A REASON AND PURPOSE FOR EVERYTHING (PART 2)

Have you ever noticed how those who do not believe in the existence of God, have never been able to understand the reason and purpose there is to life? They either debate endlessly about it, or discard the subject altogether. Some say that we are all here to help others, or at least, to do no one any harm. Without realising what they are saying they have just applied meaning to an existence they insist has no purpose. Most, foolishly, or perhaps wishfully, conclude that pleasure is the fundamental, ultimate and only purpose for existence. They reason that if there is no purpose to life then why be miserable. Live and be happy for tomorrow we die. Adopt a hedonistic lifestyle for nothing else matters, but self-gratification. “Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure and happiness are the primary or most important intrinsic goods and the proper aim of human life. ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’, is a well known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. Ethical hedonism is the idea that all people have the right to do everything in their power to achieve the greatest amount of pleasure possible to them. Ethical hedonism is said to have been started by Aristippus of Cyrene, a student of Socrates. He held the idea that pleasure is the highest good. Francois-Marie Arouet, known by his nom de plume Voltaire was a French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher, is quoted as saying, ‘Pleasure is the object, duty and the goal of all rational creatures’.” If the pursuit of happiness is man’s sole goal in life, why? Why is happiness the alleged goal of all rational creatures? In this subjective, Godless world filled only with that which is said to be subjectively relative, why is not misery the ultimate goal of mankind? Why not the pursuit of pain? Some people are never happier than when they are miserable, whilst others morbidly derive pleasure from pain.

 

The pursuit of ‘happiness’ is quite a broad brush which paints pictures that vary from people enjoying fun at the beach, to those who actually derive pleasure from pain, both receiving and administering it. Many people derive pleasure from the unthinkable, from merciless torture to the killing of complete strangers. Is pleasure, whatever that may entail, and however it is reached, the god that we should all bow down to? One person, on the other end of the scale, has poignantly written: “For a  while now, I’ve been pondering what’s the point in going on, life is horrible and why should we struggle through it just to achieve death? It would be so much easier to die soon, rather than waiting till death of old age. I find myself just waiting for an accident to happen, I want to kill myself, but I can’t because it wouldn’t be fair to the people who care about me. It would be too selfish. But I feel I exist only cause others want me too. We weren’t given a choice to exist. I can’t see a point trying at anything. It doesn’t make sense. People pursue happiness, try to make their lives better, but I can’t see the point when we are just going to die anyway. I’ve tried finding reason, but I still can’t find it. There is no reason for anything. I hate just suffering through life” (see Ecclesiastes 2). These are very sad words indeed by one who obviously has not factored God into the equation of life and the reason for life. I believe many people feel this way, but never have the courage and honesty as this person did to voice their frustration at a life which, to them, ultimately has no reason, and, therefore, no purpose. Kings and beggars both meet the same end. Many good people die young, while those who cause great harm to others live well into their old age. In contrast with those who believe this proves there is no justice, and, therefore, no reason and purpose to life, there is a reason why both kings and beggars, good and evil ultimately suffer the same fate. Everyone knows that we live and then die, but few there be who realise that there is an actual reason, a cause behind death which goes far beyond any organic malfunction. More on this later.

 

If there is reason and purpose to life then the elephant in the room must surely be: ‘Whose purpose?’ How could there be a reason for anything if the reason had no origin; if there was no one behind the reason; if there was no cause behind the reason’s existence; if there was no one behind the establishment of, motive for, and the intention behind the reason and the purpose? A reason for anything could not exist were it not for orderly planning and design. How then, could anything exist without an underlying motive, reason and purpose? Everything has a reason and a purpose behind it. If it exists then there must be a reason, a cause, for its existence, and if there is reason there is purpose and, therefore, there must be someone behind the reason and purpose, otherwise, where would reason come from, and how could it conceivably exist when even reason requires an origin and a source. If a wall exists then it surely serves a purpose. It was surely built for a reason. If it is a painted wall there is a reason behind its particular color. Likewise, if there is a tree then it, too, serves a purpose, multiple purposes in fact, and if its leaves are a certain color, or if it produces a certain fruit then there is a reason behind its color and fruit being a particular shade or type. The color and fruit do not come by accident. There are specific reasons for the color and the fruit. How can there be someone responsible for the color of the wall, but not the color of a tree? How can someone be behind the color, but not the existence of the object? Imagine seeds not producing after their own kind. How would we know what to plant? Reason and purpose are not born out of chaos and disorder. Order does not appear out of thin air, and it would be the height of irony if order were produced by disorder.

