Posted by: stpowen | June 13, 2014

The Stupidity of Atheism- Mathematically Proven

The Stupidity of Atheism- Proven Mathematically

Romans 1:22. ‘Professing to be wise, they became fools.’
1 Corinthians 1:20. ‘Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?’
Ecclesiastes 10:6. ‘Folly is set in great dignity….’

‘Nothing comes of nothing;
Nothing ever could……’ (Rogers & Hammerstein)

‘Life can only come from preceding life.’ (Pasteur’s Law, never disproved after 160-odd years)

Christians know that atheists are stupid, because the Bible tells them so (Psalm 14:1). However, I am going to prove this to you mathematically.

I’m not going to point out the obvious fallacies of atheism: the amazing complexity and wonder of the Universe and especially of the earth, which could never have arisen by chance. Nor shall I bother with the many refutations of evolutionary claims that have arisen over the years. For example, Sir Thomas Huxley, known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog,’ claimed that the thyroid and pituitary glands had no purpose in the human body and were relics of our ‘ape ancestors.’ When I was growing up in the 1950s and ‘60s, people still referred to them as ‘monkey glands’ despite the fact that it has been known for 100 years or more that they are vital for human life. In the same way, a professor stood up in the Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’ in the 1920s and testified that there were 80 organs in the human body that had become redundant as our bodies ‘evolved.’ Today we know that even the appendix and the male nipple have their purposes. More recently, good old Richard Dawkins declared that 80% of human DNA was ‘junk’ and that this proved that it must have evolved over time. Today, the purpose of just about all of it has been established, but I have not heard that Prof. Dawkins has apologized for misleading the public.

Nor am I going to mention the deliberate attempts by evolutionists to deceive the public, like ‘Piltdown Man’ or Haeckel’s false claim that the human embryo went through fish, amphibian and reptile stages in the womb. Fifty years after Haeckel confessed that his drawings were a fraud, his deceits were still being taught to British nurses in their training.

Nor shall I bring to your notice two remarkable pieces of news which I have picked up in the last few weeks. The first of these appeared in Science Daily (25/2/14). A Dr. Christof Wetterich of the Institute of Theoretical Physics has proposed that the Universe is shrinking, not expanding, that there was no ‘singularity’ (all the material in the universe crammed into a tiny speck) and no ‘Big Bang.’ I am by no means qualified to comment on the science of this, but is it not remarkable that for the last 30 years or so, the ‘Big Bang’ has been taught in our schools as incontrovertible fact and anyone who had the temerity to disagree with it was branded an ignoramus?

The second comes from an article in the Times. At the recent Cheltenham Science Festival, Professor Bruce Hood revealed that the fossil record shows that the human brain has been getting smaller over the last ’20,000 years.’ Apparently our average brain size has shrunk from 1,500 cubic cms to 1,350, a loss, by my rough calculation, of 10%. Yet have we not been taught that we are all evolving from apes with small brains to higher and greater things? If we believe in ‘survival of the fittest,’ how does getting less intelligent contribute to that? I won’t go so far as to say that this blows the whole idea of evolution out of the water, but does it not agree far more with the Biblical teaching that God made the world, and man in it, ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31) and that sin and corruption have placed creation under a curse (Gen. 3:15; Rom. 8:20) so that everything is naturally tending to wind down and become gradually less ordered {1}?

But that this not what I want to talk about just now. I am thinking about Pascal’s Wager. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a French mathematician and philosopher, whose contribution to science was vast and included the area of Probability. The whole insurance industry owes its origin largely to him. He looked at the subject of belief in God, and realised that atheism is the height of foolishness because the worst thing that can happen to a believer is the best thing that can happen to an atheist.

If someone is a Christian, then his destiny is eternal life in paradise with God. If {2} there were no God, then there would be no resurrection and his body would rot in the grave. If someone is an atheist, then if there were no God then his body would rot in the grave; that is as much as he can hope for. But there is a God, and the atheist will have to face Him one day and face eternal condemnation. So the very best thing that can happen to an atheist is the very worst thing that can happen to a Christian. So his bet on there being no God is quite literally a hiding to nothing; he has nothing to gain and everything to lose. It’s a mathematical no-brainer.

The atheists’ response to this is to say, well, which god shall I believe in? There are hundreds and thousands of them. How shall I know which religion is true? But there is still no upside in this argument for the atheist. The very best thing he can hope for is still death and oblivion. The only sensible course is to seek God with all your might and to pray to Him to reveal the truth, which is exactly what God calls us all to do. ‘He gives to all life, breath and all things……..so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us’ (Acts 17:25, 27). ‘You will find Him when you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul’ (Deut. 4:29). There is nothing to lose and everything to gain. There is forgiveness, hope and eternal life to gain and nothing to lose save the sins that bind you. There is no reluctance with God (Luke 15); there is no qualification, no examination, only acceptance and blessing ‘The one who comes to Me [sincerely, in repentance and faith], I will by no means cast out’ (John 6:37). Mathematically, and in every other way, you’d be a fool not to {3}.

    Notes

{1} See the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The untended garden becomes overgrown with weeds; the un-brushed teeth rot and fall out; the un-serviced car breaks down. Without intelligent input, things do not get better and more complicated but worse, less complex and more random.
{2} Having sought the Lord and found Him, by His grace, I deny that there is any possibility of His non-existence.
{3} Pascal followed his own advice. He sought the Lord, and one day he found Him. On November 23, 1654, he experienced a “definitive conversion” during a vision of the crucifixion. He wrote, on a scrap of paper which he carried about with him for the rest of his life:
“From about half-past ten in the evening until about half-past twelve … FIRE … God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, and not of the philosophers and savants. Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.”

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Reblogged this on A Sidekick's Blog and commented:
    There are many more reasons for objective, intelligent people to question the conclusions of so-called “science” than there are reasons to question the existence and rule of a Creator,

  2. You take false premises, straw men, and never actually respond to the main refutation of Pascal’s wager, and act like you’ve proven something.

    Look up the Lenski experiment. We have seen genetic traits develop on their own in bacteria.

    We have seen yeast cells go from single-cell to multi-cell as early as 2012.

    You clearly don’t get that it’s actually more likely that simple things are designed and complex things are not, as design includes streamlining for simplicity and efficiency. Get a box of yugioh card, pick the first 40 you pick up randomly. Your deck is complex but it will constantly lose. Design a deck from the same box of cards, and you’ll find it simple but effective.

    As for Pascal’s Wager, here’s the deal:

    Thousands of gods are proposed by man. Many of them include a “worship me or perish” mentality. Christianity is one option, Islam is another, the great spirit of africa is probably an option in some tribe. And you know what? All of you have the same evidence: None. So, to pick any religion is an exercise in futility. If you pick one, you have such a ridiculously small chance of picking right (and yes, the idea that NONE of them are right is also an option).

    Your response to the futility of picking one of many flawed religions (including yours) is to seek YOUR god. And if he’s wrong and Islam is right? I’ve lost everything. If the Greeks are right, I’m heading to Hades any way I choose.

    All your religion has is popularity. Beyond that, it doesn’t have anything the others don’t and in fact it rips off many ancient religions.

    Btw, if you’re going to attempt to discredit a scientific theory, please provide citation of your claims.

    But all this is pointless. Because you’re lucky even one atheist found this, and that was while looking for a video of the same title. But it’s clear by the way this site is set up and the wording you’re using that you never intended an atheist to come across this. You’re not trying to change any minds. That’s why you never actually put up anything resembling a rebuttal beyond an argument from ignorance. You’re preaching to the choir. This whole article is here to keep little Baptists in a sheltered world view, to reaffirm their beliefs with false views of opposing claims so that they never question their religion again.

    And you know what? That would be fine. None but the trolls of the atheist community would ever bother trying to shatter your world view if you were to JUST leave it at preaching to the choir. But you churches lobby to make your delusions law, to teach them as fact in our public schools, to break the first amendment of the constitution that not only gives you freedom of religion but grants me freedom from it.

    Go back to preaching now, but keep us out of it. Your holy fiction has no place in science or law, and no place outside of your churches and your private lives.

  3. Hello Reaga,
    Thank you for responding. I welcome all comments on this blog. You write:

    Look up the Lenski experiment. We have seen genetic traits develop on their own in bacteria.

    We have seen yeast cells go from single-cell to multi-cell as early as 2012.

    I don’t know what you think the Lenski experiment proved, but it certainly didn’t prove that life can come from inorganic matter, thereby refuting Pasteur’s Law. If yeast cells go from single to multi-cell, that is because they are programmed to do so.. If there is a program, there must be a programmer. In fact, you rather give the game away when you write, “it’s actually more likely that simple things are designed……” Indeed it is. You have just agreed with the Julie Andrews School of Cosmology:

    ‘Nothing comes of nothing;
    Nothing ever could…..’

    You wrote:
    Btw, if you’re going to attempt to discredit a scientific theory, please provide citation of your claims.

    I did actually cite a couple of articles, neither of which you mentioned. I also specifically mentioned the question of which god you should believe in. You must search, as Pascal did, and like him, if you seek you will find. So jump to it. You have nothing to lose but your hopelessness and your irrational anger.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: