A sermon from the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster…
Lawrence Krauss explains that the universe came from “nothing” – and by “nothing” he means “not nothing”.
FYI: Belief in God is ridiculous but believing that a room full of people could randomly pop into existence is scientific. š
It is actually quite an interesting video.
The materialist/ monist view of death is that once the Body dies… the conscious being of a person is annihilated… because to their way of thinking our consciousness is nothing more that the result of an attunement of atoms.
Thus there can be no judgement for sins because not only in the materialist view is there no judge.
They say their is no objective moral Law, nor ‘anyone’ to be held account… the actions of a person merely being the blind outworking of Materialist determinism.
It is vitally important to distinguish this false conception of Human life and death from what the Bible clearly teaches… and that is that Death does not result in the annihilation of the conscious being/ personality… which being created in the image of God is both non-materialistic, and eternal… and morally capable (possessed of conscious free-will) and accountable.
It defies belief that there are many ‘highly educated’ people who claim to be Christians yet fail to be able to believe in Man’s Dualistic nature.
They dont believe in Freewill.
They dont believe any part of us survives death.
In these things they are Atheists.
What is even more absurd is that the say they reject Dualism because they cant understand it… deluding themselves that they *can understand* how consciousness can be derived from Dead matter!
The reality is that the cannot understand such a thing either!
Yet they have been sucked so far down the superstitious highway of Naturalism… the false religion of our age…. that they trust in the follies of rebellious and vain human scholarship and pseudo-science rather than in the word of God.
What is doubly ironic is that Christ himself condemned the heretical Jewish sect called the Sadducee’s
for believing these very same *monist* beliefs in respect to Life after death, and judgement.
He told them that at that very moment Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were *Alive*… though their bones were in their sepulchres.
“…Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.”
Jesus Christ.
Mark 12vs 18-27.
That the soul goes on is one of the most beautiful, yet frightening truths of the scriptures.
It is both Hope and Dread.
Hope for those of us who have faith in Christ and have a burning longing to be reunited with our loved ones… and with God our Father, and Christ our Saviour in eternity.
yet still it is dread for those of us who have faith in Christ, yet fear the reality that many of our fellow sinners… Family members and friends have rejected Salvation and will be lost for eternity.
These are the ultimate realities of Christianity.
They are too much for ‘the Natural man’ to comprehend… they are foolishness unto them.
Read St Paul… 1 Corinthians chapter 1.
more Blog posts on Monism vs Dualism…
Christopher Hitchens Dies.
“And God made man in his own image….”
When God made Man he not only formed his body out of matter, He breathed ‘spirit’ into him and he became a living soul… a freewill moral agent capable of making real choices… not a robot slave of Materialistic determinism.
Atheist delusions leave mankind not only without any Objective morality, but also renders him incapable of making moral choices… whether Evil, or Heroic.
Atheism has no explanation for consciousness.
Heroic deeds like that of John Shear only deserve praise because they stem from the heart… ie He chose to endanger himself for the sake of someone else *when he could have just stood by* in safety and watch the Horse do it’s worst.
What is truly shocking is that there are many so-called ‘Educated’ Modern Christians who are embracing this anti-free will Atheist Materialism!
They must have rocks in their heads not to appreciate the fact that Monist Materialist Determinism is absolutely incompatible with Biblical/ Christian morality!
God cant judge sinners who had no choice but to sin.
William Lane Craig makes this point clear.
The Bible is Dualistic…. it is emphatic about the greater Non-material Spiritual Reality.
The Morality Of God and Bible is built upon these Truths.
Free will is a testament to our inner Spiritual Being…. and proof of God almighty!
This is because Freewill is inexplicable in materialistic terms and conditions.
And Libertarianism is utterly dependent upon free will… voluntary acceptance of the Justice of the philosophy of equal God-given inalienable Rights and liberties.
Atheism is fundamentally corrosive to the Philosophy of Liberty.
It is deterministic and Nihilistic… whereas Libertarianism is not Lawlessness, but depends upon Objective moral absolutes.
Monism: Evolutionary Psychology and the Death of Morality, Reason and Freewill.
We are not Robots Ayn Rand. We are Moral Agents.
Atheism has no basis for Rightsā¦ or Morals.
How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? (part1) Atheist Nihilism.
Nyctophilia: Hiding in the Darkā¦.
āKeep things in the shallow endā¦ because I just didnāt want to knowā¦ā
Science goes Ga Ga! The Spirit Temple-Material Interface. The Human Brain.
Take care in whom/what you trust…
Read more… The Rusty cage of Scientism
Faith, Science, and Reason. The Pomposity of Atheism.
Science goes Ga Ga! The Spirit Temple-Material Interface. The Human Brain.
David BerlinskiāAtheism and its Scientific Pretensions
The wise man build’s his house upon the Rock of God’s infallible word!….
Read more>>>The Divine Rock of Revelation<<<
Saith Einstein.
Science is Amoral in the sense that it works for whosoever employs her… without regard of the Righteousness or Wickedness of her Employer’s cause …
That is why Ethics are more essential than Technology.
As Einstein said… “Moral Teachers (like Jesus) are more important than Physicists”
And as the man who understood the horrific global implications if the Nazi’s should have time enough to get command of the power or the Atom…. He would know!
Ironically It was Hitler’s Immoral Anti-Semitism which caused Einstein to quit Germany and emigrate to America….
Poetic Justice!
Dr. Laura Keynes grew up in Cambridge, arguably the intellectual center of the United Kingdom. She studied at the University College of Oxford on a full-ride scholarship and ended up earning a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Her doctoral thesis was on epistemology, the study of knowledge and justified belief. As her last name indicates, she is the great-grandniece of the famous economist John Maynard Keynes. She is also the great-great-great-granddaughter of Charles Darwin.
