Yes, I’m running for President. If you are as tired as I am of the children running for president, I offer you a reasonable choice. Me. A traditional American. Well aware of “traditional American notions of fair play and substantial justice”. [USSupCt, 'International Shoe'.] Doesn’t that describe who we want for President? You know who I am [cf "Who Am I"], so let’s get to it.

HERE’S MY PLATFORM:

I

Plank #1: To win a war, you must wage it correctly.

This country is at WAR. Right? Well, WE’RE DOING IT WRONG! I know how to fight a war. I lived thru the last war that we won [WWII]. I’ve been Army educated. [ROTC, U of W; final {& current} rank: 1st Lieut., DOR 5/58, active duty, 11/56 - 11/58, USAR since then.] I still remember, vividly, the radio [no TV then] broadcast announcing the frightening Jap attack on Pearl Harbor. I lived on the West coast then [Mt Vernon, Wash.] and we were scared! BUT, since that scary day, I’ve learned how to fight a war. LET ME TELL YOU HOW TO FIGHT A WAR:

YOU MOBILIZE. What does that mean? It means that you commit the entire productive capacity of our nation to winning the war.

Forget your TV; your new car; ANY consumer product. You don’t win a war with consumer products. You convert to military products. Detroit shuts down its car assembly lines and builds tanks, etc. [Imports of cars will be forbidden. Tanks? yes. Cars? no] GE makes no appliances. ALL available productive capacity goes to making the TOOLS OF WAR. [What's 'available'? What's not necessary to feed, cloth and house {on a minimum maintenance basis} us.] Embrace rationing of scarce products.

You want to win a war? You don’t do it in first gear. Shift to overdrive. Get it done! THAT’S HOW WE DID IT THE LAST TIME WE WON A WAR!

Yes, the last war we won was WWII. I remember the effort real well.

Then came Korea. Poor Harry. He had just put his balls on the table and dropped the bombs on Japan that won WWII. When Korea came up just a few years later, he didn’t have the balls to put us back at war. He called it a ‘police action’.

[I remember an interview-on-the-street during the Korean effort. A woman was asked if it was a war. She said 'no'. But the media person said, why isn't this a war? Our troops are deployed. They're getting killed; they're killing the enemy. Why isn't this a war? She replied {TOTALLY ACCURATELY, having just lived thru WWII}: A war is when you can't buy butter. A war is when gasoline is rationed. A war is when you live on ration coupons. A war is when you don't buy a new car; there are no new cars; you repair the one you have.]

So we fought what I would call a ‘vest pocket war’. And what happened?

For the first time in our history, the US failed to win a war. We killed a lot of kids and, for all practical purposes, ended up right where we started. Disgraceful!

Yes, it gets worse; we LOST the Vietnam war.

My philosophy about being at war:

IT IS IMMORAL TO SEND YOUNG FOLK TO FOREIGN LANDS AS MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, TO FIGHT AND DIE, WITHOUT THIS COUNTRY’S FULL PRODUCTIVE SUPPORT. This country should either be at war or not. No ‘vest pocket’ approach.

Either do it right or don’t do it.

What do I think? Should we fight the war or quit?

I support the war.

We done good when we captured and executed Saddam. [It is clear he wanted to start WWIII. We are to be congratulated that we recognized the parallel to the 1930's and didn't placate the warrior dictator. We attacked.] We cut off the head of the snake. But this snake has many heads.

Now those multiple heads lead the terrorists. The terrorists are out to kill everybody they consider a Christian. It is a holy war. [We use their term, jihad, I think, but we don't really understand that it is a holy war; Muslim against Christian.] It is a kill or be killed reality. We must defeat them unconditionally if we are to have peace. Period.

Did you see the Pakistanis when 9/11 [and the deaths of 3,500 Americans] was announced? They laffed and cheered! They considered it an Islamic victory [which it was]. [When I say 'they', I don't just mean the adults; I saw kids, perhaps 5-10 and over, cheering those deaths. They are taught to kill us from the time they can talk.]

Do we have to annihilate all Muslims? No. There are some who have abandoned the teachings of their warrior founder and believe in peace. How do we find them? I’ll save that for a later post.

For now, let’s just remember: We must fight the war correctly.

That’s Plank # 1 of my platform.

II

 

Plank #2: Reconstitute our armed forces so that we are capable of fighting, and winning, a war.

