Today I want to focus on the Origin of Life. Of course this whole discussion is a bit of a moot point given the evidence for a Creator, but it is interesting to note the blind faith of atheistic scientists in excluding the possibility of a Creator.

First lets look at what science has believed in the past and has proven.

Spontaneous Generation

You might remember this concept from a High School Biology lab. The short version is, scientist believed that life which they could not document the origin of must have come out of inanimate matter spontaneously when the conditions are right. For example, when meat begins to decay maggots will grow out of the rotting meat, or when mud hits the right saturation, frogs will spring forth. Don’t remember this? Here is the introduction from the Wikipedia Article on teh subject

Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete principle[citation needed] regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.

The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material, remains relevant today.

More on Spontaneous Generation

I know Wik isn’t exactly a scholastic journal, but it is convenient and if you consult an average Biology text book you will get something very similar.

Spontaneous Generation Disputed

This theory had held on for well over a thousand years and shaped the scientific minds through the Renaissance. Eventually science reached a point where some key parts of the theory could be tested, and initial results were not well received by the scientific community. Many scientists were removed until the weight of evidence overwhelmed the bias towards this long held belief.

The key experiments that essentially laid this theory to rest were conducted by Louis Pasture, the same guy that helped create pasteurized milk. Since I like bacteria free milk, I’m a pretty big fan of this guy.

Basically he conducted a series of experiments that showed key life forms did not come from matter, but instead came from other life. One of the most notable experiments was his work with bacteria. This extremely small and seemingly simple form of life must appear on its own from the matter it is found in. Science, at the time, simply could think of any other explanation. Pasture eventually created a series of custom flasks with varying inlets. He was able to show that bacteria actually reproduced from existing cultures coming from a wide variety of sources. This is why we wash our hands before and after handling food or when going into and out of hospital rooms, and hopefully after using a restroom. Seriously people, please wash your hands. I’m not a germophobe but it’s just gross if you are gonna shake my hand after going to the bathroom but haven’t washed your hands.

Spontaneous Generation Revisited

While Pasture was conducting his experiments that essentially disproved Spontaneous Generation, another man of Science was doing research that would lead science back to this belief. In fact, 1859 was the year of Pasture’s famous broth experiment and Darwin’s release of On the Origin of Species. This book was both praised and reviled, certainly the impact has been building ever since. Generally it deals with evolution of species, which will be addressed in another post, but it sets the stage for Spontaneous Generation of Life.

The problem with proving that Spontaneous Generation is a false theory is that it ultimately required a Creator, much like the origin of the Universe. So Science like to hold that this can actually happen, with simple enough life, on very rare instances, when conditions are right.

Essentially the Atheistic Scientist is saying, “we can accept that spontaneous generation may have been a one time event in our history which we cannot replicate, but we accept this despite the evidence against it because we refuse to believe in Creation.” I know it sounds like I have over simplified things, but that is the basic premise behind the theory that life came out of the primordial soup. In fact there have been many failed experiments to create life from non life, and the results very closely match what Pasture proved, so far life has never come from non life.

Now the Atheistic Scientist will say, “but that doesn’t prove this to be a false theory, since time, chance, and the right conditions haven’t been met, so we will keep trying till this has been proven because we know it must be fact.” I find that to be interesting, and a position that would be generally unacceptable in science without valid rationale behind it. If the reasoning is a simple refusal to accept another theory which seems to fit the data more readily, then I wouldn’t consider that valid rationale.

What if Science Makes Life

This is the question that begs an answer. What if a scientist is able to create the right conditions, with the right essential elements for life, and constructs a simple organism? Well, that hasn’t happened, but let’s say it happens later today, will that change anything? Not really, because what that has proven is an intelligent mind can create life from non-life. That is the basic premise of the Creation theory. A Creator, God, made life. If a scientist can create life from non life, then I have to believe an infinite being would find that to be a trivial task.

If science were to make life, it still wouldn’t prove Spontaneous Generation, as this wouldn’t be spontaneous, nor would it disprove the Creation theory.

Pan Sperma and other Theories

There is a growing number of scientists that realize that the odds are not in their favor. In fact mathematicians have estimated the odds of life happening by chance is so astronomical it is what we can call an essential impossibility. You have a better chance of winning the lottery without a ticket.

Now, one would think that a rational person, when faced with a mountain of evidence against the prevailing theory would at least look at a competing theory which seems to address the inherent problems of the prevailing theory. Instead, blind faith causes Creation Theory to be rejected out of hand, so other theories must be created.

Among the more popular is that life on Earth came from life outside Earth. Some believe aliens seeded the planet with life, other believe that the most basic life exists in the Universe along side matter and just waits for a habitable planet. Still others believe that the Universe itself created life, while others believe life willed itself to be.

Each of these theories fail the science and logic from the previous two parts if this series. First, the alien theory must assume an infinite regression of life, where did the aliens come from? If they came from Spontaneous Generation we have just moved the impossibility off by one life form. There for they must have come from life alien to them, so and and so forth until the Atheistic Scientist rejects the impossibility of Spontaneous Generation and says “and the life came from nothing” or for infinity. Both of which are unreasonable.

To believe that life simply exists still begs the question, where did it come from? Was it created alongside the Universe or is the Universe eternal? To believe it was created along with the Universe is to simply agree in the Creation theory, just a question of the timing, to believe it is eternal is to fail to grasp why the Universe, nor life as we know it can be eternal.

The last two are countered in the previous part in the series where I discuss why the Universe cannot be a part of God (Pantheism).

In fact, every theory offered by the Atheistic Scientist fails the test of logic and reason or only serve to postpone the question to the actual origin of life. It grasps at that which has been proven by science to be wrong and all this to avoid belief in a Creator who loves us.

It is pride at its worst. This is essentially the same as a man who was given everything by his wealthy parents rising to great heights and then rejecting his family saying “all that I am I have done on my own.”

The post I Owe You an Apology: Creation of Live V. Spontaneous Generation appeared first on My Experience As....

• God must be eternal
• God must be immutable
• God must be omnipotent
• God must be capable of decision

With this small bit of information revealed I closed the post with this statement:

There are many other truths we can infer about God from these simple truths, but at this point I think it is enough to have provided a reasonable proof to the fact of Creation.

As I said, there are many things which can be inferred from the logic that leads to a Creator. Many suppose that God has hidden Himself, but if so he is terrible at hide and seek. It isn’t that God hid so that He cannot be found, it is that He is not so obvious that we cannot reject Him. We must open our eyes and look.

Just as a bit of warning, my previous post was more general, focusing on the general concept of a created Universe, this post focuses in more closely to what we can know about the Creator, and may be offensive to those holding to beliefs which are not supported by the included statements.

So why can’t Polytheism be the source of a Creator?

True Polytheism is logically flawed. In Ancient Polytheistic Myths, the gods are not eternal. The come from somewhere, as I demonstrated in the previous post, this simple cannot work logically. They have to either be eternal, or they have to be created by one who is eternal. However, let’s assume that the myth writers were capturing great ideals of omnipotent beings which are eternal. Could that work?

No, you can’t have more than one omnipotent being that is unique in being. Again, this falls to the mathematical and logical failures regarding the problem of infinity.

Just as new gods could never be created, being infinite in power they must be infinite in existence, gods cannot be plural in the Polytheistic sense. Let’s consider two gods of ancient lore, Zeus and Hera. Husband and wife, brother and sister, male and female, but not infinite. Infinite, by it’s very definition, implies a whole and complete set without limit. There could be no time where Zeus and Hera ever argued, but it is recorded they often argued, their knowledge of each other much be complete for them to be omniscient, and omnipotent implies all knowledge as well, as knowledge is power. There could never be anything that Zeus possessed which Hera did not and visa versa; and yet, it is clear that they each have unique characteristics, which means the other must be lacking those same characteristics. If a being is lacking, then they must not be infinite, again this is the definition. Infinity lacking is not infinity.

Now, could there be immensely powerful beings that shake the Heavens and Earth? Yes, the Bible refers to Angels, Demons, and even gods. However, it is important to note that the Bible never ascribes any of them with the full attributes of God and it seems very clear from Biblical accounts, and even more so the logic, that these beings are all created. Much like the Universe, all finite beings must be created, and by definition there can only be a single infinite being without origin, the immovable mover.