Why am I telling you about this young lady? Because she recently wrote an article entitled, āIām a Direct Descendant of Darwinā¦and a Catholic.ā Now the title didnāt surprise me at all. I know a lot of Catholics (and even more Protestants) who believe in evolution. Indeed, one of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement, Dr. Michael Behe, says:1
You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.
However, as I read the article, I couldnāt help but smile. You see, Laura was raised Catholic but drifted away from the faith after her mother became a Buddhist and her brother rejected all organized religion. By the time she was studying for her Doctor of Philosophy degree, she was an agnostic. During that time, however, Richard Dawkins had opened up an international dialogue on the existence of God with his thoroughly awful book, The God Delusion. Well, Laura decided to read Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists, and she says:
I expected to be moved from agnosticism to atheism by their arguments, but after reading on both sides of the debate, I couldnāt dismiss a compelling intellectual case for faith. As for being good without God, Iād tried and didnāt get very far. At some point, life will bring you to your knees, and no act of will is enough in that situation. Surrendering and asking for grace is the logical human response.
I donāt think thatās the response Dawkins and his colleagues were hoping for. The entire article is worth a read, because it really shows how an intellectual person should respond to what the New Atheists have produced:
I read central texts on both sides of the debate and found more to convince me in the thoughtful and measured responses of Alister McGrath and John Cornwell, among others, than in the impassioned prose of Hitchens et al. New Atheism seemed to harbor a germ of intolerance and contempt for people of faith that could only undermine secular Humanist claims to liberalism.
Notice what she did. She read the central texts on both sides of the debate. Most people donāt do that, but it is the most important thing a real intellectual can do. I suspect that working on her dissertation made her realize that there is no such thing as an unbiased argument. All authors start with their preconceived notions, which color the way they view and present the evidence. As a result, the only way to come close to getting an unbiased view of the debate is to read from both sides. By doing that, you will hopefully be able to start seeing how the various authors are ācoloringā the evidence, and that will allow you to remove some of the ācoloringā and look at the evidence a bit more clearly.
When Laura did that, she saw something that should be immediately obvious to those who read both sides of this debate: the New Atheists are full of bluster and bravado, but their arguments are incredibly weak. Those who have responded to the New Atheists (at least the ones she read) provide a start contrast. They are calm, measured, and rational in their response. According to her, this contrast helped to demonstrate that the majority of the evidence clearly goes against the atheist position, and the bluster of the New Atheists is an attempt to cover up this inconvenient fact. As a result, she returned to the faith of her childhood.
Read more >>here<<
Try denying Big Bang Dogma…and see what happens to your career in science..
Try suggesting that Naturalistic Materialism is a blind faith….
Try suggesting Science has not dis-proven the Soul…or Freewill.
The Folly of Scientism
Austin L. Hughes
When I decided on a scientific career, one of the things that appealed to me about science was the modesty of its practitioners. The typical scientist seemed to be a person who knew one small corner of the natural world and knew it very well, better than most other human beings living and better even than most who had ever lived. But outside of their circumscribed areas of expertise, scientists would hesitate to express an authoritative opinion. This attitude was attractive precisely because it stood in sharp contrast to the arrogance of the philosophers of the positivist tradition, who claimed for science and its practitioners a broad authority with which many practicing scientists themselves were uncomfortable.
The temptation to overreach, however, seems increasingly indulged today in discussions about science. Both in the work of professional philosophers and in popular writings by natural scientists, it is frequently claimed that natural science does or soon will constitute the entire domain of truth. And this attitude is becoming more widespread among scientists themselves. All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some area of natural science confers the ability to pontificate wisely on any and all subjects.
Of course, from the very beginning of the modern scientific enterprise, there have been scientists and philosophers who have been so impressed with the ability of the natural sciences to advance knowledge that they have asserted that these sciences are the only valid way of seeking knowledge in any field. A forthright expression of this viewpoint has been made by the chemist Peter Atkins, who in his 1995 essay āScience as Truthā asserts the āuniversal competenceā of science. This position has been called scientism ā a term that was originally intended to be pejorative but has been claimed as a badge of honor by some of its most vocal proponents. In their 2007 book Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized, for example, philosophers James Ladyman, Don Ross, and David Spurrett go so far as to entitle a chapter āIn Defense of Scientism.ā
Modern science is often described as having emerged from philosophy; many of the early modern scientists were engaged in what they called ānatural philosophy.ā Later, philosophy came to be seen as an activity distinct from but integral to natural science, with each addressing separate but complementary questions ā supporting, correcting, and supplying knowledge to one another. But the status of philosophy has fallen quite a bit in recent times. Central to scientism is the grabbing of nearly the entire territory of what were once considered questions that properly belong to philosophy. Scientism takes science to be not only better than philosophy at answering such questions, but the only means of answering them. For most of those who dabble in scientism, this shift is unacknowledged, and may not even be recognized. But for others, it is explicit. Atkins, for example, is scathing in his dismissal of the entire field: āI consider it to be a defensible proposition that no philosopher has helped to elucidate nature; philosophy is but the refinement of hindrance.ā
Is scientism defensible? Is it really true that natural science provides a satisfying and reasonably complete account of everything we see, experience, and seek to understand ā of every phenomenon in the universe? And is it true that science is more capable, even singularly capable, of answering the questions that once were addressed by philosophy? This subject is too large to tackle all at once. But by looking briefly at the modern understandings of science and philosophy on which scientism rests, and examining a few case studies of the attempt to supplant philosophy entirely with science, we might get a sense of how the reach of scientism exceeds its grasp.
Read more>>>> Here:
Read my take on Scientism>>>>> The Rusty Cage: Scientism.
“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that , compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
Albert Einstein
Read more…