back of another turtle, and so on to infinity, because they were looking at it the wrong way. The earth just hangs in space without a support. And today people think that time works the same way, that events must be caused by previous events, and so on, until they reach infinity, or God, but atheists say, no, the universe just hangs in reality without support.

  13. Does science say that the universe came from nothing? Atheism lacks the ability to account for our existence. Where did the universe, and us, come from? Atheism can only offer an impersonal cause. But an impersonal cause that precedes the universe must have always possessed the necessary and sufficient conditions to bring the universe into existence. If this pre-existing cause always existed, then it always possessed these conditions. But this necessitates an automatic generation of the universe, because when the necessary sufficient conditions are there, the result is automatic. But this means the universe would have been created an infinitely long time ago. But the universe is not infinitely old, therefore the impersonal cause of the universe cannot be supported from the atheist perspective.

  14. Science says the universe came from nothing, religion says God came from nothing and then created the universe. We just cut out the middle man.

Comments are closed.