Atheism’s Idolatry: Still Believing in a Nature-God

By Tom Gilson Published on March 4, 2018

Atheists claim to be the rational ones, I wrote recently — and skeptically — with a promise to continue in a follow-up post. Their claim doesn’t hold up. There’s plenty of evidence for God, and good reason to doubt atheism. Why do they persist in it then?

Or I could direct the question to the atheist: Why do you insist your way is more reasonable, when your own thinkers tell you — as I wrote last time — that atheism means reason itself is impossible?

I know some of you have seen ugly religion and you reject it. If that’s your reason, I get it; all I’d want you to do is look at our Founder, Jesus Christ, and not blame Him for all our errors. It’s His greatness that makes Christianity true, not His followers’.

And as I wrote last time, I know some of you refuse to believe in what you cannot show scientifically. Last time I questioned whether that was as rational as some say. So for me the “why” question isn’t so easy to answer that way.

But if the Bible is true, and it’s a good explanation for reality, it also ought to be able to explain these differences of belief. It does. Understandably, it’s not very popular among atheists, but we need to consider it anyway.

So let’s dive in, see what it says, and consider how well it fits.

Suppressing the Truth

As I wrote last time, the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 1:19-20, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”

But some people “suppress” that truth, as we’ll see in a moment. That means they could know it and they should know it — in fact, maybe they do know it — but they squash it. They deny it. Why? How?

It starts with unrighteousness, as Paul explains in verses 18 and 21-22:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. … For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.

I told you this was unpopular among atheists. The thing is, though, at this point he’s writing about everyone, not just unbelievers.

If that isn’t clear enough yet, it gets that way later on in Romans 3. By faith and by God’s gift, some people say yes to the grace and truth He offers through Jesus Christ. Those who say yes are no better than anyone else, except as God makes them better.

The Urge To Create Manageable Gods

Anyway, part of what’s tied up in this unrighteousness is refusing to “honor Him as God or give thanks to Him.” It’s rebellion, in other words. Verse 23 in this passage goes on, “[they] exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

It’s the impetus to create small gods, manageable gods, so we don’t have to deal with the Great God who is. But of course that’s just the old, animistic, tribal/pagan way of suppressing the truth. No one does that anymore, do they?

Atheism’s Idolatry: Still Believing in a Nature-God

Sorry, but no. Consider it this way. If God isn’t the Creator from whom all nature came, than what is? Nature. Nature is our creator. “The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be,” said that old secularist Carl Sagan. Elsewhere he added, “We’re made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” He might as well have said, “Behold your god!”

He might as well have said, “Behold your god!” 

Nature takes the place of God, for atheists. Whereas Christianity says humans are the crown of God’s creation, made in His own image and for His glory, atheism says we descended from “birds and animals and creeping things” — to borrow a phrase from above. That’s who we can thank for our being here! Well, maybe not birds — they showed up on another branch of the evolutionary tree — but you get the picture. Either way, nature is our creator.

Atheists who believe this haven’t exchanged the glory of God for the images of these creatures. No, they’ve exchanged the glory of God for the creatures themselves; for in a very relevant sense, the creatures are our creators.

We don’t believe in animal-idols. We believe if you trace it back far enough, we came out of the mud. Is this a sign of advancing wisdom?

The Description Fits

Now, I’ve had long, intense conversations with atheists who object, “I’m not suppressing any truths! There simply isn’t any evidence for God!” What they’re looking for is usually scientific proof, which means they’re trying to find God proved in nature. Their search is misguided, though, as I wrote last time.

But if you have any doubt whether Romans 1:18-23 still fits, read on through the rest of the chapter. It fits today’s unbelieving culture so closely it’s uncanny. Paul didn’t mean that every non-believer commits all those sins, but that this is the direction a non-believing culture will inevitably go. And it’s the direction ours has gone, down to every word of the description. The analysis fits. That’s a pretty good sign that it’s true — whether we like it or not.

God’s reality is easy enough to see, if we’re willing. But that means being willing to let Him be God, to honor Him as God, and give thanks. My prayer for atheists among us is that they’ll see God for who He is.

I have at least two more articles coming on this topic, including a clear answer to the all-important question, What can we do with this information for the good of all?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Patmos

    “There simply isn’t any evidence for God!”

    It always baffles me when I hear anyone say this. You’d think they’d at least bother themselves with the oh so burdensome task of looking up the dictionary definition of “faith” before trying to refute it.

    • GLT

      Looking up the meaning of ‘faith’ would take away one of their more popular rhetorical arguments. They must continue to hope they will not be challenged on their misuse of the word.

      • What does faith mean in the title of the popular book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist?

        • GLT

          Bob Seidensticker,

          “What does faith mean in the title of the popular book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist?”

          I would think that would be obvious but maybe it is not obvious to you.

          The use of the word ‘faith’ in the title ‘I do not Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ is referring to the fact evidence is weighted very heavily against the atheist’s position and one would therefore need more faith to believe in atheism than he would to believe in theism.

          I of course now expect a litany of claims that there is in fact no evidence for theism and as such one is compelled to embrace the default position of atheism.

          • I would think that would be obvious but maybe it is not obvious to you.

            Oh, it’s obvious. I was just doing a little Socratic dialogue to work everyone through the issue.

            The use of the word ‘faith’ in the title ‘I do not Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ is referring to the fact evidence is weighted very heavily against the atheist’s position and one would therefore need more faith to believe in atheism than he would to believe in theism.

            Yeah, and so “faith” means . . . ?

            Hint: it doesn’t mean “belief firmly grounded in evidence.”

            I of course now expect a litany of claims that there is in fact no evidence for theism and as such one is compelled to embrace the default position of atheism.

            Nope. We can go there if you’d like, but we probably need to resolve this definition of “faith” first.

    • swordfish

      Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

      I’m not clear how that’s supposed to be helping your case?

  • John Doane

    “Nature takes the place of God, for atheists.” Right. As Romans 1:25 notes, they “worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” Atheists are also religious. Most of them have an anti-theistic religion that can be identified as pantheism. That is, they deny the supernatural and find meaning in aligning with the principle behind nature, which is perceived to be evolutionary progress.

    “What can we do with this information for the good of all?”

    For starters, we can stop being intimidated by the speculations of pantheists disguised as science. And the church needs to stop attempting to harmonize such speculations with Genesis.

    • GLT

      Well said, sir.

    • Stephen Cooke

      Define worship? How are Atheists religious?I thought there were no Atheists?If Atheists don’t believe there is a God, then how can they be Pantheists?

  • Stinger

    The great NASA scientist Wernher von Braun, who was a Christian, has on his grave marker, “Psalm 19:1,” which is “The heavens declare the glory of God.” We’re supposed to worship the Artist, not the art.

  • topknot

    I am an Atheist who definitely does not believe in “Global Warming”…

    Since it only takes one instance of failure to discredit a scientific theory, I’m calling the theory that Atheism has anything at all to do with belief in “Global Warming”.

    The problem noted above is that humans have evolved in an environment of dependency on community. The community derives its gathering power through commonly held stories. These stories have generally been fictional. However, the fictional stories still served the purpose of gathering together in a community for protection and shared information exchange.

    The human brain has been molded by evolution and is well-suited to religious belief. Thus humans suffer from a generally commonly held “God Delusion”…

    Atheism should discard “Global Warming” because it is not science based. However, many Atheists have a need for community and are just as prone to discard reality as any other human if it means social acceptance within a peer group. So, what is described in this article applies equally to any other peer influenced community, the status of the human makes no difference to the result. Each religion discards reality: Christianity, Islam, Gaia Worship, etc, are all the same… and all incorrectly assess “how the universe works”

    It is only Atheism that correctly assesses reality. Unfortunately, there are few humans up to the task of confronting peer groups in order to discard the false premise of the “Shared Delusion”

  • Chip Crawford

    Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

    It takes the power of the Holy Spirit on the spoken message to bring it to LIFE. That is what makes it like nothing else you have heard or experienced. God is like that.

    • topknot

      Circular argument. Logically, you can’t use your holy book to prove that your holy book is the one true holy book. Quoting Bible verses is entirely meaningless unless one is part of the same religion. Therefore, the “universal truth” of your holy book is much less than universal… Muslims can quote their book to the same effect… so can Scientologists… as well as the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific…

      • Ken Abbott

        All argument for authority is ultimately circular. If one appeals to another standard to confirm one’s authority, that other standard becomes the supervening authority. One cannot undergird one’s axioms. The question then becomes one of trustworthiness or authentication.

        • topknot

          Almost.

          Mathematics works for all places and times in the known 4th dimensional universe that we inhabit.

          Although, I might point out that many times while during trig simplifications I remember getting “1=1” fairly often.

          • Ken Abbott

            But that’s still a question of trustworthiness or authentication or verification (based on pragmatism–it’s true if it works), not an appeal to another standard.

      • Chip Crawford

        You missed the application of the Holy Spirit. Clearly, you have never been in contact with same, which would explain the unfortunate ignorance, which I pray is cured sooner rather than later.

        • topknot

          Does the “holy spirit” of the Cargo Cult believer lead that person to construct tiny models of airplanes and war ships? And also lead that person to pray to such models for food shipments?

          Wouldn’t it be a better use of one’s time to plant food and learn how to irrigate crops rather than pray for rain?

          • Ken Abbott

            “Wouldn’t it be a better use of one’s time to plant food and learn how to irrigate crops rather than pray for rain?”

            Are these mutually exclusive? One may pray while doing all those things. Use all the good gifts of God.

      • GLT

        “Circular argument.”

        No, it is not a circular argument, quite the contrary. It is in fact the time honoured practice of quoting independent sources who are both attesting to the same set of facts and events.

        • topknot

          Your statement is illogical… The Christian Bible is not an independent source of information regarding the validity of any claims within the various sects of Christianity.

          • GLT

            “Your statement is illogical…”

            Really? In what way?

          • Stephen Cooke

            Your sources are connected with your religion, so cannot be considered independent.

      • wsteinbr

        You miss the evidence of the Bible. This can easily be found by searching out:
        the archeology that backs up the Bible
        the prophecies that were fulfilled – especially the Messianic ones including Isaiah 53 (and other verses in Isaiah) and Psalm 22. The Mlessianic ones are backed up by the most advanced dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
        the writings that are external to the Bible that back up the Bible.
        (for this Google “neverthirsty org – Historical Quotes about Jesus”
        the fact that it is coherent with 66 books written by differing walks of life with different styles over centuries.
        that the Book of Genesis gives us a narrative that matches the observations
        (for this Google “new geology us shock dynamics”)
        that the Bible records events that Roman historians record:
        (for this Google “neverthirsty org – Why Was It Dark When Jesus Died?”

      • wsteinbr

        You miss the evidence of the Bible. This can easily be found by searching out:
        the archeology that backs up the Bible
        the prophecies that were fulfilled – especially the Messianic ones including Isaiah 53 (and other verses in Isaiah) and Psalm 22. The Mlessianic ones are backed up by the most advanced dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
        the writings that are external to the Bible that back up the Bible.
        (for this Google “neverthirsty org – Historical Quotes about Jesus”
        the fact that it is coherent with 66 books written by differing walks of life with different styles over centuries.
        that the Book of Genesis gives us a narrative that matches the observations
        (for this Google “new geology us shock dynamics”)
        that the Bible records events that Roman historians record:
        (for this Google “neverthirsty org – Why Was It Dark When Jesus Died?”

      • wsteinbr

        You miss the evidence of the Bible. This can easily be found by searching out:
        the archeology that backs up the Bible
        the prophecies that were fulfilled – especially the Messianic ones including Isaiah 53 (and other verses in Isaiah) and Psalm 22. The Messianic ones are backed up by the most advanced dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
        the writings that are external to the Bible that back up the Bible.
        (for this Google “neverthirsty org – Historical Quotes about Jesus”
        the fact that it is coherent with 66 books written by differing walks of life with different styles over centuries.
        that the Book of Genesis gives us a narrative that matches the observations
        (for this Google “new geology us shock dynamics”)
        that the Bible records events that Roman historians record:
        (for this Google “neverthirsty org – Why Was It Dark When Jesus Died?”

        • topknot

          Third time’s the charm, I guess.

          This can easily be found by searching out:
          the archeology that backs up the Bible

          Archaeology utterly destroys several bible stories. An excellent example, especially for this time of year, is the “Abraham Myth”. Recent archaeological evidence shows that the Egyptian pyramids were constructed using volunteers from the local population of workers. There were no Israelites in Egypt when the pyramids were built. And the workers were not slaves, they were well respected, well fed, and well paid for their work… This is according to archaeological evidence.

          So, archaeology completely removes Abraham… removes the Israelites out of Egypt without any help from the ten plaques… because there were no Israelites in Egypt at that time. Where does that leave the “Ten Commandments Myth”?? Along with so many other early biblical myths.

          The Christian bible is a mix of history, oral tradition, and just plain old good story making. Certainly, the bible is not the “word of god” … and most definitely not the “word of an interested super being meddling in human affairs”

          Most of the “old testament” … and therefore much of Jewish tradition, along with Christian… is false — provably so.

          the fact that it is coherent with 66 books written by differing walks of life with different styles over centuries.

          I guess you’ve never heard of the Council of Nicaea. You should look it up… And then explain how the early Christian church is somehow different than the Mormons, whose own holy book went through a similar time period of “sorting out”… as well as plagiarism, significant fictional rewriting of history, and much of what is found in most other religious holy books. It’s just as likely that Zeus is the “one true god” than a human named Jesus born around 3 CE. It’s even possible that Jesus himself is a fiction. It’s possible that Jesus is an amalgamation of various persons and philosophies of the day. As I’ve pointed out in other posts, there are 20th century religions known as “Cargo Cults” which have been documented to spontaneously appear in a population of humans who know little about their external Earthlings.

          It’s very clear to anyone who actually studies this stuff that much of the text in most holy books is utter fiction, a yarn as good as “Tom Sawyer”.

          • Trilemma

            According to archeology, most of the pyramids were built by the time the Bible says the Israelites showed up. The Bible says the Israelites made mud bricks which wouldn’t have been used on pyramids anyway.

          • wsteinbr

            Google “Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match? By Daniel Anderson”

            Google “Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is Unreliable? by
            Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell”

            Google “Are the Pyramids Made out of Concrete? by Joseph Davidovits”

          • wsteinbr

            Yes, I suppose third time is a charm – oops.

            As far as Moses, you are behind the times in the understanding that is catching up with the Bible:
            YouTube Search: “Amazing evidence for the Red Sea Crossing v2”
            Note the evidence of the chariot wheels in the sea and the path of
            the Israelites.
            The Bible taken for what it says actually leads to the evidence.

          • topknot

            You really should read about the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific. It’s a fascinating look into the human conditioning for being fooled into believing utter nonsense.

            Human minds, unsurprisingly because they are a product of evolution, are programmable into believing false positive cause and effect relationships as easily as Skinners’ pigeons. And thus we are plagued in the 21st century CE with such nonsense as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Global Warming, and many other religions which are all easily provable as wrong by simply looking around a little bit and actually examining the world with logic and the scientific method.

          • wsteinbr

            I can agree with you on everything but for Christianity. There is far too much proof. I relish Christianity precisely because I don’t have to suspend belief.

          • wsteinbr

            As far as the books of the Bible being the ones that should have been chosen, I believe that God had a hand in that. The evidence for which books of the Bible ring true is given here:
            Google “New Evidence the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts Peter J. Williams”

          • topknot

            >…Based on Eyewitness Accounts…

            Would that include this one too: The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle ?

            You kind of “forgot” that one. You know, the one or twenty other tales that would be “inconvenient” for the early Christian church… so they were left out of the “official” holy texts.

            But… but… but… the Whole Bible is the word of god! …. well… never mind the discarded conflicting versions…

          • wsteinbr

            Did you view the video? Yes there were fake gospels created many many decades after the real events that were not included – your point? Of course they were not included.

  • Daniel Staggers

    You’re too wordy and I can’t follow you. “As I said last”? Seriously? Scientifically it’s easy. The “Big Bang Theory” went out the window all the way back when the Hubble was first fixed. We saw bangs going on all around us. So much for Carbon Dating and all the Hundreds of Millions of Years. I couldn’t believe it was still taught in schools as dogma. Obviously, Radio Active Isotopes couldn’t have been created at the same moment! DUH! ANY theory derived from the “Big Bang Theory” was now suspect and who would that be? The Evolutionists how needed those millions of years. They give awards to each other. Dawkins is one of them.

    And what about the Collider, despite what you heard from the MSM. The Collider proved there IS a GOD and the researchers were pretty exited about it. What? Didn’t hear in on NBC? There IS NO HIGGS BOSOM and there never will be, 8 billion dollars spent by 5 Countries proved it once and for all. Funny, they only came up with this money to prove there is a Higgs Bosom and prove their is no god.

    And what about the Japanese expedition that found the real Noah’s Ark? Hear about that? I’m done doing your research for you for one day. Look it up!!!

    • Ken Abbott

      Upvoting your own posts is considered poor form, friend.

      By the way, Tom’s use of phrases such as “As I said last” are meant to refer to previous posts. This is one of a developing series.

    • GLT

      “And what about the Japanese expedition that found the real Noah’s Ark? Hear about that?”

      That was exposed as a hoax. I would recommend not using that argument if you want to maintain credibility.

    • Trilemma

      Carbon dating is based on the fact that carbon 14 is constantly being created in the upper atmosphere.

    • It’s tough to argue against the scientific consensus as a non-scientist. (Or at least it should be.)

  • El_Tigre_Loco

    “Was Man Created by God or by Evolution?” is the title of a pamphlet I once read. Despite the convoluted arguments in the pamphlet, my answer to the question is, “Yes!” As long as you believe God created everything, why is it considered impossible for us to discover a possible way He did it?
    I personally believe that our bodies were created through evolution, a God created, guided, evolution, and that our souls, remember God is spiritual and spiritual souls are what distinguish us from animals, were imbued into ‘pre-man’ creatures creating man as stated in The Bible.

    • topknot

      So… If Darwinian evolution explains the entirety of “how humans got here,” what is left for god to have done?

      Certainly, if evolution is true… and all the evidence points to that being so… then there is no room for a supernatural being who intervenes in human affairs. Evolution means that there is no need for the god hypothesis. That’s why creationists fight so hard to avoid teaching children the reality of evolution… it disproves 100% of the creation myth.

      If the Bible contains whole sections which are provably false, why believe any of it to be true? Certainly, god must not have “written” the creation myth since we have strong evidence that human bodies are completely the product of Darwinian evolution. Therefore, bible believers must accept one of the following:

      1. The bible is wrong, and therefore not the written words of an all powerful super being who never lies.

      2. The bible is correct, and the evidence for all modern science, including the computer network we are using right now, is wrong.

      3. There is no super being, since Darwinian evolution explains the entirety of “how life got here and how it formed into many different bodies.”

      The most ardent believers choose #2. The most sane believers choose to ignore the choice and instead simply never address the incongruity. The truth seekers discover reality and very reluctantly, but resolutely, choose to abandon belief in the myth… and choose Atheism instead.

      Atheism is the only sane choice.

      • GLT

        “If the Bible contains whole sections which are provably false, why believe any of it to be true?”

        Do you have any examples or is this just the typical atheist assertion?

        “we have strong evidence that human bodies are completely the product of Darwinian evolution.”

        Why not present some of that strong evidence?

        “the evidence for all modern science, including the computer network we are using right now, is wrong.”

        You’re simply presenting a false dichotomy. Science and religious faith are not at odds with one another.

        “Darwinian evolution explains the entirety of “how life got here and how it formed into many different bodies.”

        Really? How does it do that?

        “Atheism is the only sane choice.”

        The problem with atheism is that it explains nothing, it only denies.

        • topknot

          The last shall be first:

          >The problem with atheism is that it explains nothing, it only denies.

          Why is this a problem? If there’s nothing to explain, then no explanation is necessary. Life needs no “why”… there is forward looking predicative force, only backward looking evidence.

          >You’re simply presenting a false dichotomy. Science and religious faith are not at odds with one another.

          If Darwinian evolution is true, then there is a big problem… isn’t there? Isn’t that why you’ve asked for evidence…

          >Why not present some of that strong evidence?

          There are many science books I could refer to you, but it’s unlikely that you would begin the quest.

          >Do you have any examples or is this just the typical atheist assertion?

          I already gave an example… the entirety of Genesis is proven wrong by well trodden science.

          • GLT

            “If there’s nothing to explain, then no explanation is necessary”

            But there is something to explain. Whether you want an explanation or not is irrelevant to the fact your existence and
            the existence of everyone and everything else requires an explanation.

            “If Darwinian evolution is true, then there is a big problem… isn’t there? Isn’t that why you’ve asked for evidence…”

            No, I asked for evidence because evidence is required to establish the validity of a principle such as evolution. I fully expect you will not be able to provide any rational evidence, as is usually the case.

            “There are many science books I could refer to you, but it’s unlikely that you would begin the quest.”

            In other words, all you really have is rhetoric and you actually do not understand the evidence you say is so powerful. Typical. And by the way, I have already read many of the books, I used to be an evolutionist.

            “I already gave an example… the entirety of Genesis is proven wrong by well trodden science.”

            That’s the second time you’ve simply asserted an opinion. Is that because you do not understand the difference between making an assertion and providing evidence?

      • Trilemma

        Darwinian evolution does not explain the entirety of how humans got here. Evolution does not explain how the first cell came into existence. Abiogenesis is impossible by natural processes therefore there had to have been a creator being.

        • topknot

          Darwinian-like evolution of dust particles have been observed in interstellar clouds.

          Your statement is incorrect, Darwinian evolution of self-replicating microscopic structures on Earth does explain the entirety of how humans ‘got here’.

          • Trilemma

            Please name one of these evolving self-replicating microscopic structures.

          • topknot

            Ribonucleic acid.

          • Trilemma

            A self-replicating RNA molecule does not exist nor is there any evidence that one ever did. The closest an RNA molecule has come to self-replication that I know of is tC19Z which can only self-replicate 48% of itself. This RNA molecule was created by highly intelligent people using expensive high tech equipment. This shows that the complex molecules of life require an intelligent creator.

          • Stephen Cooke

            God of the gaps.

          • Trilemma

            How so?

          • GLT

            Stephen Cooke,

            “God of the gaps.”

            No, Stephen, logic.

          • GLT

            Trilemma,

            “A self-replicating RNA molecule does not exist nor is there any evidence that one ever did.”

            It is irrelevant whether or not self replicating RNA exists, that is not the question. The question is if self replicating RNA exists where did it come from? Self replication logically cannot explain the origin of self replicating RNA. To argue otherwise is to fall into infinite regression.

          • wsteinbr

            I appreciate your evidence.

          • Bryan

            Is there a source for the claim about Darwinian-like evolution of dust particles being observed in interstellar clouds?

          • topknot

            1. Mayo Greenberg, J & Li, Aigen. (1998). Evolution of Interstellar Dust and its Relevance to Life’s Origin: Laboratory and Space Experiments.. Uchū Seibutsu Kagaku. 12. 96-101. 10.2187/bss.12.96.

            2. Tsytovich, V.; Gusein-Zade, N.; Morfill, G., “Dust-dust interactions and formation of helical dust structures,” Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions, 32, 2, 637-652 (2004).

            3. V N Tsytovich and G E Morfill and V E Fortov and N G Gusein-Zade and B A Klumov and S V Vladimirov, “From plasma crystals and helical structures towards inorganic living matter”, New Journal of Physics, 9 8 263 (2007).

            4. Kamimura, Tetsuo, and Osamu Ishihara. “Coulomb double helical structure.” Physical Review E 85.1 016406 (2012).

        • Stephen Cooke

          Please substantiate your claim that abiogenesis is impossible. What is your evidence? This is a God of the gaps argument. You don’t know, so God did it.

          • GPS Daddy

            Really, Stephen? This is an example of new atheist bullying. You know very, very well that there is lots disagreement at all levels in the scientific community on abiogenesis. Here is one such article:

            origins(dot)swau(dot)edu(slash)papers(slash)life(slash)chadwick/default(dot)html

            He puts the probability at 10^-338. That’s impossible.

            But there is something you refuse to acknowledge that anyone can see. Its clear and obvious that life is designed. Children see this without help. A person may not have a science bone in their body but they know that life requires a designer. They may not articulate it in that way but that’s not necessary. We can even know a great deal about this designer without having to refer to any religious texts.

            You have bought into the new atheists lies, Stephen. You have also adopted their tactics. Think about it, Stephen, you have traded the truth for something that gives no hope, no future. If your picture is accurate then you have lived a good deal of your life already. Not much left. When its over on your worldview everything you care about will come to nothing. All the time you have spent trying to debunk Christians will come to nothing. That is a guaranteed outcome for you if you remain on the path your on.

          • Stephen Cooke

            “He puts the probability at 10^-338. That’s impossible.”

            No he doesn’t. I’ve never heard of a probability in mol^-1.

            “Its clear and obvious that life is designed.”

            I said I was going to stop, because this is going around in circles. You obviously think I’m lying when I say it doesn’t look designed and that I’m lying when I say I don’t know there is a God.

            “We can even know a great deal about this designer without having to refer to any religious texts”

            Go for it launch into your William Lane Craig speech. You have to assume the existence of God in the first place, and then you have to cherry pick attributes of the universe to compare with your knowledge of what the Bible says about your version of God. When I look at the universe I see microwave EMR bathing the whole universe, does that mean God is a microwave oven.

            “If your picture is accurate then you have lived a good deal of your life already. Not much left. When its over on your worldview everything you care about will come to nothing. ”

            All our lives will probably come to nothing. Eventually the universe will cool, and no memory of any of us will be left. All the more reason to enjoy life while we are here. Make the most of it. I guess you feel you are making the most of your life, despite probably being wrong. And please don’t give me the Pascals wager speech.

            “All the time you have spent trying to debunk Christians will come to nothing.”

            I’m not a debunker, I’m a seeker of truth. And I spend relatively little time discussing these things with Christians.

          • GPS Daddy

            >>No he doesn’t. I’ve never heard of a probability in mol^-1.

            Its right there in his paper. And he is not the only one with those kinds of odds. In fact he is on the low side of the probabilities. So if you want to base your life on a chance that is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo small, OK. But don’t come here calling yourself rational.

            >>it doesn’t look designed

            This is not a matter of opinion. You can wave your hand is protest and shrug it off but that’s does not change things. Life is designed. That is clearly evident. Its the atheist that denies this that is lying. So basic is this that to deny it a serious issue. This is why God can and will hold you accountable for it.

            >>cherry pick attributes of the universe

            Oh, please. But now I know you know about William Craig. You have even less excuses.

            >>All our lives will probably come to nothing

            And you want to be considered the rational one. Oh, my. You can have your fatalistic view of life. I choose to have a hope and a future. I’m consistent with life. I’m consistent with how life works. I’m consistent with having purpose and meaning in life. You have to pretend to have these things for a very short period of time. Only for these things to be brutally taken from you never to be regained again. And you, being the rational one, is good with that.

            >>I’m not a debunker, I’m a seeker of truth

            No, your not. You have accepted lies. Those who seek truth don’t accept such clearly evident lies.

          • Stephen Cooke

            Do you think I am a liar?

          • GPS Daddy

            You have accepted a number of lies. There is a part of you that is telling you that I am right when I say life is designed. Your ignoring that part of you. But its not open for debate. Its not my personal opinion. Its fact. A fact that you choose to ignore. That is another lie from you. There may be a part of you that rejects that life is designed but you know that I am speaking the truth,

          • GLT

            Stephen Cooke,

            “You obviously think I’m lying when I say it doesn’t look designed,…”

            It certainly does not look like an accident. So if it doesn’t look designed and it doesn’t look like an accident, what does it look like?

          • Trilemma

            In the article, the 10^-388 molar is not the probability of a cell occurring but the concentration of proteins containing 101 amino acids under the conditions listed.

          • GPS Daddy

            Yea, my bad. But the probabilities are even less than that. Stephen knows this.

          • Stephen Cooke

            Less than what?

          • Stephen Cooke

            Are you calling me a liar?

          • GPS Daddy

            You know every well that there are numerous scientists with the right P’s, h’s and D’s that have indicated the chances are very small. If you do not then your not a very well read new atheist.

          • Stephen Cooke

            I’m not a New Atheist, although I am a new Atheist.

            Is it ok for Atheists to put forward their point of view on this blog, or is it primarily here to teach Christians how to reach Atheists?

            If the idea is to teach Christians to reach Atheists, then it is probably a good idea not to keep having a swipe at the Atheist you are talking to. What makes you think that this is a good idea?
            There are plenty of Atheists who will swipe back, but I am not one of them. I forgive you for your misplaced tactics.

            You need to listen to what Atheists are saying, not conclude that they are lying, just because they disbelieve you or the Bible.

            Lastly, there are no points for winning an argument, you may find that your attitude will turn an Atheist off of Christianity even more.

            Wishing you all the best GPS Daddy, Trilemma etc. I think I’ll look at your next response as the last one. I will not respond anymore.

          • Mark

            Old Atheist.

          • wsteinbr

            The probabilities speak. Darwinists will say “Given enough time it could have happened”, but this is faith in rock dating. Recently (2005) dinosaur bones were found with soft tissue and collagen in four different states of the United States. Google “Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old” Google “Dinosaur Tissue A Biochemical Challenge to the Evolutionary Timescale” as well as flexible tissue found inside a triceratops horn. Google “Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material” Chapter five of Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton explains how untrustworthy is rock dating. Even my old Stratigraphy and Sedimentation Second Edition by Krumbein and Sloss had issues with radiometric rock dating.

          • Stephen Cooke

            “This is an example of new atheist bullying”

            What is bullying?

            “You know very, very well that there is lots disagreement at all levels in the scientific community on abiogenesis.”

            The general consensus is that it occurred, so the disagreements are with regard to how, not whether it occurred.

          • GPS Daddy

            >>What is bullying?

            You know very well that the question you asked Trillemma does not have experimental data. Yet, that is the mainstay of the new atheist when challenged on their position. In order to challenge your position we are required to demonstrate experimental data. However, the bar you set for yourself is exceptionally low. All you have to do is say the probability is not literally zero then we cannot say its not possible. You asked the question as demanding it from Trillemma.

            That is intellectual bullying. A common trait of the new atheist.

            >>The general consensus is that it occurred

            This is another example intellectual bullying. Not so. Its not the consensus that it occurred. Its the consensus among atheistic scientist that have no other option to say that it occurred.

          • Stephen Cooke

            Sorry Trilemma if you thought I was bullying you.

          • Trilemma

            You were not bullying me.

          • Trilemma

            The chances of even a particular simple peptide occurring by natural processes in a bath of only standard amino acids is astronomically remote. The chances of some 200 proteins needed in a cell occurring by natural processes is essentially zero. The chances of a strand of RNA or DNA that codes for these 200 proteins is even less than essentially zero. The chances of all these molecules occurring at the same point in time and at the same microscopic point in location and assembling themselves into the first living cell is absolutely zero. It’s impossible. And this is based on the assumption that only the necessary monomers are present in large quantities. This is also impossible.

          • Stephen Cooke

            The thing is if we don’t know how abiogenesis occurred, how can you come up with a probability? No one is suggesting that there was no life and then the first RNA molecule was formed, which produced the first cell. There must have been some form of evolutionary process from the time the first self replicating molecule was formed until the first cell was produced. The truth is we don’t know, but that doesn’t make it impossible.

          • Trilemma

            Based on statistics, chemistry and thermodynamics we can know that abiogenesis is impossible by natural processes. There is no such thing as a polymer of nucleotides that can self-replicate from monomers. There is no way for there ever to have been an abundance of standard amino acids or nucleotides to form the necessary proteins or RNA strands.

          • wsteinbr

            I agree totally. Moreover, those who say different do not know how hard it is for a protein to be created, then folded properly, then delivered to the precise location that it is needed.

          • GLT

            Stephen Cooke,

            “The truth is we don’t know,…”

            The truth is we do know, life never arises from non-life. That is observable, demonstrable and repeatable scientific fact.

          • wsteinbr

            The probabilities boggle the mind. There is no logical explanation except that God is the Creator. Some can say that “we just don’t know”, but that begs their objectivity and common sense.

          • GLT

            Stephen Cooke,

            Life has NEVER been observed to have come from non-life, life is always observed to come from life. That alone is a pretty devastating fact against abiogenesis.

            “This is a God of the gaps argument.”

            The God of the gaps argument is simply a very juvenile argument. There really is no such argument to present. Explaining how and why something occurs does not explain its origin. For example, we can demonstrate how natural factors related to the weather produce lightning which in turn produces thunder. That demonstration does not tell us from whence came the factors which constitute nature.

        • wsteinbr

          You are correct. Darwinists want to expand Darwinism to include abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not any part of Darwinism. “Abiogenesis is impossible by natural processes” – this is correct and requires a miracle – a miracle that is only explained by a Creator. I agree.

  • topknot

    Post some evidence for evolution… and presto: Pending.

    People just do not want to know the truth.

  • swordfish

    “There’s plenty of evidence for God,”

    What is it, then?

    “We don’t believe in animal-idols. We believe if you trace it back far enough, we came out of the mud. Is this a sign of advancing wisdom?”

    Yes, it totally is. It’s sad that you can’t see our increasing understanding of nature for what it is, and instead try to cling onto ancient myths.

    “What they’re looking for is usually scientific proof, which means they’re trying to find God proved in nature. Their search is misguided, though, as I wrote last time.”

    That’s odd. I thought you were trying to use the apparent fune-tuning of nature to prove God exists?

    • wsteinbr

      “That’s odd. I thought you were trying to use the apparent fune-tuning of nature to prove God exists?”
      It is very observant of you that this is true that the natural world that God created – is there for all to see – and is a testament to Him. Science and the Bible both interpreted rightly will coincide. When science veers off from mistaken assumptions is when trying to find God through science become very difficult.
      Please see my post that starts out:
      “The atheist’s “god” (evolution) is based on three “evidences” –
      Past, Present and Time.”

      Atheist’s usually see one thing in nature.

      Believers see a totally different thing in nature.

      “20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal
      power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from
      what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Romans 1:20

  • Flint8ball

    By the 3rd sentence I knew this was going off the rails. “…good reason to doubt atheism” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject. Doubting the lack of sufficient evidence for the existence of gods isn’t a win for the religious.

  • wsteinbr

    (Don’t miss the two videos at the end – hit the “see more” below)

    The atheist’s “god” (evolution) is based on three “evidences” –
    Past, Present and Time.

    Each falls when looked at with good scrutiny.

    Past – Because of the definition of species (do they interbreed or not?), it is
    impossible to decipher the relation between fossils. Therefore
    evolution cannot be proved this way. The very rocks give a story of a
    world-wide catastrophe with all the millions of fossils that require
    catastrophic burial. By the way, why did Darwin drop the bear to
    whale evolutionary sequence when he published his second version of
    his book?

    Present –“Darwin was well aware of the one central fact that dominated all animal and
    plant breeding experiments – then and now. No one has ever bred a
    new species artificially – and both plant and animal breeder s have
    been trying for hundreds of years, as have scientists. The history of
    human attempts to breed new species is probably thousands of years
    old”. – Shattering the Myths of Darwinism page 134 by Richard
    Miltion (an atheist). God set bounds on the species – “according
    to their kinds” is repeated ten times in Genesis 1 for all kinds of
    plants and animals.

    Time – The recent findings of soft matter found in dinosaur bones in four states
    and the flexible material found in the horn of a triceratops in 2015 is
    a dating system all its own. Therefore for the dinosaurs we are looking
    at thousands not millions of years. (The earth itself and the universe could be
    millions if not billions of years old – because of the distance to stars
    and star light considerations)

    All that is left is somehow, somehow, somehow that the random non-directed DNA with its
    error correction, RNA, and the single cell – That somehow, somehow,
    somehow the vast amount of accurate information that would be
    required for a new organ and/or appendage would get past the error
    correction of DNA. That is “a leap of faith” – “a leap of faith without evidence” –
    “a leap of blind faith” – “a belief system” An atheist would see a miracle of bypassing
    DNA error correction with good – nay – perfect results.

    I see in DNA with its error correction, RNA, and the single cell something way beyond
    any finely tuned watch – a technology almost beyond belief – so
    well thought out, so creative, so error correcting, so efficient.

    I see a miracle of creation that is so far above and beyond anything
    non-living.

    I see the fingerprints of God all over the single cell with all its many
    intricate interrelated parts. If the six feet of DNA of one cell was
    put into books it would be 4000 books of 500 pages each. That same
    information is in each of your 65 to 75 trillion cells.

    I see Jesus saying “28And why do you worry about clothes? Consider how the lilies of
    the field grow: They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not
    even Solomon in all his glory was adorned like one of these. 30If
    that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today
    and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe
    you, O you of little faith?” Matthew 6:28-30

    I hear Jesus saying “39And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher,
    rebuke your disciples.” 40He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones
    would cry out.”” Luke 19:39-40

    I see evidence for faith in God. Please see the video about the single cell and its
    operations:

    Search YouTube for “The Molecular Basis of Life”
    and also for “Protein folding conundrum” (the TED talk)
    You won’t be disappointed.

  • These schools brainwash kids with half truths and blatant lies. Due to this the Believer in Christ has to feel that he or she is the one that has to prove something to the atheist. No No No. The Christian has The Truth Who is The Lord Jesus Christ. The atheist has the problem not The Believer in Christ.

    • I think you need to learn about the burden of proof.

      • GLT

        Bob Seidensticker,

        The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a claim to knowledge. Atheists make a claim to knowledge; that God does not exist; therefore atheists bear a burden of proof. Atheists wish to dodge this responsibility because they know they do not have rational arguments to support it, only assertions and rhetoric.

        • The atheists that I know simply don’t have a God belief (in the same way that I don’t have a unicorn belief). No, most atheists aren’t making a claim to knowledge.

          You say that unicorns exist? OK–I’m listening. But I have no burden of proof to show that they don’t. Ditto the God question.

          I have 1000 posts and counting at my blog. Yes, I’d say I have quite a few rational arguments, both against Christian arguments and for atheist arguments. I’ll jump in and make pro-atheist arguments, but the burden of proof is still on the person making the remarkable claim, which is the Christian.

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            God or Unicorns, it makes no difference. If you deny the existence of anything, whether real or fictional, you are making a statement to positive knowledge. You bear the burden of proof to support your contention they do not exist, just as I bear the burden of proof if I argue they do.

            “but the burden of proof is still on the person making the remarkable claim, which is the Christian.”

            It matters not one iota whether the claim is, as you say, remarkable or if the claim is totally ordinary. If you make a claim to possess knowledge of the existence or non-existence of an object or entity, etc., you bear the burden of supporting your claim.

            Trying to shift the burden of proof is simply a worn out atheist ploy. It does not fly with anyone who has the ability to think critically and logically, so don’t waste your time.

          • I no belief in gods or unicorns. If you propose to convince me otherwise, the burden of proof is yours.

            Another way of seeing it is that the person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proof (but I’m sure you disagree).

            What baffles me is Christians like you who say that arguing for the existence of God is a burden. You’ll say it’s not, but then you’ll give me this “you’ve got the same burden as I do” nonsense. I’m confused–I’m making myself available to hear arguments for God’s existence, and you’re tap dancing about protocol? Why not just make your case? Isn’t that an apologist’s dream?

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “I no belief in gods or unicorns. If you propose to convince me otherwise, the burden of proof is yours.”

            I can’t convince you of anything. All I can do is point you to the evidence. If you do not wish to consider it or you choose to reject it I cannot convince you to accept it. However, I do believe in the existence of God and if you propose to convince me otherwise the burden of proof is yours, point me to the evidence. Now do you get it? For some reason I doubt it.

            I simply do not understand how and why atheists are so obtuse on this subject when it is so obvious to anyone with a even remotely rational thought processes.

            “Another way of seeing it is that the person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proof,…”

            You’re funny, you act like there is a class of claims which are listed under extraordinary. On what basis do you claim the belief in the existence of God as the source of life is an more extraordinary claim than the claim of atheists that life sprang into existence all on its own? I can assure you the rational mind sees the atheistic claim as more extraordinary than the theist claim based on the evidence we have which demonstrates life only comes from life and never from non-life.

            So, please, knock off this nonsense about extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The concept of what is and what is not extraordinary is completely subjective.

            “What baffles me is Christians like you who say that arguing for the existence of God is a burden.”

            I never claimed it was a burden, nor do I know of any Christian who has. I think your problem is you don’t comprehend the term burden does not always mean hardship,it can simply mean a responsibility or a task. Maybe you should brush up on the language.

            “Why not just make your case?”

            I have many times in past exchanges with you. All I ever got back was the rote rhetorical answers common to atheists, most notably the nonsense about ‘burden of proof being my responsibility’, and the standard, ‘there is no evidence for God’. You never once addressed any of the issues.

          • All I can do is point you to the evidence. If you do not wish to consider it or you choose to reject it I cannot convince you to accept it.

            Right. And in the case of God or unicorns, I’m open to the evidence and argument.

            However, I do believe in the existence of God and if you pro pose to convince me otherwise the burden of proof is yours, point me to the evidence. Now do you get it? For some reason I doubt it.

            Your instinct serves you well. One of us does indeed not get it, though I’m not convinced it’s me.

            There is an asymmetry here as pointed out by the observation that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Say that my position is that the ant mound really isn’t an ant mound—it’s a base for Martians, and I saw them land and build it just yesterday. And, BTW, they’re invisible.

            Your position is that you’re skeptical. I could cross my arms and say to you, “Our positions are symmetric. I say Martians and you say no Martians. Go.” Let’s imagine that you simply reject the symmetry claim and offer no evidence for your position. Since you wouldn’t play my game, I declare victory.

            This seems to me to be analogous to our position w/r God.

            I simply do not understand how and why atheists are so obtuse on this subject when it is so obvious to anyone with a even remotely rational thought processes.

            I think you’ve put your finger on it: atheists aren’t remotely rational. What other explanation could there be?

            you act like there is a class of claims which are listed under extraordinary.

            Roughly true, yes.

            On what basis do you claim the belief in the existence of God as the source of life is an more extraordinary claim than the claim of atheists that life sprang into existence all on its own?

            Because science has evidence and arguments for abiogenesis. Because science has an amazing track record of telling us new things about the world, while religion has taught us nothing. Because there are countless “God did it!” claims (thunder, disease, etc.) that have been shown by science to have natural causes and none that have gone the other way (supposed natural explanation overturned by a now-accepted supernatural claim).

            I can assure you the rational mind sees the atheistic claim as more extraordinary than the theist claim based on the evidence we have which demonstrates life only comes from life and never from non-life.

            Assure all you want. I’m unconvinced.

            And as for your choice of abiogenesis as your example, tell me: is this a hill you’re willing to die on? If science finds a consensus explanation for abiogenesis in, say, 20 years, will you reject your Christianity? Of course not. You’re simply picking an unanswered question du jour. When this one is answered, you’ll just pick up another one. The questions are interchangeable for you. Your argument devolves into “science has unanswered questions; therefore, God.”

            That’s not much of an argument for God.

            All I ever got back was the rote rhetorical answers common to atheists, most notably the nonsense about ‘burden of proof being my responsibility’, and the standard, ‘there is no evidence for God’.

            I don’t remember any specifics, so I can’t comment. The burden of proof issue is one that I rarely need to discuss. Rather than my saying, “there is no evidence for God,” I likelier invited you to provide evidence.

            You never once addressed any of the issues.

            I suspect that the majority of issues you’ve brought up are addressed in my blog. Remind me–what are these tough issues that stymie atheists?

          • GLT

            Bob Seidensticker,

            “And in the case of God or unicorns, I’m open to the evidence and argument.”

            Discounting unicorns, are you really open to the evidence? I doubt it highly as evidence is everywhere to be seen. You insist on giving credit to the creation for creating itself. Presuppositions always, always, determine how one interprets evience. You will not see the evidence until you become objective and to become objective you must dispense with your adherence to atheism.

            “One of us does indeed not get it, though I’m not convinced it’s me.”

            I am and I have logic and rational thought to back me up. Anyone making a claim of knowledge and wishing to support that claim is under the burden to defend that claim intellectually. Atheists are making a claim to knowledge, therefore…. The fact they cannot present a cogent defence of their claim is the source of the ‘shifting the burden of proof’ ploy. Atheists can and will incessantly deny this fact, however, incessant denial does not do away with the truth.

            “Say that my position is that the ant mound really isn’t an ant mound,…”

            You would present your position and your evidence and I would refute it with my evidence. That’s just the way it works. That is, for everyone but atheists. When it comes to the question of the existence of God they realise they do not have a sound case to present in denial of God’s existence, at which time they resort to shifting the burden.

            “Roughly true, yes.”

            Can you present a list of what would be considered extraordinary, by definition, and not simply outrageous, such as your ant hill analogy?

            “Assure all you want. I’m unconvinced.”

            Note I said the rational mind. Atheism claims life arose via blind materialistic forces and as such, by its very nature claims all of existence arose, not as a result of rational forces but rather out of irrational forces. Therefore, it logically follows, any mind which views irrational processes as its source cannot appeal to rational thought as it has no basis on which to make a claim to rationality. Isn’t logic a pain?

            “Because science has evidence and arguments for abiogenesis.”

            Really? Present one.

            “what are these tough issues that stymie atheists?”

            Anything to do with rational thought and logic.

      • I know that you got duped by marxist indoctrination centers which are run by the synagogue of satan which brainwash kids with lies. If you do not have Christ you do NOT have The Truth -you have death and the second death waiting.

    • Stephen Cooke

      It’s interesting that Christians want to convert Atheists to their beliefs, yet they say the burden of proof is on the Atheist.

      • These are lies from the devil. Monkey science is pseudo science and is a cult.

        • Stephen Cooke

          What Christians don’t want to convert Atheists? We are all apes, so I guess you’re close.
          What is your definition of a cult?

Inspiration
Have Hope! God Can Turn Your Messes Into Order
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us