EVERY proposed, natural origin of the universe scenario is demonstrably false.

FACT.
ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe scenarios are false. The conclusive proof is presented here.

The proof is categorised as follows:
1. Contingent
2. Temporal
3. Temporary

The fact that EVERY natural entity or event is all three
(contingent, temporal and temporary) definitively rules out a natural entity as the origin or first cause of the universe.
The universe cannot possibly be the result of purely natural processes as atheism requires.
_________________________________________
Contingent.
All, natural entities/events are contingent.
They all require causes, and the scope, extent and potential of their properties/abilities relies entirely on their cause/s.
Their effects/properties are limited to the adequacy of their cause/s. They cannot exceed, in any respect, the abilities or properties of that which causes them.
This is supported by the Law of Cause and Effect.
'Every natural effect requires a cause' AND ‘An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s’.

A first cause of everything cannot be contingent, it must be entirely autonomous and non-contingent. Not reliant on, nor limited by, any preceding cause or causes. It cannot be inferior, in any respect, to anything else that ultimately exists (entirely self-sufficient & self-reliant).
Therefore, the first cause of everything cannot be a natural entity or event. This rules out every, proposed, natural origin of the universe scenario as a possible, first cause.
Logically, by virtue of the first cause being FIRST, it had to be uncaused (non-contingent). If it was caused it couldn't be FIRST, as it would be preceded by another cause..
_________________________________________
Temporal.
All, natural entities/events are temporal. They all have a beginning within a physical, time frame. They all begin to exist at some point in time. That which is temporal requires a cause. Therefore, a first cause of everything cannot be a natural entity of event.

A first cause of everything cannot be temporal, it cannot have had a beginning and cannot be subject to time. If any proposed, first cause began to exist at some time in the past, it would have required a preceding cause for its own existence, and therefore could not be the 'FIRST' cause. This rules out all natural scenarios, such as as a Big Bang explosion or a singularity, as possible, first causes. They are all temporal, and that is a fact.
The first cause has to be eternally and infinitely, self-existent, not temporal.
_________________________________________
Temporary.
All, natural entities/events are temporary.
As well as having a beginning within a physical time frame, they also face an eventual demise at some point in time.
This is enshrined in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or more specifically, the law of entropy.
All, natural things deteriorate, and will ultimately come to an end.
Therefore, the first cause of everything cannot be a natural, entity or event. That is a fact.

The first cause of everything cannot be temporary, it cannot be subject to entropy and deterioration through the passage of time, because its powers and potential would have diminished and ultimately ceased to exist at some point in an eternal past. It could not have survived, or have had the sustained power, to be the first cause.
And an infinitely, long chain of natural causes and effects is impossible. Because, as each cause in the chain is subject to entropy, the chain as a whole would also be subject to entropy, thus deteriorating and diminishing in potential, over time.
_________________________________________
Conclusion:
Logic, supported by science, reveals that the first cause of everything cannot possibly be a natural entity or event. Therefore, ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe scenarios are patently false. That is a fact.
The first cause of everything HAD to be a supernatural entity (a Creator God). There is no other logical or credible option.

The Biblical claim; the fool hath said in his heart “there is no God” (Psalm 14:1) is wholly justified and true.
Only a fool would attempt to claim otherwise.

_________________________________________
The implications of the Law of Cause and Effect clarified.

Consider this short chain of causes and effects:
A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.
'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.
Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C, D & E would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.
We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.
We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, without any deterioration, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-sufficient, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists).
It must be non-contingent, non-temporal and non-temporary. No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.
_________________________________________
Polytheism? Why only one God?
What about polytheism, can there be more than one God or Creator.
It is obvious there can only be one, supernatural, first cause.
The first cause is infinite - and logically, there cannot be more than one infinite entity.
If there were two infinite entities, for example, A and B. The qualities and perfections that are the property of B would be a limitation on the qualities and perfections of A. and vice versa, so neither would be infinite.
If A & B had identical qualities and perfections they would not be two different entities, they would be identical and therefore the same entity, i.e. a single, infinite, first cause. So there can be only one infinite being or entity, only one supernatural, first cause and creator of the universe.
So when atheists keep repeating the claim - that there is no reason to believe the monotheistic, Christian God is any different from the multiple, gods of pagan religions, it simply displays their ignorance and lack of reasoning.
For this reason the Christian Trinity is not 3 gods, but rather 3 aspects or facets of the same, single God:
"I am in the Father and the Father is in me" John:14-20
_______________________________________
Supernaturalism, naturalism or magic?
Does the first cause of everything have to be a supernatural one? Or is this idea (as atheists claim) just a desperate attempt by ignorant people to fill a gap in scientific knowledge, by saying - God did it?