 

As with anything, reason and purpose simply cannot be without a source. There is a cause behind every effect, therefore, “Nothing without a purpose can be an agent…With agents, action is permanently built into the world. Without agents, there’s no reason for anything to happen, so the advocates for non-agency (scientists and atheists) have to appeal to random miracles to get things going (because otherwise nothing would get going at all)…No one ever has, or ever could, observe a random event (an effect which has no cause). No one ever observes a non-pattern, a chaos, incompatible with any conceivable mathematical description, and no mathematical description, when properly, ontologically and analytically considered, is ever ‘uncertain’ in any existential way. Randomness is wholly non-empirical. People who support randomness have no evidence or proof that randomness exists. But randomness is all you have left once you have dismissed agency, subjectivity, teleology, meaning, design and mind.” The rolling of dice is not a random event. The reason why two people who have rolled dice invariably end up with different numbers is not something produced by randominity, chance, or accident. If the rolling dice were to be filmed and the film played back in slow motion one could trace each particular roll, turn, bounce, tumble and twirl, etc., which would determinedly, logically, end with the particular number on top once the dice had stopped rolling. “The effects of gravity, air resistance, friction of the table, and other factors influence the outcome of the roll as well as the initial position of the die…friction is important. With a high-friction table, in which the dice can't slide across very easily, the dice tend to bounce around more times, tumbling and twirling, and making the results harder to predict. With a smooth, low-friction, or soft table, the dice tend to bounce fewer times.” Every resultant number is the product of the way the dice were thrown, the amount of strength used behind each throw and the exact path, with all its ups and downs, twists and turns, the dice takes. It is quite simple to predict which way a dice will turn if footage of it is slowed down. In real life it seems as though it is all randominity at play, but when the film footage is slowed down we can easily see and predict what happened, and what will happen next. The same goes for the toss of a coin. Whether its heads or tails is predetermined by how much force was used in tossing the coin, how high it reached, how much force with which it landed, what surface it landed on, etc. each element can be traced and the result would be the sum total of all the above agents involved. Simply because it is impossible for a man to know precisely how much force to use which would result in heads, or tails, or a 6 or 1, does not mean that the force used plays no part in determining which side of the coin will face upwards, or which number will finish on top. There is agency and cause behind everything, even to that which to the human mind appears totally random. “It’s inevitable for materialism and atheism to arrive at randomness. If God didn’t make the world, if agents didn’t make it, if minds didn’t make it, then what did? It made itself! It didn’t make itself for any reason since there are no reasons without God, agents or minds, so it made itself randomly, accidentally, by chance, indeterministically…Once you have embraced materialism and atheism—once you have dismissed an eternal order of God, agency or mind—you have no alternative but to claim that existence jumps out of nothing for no reason, and proceeds meaninglessly, purposelessly and without agency…exactly all the conclusions scientific materialism has actually arrived at."

Seriously, what sounds more implausible: everything coming from something, or everything coming from nothing. “The fundamental problem for science is that it’s logically impossible for something to come from nothing at all, for existence to spring out of  non-existence.” (For a dice to roll itself, or for a coin to toss itself into the air). “It’s a fundamental repudiation of the principle of sufficient reason, the eternal truths of reason, mathematics, all eternal, necessary laws and all laws of conservation. Science claims that religion is about ridiculous miracles and absurd magic. In fact, no subject is more steeped in absurd magic, ‘miracles’ and impossibilities than science itself. In terms of its ultimate claims, science is absolutely predicated on things happening for no reason, via no mechanisms. Incredibly, science considers itself a system of rational explanation…but how can chance and accident rationally explain anything?” Chance and accident are explanations you have when you don’t have an explanation. “They are the denial of explanation. They are non-explanation. No reason, hence no explanation, can be given for them. You just have to accept them, and shrug your shoulders. The most basic principle of the ancient Greeks was that something could never come from nothing (non-existence). Science, insanely, rejects this foundational ontological principle. Its hatred of God and mind has led it to conclude that impossibility is to be preferred over the principle of sufficient reason.” To attempt to explain the explainable with non-explanation—with explanations that have no evidence which will support them—is an excursion into madness. To explain that which is, by claiming its source to be that which is not, exceeds even beyond the limitless boundaries of insanity. Chance and accident as attempted explanations for effects have no basis in truth. They are empty vehicles which offer no rational, logical explanation for anything. They ‘exist’ because they are said to exist. They are the cause of the causeless, simply because they are said to be. The absence of substance, and the presence of nothing do not explain anything. The true Christian has faith in fact, not fantasy. Even ‘chance’ occurrences and ‘accidents’ have an originating source, or agent, a reason behind why they have occurred.

