QUESTION: Where did the universe come from?
ATHEIST: Presumably, from whatever existed before the ever increasing expansion of our universe commenced. There are of course theories based upon observable scientific facts, but the minds which so theorize are far beyond mine with regards to such. My best guess is that the elements which make up everything are eternal, and are merely transformed on a constant basis. That process then at some point leading to and developing into the universe. But that is only a guess, and a fairly uneducated one at that.
CHRISTIAN: One’s best guess is no answer at all. In fact, this is a perfect illustration of the futility of atheism. One builds his foundation on this? In a recent article, “There’s No Such Thing as a Naturalist,” Dr. Jeff Miller (Apologetics Press) illustrates the naturalist “have to” acceptance of supernaturalism to even begin a study of nature. In the fourth paragraph, Dr. Miller comments: “It is a mystery to the naturalist answering how the laws of nature exist since evidence indicates that they do not write themselves. So again, it would be unnatural (i.e., supernatural) for a law of science to write itself. But the naturalist must believe that very thing happened in order for the Universe to exist. He believes in the miraculous.”
QUESTION: What about miracles? What all the people who claim to have a connection with Jesus? What about those who claim to have seen saints or angels?
ATHEIST: What of them? Demonstrate an actual miracle, or introduce me personally to a saint or an angel, and then let’s discuss the matter.
CHRISTIAN:To an atheistic naturalist there is no acceptance of the historical record that attests to the validity of such, there is mere rejection because of ideology (not evidence). However, the particular ideology accepted that seeks to use a back door rejection is met by a miracle coming in the front door because of the “have to” acceptance of a miracle at the very beginning (clarity on this tomorrow).
A very plain but excellent article that addresses the “elephant in the room” when it comes to the theory of naturalism:
The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines “natural science” as, “Collectively, the branches of science dealing with objectively measurable phenomena…” (2003, p. 1402). A naturalist, then, is a person who believes everything in the Universe must be able to be explained through purely naturalistic processes–with no supernatural help. Everything believed must be based on empirical evidence that is “measurable.” According to the National Academy of Sciences, “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. The statements of science are those that emerge from the application of human intelligence to data obtained from observation and experiment” (Teaching About Evolution…, 1998, p. 42, emp. added). Read >>
A friend of mine (from the past) said he is announcing a new religion. He calls himself a “tree-ist.” In other words, he is tired of being called a “tree-huggin atheist” so he will just start something new. His religion is based on the foundationless philosophy of naturalism (it is certainly NOT science). He desires “religious tolerance,” and that is something I am willing to grant. But, in the battle of ideas only one will be left standing.
In any case, I suggest that we put forward a test of two: on judgment day he can put forth his tree (or trees) as his god, and I will stand before God almighty. He won’t be an atheist then, and his new denomination will melt before Him who judges all.
Here’s a good article from the church in Wise, Virginia called “Atheistic Propaganda Machine“. I’m using it in next week’s bulletin at Keltonburg and I thought some here might find it useful too.
“So when someone excludes supernatural causes from science on the basis of that they cannot be observed, yet include the vast multitude of natural causes that cannot be observed as science, what they are really doing is practicing philosophical naturalism (PN).
This assumption of PN essentially means that science is no longer looking for the best explanation or ‘the truth’, but instead merely looking for the best naturalistic explanation. The once noble aim of science is reduced to an atheistic propaganda machine.”
—posted by Alan Grey; September 20, 2007
There is no observable cause of the so-called “Big Bang”. Thus, it is merely an unobserved naturalistic theory, and it is offered because the Philosophy of Naturalism calls for only a natural explanation or cause. God cannot be allowed to be the cause, even though He gave His testimony. There is no observable cause for the origin of life. Thus, the evolution of life from random chemical processes is merely an unobserved naturalistic theory, and it is offered because the Philosophy of Naturalism calls for only a natural explanation or cause. God cannot be allowed to be the cause, even though He gave His testimony. So, even if it is TRUE that God created the heavens and the earth, it is not TRUTH that the scientific method really wants. It wants only the best naturalistic explanation even if it is not actually TRUE. So, as Grey points out, the sciences are good for certain observable causes and repeatable things that pan out into practical things we can enjoy, but the sciences have been hijacked by the Philosophy of Naturalism when trying to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of our Solar System, the origin of life, and the origin of man. The hijacked sciences have been duped and deceived into accepting the Philosophy of Naturalism without the slightest bit of proof. You can look for truth or you can look for the best naturalistic explanation of things, but unless you can prove naturalism is all there is, truth and naturalistic explanations are NOT the same thing. — Terry Benton
It’s from the “Know Your Bible” email; Volume 12, Number 4; February 24, 2013