But What About Pantheism?

Pantheism is, in short, the generalized idea that there is a divine being, or consciousness, which all other existence emerged and which all other existence is a part of. That might be a bit too short, but the general concept is valid, and if you really want to learn more, there are plenty of resources available. I know there are many sets and subsets of Pantheism, but generally they hold to at least this general concept.

Now I must admit, this seems to fit everything we have seen from the logic thus far. This can provide a basis for Polytheism within a Pantheistic worldview (some religions do this). There is really only one major flaw, and by this flaw the entire house collapses. God must be immutable. I already provided a single argument for this, but lets consider one other argument before I show how this breaks the Pantheistic Model.

Remember that you cannot add to, or take away from infinity, by definition it must be complete, and must always have been complete. How can we know this? Well lets say that you have an infinite set of numbers, and lets say the number 1 did not exist in this infinite set. Essentially this is infinity-1. Now lets say that someone “invents” the number 1 and now that number is part of the infinite set of all numbers. This is infinity+1. OK, so things seem fine, except this doesn’t work mathematically. X-1=X is an invalid assertion as is X+1=X, but that is what we must believe to hold to the idea that the infinite can be added to or subtracted from.

If you are a thinker, then you have already made the next logical step which proves why the Universe cannot be created by an eternal entity, and also be a part of this being. If the being is infinite, then it must already have every part of it’s infinite self for all eternity. You can’t add a universe to the being. Now the being could add a finite universe that is not part of his being.

Which Brings us Back to Monotheism

As you can see, Monotheism is the only belief model which fits the logic.

• All things which have been created must have a creator.
• The Universe was created
• There cannot be an infinite regression of creators.
• There must be a prime Creator by which all created things have existence
• The Creator must be omnipotent
• The Creator must be eternal
• The Creator must be immutable
• The Creator must be One
• The Creation cannot be part of the Creator
• Therefor the Creator must be very must like the God of the Bible

In fact, no other religion or other worldview appears to fit with the logic.

Moreover, we can continue to infer a great number of things about the Creator. For example:

• The Creator is self sufficient: If He required other beings He couldn’t have already have existed for eternity before the first creation
• The Creator chose to create: Since He is self sufficient, He didn’t need to create, so it must be a choice be the logic of exclusion, if it is not choice A it must be the remaining choice B. In this case there really is not other choice so it applies.
• The Creator must love His Creation: Since He chose to create, and since He knows all and is all powerful, He must have chosen out of love knowing much of His creation would reject Him
• The Creator is absolute good: This is a truism by definition, being the originator of all good He is the definer of all good, and the measure of all good.
• Evil cannot exist within the Creator: evil is a deviation of good, that is to say it is the changing of good to less than good. Since the Creator is immutable then the inherent (by definition) goodness of the Creator cannot be changed to less than good.

Honestly I could go on and on, but as you see, the logic ends up defining the same God that the Bible defines. Now one might think I am allowing my own prejudice to come to these conclusions, and such a person would be at least partially right. My worldview shapes my understanding, this is nearly a definition to the concept of worldview; however, this does not render the logic invalid. Follow the logic and it is sound and reasonable.

The post I Owe You an Apology: The Creator Revealed appeared first on My Experience As....

All I know is that it is frustrating when Christians can’t answer simple objections to our faith. To try and help with this I’m going to address several aspects of faith in a brief series titled “I owe you an Apology.”

Since everything starts at the beginning I thought I should start with Creation. Of course, it might make more sense to start with the Bible, after all many seem to think that the only basis for believing in Creation is the Bible. That is not reality though.

The Bible itself alludes to certain truths that stand without a Biblical basis for believing them. Natural laws that affirm the super natural. These laws include, but are not limited to, Moral Laws, the Laws of Nature that science tries to define, Laws of Logic, and Mathematical Principles. It is important to note that, with the exception of Moral Laws, these are the guidelines many will use to attempt a refutation of Christian Faith. Christians that are afraid and willfully ignorant of these truths will know less about the God they claim to worship and leave themselves unarmed when their faith is challenged.