What does 'supernatural' mean? It means something outside of nature. Something which cannot be explained by science or by natural processes.

The origin of the Universe must be a supernatural event.
The origin of the universe cannot be explained by genuine science, natural laws or by natural processes. And that is an undeniable FACT.
Why?
Because EVERY possible explanation by natural processes (naturalism) violates both the fundamental principle of the scientific method - the Law of Cause and Effect - and other natural laws.
Hence, the first cause, by virtue of the fact that it cannot be explained by science or natural processes, automatically qualifies as a supernatural entity/event (supernaturalism).
To insist that the first cause must be a natural entity or event is to invoke a magical explanation, not a scientific one. The only choice, therefore is between a supernatural first cause or a magical one? A natural event that is purported to defy natural laws and scientific principles can only be described as MAGIC. And that is exactly what atheists propose. They cynically dress up their belief - that nature can evade natural laws - as science, but genuine science certainly cannot contemplate a causeless, natural event or entity, genuine scientists do not look for non-causes.
_______________________________________
Is atheist naturalism science or just paganism naturalism re-invented?
No one has ever proposed a natural explanation for the origin of the universe that does not violate the law of cause and effect and other natural laws. But, whenever atheists are challenged about this fact, they always make the excuse that the laws of nature/physics somehow DID NOT APPLY to their proposed, natural origin scenario.
The most, well known case of this excuse is the alleged 'Singularity' which, it has been claimed, preceded the Big Bang. Remember, it is claimed to be a "one-off event where the laws of physics did not apply." A natural event that defied natural laws! - That used to be called 'magic', before atheist, so-called 'scientists' hi-jacked science with their religion of naturalism - the worship of an All Powerful, autonomous, Mother Nature.

Excuses aren't science. A natural event that violates natural laws is by definition, not possible. There are no ifs, buts or maybes, natural things are bound by natural laws, without question.
Natural laws describe the inherent properties of natural entities and how they react according to those properties. They cannot exceed, in any way, the scope of behaviour dictated and limited by their properties. The whole basis of science is that every natural entity/event is contingent - has to have an ADEQUATE CAUSE.
The idea of 'laws not applying' to a natural event, is not science. It is just fantasy.

The Law of Cause and Effect is more than just an ordinary law, it is an overriding, fundamental principle of existence, not just a property of matter/energy like the Law of Gravity. It has been called the law of laws, because it applies to everything temporal; i.e. everything which begins to exist. Which means it applies to everything, except the single, first cause of everything.

If the origin of the universe is inexplicable to science, within the accepted framework of normal, natural processes and natural laws, then it is a supernatural event.
You cannot claim something as a natural event that violates natural laws, (i.e. exceeds the scope of its potential based on its own intrinsic properties). For that reason it is inexplicable to science.
In fact. to claim that something natural can defy natural laws is anti-science.
Those who promote such nonsense are enemies of science.

ALL NATURAL explanations for the origin of the universe violate the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws.
Conclusion: the atheist belief in a natural explanation for the origin of the universe (i.e. that Mother Nature did it) is impossible - according to science.
______________________________________
Did natural laws exist at the beginning?
An argument, often used by atheists, that we don’t know what natural laws existed at the beginning of the universe is a desperate attempt to evade the fact that natural laws are fatal to a natural origin (or natural, first cause) of the universe.
It is a nonsensical argument because, as I have already stated, natural laws describe the operation/behaviour of natural entities, according to their inherent properties, those properties don’t change.

The Law of Cause and Effect is exceptional. Nothing can evade the law of cause and effect.