 

Evolutionists claim “…that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion…it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved. But the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct ‘kind’ to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species. The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.”

 

Cause and effect is the law of the universe. There is nothing which happens without a cause. Even that which does not happen, has a cause. “Causality is universal. Nowhere in the world can there be any phenomena that do not give rise to certain consequences and have not been caused by other phenomena. Ours is a world of cause and effect or, figuratively speaking, of progenitors and their progeny. Whenever we seek to retrace the steps of cause and effect and find the first cause, it disappears into the infinite distances of universal interaction. But the concept of cause is not confined to interaction. Causality is only a part of universal connection. The universality of causality is often denied on the grounds of the limited nature of human experience, which prevents us from judging the character of connections beyond what is known to science and practice. And yet we know that no scientist restricts his reasoning to what he can immediately perceive. The whole history of humanity, of all scientific experiment knows no exception to the principle of determinism…Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.” Nothing can escape the law of cause and effect. Buddhism calls it karma, while the Word of God says “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap (Gal. 6:7).

 

Who is behind the universe and all life? Who is behind the reason for the purpose which determines the specific cause required to bring a particular effect into being? In the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1); “…things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:3). Before creation there was nothing. Nothing is not merely something which cannot be seen, it is nothing. Even if nothing could be seen, there would be nothing there to see! If nothing could materialise it would prove that it was never nothing to begin with. Nothing cannot be described, for it is nothing. All was created by the Creator. God determines, He is the Cause behind the cause which brings about the desired effect. Some may ask who or what is behind God. The answer is nothing and no one, for God has always been: “In the beginning GOD…” (Gen. 1:1). God is the only being, the only entity, Who precedes even the beginning. God never began to be, for He has always been. God’s pre-existence, His being before all things, has led to the existence of all, and only “…by Him do all things consist” (Col. 1:17). No matter how far back one could travel in eternity past, God would always be there waiting for you. God is known as I AM. “‘YHVH’ is the Hebrew word that translates as ‘LORD’. Found more often in the Old Testament than any other name for God (approximately 7,000 times), the title is also referred to as the ‘Tetragrammaton’, meaning the ‘The Four Letters’. YHVH comes from the Hebrew verb ‘to be’, and is the special name that God revealed to Moses at the burning bush.” “When Moses was commissioned by God to go to the Israelites with a message from Him, Moses wondered what he would tell them if they asked him what God’s name was. God’s reply is most revealing: ‘And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto thee” (Ex. 3:14). This signifies the real being of God, His self-existence, and that He is the Being of beings. Therefore, YHVH declares God’s absolute being—the Source of everything, without beginning and without end. It also describes His eternality and immutability, as well as His constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling His promises, because it includes all time, past, present, and future. The sense is, not only I AM what I AM at present, but I AM what I have been, and I AM what I shall be, and shall be what I AM.” God is also known as El Olam meaning the God of eternity (see Gen. 21:33). God is eternal, which not only means He has no end, but that He also has no beginning. God is, always has been, and always will be, for He is the Invincible, Unstoppable God. The Word of God speaks of “The eternal God…the everlasting God…He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased” (Deut. 33:27; Isa. 40:28; Psa. 115:3 cf. Job. 36:26). “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God” (Psa. 90:2).

 

If a thing exists, if a creature exists, then it is because it was created, and if it was created there must be a Creator, and if there is a Creator, there MUST be a reason for everything and everyone created, and, therefore, a purpose, a specific purpose, or purposes, for, and meaning behind, everything and everyone’s existence. The most infinitesimal reason for anything can be traced back to God. There is a reason and a purpose behind everything, and that reason is God, and the purpose is the fulfilment of His will and the bringing of glory to His name. “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created” (Rev. 4:11 cf. Jn. 1:3; Acts 7:49,50). “For by Him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist” (Col. 1:16,17). What other origin can reason and purpose have than the predetermining will of God Who has always been? The only being who is before all things, as well as the cause, reason and purpose for all things, is God. If there is a reason then there must be a purpose, and for a purpose to exist there must be a pre-existent will and design, and, therefore, a pre-existent designer who has willed it. Many are so ready to believe in fate, nature or fortune, but are extremely antagonistic toward the thought of an all-powerful and Sovereign, Independent God “…Who has fixed and determined all things in their own order, place and time, according to His good will and pleasure” (see Eccl. 3:1-8). Truly, it is the telling sign of all spiritually dead men, that they are open to, and will literally believe, almost anything, and yet everyone of them have an automatic, inbuilt aversion to the true Sovereign, Almighty God and His only Gospel of salvation by grace alone.

Everything comes from something else. Whether it be objects, people, or events in our lives, everything and everyone has an antecedent cause. Everything has a leading cause. There is an agent, a cause for every effect, and so we are compelled by this statement to ask, ‘What is behind the cause? What brought the cause into being? What brought the agent into being?’ The world interminably ponders over something so simple as, ‘Which came first, the chicken or the egg?’. The world believes that it is a question which has no absolute, ultimate answer, but one which only leads to another question ad infinitum. Eggs, of course, come from chickens as chickens come from eggs, but what produced the very first chicken? If an egg, then where did the egg come from? Did it just materialize one day? Did the chicken or the egg simply appear out of nothing with no reason for its appearance, much less its existence? If they had, then there could be no reason or purpose for them. But how can this be when chickens produce eggs and eggs, in turn, produce more chickens. And so, eggs have a reason and purpose as do chickens. Does it not make perfect sense that the chicken was created by the Creator God to produce eggs (see Gen. 1:20-22). Look at trees. Which came first, the tree or the seed? Trees come from seeds, and, of course, seeds come from trees, but where did the first tree come from? If a seed, then where did the seed come from, and if a tree, then where did the tree come from? It takes more faith to believe that a seed, tree, egg or chicken just appeared out of nothing without any antecedent cause, or nothing being the antecedent cause, than to believe the mass of evidence at our disposal which shows that each of these things were first created purposely, purposefully, and in an orderly fashion by a Creator God. Any professed cause must have a preceding cause, otherwise, it cannot legitimately be argued as a genuine cause, or source. Life created the universe, and not the other way round. The key is the design, the DNA of every living thing which always produces after its own kind (see Gen. 1:11,12,24,25). A tree cannot produce an elephant, nor can a woman give birth to sycamore tree. Everything produces after its own kind, and only after its own kind because each one is coded to do so via DNA.

 

A woman requires a particular grocery item. She plans to go to the local store. She walks to it, enters the store, buys what she needs and then returns home and begins to prepare the night’s meal. None of this happens by chance. From A to Z there is planning, order and necessity involved even in this simple undertaking. The woman does not travel in any direction when she leaves the house, but specifically that path which she knows will take her to her intended destination. She does not buy any item from the store, but only that which she needs to make the specific meal intended. She returns to her own house, not that of a stranger, and then begins to prepare, not just any meal, but a predetermined, particular meal which requires specific ingredients. This all takes planning, order and skill. The grocery items necessary in preparing the meal do not simply materialize in her home just because she needs them, nor does the meal suddenly appear ready to serve. It takes mind. Planning and design must be employed if the woman is to have any hope of reaching her goal. All would agree with this scenario, however, whilst we believe that planning, design and order are all behind the existence of the store, the grocery item, the house, including the oven required to cook the meal, we are told by certain ones, and fully expected to believe, that there was no such planning, design and order behind the existence of the woman!

 

Let us now look at another example of the impossibility of something coming from nothing. The humble telephone directory did not come about by chance, time or coincidence; it did not summon itself into existence, nor was its size, shape and content formed out of, or determined by, nothing. It did not simply appear, for before it existed it was not. As soon as one sees a telephone book one automatically knows that it did not suddenly appear, but that it required someone to have produced it for the express purpose for which it was made. But the telephone book could not have been produced if there were no trees from which paper is made by those who have the skill for such work. Trees have many purposes, one of which is to provide the ingredients to make paper which is used, among other things, to make telephone books. There is a reason for a telephone directory, and there is a practical purpose behind that directory’s existence. Again, this takes mind. And mind provides irresistible evidence, which undeniably implies motive and intention behind the phone book’s creation. A phone directory does not contain a random collection of names, phone numbers and addresses, but is a specific, orderly and alphabetical listing of names, phone numbers and addresses of those who live in a particular city. Thus we see that a telephone directory could not exist without someone having purposely produced it. “Nothing without a purpose can be an agent.” So we see from this that not only must there be a reason and purpose for the telephone directory, but also for man’s existence. If there is a reason and purpose for the phone book, then, logically, there must also be a reason and purpose for the one who compiled and produced it. So then, if there is a reason for the telephone directory, the chicken, the egg, the tree, the seed, the woman going to the store, etc., there must also be a reason behind the reason for all these things, and so it goes until one arrives at the Source of all things. There is a reason and a purpose behind everything. Nothing can never be the origin of anything. The physics of nothing cannot begin with something.

Stephen Hawking, the renowned astrophysicist, once wrote: “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe. The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” Another gentleman has noted: “In science, nothing acts for any reason or purpose. All scientific equations and formulae are passive. They lack agency. Everything is passive. Everything is reactive. How can anything get going in such a system? How did the system even begin?” The question which Science will never even begin to adequately answer is ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’. “Philosopher David Albert, a specialist in quantum theory, asks, ‘Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Modern quantum field theories’, Albert points out, ‘have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place’." “Science is all about avoiding agency. Agents have purposes. They do things for reasons. They reflect teleology (the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes; the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world). Science has done everything it can to ridicule teleology and deny that it exists in Nature. It thereby denies agency and equations with any fire. Mind is all about agency, but mind doesn’t exist in science (it’s just an epiphenomenon of matter, and supposedly, wouldn’t exist without matter being organised in a certain way). Science is about how, and never why. How is about process. Why is about purpose...God is the ultimate agent who gets everything started, but, if there’s no God, what then? Science can’t appeal to any kind of agent, and that means it has to invoke magic and miracles. In science, things have to get started for no reason at all. Things must happen randomly, accidentally, by chance, probabilistically, statistically, indeterministically, acausally. They certainly can’t happen for any reason, with any purpose, with any plan and agency…with any mind. Mind is the opposite of everything scientific materialism stands for. Science is totally devoid of meaning. It’s totally opposed to meaning. It openly rejects meaning. It has absolute contempt for meaning. The last thing you will find at the bottom of science is meaning. This is pure nihilism and scepticism. Science and atheism go hand in hand.”

In contrast to all this, everything we see such as a road, a building, a car, a fence etc., had to have had, and did have, a mind, an agent, someone behind their construction, and, therefore, a reason and purpose for, and a meaning to, their existence. The notion and construction of these things was no mere aimless, random and purposeless event, but for specific and predetermined reasons. If there is a reason for something then there is always predetermination, planning and intent. Reason comes from mind. This is why science is so totally opposed to life and existence that has meaning, because if it had meaning then it would necessarily have to accept the fact that there exists a mind which gave meaning to everything, and if meaning, then reason and purpose. The house was built for habitation, the road was built so that people could travel on it using the car that was made for just such a reason. The fence was built to keep something in and to keep other things out. To believe anything less than this would be nothing short of ridiculous. Yet man balks at the prospect that there is a Creator, a God, behind the creation of man, his world and the universe at large! Devotees of the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang see a tree and say it came into being by accident. They see the sky and think it is part of a universe which just appeared out of chaos with no particular agent, and for no particular reason or purpose. How can there be a reason for all that a man makes, without there also being  a reason for why a man is, without there also being someone behind the reason for man’s existence? How can anyone accept the obvious, factual principle that if something has been built, or made, it must necessarily have required a builder or maker, without also acknowledging the truth that someone must also have been behind the creation of the beings that produced the phone book, the building, the road or the car, etc. How can there be a cause for every effect, and yet no cause behind every cause? A cause is also an effect, for it is something which has been brought into being by the thought/action of something, or someone, else. Everything and everyone has an antecedent cause. “Every cause has its effect, and every effect has its cause”, and every cause must also have its cause. Based on the law of cause and effect it stands to reason that every cause is also an effect which has an antecedent cause. Otherwise, the initiatory cause would have no cause behind it. It would just appear, it would just happen for no reason at all. So at what point exactly does an effect-producing-cause have a cause itself? A ball ended up in a tree or on a roof because it was kicked or thrown. Action is the cause which produces the effect, but what produced the action? MIND! If there is an effect there must be a cause, and, therefore, an explanation. The effect is dependent upon the cause, and the cause is also dependent on whatever caused it. How can there be a reason for everything, but no reason behind, and for, every reason? How can there be reason behind the effect, but no reason behind the cause? “Nothing without a purpose can be an agent.” There is a reason for everything, and everything—including reason and purpose, action, cause and effect—has a reason, or agent, behind it.

 

Have you ever noticed that the so-called Big Bang is still called a theory? One who defends this theory has commented “…of course the Big Bang model is a theory, and of course it is also correct. It has been tested beyond reasonable doubt: our current universe expanded from a hot, dense, smooth state about 14 billion years ago. The evidence is overwhelming, and we have hard data (from primordial nucleosynthesis) that the model was correct as early as one minute after the initial singularity. Of course the initial singularity (the 'Bang' itself) is not understood, and there are plenty of other loose ends. But the basic framework — expanding from an early hot, dense, smooth state — is beyond reasonable dispute.” But it must be asked, ‘Where did this hot, dense, smooth state come from? What caused it, and what came before it? This is the  massive, unavoidable, elephant in the room issue which evolutionists and Big Bang theorists have never been able to answer, or even come close to answering. They always say everything came from this or that, but they never say how the this or that came into being! They speculate over the effect which in turn became a cause, but they cannot tell where the effect came from that allegedly produced the universe around us. The most recent ‘explanation’ of ‘how it all began’ has been around for awhile now, but scientists are excited by the latest research concerning it. “Drawing on previous research in a number of different scientific fields, the researchers played connect-the-dots, and arrived at a very interesting conclusion. According to the researchers, the most plausible answer to how life initially formed seems to be that meteorites slammed into ponds here on Earth, prompting the formation of self-replicating RNA molecules thanks to ideal nutrients in the water.” Again, science cannot even commence a conversation on the beginning of the universe without starting with something that allegedly already was—in this case, meteorites, ponds and the planet earth itself! How did the meteorites get here? How and why do they exist? How did ponds begin and how did the earth come into being? No doubt these are some of the “loose ends” mentioned earlier by our ‘Big Bang’ friend. The Word of God does not say ‘In the beginning was the universe’ or ‘the earth’ or ‘the dense smooth state’ or ‘the Big Bang’, but “In the beginning GOD…” (Gen.1:1 cf. Jn. 1:1-3). “In the beginning God CREATED…” (Gen.1:1), not, ‘In the beginning the creation’. There was no creation before God created it. There was nothing before God, therefore, there could have been, would have been, nothing without God.

“The universe, defined as time, space, matter, and physical energy had a beginning, and is not eternal. And it is through Einstein’s equations that scientists can trace the development of the universe back to its very origin, back to what is called the ‘singularity event’ when it actually came into being. Science has proven that the universe really did have a beginning. This obviously means that if the universe had a starting point in history, then it obviously began to exist, and it must have a cause for its existence. Therefore, if the universe needs a cause for its coming into being, then that cause must be beyond the universe—which is time, space, matter and physical energy. We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something (or someone) had to have always been in existence.” “CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is one of the world’s largest and most respected centres for scientific research. Its physicists and engineers are probing the fundamental structure of the universe. They use the world’s largest and most complex scientific instruments to study the basic constituents of matter—the fundamental particles. CERN researchers are baffled at how matter thrived in the early universe when it should have been destroyed by antimatter, a discovery which evokes a theory that the universe is controlled by a mysterious realm lying outside space and time. The researchers recently made a technological breakthrough when they compared the magnetism of an antiproton to that of a proton using a new technique which is 350 times more precise than the measurement taken in January, 2017. But they found that, despite the breakthrough, there wasn’t a difference between the two, meaning that matter and antimatter should have destroyed each other eons ago, preventing the universe from even existing. Yet obviously that’s not what happened. ‘All of our observations find a complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, which is why the universe should not actually exist’, said research lead Christian Smorra. ‘An asymmetry must exist here somewhere but we simply do not understand where the difference is. What is the source of the symmetry break?’ Perhaps the physical laws of the universe are steered by something – or someone – outside the universe; in other words, the universe isn’t the ‘base reality’ but is rather one level of existence contained in another superstructure unknown to man. This is closely related to the viewpoint of late French physicist Bernard d’Espagnat, who once theorized that science offers only a ‘veiled’ view of an underlying reality which science cannot access. Since then, his writings and lectures on fundamental questions such as ‘What information does science really give us?’ have provoked debate among scientists and philosophers.”

 

Some scientists conveniently take it for granted that much has always been, or that it originated from nothing, and then draw on nothing but theory and conjecture as to how the rest ‘evolved’. This is like writing out a step by step guide in how to cook a particular meal, without providing any information in regard to what ingredients are to be included, or how to properly prepare them for the cooking stage. When asked questions such as ‘What came before the Big Bang’, evolutionists and scientists conveniently resort to inexplicable, untestable, and, therefore, unproven claims such as everything comes from nothing, or that something has always been, and from that unknown something, somehow, everything came. Scientists can only appeal to that which is unprovable in their ‘explanation’ of how everything has come into being. There are so many gaps, nay chasms, in science’s explanation that even the most zealous scientist would have to admit they simply do not know how anything began. They have their theories and preferences, but they do not have ultimate fact which would give them THE ultimate, provable and undeniable answer as to what is real, and what is just mere supposition. The equally ridiculous theories of everything came from nothing, and everything has always been can never be proven. Importantly, it is not up to the Christian to disprove either one, but for science to offer testable proof. It is the one making the claim that must offer testable evidence, or else his claim will always remain just that. However, all that science can do is offer up these two theories and expect others to believe what they say without question merely because it is ‘science’ speaking. If something cannot be proven, if there is no irresistible evidence to support it, then how can anyone in their right mind be expected to believe it! Why should anyone believe something that has no logical, reasonable evidence that will leave one in no doubt that it is true, other than convenience or ignorance. Truth is reality. Science, so-called, will always have more questions to answer than what it believes it has answered because it refuses to accept the fact that there is a God and that He is the Source and Creator of all things. I say so-called science, because real science, testable, provable science always agrees with the Word of God. True Christianity has nothing to fear from science, and true science has nothing to fear from true Christianity. What has the genuine truth seeker got to fear from truth? “…the First Law of Thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy is a basic fundamental law of science. Essentially, it states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change form. This flies in the face of the Big Bang theory! So how did the universe come into existence? The First Law of Thermodynamics points to God’s eternal existence. Remember, this law defines that something could not come from nothing. Science has effectively proven that if there was not an eternal God-being to create the universe, there would have never been a universe! Since something can never come from nothing, then a Creator had to always exist! Since a cause must be greater than the effect, an eternal Maker—an all-powerful God—had to exist! Unwittingly, science has proven God’s existence while at the same time debunking evolution!

“Nobel Prize-winning physicist Louis Neel stated, ‘The progress of science, no matter how marvellous it appears to be...leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a rational explanation of the universe’—and, it should be added, any rational explanation for plants, animals and people. Instead of looking for the truth of creation, science has chosen confusion, suppositions and deceit. Ignoring the evidence, evolutionists and others are forced to conjure illusions—and assumptions. Two more of which you should now be able to dispel. You cannot jump up the evolution ladder without explaining its first rung. Evolution was supposed to have begun when gas was affected by some unknown catalyst and formed a more complex organized state, leading to life. Explaining this part of the process leaves evolutionists stumped.” What kind of ‘explanation’ is this? How can a proper, indeed scientific, explanation legitimately—logically or justifiably—include that which is unknown!! Gas was affected by ‘some unknown catalyst’? If it is unknown how can anyone with any amount of certainty say how it would have interacted with gas? How would what have interacted with gas? And what is this ‘more complex organised state’ exactly? So much of science, and what scientists expect the masses to believe, as well as what evolutionists have to offer by way of ‘proof’, is just a joke. They are left with no choice but to dismiss cosmic evolution as not pertaining to evolutionary theory. Readers should not settle for weak theories that pass themselves off as fact. Investigate the facts! Use logic and determine the answer for yourself. If energy cannot be created, then an incredible amount of it cannot appear from nothingness. Evolutionists understand this problem. Often, focus is directed from how the universe began, to an explanation of how it grew. By burying the initial creation of matter as an irrelevant point, scientists have created a series of ‘smoke and mirrors’, which, as we have seen before, is often the best—and only way—to explain nearly every facet of evolution. Many scientists, such as professor of physics Alan Guth, have also raised the issue of ignoring the universe’s origin: ‘First of all, I will say that at the purely technical level, inflation itself does not explain how the universe arose from nothing...Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from’ (Fred, Heerren, Show Me God). Further, a concluding statement by one of the greatest mathematical minds of the modern world, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, debunked the inflationary model: ‘The new inflationary model was a good attempt to explain why the universe is the way it is...In my personal opinion, the new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable’ (A Brief History of Time).”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13