As such there are a few simple guidelines that must be established. First, all we know and can know must stand are certain truths that cannot be refuted. These might be best called “First Principles.” Anyone familiar with logic and philisophy will be familiar with this concept. The secular mind might try and toss a couple of freebies into the pile. They might try and say “We cannot know God in the natural and so it is a founding principle of logic that He cannot be proven and so does not exist.”

This sounds very logical, but falls apart on many levels. First and foremost is is not a principle which cannot be deduced by other principles, so cannot be a freebie.

Your basic truths that are free from debate include basic logic, that is to say “If A = B and C = B then A = C” The conclusion will always follow if the premise and the steps to the conclusion are valid. However, if the conclusion is known to be invalid then a prior statement or all prior statements bust be invalid. This works as a philosophical, theological, mathematical, and scientific truth and must be the foundation for any reasonable discussion of faith as well.

So why should critics of Christianity not be allowed to assume there is no God? Well because the premise that God cannot be known is invalid, for one. In fact, if there are a lot of other things that must be disprove before it can be stated that God cannot be known. It might be more reasonable to say “God cannot be fully known” but then the conclusion doesn’t follow. I cannot fully know anyone, not even myself, but I do not write of the existence of the natural world because of my own limitations. My inability to explain quantum physics will not bring the universe to a halt any more than my inability to explain an infinite God will prevent the existence of God.

So now that we know that God can’t be thrown out at the outset, lets consider the Fact of Creation.

Science is ultimately about answering the question of cause. A founding principle of science is that for every effect, there is a cause. If an apple falls to the ground instead of into the sky, then something caused it. We now know this to be a force known as gravity. Science is working to more accurately define gravity and the cause behind that phenomena, but we don’t need to worry about the details, we just need to know apples don’t fall into the sky and invisible spirits or other such stuff don’t make things fall.

Since science is about finding a cause, it would like to believe the Universe is eternal. If it never came into existence then nothing had to bring it into existence; however, while ancient scientists and philosophers tried to get a freebie, the Bible and ancient theologians saw a flaw in the belief of an eternal Universe.

Actually they saw many flaws. First and foremost they came to the conclusion that if something is not immutable (if it can change, grow, decay …) then it cannot be eternal. This flows from certain natural laws that science does currently recognize as absolute fact. The Laws of Entropy essentially state that things tend to become less organized over time. This is a subset of Thermodynamics, and is a very interesting line of though, but basically it holds this line of thought.

If the universe is infinite it must not be changing, the universe is changing so it must not be infinite.

It can’t be a changing universe because we know that the sun, for example, is using fuel. Way back in the day people didn’t know about the kind of fuel the sun used, they thought it was burning gas or coal, but the logic followed that “anything that brings heat and light uses fuel, the sun brings heat and light, therefor the sun much use fuel.” We have been able to verify this truth and know the fuel is hydrogen which gets converted to helium for energy. Since this Universe is finite, there must be a limited (finite) amount of hydrogen. If the Universe has always existed then all of the hydrogen should have been used up an infinite span of time ago. Since we have hydrogen (the most common element in the Universe) we can know it isn’t eternal in nature.

As I said, theologians and many theistic scientists believed this truth for thousands of years, but Atheistic Scientists did not like this logical truism, so they fudged and assumed a “solid state” or eternal Universe. They had to assume this because if the universe came into being, then something had to bring it into being.

There are a lot of other logical reasons why the Universe cannot be eternal. I will explore just one more as it proves why the origin of the Universe requires a Theistic Wordlview.

The Kalam argument is closely related to this, but focuses more on the question of time as an infinite reality. Essentially it starts with the same logical process, all things that came into being must have been caused to come into being, the universe came into being, so it must have been caused to come into being. To prove why the Universe cannot be eternal it goes to the question of how a practical infinite universe could function within the laws of math and logic.

The short version is that one cannot add to an infinite set. Let me explain. There is something cute my wife and I use to do, still do on occasion. We “fight” over who loves the other more. It starts like “I love you more” and progresses to “I love you more times infinity.” The trump to this is “I love you more times infinity plus 1” and finally ends with “I love you more times infinity plus 1 more than anything you could say or think.”

Ok, that’s cute but it fails in a mathematical (logical) equation. If I love her more times infinity, then infinity plus, times, or to the power of any other number including infinity equals infinity. You can’t actually add to infinity, you can add to a set for infinity, continually adding one more, but the actual set remains finite, the theoretical endpoint keeps getting bigger. You cannot actually add to an infinite set though, the end result is the same number.

How does this apply to the finite Universe. Well, the Universe, and Time itself, must have a day 1. Otherwise we can’t have today or tomorrow. The progression of time is a known and measurable event, so there cannot be an infinite past. Now we can continue to move forward, you can keep adding to a finite set, but that will never make it an infinite set. In other words, you can’t count to infinity. 1, 2, skip a few, 99, infinity. Sorry doesn’t work.

What has science proven?

Actually science threw in the towel back in the 50s. Before that really. Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity is essentially the final nail in the Eternal Universe theory and no scientist worth anything holds to that. The revelation was so troublesome to Einstein that he introduced a “Cosmological Constant” into his theory to try and steal back his Eternal Universe. The math didn’t pay though. In fact the math was so poor that it was disputed very quickly. Moreover, there were many theories that could be tested to prove the fact that the Universe had a point of origin. Science began discovering these verifiable phenomena and labeled this the “Big Bang.” Fortunately for Science, many ignorant Christians feared this proved God didn’t create the Universe, not fully understanding that this meant the Universe had to be jump started somehow.

Now Science is left trying to explain the origin of the Universe, and the theories are almost laughable if they weren’t serious. However, all of them fail the original reasons why the Universe must have a logical starting point. They range from an expanding/collapsing universe (which has been disprove) to an infinite and spontaneous multiverse where our Universe exists and does not exist due to random chance, since it is infinite the math gets to say “chance” could bring the Universe into being. Personally I have an easier time believing that God did it than an unprovable infinite set of universes that defy simple logic (you can’t add to infinity and the infinite must be unchanging).

The Creator

Of course critics might say “Ok I’ll give you the Universe was Created if you can explain the Creator.”

Fair enough. If I expect a reasonable explanation from science for how the Universe started without a Creator I guess I should try and do the same for how the Universe started with a Creator.

First, we can know certain attributes of God based on the logic we have followed.

God must be eternal:

If God was created, then we are left with an infinite regression of creators, which is just as impossible as an infinite number of days. Nothing created God, He just is.

This is where a critic will cry “foul” but only because they don’t understand the definitions or refuse to accept the conclusion. One might say “how can your God be eternal but the Universe can’t be?” Well, that brings up points number 2 and 3.

God must be immutable

God cannot be changed by time. If He does change then he is subject to those same laws surrounding change. In other words if you could add to God or take away from God, then He would not be eternal, eventually He would be used up and need a recharge, like this Universe will eventually run out of hydrogen.

God must be omnipotent.

If God cannot be added to or subtracted from, then there must be literally no limit to his power. Eternal required Immutable and Immutable requires Omnipotent. Otherwise every expression of His power would drain from His potential power. This would be a change, which would lead to a God that cannot be eternal by logical definition.

God must be capable of decision

Decision is separate from change. Some eternal-infinite “pre-matter” is a theory to try and reconcile those three attributes of God without giving the being an identity. Typically this is a pantheistic notion, but many atheists hold that the material of the universe came out of something spontaneously, since the material is eternal, immutable, and unlimited (omnipotent) then it seems logical that it could be an unthinking origin. The problem comes back to the infinite regression, if a decision to create was not made, then nothing could cause the Universe to come into existence. If the cause could happen randomly then it should have happened an infinite span of time ago, what with the unthinking pre-matter having infinite time to work with, and so the universe must also be infinite. Since this is provably false, then the origin of the Universe must have been cause intentionally.

There are many other truths we can infer about God from these simple truths, but at this point I think it is enough to have provided a reasonable proof to the fact of Creation.

The post I owe you an Apology: Creation is a Fact appeared first on My Experience As....