Even if we accept the bizarre possibility that some natural laws could have been different at (or prior to) the beginning of the universe, it is irrelevant to the Law of Cause and Effect. That law is an exception.
Why?
Because, as previously explained, the Law of Cause and Effect is in a different category from all other laws, which are based solely on the inherent properties of natural things.
It would be better described as an eternal truth and fundamental principle, rather than just a law.
It is a unique and overriding principle of existence, different from other physical laws which are just pertinent to, and properties of, natural entities. It has rightly been called the ‘law of laws’.
Science (which deals exclusively with natural things), quite rightly, accepts the principle of causality as a natural law, and the scientific method itself is dependent on it being true.
We know the Law of Cause and Effect cannot be different, or non-operational, under any circumstances. That is a fact, because it necessarily applies to ALL temporal things.
Unlike other laws, it is not based on any particular, physical properties of nature, it is based only on the temporal character of nature.
Natural things are all temporal and nothing that is temporal can ever escape from that overriding principle. That would also include any temporal, spiritual entities, such as angels or demons.

Everything with a temporal character, wherever and whenever it exists, is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect, . There cannot be any exception to this, and that is why we can rely 100% on the scientific method, which depends on seeking and exploring causes.

Everything that has a beginning is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So, even if the argument that "we don't know what laws existed at the beginning of the universe" is correct, it cannot apply to the principle of causality.
The principle of causality had to exist at the beginning. It is an eternal principle and truth, which can never be different, under any circumstances.

FACT: To reiterate; if something is temporal, then it is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So, it is not possible to propose a natural, origin scenario that can escape the Law of Cause and Effect. All natural entities and occurrences are temporal and, therefore, are all subject to cause and effect.
The only thing not subject to causality is the first cause, because the first cause is not temporal, it has to be non-contingent, that is - infinite and eternally self-existent.
The first cause is the ONLY exception to causality, nothing else can be an exception, everything else (including other supernatural entities, such as angels) is contingent and owes its existence to a cause, which ultimately originates with the uncaused, first cause (God).
Conclusion: A Creator God MUST exist. It is not sensible, and certainly not scientific, to deny that fact.

The poison in our midst - progressive politics.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/47971464278/in/pho...

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

Taken on: March 30, 2019

Tags:

Brian Greene

beyond belief

QED

Michael Marshall

Andy Wilson

origin

beginning

temporary

temporal

contingent

causality

cause and effect

Christian Union

Carl Sagan

natural history museum

naturalism

cosmic evolution

global atheist convention

atheistcon

natural history

natural laws

Lawrence krauss

Bertrand Russell

ac Grayling

Richard Dawkins

Stephen fry

Ricky gervais

FFRF

the Dawkins Delusion

the God Delusion

universe from nothing

quantum effects

Stephen hawking

Christopher Hitchens

Theory of everything

singularity

Big Bang

university college Oxford

Oxford university

Harvard University

university college London

science not silence

Pompey skeptics

sitp

QEDcon

question explore discover

Voltaire lecture

Cambridge Union

Oxford Union

London school of Economics

March for science

creation science

solidarity in science

science march

science matters

standupforscience

evidence over ignorance

science versus atheism

truth in science

atheist

humanists uk

RDFRS

contingency

law of cause and effect

laws of nature

first cause

atheism « less

Sets appears in: • Atheist myths debunked • Christianity more » • The evolution scam • Atheism - the religion of naturalism. « less

Groups appears in: • Atheism • !FlickrSoup for Soul more » • #flickr • !Social Issues • ANYTHING & EVERYTHING PHOTOGRAPHIC / NO SL/AI • Agnostics • ! ART & PHOTOGRAPHY ! All artistic works welcome • "I AM TELLING YOU A STORY HERE. CAN YOU SEE IT?" • "Smörgåsbord" (Unlimited Posting - Award 3) • "Unlimited Photos: No Rules" • Militant Atheists • "THE WORLD IN FLICKR" (NEW RULES) • ! ♡ Flickrian ♡ No Rules:) Feel Free to invite your Friends! • The Atheist Blogroll Pool • ! Flickr Cafe ! • ! F l i c k r | S t y l e ! • ! Flickr Lover ! • ! The Flickr ! • "NO RULES" Group...All kind of Great Shots are invited... • *Infinite Images • *** We Are The Word *** • !*ALL ARE WELCOME*! • !*Flickr All Stars*! « less

Stats: 6,190 views / 17 comments

go back

Link to this photo view:
Link to this photo large view: