Proof God cannot exist

k1 --> k2
Where t = -1 --> 1

Nothing more required.

Last Video

I have been really lazy recently and just been posting youtube videos. I will get back to writing soon.

Here is the last one, evidence of modern physicists views on the creation of the universe (3:05):-

Golden Crocoduck - must see

This is what I think of expelled

This is sooo gonna create problems

If you are going to preach, then preach like this

No need to talk of Hell or judgement here. That is not what was needed.



It is perhaps the most powerful and beautiful speech of the last century.

Fear and the darkside, why the religious must stay out of politics

When one group in society can destroy the reputation of an individual based on superstition then it has gone too far.

Einstein proved there is no God when he pointed out that all things which exist are relative to each other. Accordingly, an eternal God must, relative to this point in time (and whether or not the space time continuum commences from any set big bang event) therefore have existed at a point in time, an infinite amount of time ago. Therefore, God must traverse an infinite amount of time to reach this point in time and since an infinity cannot be traversed, God cannot exist.

"If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K."
– Albert Einstein: The foundation of the general theory of relativity, Section A, §1

Thus, an eternal God that ever have had any effect on the universe at any point in time does not exist. There is only one thing that can be eternal as well as traverse an infinite amount of time because it is not relative to any other thing. Have a guess at what it is.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." A Einstein, 1954, letter to Eric Gutkind.

Why do you oppose religion?

I often get asked why I would oppose religion and God. Christians usually couch the question in such a way as to imply it is purely for rebellion against the creator and thereby justify their assumption that I will spend eternity in Hell. Lol. The truth is more profound than that simple shell game and can be found in the problem of evil.

If you ask a theist, "why are some people rich and others desperately poor" or "why do some people go to good schools and others get neglected" then you will get the usual response, "God has morally sufficient reasons for creating these inequalities". In other words, the theists religion causes the theist to simply accept inequality in the world as the work of God. Alternatively, they will state that such inequality is the result of man's sin. Again, there is a carte blanche acceptance of inequalities in our society on the basis of reasoning underpinned by their beliefs. Of course, those inequalities in this world do not matter because of the promise of the afterlife.

If we follow this premise we see that the theist is unquestioning of power in the past, at present and into the future. The theist loses the capcity to question authority because it is "God's will". But we know that in order for society to change for the better there must be an element of questioning of authority and the present circumstances. Religion just removes the theists voice from the discussion. Thus, I oppose religion because it pacifies people from determining their own destiny.

Think though of the irony of the situation. The deal made by theists is to accept their fate and in exchange they are offered an eternity in the afterlife, a place where no-one has been and no-one can find without having never to return. It is the sale of real estate that doesn't exist in exchange for everything you have in the world. I feel sorry for theists, they have been duped and have become the unknowing projectors of their mind destroying poison onto other people. They do not realise their choice and accordingly, they are lost.

Where did Jesus come from?

The separation between the myth of Jesus and the person (if any) is difficult to untangle. We know that so far as mythological figures goes, Jesus shares many stark similarities to other Gods in Eurasia before that time. Including, but not limited to Horus (well, one of his incarnations), Mythra, Krishna, Dionysis and even Joseph of the Bible. When considering whether Jesus is a myth or not, we should look at some of these fascinating myths from the ancient world and think about the potential influence they may have had on one another. After all, we know these people traded extensively with each other in both goods as well as ideas.





Horus - This is probably the oldest (3000BC) incarnation of the Jesus myth. There are about 15 different incarnations of Horus, as each priest over the 2500 years that he was worshipped added their own ideas.





Horus was the son of Isis-Meri and Osiris. Osiris was dead (not in this world) at the time of conception of Horus. Horus was adorned by three wise men or magi at his birth, who followed a shining star. Horus was a teacher at age 12, he was baptised at 30 and then betrayed after ministering to the people and performing miracles. He was known as "lamb of God" and "light of the world". He was crucified and was buried, only to arise three days later.





Horus is characteristically shown with the head of an eagle. He is also the deity that leads the judged when their hearts are weighed against a feather, as shown below in the Book of the Dead:-

Mithra - appears at least by 670BC with the first Persian empire. Zoroastrian texts state that Ahura Mazda (The Zoroastrian God) declares to Zoroaster that Mithra is "to be as worthy of sacrifice and as worthy of prayer as myself". Born to a virgin on 25 December, he was known as the "light", "redeemer", "enemy of darkness" and "judge of souls", the last being his official title within Zoroastrian custom. He was part of a trinity of protectors of the universe. He entered the mortal realm where he was betrayed, killed and then resurrected into light and air where he now guides souls to Paradise.

Dionysus - Ancient Greece. Dionysus is born of a virgin to Semale. His father is Zeus. Dionysus travels with companions throughout the Greek Isles performing miracles. He is the God of wine and revelry and asks others to "drink his blood and eat his flesh". He can make wine from nothing as shown in various ancient ceremonies

Joseph - son of Jacob, 2nd last of 12 sons (12 disciples). Was betrayed at the idea of his brother Judah (Jude, Judas) out of jealousy and sold into slavery. At the age of 30 he shows miraculous abilities, overcomes temptation and leads the jewish people into Egypt.

There are about 57 ressurection and 45 virgin birth myths catalogued in the ancient world. These similarities are not random chance. They all have an astrological meaning - something that was very important to the ancients. For instance, in the northern hemisphere the sun appears lower on the horizon as the winter solstace approaches. Presently that happens on the 21st or 22nd of December. The sun descends to its lowest point for three days then arises as the tilt of the earth changes. That is, the sun begins to rise on the 25th of december. In ancient lore, the sun was adored as "giver of life" the "light" as it would provide the light and warmth for people of the ancient world. Thus, its descent into darker days was viewed as the sun dying or losing the battle against the darkness. The return of the sun was considered a "rebirth" whereupon it would come to dominate the days at about late march (Spring Equinox) or easter.

Even more interestingly, the three stars that form Orion's belt which were known to some ancients as the three magi or three kings, align directly through the brightest star in the sky, Sirius A to line up with the point on the horizon where the sun rises on the 25th of december. The birth of Jesus is just an astrological event retold.

Astrology cults are not new. In a time when the entire world had only the stars to look at during night, these were fascinating things. They personified the stars and the sun because of their magnificence. They were untouchable by man and therefore, to a species that learns through touching, completely unknowable. These stories held the psyche of man, and long after their actual nature began, they became the foundation for new stories and myths.

But what about the crucifixtion? Why both Horus, Jesus, Dionysus and others suffering a crucifixtion? The answer is simple, you have probably known about it since you were very young and first saw the Australian flag. When the sun descends (from the northern hemisphere) into the winter solstice, the earth is tilted to its lowest point. In the mediteranean, the sun appears to rise through the constellation crux - or the cross - He is risen.

These stories have lived through the ages. They have changed over time, particularily before the advent of widespread writing. And now, people wish to spread these lies over the rest of us as truth. They don't realise the truth because they blind themselves with faith.

I am sorry, there is no God.

Look familiar

Kiss Hanks

This is exactly how I feel dealing with fundies sometimes:-

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's *** with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ***?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ***, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the **** out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ***."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ***?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's *** with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's *** often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the **** out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ***, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's *** for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's *** He'll kick the **** of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His ***?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ***. Other times we kiss Karl's ***, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?" Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ***. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ***, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

** From the desk of Karl **

Kiss Hank's *** and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Kick the **** out of people who aren't like you.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list Himself.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't use alcohol.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Kiss Hank's *** or He'll kick the **** out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the **** out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Dinosaurs, Behemoths and the Great Biblical swindle

A few weekends ago, a friend of mine from Operation 513 (a dangerous terrorist organisation) made a statement that Job 40 proves that humans walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. For those of you who don't know, Job 40: states:-

40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field
play.
40:21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
40:22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
40:23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
40:24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Now, I had previously read about this and it already appeared that the passage and following passage regarding the leviathan were pretty clearly just imaginings, not unlike faeries or the loch ness monster. Nonetheless, when dealing with fundamentalists it takes significant evidence to persuade them of the silliness of their position. For this reason, I began investigating the matter in detail, and, to my suprise revealed another example of propoganda and coverup which exemplifies the sickening intellectual dishonesty engaged in by the christian agenda.

It was no suprise to me that ancient Jewish legend does tell of three mythical beasts, the Behemoth of the earth, the Leviathan of the Sea and a third entity not mentioned in Job, Ziz, a sky creature of incredible power. The ancient Jewish mystic tradition (Haggi) these three beings would battle against each other at the end of the world.

Some readers consider the behemoth could be put down to some of the massive african fauna such as elephants or hippopotamus, however, this is usually discounted by the description in Job 40:16 that the behemoth has a tail "like a cedar tree". The counter argument to this was that an elephants trunk could be confused for a tail, which makes some sense in that the behemoth is said to never allow humans to get close "it can only be destroyed by its creator". Alternatively, it is noted that the skin of an elephant (or hippo for that matter) has the same texture as a cedar tree and this may be the detail referred to in the passage. Another interpretation is that the "tail" is a miscontruction of the word in Jewish which is more often used to describe a large male genetalia - of which elephants are well blessed.

Creationists, of course, consider the passage, in particular the reference to the tail, describes a large sauropod like apatosaurus or brachiasaurus, of which there are numerous fossilised examples. This is where the scholarship of christians comes into question. The passage above is from the King James Translation of the Bible, whereas newer translations state at 40:16:-

Behold now, his strength in his loins and his power in the muscles of his belly

So why would christians replace "his power in the navel of his belly" with "his power in the muscles of his belly"? The reason is simple, dinosaurs were birthed in eggs - that is, they do not have umbilical cords like humans. Accordingly, the behemoth - if a dinosaur - would not have a navel. This proves that behemoth was not a dinosaur and more likely a figment of imagination or forgotten description of an existing species of animal.

But, that alone is not the final word, it mentions that the behemoth eats grass. Yet, fossil records of dinosaurs show they had spoon like teeth and not molar teeth which are required to eat grass or chew cud "like an ox".

Furthermore, in the earlier translations, there is reference to behemoth lying below a lotus tree in Job 40: 21:-

He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh. The lotus
trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him

It is perhaps ironic that of the lotus species, none of the plants grow to more than two meters high. Were these pygmy dinosaurs?

This highlights two points, firstly, the Bible does not describe humans and dinosaurs side by side. Secondly, christians (who are no doubt aware of these facts) are prepared to change their "interpretation" of their own holy text in order to preserve their point of view.

Signs of the Times

Honestly, Twatt Church.

Creationism, Intelligent Design - What do the academics really think?

I often hear from creationists that there is substantial academic support behind intelligent design. This bizarre statement is at odds with reality - which is not unsuprising given its source. Nonetheless, I have done some basic research into the matter and found that several academic bodies in Australia and around the world have policies against the teaching of Intelligent Design and strongly rebuking creationism as a whole.

As you would expect, intelligent design policies are more heavily populated in areas which are subject to this vile academic schicanery, particularly geology and biology. Perhaps the best instance of this comes from the Geological Society of Australia who released its own Intelligent Design policy in March 2006 which was undersigned by the president and 18 former presidents of that society. The policy is strongly worded against the teaching of intelligent design:-

The Geological Society of Australia considers that notions such as Fundamental Creationism, including so called "Flood Geology", which disregard scientific evidence such as that based on repeatable observations in the natural world and the geological record, are not science and cannot be taught as science.

An essential element in the teaching of science is the encouragement of students and teachers to critically appraise the evidence for notions being taught as science. The Society states unequivocally that the dogmatic teaching of notions such as Creationism within a science curriculum stifles the development of critical thinking patterns in the developing mind and seriously compromises the best interests of objective public education. This could eventually hamper the advancement of science and technology as students take their places as leaders of future generations.

In some parts of Australia, the advocacy of notions like Creationism is confronting the integrity and effectiveness of our national education system and the hard-won evidencebased foundations of science. The Geological Society of Australia cannot remain silent. To do so would be a dereliction of our responsibility to intellectual
freedom and to the fundamental principles of scientific thought. As a consequence, the Society dissociates itself from Creationist statements made by any member.

So the next time someone says there is academic support for Intelligent Design or Creationism. Tell them they are full of it.

Sarah Palin

Nuff Said

Refutation of the First Cause argument from Hume (PS, Hume doesn't demand that you worship him - after all - he is not as proud as your God).

1. The first cause argument is dependent on causation
2. Causation is dependent on time
3. If there was ever no time then there would have been no causation
4. If time was infinite then it would never have gotten to today
5. Today exists
6. Therefore, time is finite.
7. Therefore, there was a point without time
8. Therefore, there was a point without causation

9a. The universe could be the result of a state of affairs without causation
9b. God/Allah could be the result of a state of affairs without causation who then created the universe
9c. Ockhams razor provides that the more simple explanation is most likely to be true.
9d. An uncaused universe is more simple than an uncaused god who then created the universe

10a. Therefore, it is more likely that the universe is uncaused; and,
10b. God does not exist.

Should Dahmer go to Heaven?

As many of you know, I previously finished a degree in justice studies where I developed an interest in how serial killers operate. Serial killers are different to most criminals. Helen Morrison, a United States psychiatrist who has studied many serial killers has hypothesised that serial killers lack a developed personality and generally have the emotional development of an infant of about 100 days. It is for this reason that they are capable of acting with complete intelligence and having no hesitation in carrying out vicious acts of torture which they usually describe as experimentation. That is, the killing is only incidental to seeing what will happen when the experiment is performed.

Whenever I am told by theists that there is objective morality in the world, I sometime think back to what I know of serial killers and laugh. If there is objective reality then these guys missed that lesson.

I turn now to Jeffrey Dahmer, an electrical worker at a chocolate factory, Dahmer killed 17 people, had sex with their corpses and occasionally ate the remains. Some body parts were found in a sewer drain near his house as well as in his fridge.

Dahmer, like most serial killers, is a very good liar and can construct powerful realities, just as actors do. However, Helen Morrison found that while such killers are often charming in person, their charm wears off if one interrogates them for several hours without a break. This is caused by strain - because their charm and personality are artificial, they cannot keep it up forever.

Here is a video interview where Dahmer describes his coming to believe in Jesus Christ:-




And if you believe that, you would be a good victim too.

The flawed God

I am always amazed at the bloodthirsty nature of religion, but not so much as a young man on the weekend that proclaimed to me that his salvation came through the blood of an innocent man, ie Jesus. I do not understand how a person can reconcile that their own sins are set assunder because another man, who is supposedly completely innocent, was brutally tortured and crucified. How is it that blood can atone for sin? If anything, wouldn't we expect good works or the giving of love to rectify the imbalance we often perceive in our own behaviour. How can it be that thinking you are personally responsible for the death of an innocent person will somehow overcome your own flaws? I would have thought that it would just be another sin to add to your tally?

Perhaps it is fitting that Christians believe their patron was actually god in flesh. Does it not seem odd that one would consider that taking blood of an innocent person, that of their god, as a path to salvation, would actually be the exact route taken by their god's enemy? For it is not in the ressurection that these christians find their salvation but in the price paid in blood. How horrendous it must be to think that you are guilty for everything, including the death of your saviour?

And yet, I find nothing in the New or Old testament that points these people towards becoming better human being. Not in the words of a god at least. The kindness and love supposed to be shown through the christian tradition is not more than the kindness and love that the godless Greeks or the Egyptians or the Norse also considered to be virtuous. How is it that if this man was god in human form that he could not provide us with any greater guidance than that which had already been discovered by man?

Here, we examine the supposed pinnacle of Christian teaching, "do unto others as thou would have done unto yourself", and here we see the fatal flaw of this relativistic approach - what if I wish to be despised? Is this god in human form incapable of seeing such a possibility? I only have to walk down my local street to see children dressed in black and bearing profane banners with pride for me to see ones that wish to be despised and outcast from our group. So how does the "golden rule" aide them? It does not, rather, it provides a preface towards an ever spiralling descent away from our fellow man. How foolish was christ to make his provision for our actions dependent on our own flawed nature. And yet, that is probably the best evidence that he himself was flawed as any man and no god could be.

The uncertain man

Humans are designed to be uncertain. It is a fundamental aspect of our nature (Knight, F.H. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston, MA: Hart, Schaffner & Marx; Houghton Mifflin Company).





Without uncertainty a human being cannot identify a problem to be solved. Michael Ruse gives the example that a caveman sees two tigers walk into a cave and only one come out. He does not know(as he cannot see) if the second tiger is still in the cave, but the operation of his brain tells him that it would be best not to go into the cave (Ruse, (2006) Darwinism and its discontents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press).

Uncertainty can take many forms in human decision making - but it is the essential ingredient to all decisions, for without uncertainty the decision would already have been made:-

A rational decision is where the uncertainty in a subject is responded to with justification.

So, I would like to pose an interesting question. Genesis 1:27 states, inter alia, "So, God created man in His own image". This is sometimes taken to mean in a likeness sense and sometimes in respect of the mind of man - the creative nature of our species. The implication of the latter interpretation does result in the problem of uncertainty, that is, are we uncertain beings because God is an uncertain being? If so, then God cannot be omniscient as such a state renders all uncertainty void. On the other hand, if God is omniscient then we are not created in his image. Although, this may prove little more than the fallability of biblical text.

In any event, the nature of uncertainty as a central and fundamental quality of human decision making leads us to a far greater problem than God's creation and this is, Gods justice. Biblical (Koranic, Egyptian, Nordic.....) religions have penalties for a failure to be absolutely certain about the existence of the proposed God(/s). How can we make a rational decision about something if our uncertainty in the proposed statement is removed? Clearly we cannot. In order to be a theist, a person must remove their initial uncertainty through an act of faith. Otherwise, the theist must admit that they could be wrong (ie, they have the initial state of uncertainty). Thus, by removing ones uncertainty about a subject - the decision that results is a fait accompli and certainly not rational.

So to any theists out there, think to yourself, could you be wrong?

Einstein - Genius

Dawkins on the air

Josh, this is for you

Enjoy

Mr Deity

This is funny.

This is why we can't allow theism to gain control of society ever again

Systemic Logic

Bob Spence said this - he is very smart ;)

Logic is a systematic description of the irreducible minimum relationships between propositions for a coherent, self-consistent reasoning process, discussion, discourse, whatever you want to call it, about the content of any set of propositions about reality.

It is the starting point for coherent discourse.

The rules of logic start from the 'assumption' that there exist sets of propositions, statements about reality that cannot all simultaneously be true, that describe distinguishable, different possible attributes, events, relationships between entities, ie that there is structure to reality, not just a blur of every everything posssible existing and happening at once and/or at pure

This is fundamental.

To insist that this somehow can only be the case if there is some grander entity within which such a structure can exist explains absolutely nothing, merely opening the way to the worst sort of infinite regress, requiring ever grander entities within which any given entity must exist, therefore such a proposal is essentially self-refuting.

Rather pursue the more fruitful chain of 'infinite' regress, where each complex proposition of logic, or the elaborations of logical reasoning, ie mathematics in all its forms, is shown to be derived from simpler, more fundamental theorems, till we arrive at the most elementary.

Analogous to following 'cause and effect' chains back, where any given 'effect' can be seen as being initiated by a set of one or more 'causes' whic may well be much more elementary and lesser that the effect triggered, so that the 'ultimate cause' need only be a set of infinitesimal 'twitches' in the fabric of reality.

As long as all the identifiable cause-effect links form, on average, a geometrically decreasing sequence in duration and energy, as we trace back, then even a theoretically infinite sequence will total to a finite duration and energy, a point that the Greek philosophers totally failed to get there minds around, as with Xeno's famous paradoxes, which are totally resolved by later mathematics, such as those dealing with infinite series and calculus.

So once you eliminate the assumption that 'cause' must always be greater than 'effect', most if not all traditional arguments for 'God' vanish in a puff of logic, as Douglas Adams once said. Just think of the final snowflake that triggers the avalanche...

'God' and all such ideas are part of a lesser, derivative reality, the world of speculative ideas which is totally dependent on our own minds, which in turn are parasitic on the world of nature.

Quote from Bob Spence on the BAMG message boards.

Is truth knowable - only if you assume it is ;).

Vile anti-abortion lobby

I was sickened when I saw this article:-

Last Abortion Clinic in South Dakota Closes after Law Requires Patients be Informed of Possible Side Effects

SIOUX FALLS, SD,
July 24, 2008 - On Monday, July 21, eight women arrived at the Planned Parenthood office in Sioux Falls in South Dakota for abortions, but were instead met with locked doors and a hand-written note indicating the only abortion clinic in South Dakota was closed.

Planned Parenthood closed its doors after their abortionists, who are flown in from other states, refused to work under the new law that went into effect last Friday. The law orders abortionists to inform patients of the humanity of their babies and that the procedure could affect their mental health two hours before the abortion is set to be performed. The law also provides that abortionists can be sued if they do not comply.

This is typical of theists, they use laws to impose their own moral standing on other people. These laws are an affront to common sense. After all, legal abortions in the United States (pursuant to the decision in Roe v Wade) are permitted while the embryo is in very early development, ie before the 20th week of the pregnancy. A foetus (shown below) does not have potassium ions present in its brain - thus it cannot think.

There is no actual cruelty in the abortion of that foetus. Recent studies show that thalamcortical connections (ie the circuits that allow for neural reaction to physical pain) do not form in the feotus until the 26th week of gestation (Lee, Susan (August 24/31, 2005). "Fetal Pain A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence". The Journal of the American Medical Association 294 (8): 947. the American Medical Association. doi:10.1001/jama.294.8.947).

Accordingly, the laws in South Dakota that require abortionists to state that the foetus has "humanity" rely on gross untruths. Clearly this law is designed to evade the decision in Roe v Wade which allows a female the right to terminate a pregnancy.

But what about the costs? Readers may not be aware that there is significant evidence that societies that do not allow for termination of unwanted pregnancy experience higher levels of crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect). The work of Donahue and Levitt in the study showed that there was a significant decrease in crime rates 18 years after the decriminalisation of abortion in the United States in 1973. They postulated that the only cause which could be identified for the decrease in crime rates was the earlier decriminalistion of abortion.

Why are theists so eager to see more unhappiness, poverty and pain in the world? Do they not realise the forseeable outcome of preventing abortion is going to be unwanted children living in poor conditions?

I would argue that theists impose this moral rule in order to make people avoid sex out of wedlock. Clearly pregnancy is a potential outcome from sexual relations and that, by restricting a methods of controlling that potential outcome, theists are actually attempting to control the sex lives of other people. Why theists can't just stay out of other people's business is unclear - but it is clear that they have not given up on their fairy tales and that we have much work to do before humans are truly free.

Why do people laugh at creationist?

In the days of Moses (if he existed), Jesus and Mohammed, there was so little knowledge about the universe that it was believable that life was made by a personal God who looked over the affairs of men - and that the world was made for men. The tale neccesarily imported the belief that the universe, earth and man was new and which can be found in Genesis.

That was then and this is now. In the time since men first bowed down to illusory and vague deities we have learned much about the universe and life. We have incorporated our methods of discovering the nature of the world around us into science and through science we have found that the universe, our world and life itself is not consistent with the stories of old.

So, why is it that some people do not throw off the shackles of ancient stories in the light of modern science? The answer to this is not simple - but there are some rational explanations, the first and foremost of this is ignorance.

CASE has recently been engaged in battle against a group called operation 513. Their creationist creed stipulates that the earth is only 6,000 years old as presumed from the Bible. Thus, they do not believe there is any truth to the theory of evolution. Operation 513 recently wrote an article from a "scientist" in which they sought to show that the recent Lenski experiment regarding the mutation of E.Coli bacteria was false. The mutation was that the bacteria could digest citrate in an oxic (high oxygen) state. The article written by Operation 513 stated that CASE and Lenski's conclusions regarding mutation were wrong because E.Coli can digest citrate in an anaerobic state (low/no oxygen). This clearly missed the point of the Lenski experiment and the mutation observed in that experiment. So why did they write the article - clearly the writer had not undertaken the basic research into what Lenski had observed, probably not even reading the paper given by Lenski. Nothing less than sheer ignorance.

Science is about research - without political or religious motives. Scientists are not seeking to prove God does not exist, they are just trying to carry out research into the world around them. Yet, sceintists are constantly being derided by theists because their conclusions are that there is no God (or at least the God described in Holy Books). Those criticisms, like the one from Operation 513 are usually based on ignorance. But look at the acerbic tone of the conclusion:-

Are you possibly just clinging to another poor excuse of a support for a dying theory? Have you perhaps overstretched your assumption that the world is all chance and no design? Are you betraying just a little of your unrighteous and unjustified bias that there is no God by forcing science to be your unwilling ally? Are you not merely running from what you know? (That you are responsible to God who made you, the absolute law giver who determines absolute right and wrong).

Don't you a mortal man stand this very moment on a flimsy perch over the fiery judgement for your rebellious unbelief and sins? That said though, aren't you and all atheist offered freely the gift of eternal life and peace with God if you will abandon your sin and trust in Jesus; in His work of atoning death and glorious resurrection?

Well that's all my questions for now, I would love to know your thoughts. Please be honest and consider carefully your response, I would hate to see you make a monkey of yourself.

Im sorry my friend - all that you've done is make yourself look silly. There is no judgement day, no afterlife that we have observed. Although we will all die, I am confident that the presuppositions that you have relied upon to reach the conclusion of an afterlife are a sham, unreal and a lie. Nevertheless, we atheists and scientists everywhere encourage you to step into the enlightenment and throw away your dogmas and ignorance.

Why do people laugh at creationists.

Only creationists don't know why.

Asking Jesus a question or two.

The logically inconsistent God

The concept of a personal God is logically inconsistent in many ways. Perhaps the most inconsistent is the concept of afterlife punishment. Think about it from God's perspective, you create the universe and set these little beings on a planet with the whole point of judging them after they die - when you created these being, you already knew what the results would be because you are omnipotent. So, whats the point of the exercise? To show how powerful you are to the little beings? Surely God could have done that by simply appearing directly to the little beings.

The fact is that the punishment philosophy only appears to be logical from the perspective of the little beings - and not God. For God, the answers are already worked out - why bother with the process?

Furthermore, by engaging in the process, it means that God forces himself into letting people go to Hell? If God can forsee this, then doesn't that mean that God voluntarily chose to cause some beings to go to Hell? From his point of view, that seems a bit "ungodlike".

Theists will generally argue that its all about us "little beings" - but isnt that a bit anthropocentric? Furthermore, the concept that God may have morally sufficient reasons for sending people to Hell necessarily requires that he is prepared to expend some human life for other human life. Doesn't that negate the oft-held view that God loves everyone? He knows that he must sacrifice that life before he created the universe - surely an all-loving God could get it to work out without having to sacrifice anyone to Hell. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Of course, this point of view doesn't enter the mind of a person that thinks that they are going to be saved - which is just selfishness really.

At the end of the day, the punishment point of view only makes sense only if God was the product of a human mind. Since most religions (Christianity, Islam etc) make the punishment concept a fundamental principle of their faith - doesn't this lead to the conclusion that those religions are the product of the human mind as well.

Religion should stay out of politics

Faith is a poison

Life is complex

In recent weeks I have raised the issue of Cit+ E.Coli in the Lenski experiment that proves positive mutation. In rebuttal to this, theists have made the statement: "That doesn't prove anything, you started off with E.Coli and ended up with E.Coli". This is, of course, a result of the theists lack of biological training. Its the equivalent of saying that a housecat that gives birth to a lynx is not a mutation because they are both cats:-

-->

(Felis Catus) --> (Felis Lynx canadensis)

So, what is the difference between the common house cat Felis Catus and a lynx such as Felis Lynx canadensis? Well, its simply that one organism has genetic code that gives it smaller body mass, decreased aggression, no black tips on the ends of its ears etc. On the other hand, a significant amount of the housecats genome is the same or similar to that of a lynx (including for instance the colourings of its coat as seen above).

So, how do we determine these two species are different? In the past biologists have had to rely on the physical characteristics of the species. Their size, colourings, behaviour etc. But does that work out when we compare individuals within all species? What about man's best friend:-

Above: A St Bernard eyes of some lunch

Both the St Bernard and the Chihuahuas shown above are part of the same species Canis Lupis Familiaris and yet they have significantly different characteristics, or do they? The chemical structure of the St Bernard is the same as that of the Chihuahua, rather, the proportions of those chemical structures vary between the two individuals. They are effectively the same organism, but in the St Bernard certain genes are enhanced (Such as hair, body mass, slobbering etc). This, does however show that mutation alone does not cause significant changes in biology - those changes can also be a result of activity within an existing genome.

This is totally different to the Cit+ E.Coli which mutated in the Lenski experiment. Those E.Coli have a different chemical structure which allows them to digest Citrate. Thus, should Cit+ E.Coli be called E.Coli at all? Well, there is no problem with labelling them as E.Coli as that definition covers a variety of different microbes with different characteristics:-

A strain of E. coli is a sub-group within the species that has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other E. coli strains. These differences are often detectable only on the molecular level; however, they may result in changes to the physiology or lifecycle of the bacterium. For example, a strain may gain pathogenic capacity, the ability to use a unique carbon source, the ability to inhabit a particular ecological niche or the ability to resist antimicrobial agents. Different strains of E. coli are often host-specific, making it possible to determine the source of fecal contamination in environmental samples.

This is just a result of taxonomy, being the study of classifying living things. It is an interesting question, if the Lenski experiment is the first time we have observed a mutation from one species into a new species under controlled conditions - how will taxonomy react? Surely the old rules (which require species to be differentiated) will not apply when a new species comes from an existing one. Nevertheless, this is only a distraction from the main point.

Some theists argue that this is not evidence for evolution because the microbe did not evolve into a dog (or some other complex animal). I would respond by asking what the difference is between the microbe and a dog. Both have genetic codes which determine their chemical constructions - its just the construction that is different. E.Coli are asexual, bacteria (as opposed to eukaryotic), directly take food in through their cell walls, anaerobic replicators. Dogs are sexual, eukaryotic, with developed food processing tracts, aerobic replicators.

If we now know that mutations can result in additional characteristics then how many mutations would be required for a bacteria to become a dog. There could be thousands of mutations occuring at distant intervals of time - nonetheless, we are not dealing with a 20 year time period. In fact, fossils indicate that the first "big mutation" that would be necessary, being the transition from single cell (bacteria) to multi-cell (eukaryotic) organisms happened about 2.1 billion years ago. Over that time frame, the incredulity of theists does seem a little petty.

But, lets do the maths, the Lenski experiment showed a mutation happen in 25,000 generations - on average, E.Coli reproduce every 233 minutes. There have been about 1077300000000000 minutes since Bacteria first became Eukaryotic. Thus we could expect about 4623605150214 generations in that time, which, with a uniform mutation rate would be around 184944206 mutations. Do you think that 184944206 additions to the genes of a microbe could result in a dog? (Of course, this maths is flawed because the reproduction rate between microbes is shorter than later mutations, such as dogs - nonetheless, we should expect a significantly large number of mutations, or additions to genetic code, to be available to bring the genetic code from 500,000 base pairs in bacteria to 300,000,000 base pairs in humans).

But, perhaps the biggest problem for theists is not mutation and change in characteristics between bacteria and dogs. Their incredulity comes from the fact that they cannot accept this line of mutations and changes:-

--> --> -->
Apes --> Australopithecus --> Homo Antecessor --> Homo Sapien

But if you want some real evidence that life can take strange twists and turns, take a look at these squid (try to count the legs):-

Back on the CASE

Sorry I havent been round.

I'm ill, overworked, underpaid and outsmarted by my girlfriend. It appears my usual statement "all absolute statements could be wrong (including this one)" is in fact wrong, there is one absolute truth: "My girlfriend is always right".

A day on YouTube

Bad to spend a whole day watching YouTube - but at least George Carlin understands.

I don't believe

Beware - God is doing online marketing now. PS, I cant wait for this movie to come out

Campaign for the Caveat

CASE considers it is vital to public health and safety for any marketing tool to be subject to the usual safety information, for instance, we see "Smoking causes emphesyma" labels on packets of cigarettes. CASE believes this same level of public warning should come with all religion, thus CASE is starting the "campaign for the caveat". As part of this campaign, all religious figures should include in their prosetylizations a warning that "they could be wrong".

CASE had its first campaign for the caveat discussion with Ryan Hamelaar of Operation 513 over the weekend. Mr Hamelaar admitted to CASE that he could be wrong the "the Bible was inspired by God". Mr Hamelaar also stated that he did not believe it was wrong, but at least he has the humility to admit he is not infallible.

CASE asked Mr Hamelaar if he would state what he had stated privately to the whole crowd next time he preaches. Mr Hamelaar noted that he would not. Nonetheless, CASE will continue to prosecute public admission of uncertainty from Mr Hamelaar and other Operation 513 members. Why? Well, partly because its fun but mostly because it serves the public interest to allow people hearing the marketing message of Operation 513 to know that allegations about the existence of God are just as fallible as all other hypothesis made without factual evidence.

Mr Hamelaar again stated that CASE officer Alex Stewart was an agnostic and not an atheist, ironically, in light of Mr Hamelaars admission we could say that so is he.

Knock one down, another will get up

It is ironic that theists consider knocking one atheist commentator down means that all of atheism is defeated. I have often knocked down the Pope on various issues but am told that does not defeat christianity. Why the hypocrisy?

(Above): Cult leader reflects on poor choice of career

The fact is that, in accordance with the holy statements of Brian, "You are all individuals". This is a statement that cannot be more true of atheism. The reason is that atheists are bound together by a single characteristic - lack of faith in a personal God. Thus, all the other characteristics of a person can manifest in complete variation to another atheist standing next to him. For instance, take Christopher Hitchens following statement regarding the war in Iraq:-

Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little.

(left) Chris Hitchens - fat and loving it!!!


Personally, I consider the war in Iraq to be an abhorent act based on personal prejudices from a regime in the United States that won power through deception and not democracy. I am not within the atheist community to differ from Hitchens, Richard Dawkins consider the following:-

Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Centre, right? So let's go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right?And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We're gonna go in there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet.

Wait a second, if they are both atheists - they why do they have different points of view? Simple, atheists are individuals. We are sufficiently capable of making our own decisions and accordingly, we can come to different conclusions on different issues, except by definition, on whether we believe in God.


The road that we take to atheism is also different (although this should be returning to atheism, after all, no-one is born a theist). Some arrive here because evolutionary biology is inconsistent with the Garden of Eden, some can see the traditional use (and misuse) of power, some dispute the historical origin while others dispute the results. Most of us, though, can see that it is just a scam.

Poll confirms Christians not persecuted enough

A recent CASE poll on the persecution of Christians in modern Australia reveals that over 70% of the population consider that Christians should be persecuted more. These results are stunning in light of the fact that at least 40% of the Australian population classify themselves as Christians. CASE can only conclude that either:-

1. Some christians are actually atheists on the inside
2. Even christians think christians should be persecuted more

CASE is responding to the public demand for christian persecution and has promised that members of the CASE covert and overt warfare department will commence church bombings and public crucifictions of church leaders by the end of the month.

For our next poll, CASE is concerned about the level of education regarding the theory of evolution and is testing your knowledge about the theory of evolution and natural selection. This is in response to various theist demagogues that believe that evolution states a species will mutate into a whole new species in a single generation.

This, and other observations like the following from Fundies say the darndest things, are just examples of how difficult some people find the theory of evolution to understand:-

How can anyone beleive we evolved from monkeys heres a few questions for people who beleive that

1.If we did evolve from monkeys then how come babies arent born monkeys

2.Even Darwin said his theories were wrong before he died so why do you still believe them

3.do you really not believe the bible it says we were created in seven days not millions of years

4.how come we cant speak monkey

Just for a fact ape like creatures are monkeys Just in case certain people get on this thread

coolstylinstud, Christian Forums

Growing Atheism

Found this on Youtube today, nice video on positive correlation between atheism and healthy societies:-

Fundies are people too

For those of you that do not know, "Fundie" is a (derogatory) term that atheists level at "fundamentalist" theists, usually christians. A fundamentalist is a person that holds their faith as the fundamental underpinning of their worldview. It does not matter what evidence or experience that you provide to Fundies - they will always hold to their faith.

CASE psychological warfare division has been busily preparing the manual on helping friends that are fundies on the road to recovery. Entitled "Fundies are people too", the book should be available for the low price of $19.95 (incl GST) by Christmas.

During our research we ran across a terrible culture of poking fun at fundamentalists. Just look at the disgusting use of fundamentalists own words to deride their worldview at the Fundies say the darndest things website.

Of course, we atheists can't help at enjoying this guilty pleasure - watching the depserately irrational responses of those with "absolute knowledge" and where that can lead them.

I think the best example would be either this one from Heartbrokenbrad:-

actually (evolution) was darwins mean of destroying God because at seminnary he was a loser who got made fun of so he just got mad at God and didn't want to believe in him.

or this from Kimby:-

There is a Gay Agenda to force GLBT sexuality on every Christian, anywhere they dare exist out in the open. That is not myth, paranoia or urban legend. It is a fact

or see if you can spot the logical problem in this analysis of twentieth century global politics:-

I mean, hell, every US president since we've had the bomb has been an avowed Christian of some denomination or other, and we never deployed nuclear weapons against the Soviets or the Chinese on the grounds that we'd be welcomed into Heaven by Jesus for opposing communism. Likewise, despite their atheistic disregard for life and human freedom, the Soviets never deployed their own nukes in their unstoppable quest for world domination

Here trolly (or, why absolute knowledge is doubtful)

Fellow atheists will probably groan as we hear another theist arguing that there is such thing as absolute knowledge. Theists usually advance the notion because it is necesary to justify their faith in the face of doubt, that is, if we cannot know something to be absolutely certain then faith in that thing *may* be misplaced. Of course, this offers an 'out' to any atheist (or theist for that matter) in accepting the theists arguments that God exists.

Recently, the brisbane atheist meetup group was attacked by rather nasty troll who called himself Proofthatgodexists ('the troll') whose website is full of the usual theist word games.

The troll proceeded to make various statements such as

"God, as He has revealed to us, is universal, abstract, and invariant"

The atheists online made several points to the troll that he is actually assuming, in that statement and in others, that he has absolute certainty about logic. When we put this issue to him, he repeatedly noted that his worldview was correct because it was. Now, for someone that claimed to have absolute knowledge about logic, this arguments seemed a little light on the ground.

Not satisfied with our critique of the worldview that he advanced (which he asked for mind you), he then set about attacking the world view of other members of the group. For instance,

Problem is, science is dependent on the unifromity of nature, another concept
which does not comport with any atheistic worldview. The only reason science can
be done is because we proceed on the assumption that nature is uniform, or 'the
future is like the past.' Without that assumption, science would be impossible.
I account for the uniformity of nature in the promises of God. On what basis do
YOU believe that the sceintific method is valid?

We tried to explain to the troll that science had worked in the past and accordingly we considered it was reliable, but that we could not be absolutely certain the method would always work. Thus, the method - like everything, was imperfect knowledge such that it was very probable that it could be true but we did not discount the possibility of it being wrong.

Of course, it probably didnt help matters that we had made fun of the trolls website by quoting some of the statement there, like the following Q & A:

Why should I become a Christian?
You should become a Christian because Christianity is true.

Could God have used fallible people to write an infallible book?
Of course, He is God after all.

Why must the God proven on this site be the God of Christianity?
The God proven on this site must be the God of Christianity because He is the only God that HAS been proved here. No other version of God is logically defensible. The God of Christianity is the only God who makes sense out of human experience.

So you can probably empathise with what sort of nutjob we are talking about here, as well as why he seemed to become so upset that we did not accept what he said. I pointed out that the foundation of his belief in God was the Bible, so I asked him:-

Of course, seeing as you are merely a human brain it is necesary for us to recognise that it is your interpretation of those words [the Bible] that you have faith in - could you be wrong?

If yes, then you cannot be sure that you know God.
If no, then you are infallible and equal to God.

So, which one is it?

His response was not to answer, but rather to ask a nonsensical question (this would continue for a couple of days - at least):-

Again, this begs the question in that it assumes that God COULD not reveal some
things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain.

We asked him repeatedly for some evidence that God HAD revealed something to him in such a way that we can know them for certain. Such evidence was not given. Furthermore, as we continued to show that all knowledge could be doubtful (even that statement) because it came from imperfect minds (ie humans and trolls) we found our friend getting further and further from his intial statement to:-

expectation that the future will even probably be like the past. THAT my friend
is proceeding on the expectation that nature is uniform, and is inconsistent
with any atheistic view of the universe.

Actually, it was an expections that nature will probably act in a certain way. Not certainty that it would act in a certain way - our troll, however, was beginning to fully depart from his position. Interestingly, it happened on another thread of the same website where we were discussing morality. The troll, who continued to complain about consistency and was getting increasingly agitated (posting 6 times in one day) made the generous statement that:-

Well, I never claimed to have absolute knowledge, but if I did, you really can't be certain that I haven't provided any evidence now can you?

Oh, we can be pretty sure Mr troll. We can be pretty sure.

So, where does this all get us?

The truth is a really difficult nut to crack. When you get a glimmer of something that seems true it usually only takes a second peak to realise there is something wrong with it. Why? Well, in order to know something absolutely you would have to have:-

1. Observed the same event; and,
2. That event must happen the same way
3. Everytime
4. Ever

Otherwise we cannot discount the possibility of the event happening a different way in some other place in the universe. Humans cant really do that, we are limited mortal creatures that have not, and cannot, observe the entire universe. Thus, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, can a human brain hold absolute truth?

This position requires us to acknowledge that we could be wrong about anything (including this statement). Conversely, a person that believes they have absolute truth must think a human brain is infallible, their own. Through all the rants and raves though - I think I have found a response that may settle our troll, both in relation to his continuing agression towards the Brisbane Atheist Meetup group members as well as in relation to his claims of absolute proof. I offer Proverbs 29:22-23

An angry man stirs up strife and a furious man abounds in transgression. A
man's pride will bring him low, but the humble in spirit will retain
honour.

I again quote the trolls statements:-

You accept the validity of your ability to reason on faith (blind faith at that), whereas I accept the validity of my reasoning as I know that it is a gift from God. Of the two of us, you are the one offering the faith-based argument.

You could be wrong about that too ;)

Pollster doesnt understand sarcasm

This recent poll indicates more about pollsters than the poll:-

http://www.secular.org/news/pew_study.html

Just another example of how buggered up America is (To self: Does that blog title say church??).

CASE gagged

CASE officers pursuing rival terrorist group operation 513 were gagged today after proving there is no such thing as objective morality.

The Operation 513 argument, advanced by mind slave Ryan Hemelaar ("msrh"), was that:-

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

In support of this silly argument - msrh quotes from Michael Ruse as follows:-

The first premise is acknowledged by many atheist philosophers as being plausibly true, even the prominent philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,

"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory."

CASE made various points asking where this objective morality resides - to which there was no response. Accordingly, CASE returned to the initial silliness and noted that:-

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist

This is inductive logic and can only be shown where you have knowledge of everything in the universe - thus the argument fails on point 1. I do not even have to put forward a second suggestion because it relies on a. evidence for God (of which there is none) and b. evidence of objective morality (of which there is none).

Of course, I will show below with respect to his commentary that what he has termed objective morals are actually a false description.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Not proven - definition insufficient for testing. Point 2 fails.

3. Therefore, God exists

Again, based on an unproven assumption.

So, why has ryan made a mistake

Firstly, he has made a massive leap into the inductive world. We know that such arguments are prone to failure and should not be relied upon.

Secondly, he has put in a definition of 'objective morality' which is not technically objective. Such that his evidence for objective morality given in part based on the statement of Michael Ruse does not fit in with his point 1.

Point 1. would only work if God is the one that created the "objective morality" and yet in the definition given by Michael Ruse, a completely different cause is given:-

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth.

So did God give us this "objective morality" or was it a response to the environment?

Furthermore, Michael Ruse accepts that the morality sourced in this way is a response to the individual's needs for survival:-

Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory

Because each individual has a different survival pressure put upon them, they will neccesarily develop a morality that is "subject" to their own circumstances -accordingly, Michael Ruse is saying that morality is subjective based on identifiable causes.

Is this what Ryan meant in line 1:-

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist

No, it isnt. Why? Because those survival pressures exist independent of God. Thus morality is independent of God, based on the very evidence that Ryan brings to this argument.

It was after outlining these arguments that msrh blocked further comments on the article and stated, inter alia:-

The Michael Ruse quote was not supporting that objective morality exists, but rather to show that if God does not exist then no objective morality should exist. But objective morals do exist, so thus God must exist.

This seems a little at odds with his initial introduction that:-

The first premise is acknowledged by many atheist philosophers as being plausibly true, even the prominent philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,

Michael Ruse's quote is just a description of how we (possibly) determine right and wrong for ourselves. It has nothing to do with objective morality, nor does it give any credence to the notion that objective morality requires God. Rather, it is evidence that morality is subjective. In which case, msrh is required to show where this 'objective morality' comes from? Could it be that a Christian did not understand his own argument?

Despite open requests and several opportunities - msrh has not provided a single shred of evidence for objective morality, rather he has stated:-

But objective morals do exist, so thus [sic] God must exist.

He wants it to be true so much that he puts in the equals sign twice. Perhaps CASE should, for the sake of msrh provide a short statement on what makes a logical argument.

1. A logical argument is based on several related points

2. The connection between each of the related points must be established

3. Each point or statement must be substantiated with evidence

4. Any terms that are used must be defined sufficiently

5. Statements that are not supported by evidence cannot be relied upon to connect otherwise unrelated points.

So, msrh has committed the grevious error of failing to define 'objective morality' (4), making statements that God is required for there to be 'objective morality' without any connection (2), failing to provide any evidence for 'objective morality (3), relying on unproven points to conclude that God exists (5). Thus, his argument is not logical (1).

Of course, gagging CASE while being torn to shreds is an example of morality in itself, after all:-

Morality is just an aid to survival

Now you decide, was that right or was it wrong? (or is that too obvious for you?)

Heaven does not exist

Atheists will usually debate the problem of evil with theists because it is proof that God does not exist. On the flip side however, theists retain a notion of life after death and there being a reward for being good called Heaven. Of course, this is in spite of the fact that God created evil in the first place (Isaiah 45:7).





So, how will God judge our good deeds from our bad? Theists are forced to say there is some objective morality outside of humans - a standard of good and evil. This is clearly bupkis as I have repeatedly asked for theists to produce a copy of this objective morality and they have repeatedly failed. CASE considers the reason for this is simple - morality is determined by the individual and is not beamed into humans from some outside source.


But if there is no objective morality then how would God judge us? Wouldn't it be an arbitary decision from God to promote certain people into Heaven and turn others away? Of course, the clear unfai and arbitrary nature of such a decision is the reason why theists seek to establish 'objective moral' standards in the first place.

Furthermore, if Heaven were a real place within existence then surely is must border on something (in existence) that is not perfect. Thus, in order for heaven not to be contaminated by the surrounding imperfection it would have to be:-

1. Bordered by something that is impermeable
2. Bordered by something that causes all passing objects to become perfect.

Neither of those situations have ever been observed within our universe and furthermore, they both infringe upon the laws of thermodynamics. More importantly, in the first case - if nothing can get in - then neither can departed souls. Furthermore, in the second case by passing through the barrier, any soul would automatically be changed from what it was beforehand including sinners. So, even an evil person would be perfect in Heaven - why can't evil people go there then?

This brings us to the big problem with Heaven - free will. Free will immediately allows the person with free will to do evil acts. Thus a soul in heaven with free will could make that place imperfect by their presence. Would they then be kicked out of Heaven? or would their free will be stripped from them? Any other response would make heaven imperfect.

Another thing about Heaven that annoys me is that the Jewish faith is without any real doctrine of Heaven and yet the Christians who steal their religion do? WTF is that about? Most likely, its the evolution of the meme - a new mutation to coincide with Hell.

Finally, if Heaven did exist and there are souls there - why havent any of them returned to see us? Surely a mother's love is stronger than all the happiness in the world, why havent they come back for their kids?

There are lots of better reasons for Heaven not to exist - but there is no reason to say that it actually exist. That is, except for fear.

Behold, the true creators

As some of you will be aware, CASE has repeatedly stated that Unicorns are just as likely to be the true creators of the universe as the Judeo/Chritian/Islamic God. At least we have a photograph of our creator.

Ironically, this is also evidence of genetic mutation - a component in evolution.

Causality does not exist - warning may involve science

As some of you will have seen, CASE recently put up a video tape discussing the Argument for the existence of God from First Cause. This argument is used widely by theists to justify belief in a God. The argument is formulated in several ways and is not generally uniform. CASE sets out here the argument given by William Lane Craig [noted theist and complete tool] (Craig, William L. "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe." Truth Journal. Leadership University. 22 Jun. 2008) and if anyone thinks I am setting up a strawman then please point out a different definition and I will approach that as well:-


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.


This argument seems reasonable at first approach. Everything that a human being has observed (before the 19th century as we are about to see) appears to fall within this argument. A baby deer is born because its mother mated with a male deer of the same species. Cause -> effect. Simple. Or is it?


The "law of causality" is a misleading title, we have never actually tested this law scientifically. In order to do so we would have to travel back in time and determine whether the same cause had the same effect. Of course, humans have never travelled back in time. Furthermore, it is arguable that the act of travelling backwards in time would alter the beginning state and accordingly contaminate the experiment. Thus causality is not a law at all. It is not even a theory. Causality only works on a hypothetical basis.

Above: David Hume considers causation:-

"Do you think those donuts caused me to gain weight?"

This idea that Causation is not universal was discussed extensively by the philosopher David Hume, who correctly pointed out that:-


1. If A is said to cause B then
2. It is necessary to state that whenever A happens B must result.


Of course, such a statement can only be made by way of induction and is only logically possible if either:-


1. The statement is made by someone that has absolute knowledge; and,
2. The statement is consistent with everything that is known.


Because human beings do not have all knowledge in the universe, inductive reasoning has been discounted by modern philosophers including Karl Popper and David Miller. Accordingly, the statement that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" as well as the argument as a whole is not logical except to a person that has absolute knowledge. Thus the argument from First Cause fails at the initial stage.


However, even if we were to ignore this fatal flaw, CASE notes that there is ground to defeat a statement based on inductive logic without having absolute knowledge, where the statement is not "consistent with everything that is known". Thus, we must ask whether there is anything in the universe that we know of that is not consistent with causation? Well, from the argument of first cause we must postulate at least one (being the uncaused cause), however, it is clearly premature to say that we know there was a first cause as that would be circular (IE we are disproving something from the position of accepting it to be true). On the other hand, perhaps we should turn to science and the world of the very, very, very small.

Below: If you can understand what this guy is saying

then you do not need a personal God

The 19th and 20th century saw the birth of quantum physics. This is the science of things that are really, really, very small. Quanta - is a referrence to singular particles as opposed to molecules and everything larger which consists of collections of several particles. Although atomists like Democritus (460-370 BC) could reason that things could continue to be divided until you reached the 'atoms', he did not have the technology or mathematics to discover their properties (NOTE: Atomist works were destroyed by the Church as being inconsistent with God's teachings).



Quantum physics throws causality out the door because, it appears that at the quantum scale, causality as we understand it does not exist.



"relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions (Causality) as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience."



Processes and Causality by John F. Sowa, retrieved Dec. 5, 2006



It is a difficult concept to grasp - perhaps simplest to say that where individual particles are concerned there is a probability that a certain cause will result in a certain effect, but the probability of that happening is not certain. So why does causality happen on a human scale if it doesn't work on a quantum scale? Well, its an issue of probability. If your hand consists of 10,000,000,000,000 particles (actually it is more) that are most likely to move in a certain direction when force is applied then is it very, very, very, very likely that the majority of those particles will travel in the most probable direction. If one of those 10,000,000,000,000 particles ends up in the outer reaches of the solar system, would you notice?



The problem is a bit different for other quanta that move vast distances at high speeds such as light particles. The probability of a particle in your hand ending up in the outer reaches of the solar system when you shake it is greatly excacerbated for these particles because of the distance over which they travel. For instance "By quantum lore, when a particle of light travels from A to B, it does not take one path but explores every one simultaneously, with the more direct routes being used more heavily".

If light (and other quantum particles) do not take a certain route when affected by a certain cause then the inductive reasoning used to support the "law of causality" must necesarily fail. On this basis, the argument from first cause postulated by William Lane Craig also fails.



Now you may be saying, "William Lane Craig doesnt use that language, he says that everything that comes into existence must have a cause - therefore your statement is fallacious". This may be how it appears at first, but you may have to engage your brain for the next bit in order to see why the Craig argument does fail for the reasons given above. We are about the enter the world of Stephen Hawking.

Above: Hawking - Scientist, Genius and ladies man

Hawking is known for crossing ideas on things like black hole information paradoxes and closed big bangs through applying ideas of quantum mechanics to events in the general relativity universe. In other words, his process is to look at big effects based on what is happening the very small scale.


Think about it, if quantum particles act based on probability and not according to actual cause, what does that mean for the initial stages of a universe consisting of quantum particles?


Hawkings explosive new theory (together with Prof Thomas Hertog of the Astroparticle and Cosmology Laboratory in Paris) which allows:-"In this way, they argue the universe did not have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different ones and that it has experienced them all".



Of course, by destroying the unique point of origin that does not mean that God could not have been responsible for multiple points of origin. It only means that the argument put forward by William Lane Craig is wrong. Furthermore, if a theist were to make such a claim then we would be able to ask "where is your evidence for that?". The theist cannot rely on the old testament of the bible because it does not state "God created the universe at multiple independent points which were all expereinced by the universe" - not to mention the difficulty of the planet earth coming about prior to the stars in the heavens (Genesis 1: 7 and 14).


Finally, Hawkings new theory supports superstring theory or M theory which could give us further understanding of the multiverse outside our universe. A simpler introduction is available here.


For all these reasons, the argument from first cause does not actually work. It is inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. It is also self-contradictory. All this is interesting, but will it cause theists to lay down their holy texts and start reading some science? I don't think so. For a theist that has an ultimate, simple to understand first cause, it would take courage and intellectual vigour to look into these issues. Theists, in my opinion, are more satisfied to lazily remain in their perfect God.