ATHEISM, MATERIALS AND LOGIC
AND THE SACRIFICE OF THE YOUNG TO ITS LURES
Bulletin One Hundred & Fifty Eight
It is a bitter commentary on all atheism and materialism that it seems impossible to distinguish it from magic. In magic, you do not need a sufficient cause, a reason for anything, a round, an observable or connotable and verifiable source for anything. It just comes because you want it, imagine it.
It is to miss the whole point of magic to demand such a thing as evidence, even in principle. It is then no longer an escape.
No more does it assuage the lively desire of pure imagination.
When have you seen a material contrivance, device, develop itself ? No need of NASA, for just provide the easy model space ship, and the thing will find from nowhere an articulated, the savvy, the conceptualisation and the implementation, including the apt and timely provision of materials, for the changes to be made,
Such however is not the case. Matter has NEVER been shown able to replace human ultra-systematised and schematised brains and talents this way. Waiting does not replace wisdom , as an operative resource, when all else is negated.
Turn now from mere matter (legally moulded into being as it is), to life. Here the task for no particular reason, for advance without any help from known intelligence in this type of model, is harder to bring on stage, to change the stages of things, and advance them in sophistication and executive ability.
How is this ? It is because in the case of life, it is programs, commands and not mere actions that are required. Life in its vitality uses many programs, interwoven, mutually beneficial, in exactly the way intelligence requires, when set the task of advancing a product. After all, it is all products: what is produced is a product. We are dealing with the question of how and why there has been a production.
If this is done by a program, as in life, then it the result is a program product. But if you ever should find a programme re-writing itself, or initiating itself, let me known. God has finished His programs, long ago, and has said so. Naturally this is precisely what is found. DNA, the programmatic code for life, what chiefly runs its distinctive physical side, has constraints, n order to be DNA, and these include correlative programs, designated materials, mutual linguistic joint works in the commands in language, as no less the reception power, to make the commands more than air, and folly.
Conformity to the types of semantics and syntax which are inherent in the discipline of the communication skills, within life's functional forces, both to command and to execute the command at levels minute in size, ultimate in complexity, together with the timing equally necessary for the meeting in functional co-ordination of all these elements is as required as the army commands when multiplied thousands are on parade, except far greater. The commands must also be susceptible to semantic and syntactical realities, for meaning to occur, for the actions to be done in obedience to these commands. By what ? By similar orders of organisation in the human brain, so that it may investigate the same with its own same-type of linguistic penetration, as found in nature, in life of different orders. And heavily involved is just that: order and organisation in multitudes, as in the stars in their courses.
It is like imagining matter having imaginative, constructive, sophisticated thought powers and implementing them in product advance, except that many more disciplines must cohere. It is far harder to be personalised, not just personified, than is the case with matter, already in origin from nothing nowhere, an impossibility.
You want a car to construct itself. You assemble the materials, the machine tools to manufacture it all, some type of constraint on the production of what commands and what is to be commanded, efficient sequences, to make it all and that thousands of times smaller than any modern technology could do, even if it could somehow be found without anyone to construct it. This, is in addition to getting the job done: and having it done by a multiplicity of programs, all conveniently co-ordinate, takes away something of the problems, by GETTING ALL the programs impressed, compressed, correlated, with all the materials for the building, so that you don't even have to construct them, the highly automated thing just sailing on, with no seas on which to sail, from no port where initially to find itself, is just an exercise infancy.
Imagining it in executing little improvements is a super-fantasy. It means that you ASSUME that base production from nothig and nowhere (God is excluded by mere personal preference in this model): and you imagine this is an answer!
Sad is the destruction which such vain imagination, unrelieved by one single fact, must face. If IN ANY FIELD you ignore logic you ae danger in the case of those who follow you, of being irresponsible. If facts are too much to ask of you, then fancy is the deprived result. As man has found out for thousands of years, fancying a provision does not provide it. Work has to be done by what is competent, not directionless dither.
A workless universe is a worthless universe, and an uncaused universe is a mirage. (cf. SMR Ch. 5). Some things like matter are put into being with marked laws, such as E=MC2 and the thousands of others which keep a tight grip on this exceedingly controlled universe, with man in it, himself a masterpiece of liberty who can if he wishes, ignore these laws, and pretend they are not there, or that their producer and inserter is not there, that this was all automatic, which of course is much more than merely throwing thoughts about; it is inserting them into matter so that it becomes inherent in it, along with time and space and power and force and potential and coherence and all the things that atheism corrals from nowhere and does not acknowledge. ALL these things and far more have to be provided, in this model, from NOWHERE by NOTHING so that they can have a model.
It is merely begging the question; whether it is grabbing all this gear from nowhere, at the outset, that is in mind, or installing it or activating it, or amalgamating it with the realms of coherent, expressible thought or multiple composition with mind and the spirit of imagination be in view, as in the human race in its performances, NONE of this is in the model. ALL of this is in the imagined answer to the questions of where from, how come, why and with what ? It is a non-answer, yet its underlying ingredients (strictly there aren't any) are just imagined into existence from nowhere and it all proceeds in terms of all the non-principles and procedures which nothing has contributed.
This is taught or assumed in SCIENCE classes in the academic ruins of many nations, and professionals are subject to harassment and duress if they do not believe such mindless and causeless machinations.
And then people actually WONDER why conditions for life are so tough, for our race, the human one which tends to be forgotten, and why realities hit us like so many typhoons, and ingenious seeming difficulties are found to invade our peace. It is as if Christ had determined not to pray for our devastated and in some ways delirious world; and that in fact, He has done (John 17:9), just for people in it! How CAN there be peace in such illusions ? Man versus reality is a lost cause. Finding out how to be one may be an experience for many, but there are multiple reasons for the biblical designation of those without Jesus Christ, the accredited divine solution, as lost.
And many react like a red-backed spider. Malice may be assumed - whether from God (whom atheism seeks to kill off, like a weed), from their neighbours, or from non-atheists. Malice ? this is the opposite of benevolence. As Jesus Himself made quite clear, the actual divine message in His life as in the Bible, is one of goodwill (e.g. John 3); the issuance is from divine love, and those who are to call 'malicious' what follows Him are involved in a vast distortion, and presumption, for can they read motives ? and is the Bible to be assumed contrary to the evidence of millenia and verifications innumerable, a pack of lies, as if evil is back of it all! This is another fantasy. Also, for we wish to see people saved, but freely and without force, and this for their welfare: what is its assumed basis ? Is it assumed that those who differ from you are for that reason, hating you ? that they are not moved with compassion and goodwill!
What kind of response to reality is that ? And as to the reality, that is the first question. Nothing is not a good answer, and the above has made this clear. It is time to move on into rationality and reality while it is still day. The revelation of God completes the triangle and His salvation comprehends the need. Psalm 1 tells us that if you imagine a world without Him, then you can taste the result for yourself: but please don't complain.
Incidentally, though we have often enough dealt with this item before, it is time to remind ourselves, that this is not only the logical end of atheism and its ilk, categorically, but it is accompanied by the end of scientific method as applicable to evolutionary ideas, as a follow-on from the illegitimate and irrational ideas of creation that atheism follows. IF a given hypothesis, in scientific method, does have fulfilments in testable regions, here and there, this is good and tends to confirm it. If it does not in any single item, taking laboratory error into account within normal limits, then that is the end of that hypothesis FOR THE TIME BEING. If a simple failure like this is somehow in some future time or phase found to be covered after all by duly attested forces and applications of laws, then the hypothesis comes back into scientific relevance and support.
In the meantime, which may be for ever, scientific method cuts out the hypothesis. In science, things have to work, whether experimentally by observation or confirmation. This is what makes its proper use such a strong thing in potential. If t his is not so, then we leave the realm of science altogether, and cannot without cheating or romancing, name it in such a case.
If you want to change the definition of scientific method so that the standard falls, so be it; but then you enter another realm, that of philosophy or poetry or myth. You cannot correctly leave the stringency of scientific method, like a detective finding no evidence to support his idea of who is guilty, or some against it, yet insisting on someone being charged anyway. That way, persecution lies; and in scientific questions, if not fraud, then at best, confusion. To found your ideas of life on either of these is exceptionally dangerous, and in all goodwill, one must therefore urge strongly against it.
is uninventive. For improvements in type, advance in intrinsic capacity and
provision, you need work.
The people who do t his sort of thing have that sort of ability/knowledge/imagination/powers of facilitation, and they use them to make application to achieve the consequences of this fact. If they fall short, like capital in money, penetration of thought or application, they cannot run a system for uplift in this style. It ought to be remembered no less, that if they should find, say gold, when short of capital, this does not alter the situation. It is then simply the case that an addition has come to their means, and this is then sufficient. But it has to be there, come what may. Take the latest on Dwarf Galaxies as presented by Dr John Hartnett in Creation magazine Vol.41, No. 2, 2019.
We learn that the expectation from the theories of Big Bang and Co., is that these should have highly variable movements, in one case and the other, about the parent galaxies to which they relate. However, this being the expectation from a chaos (though that cannot exist for nothing would be able to exist long enough to be designable), the fact is that there is conformity in circuitries. They orbit in a synchronised manner. That is, Order prevails. The test fails.
That alone (like hundreds of similar misfits) ends the hypothesis of uncontrolled gases (the gases have order inside as well, if they are those known) as an origin for the world of reality, which is one of intense and immense order atomically, anatomically, astronomically and logically'; and this is the one which we have. In any ONE such case, if you want the reliability of science (only partial at that), and to use it conscientiously, you reject the theoretical basis of your hypothesis, or at least this application, until some new hypothesis, possibly related, possibly not, arrives which DOES satisfy the test. It is all profoundly simple in principle and abused in practice. Once again, I shudder for the poor children, mistaught in what I can only regard as magic, called science.
With the state of things as far as known, so does the test fail in the areas of dark energy and dark matter. These have not at all shown themselves to exist, and so according to scientific method, cannot be brought into the arena. They are like a visionary army, that does not affect the battle until shown by realistic evidence to be there. Talking about it in your planning, affecting your strategy like a real army, is delusive. You might as well talk directly about winning without any army at all.
Until independently attested, these too leave the Big Bang idea simply unverified, unconfirmed, outrageously countermanded, but still taught.