[Yes, I know. This is really included in the first plank, but it's been a long time since we fought, and won, WWII. The numbers have changed, so, to be clear, I make this a separate plank.]

The steps we need to follow to win this war? Here they are:

First: Restart the draft. I read recently that our Army strength in Iraq was 160,000 folk. Can this be true? How in hell can you win a war with 160,000 troops in the battle zone?

A general stated that his target was, over the next few years, to build it up to half a million. For pity sake, even in 1952 [Korea] we had 2.5 million in the army. In WWII, we lost [killed or incapacitated], more or less, a half million lives! How many troops did we have in the combined forces?

In May of 1945, we had 8 million soldiers in the army. Our population then was about 134 million. Today, our population is about 300 million [in round numbers]. Today, we have more than twice the population as in 1945. How big of an Army should we have today if we want to win the wars [yes, two of them] in Iraq and Afganistan?

I’m tired of watching America be held at bay by third world countries that we outnumber what?, about 10 to 1? [Iraq numbers about 26 million folk. So does California, more or less.] To win this war, we need a standing armed forces [Army, Navy {including Marines} and Air Force] of at least 10,000,000 folk [men and women]. That’s less than 5% of our population. To have as big an Army as in 1945, pro rata, today, we’d have more than 16,000,000 men and women in the Army [and Air Force -- they were one in 1945].

Then we won’t be sending, immorally, a few, poor kids out to man a lonely outpost with less than 50 troops [read that as 10-20 or less] and getting killed by a car bomb.

I remember the words of General Patton [as recited in the movie, by George C. Scott as the general]: No one ever won a war by dying for his country; he won the war by making the other, poor, dumb bastard die for his country. Yes, I’m tired of sending our kids overseas to let them die for our country. I want to see a whole lot of the other guys die for their country!

You think we don’t have that power? I assure you that we do. We just have to cinch up our belts and GO TO WAR.

Just a day or so ago, I saw a General suggest that maybe the draft would be a good idea! No lie! But not like Vietnam! Not a vest pocket draft. [The General had to be politically correct or forfeit his career. I have no such worries. If I haven't made this clear, I eschew political correctness in favor of saving American lives.] A WWII draft. Enough to do the job.

Then, do what you do to win a war [see plank #1].

That’s plank #2.

III

Plank #3: I advocate the BB4B Doctrine.

What’s that? First, a little history. Remember the Monroe Doctrine?

Announced almost 200 years ago by President Monroe. Basically, it stated that if any European nation attempted to expand its holdings anywhere in the Americas, the U S would treat that as an attack on itself and go to war against any such encroaching country.

The theory was simple: Any expansion into the Americas, North, Central or South, would threaten our nation. We couldn’t afford to have Spain, for example, build up its holdings in the Americas until it could have enough troops over here to attack the USA. So Monroe made it clear: The first step was one too many!

The BB4B Doctrine is similar. Let’s not be coy. We have too many nuclear powers in the world. [That is, countries with nuclear warheads.] Until recently, the nuclear powers were large, reasonable nations; that is, they had a lot to lose in a war. Recently, more of the criminal nations are trying to elbow their way up to the table with the big guys. [North Korea and Iran, for example.] They do this to blackmail us.

The BB4B Doctrine is: Any atomic program that could proliferate atomic weapons will be considered an act of war against the USA.

Will we invade every podunk nation that does so? No, we’ll just blow their nuclear capability off the face of the earth. No more begging these criminal nations to be nice. If they put together a nuclear warhead capability [or one reasonably calculated to do so], we will vaporize it.

That’s plank #3.

IV

 

Plank #4 and more? Don’t really have any more.

My domestic agenda? Easy. Essentially the same as during WWII. With full mobilization, there will be no unemployment of those willing to work; just like WWII. [Remember, WWII was preceded by the Great Depression. It got us out of it.]

With full employment by government contracting companies, who will be required to provide health care to employees, we’ll have no health care uninsured folk.

Our domestic agenda will be the same as it was in 1942: WIN THE WAR. [WWII was the greatest time in the history of this nation. Everyone worked together. The real threat was the Nazis and the Japs.]

I was on the west coast on 12/7/41; we had NOTHING to stop the Japs. When I went on active duty, those who had been in a position of planning told me that the Joint Chiefs had conceded all of the west coast to the Japs. The Rocky Mountains were to be our line of defense.

Thanks to the brave Phillipinos who magnificently delayed the Jap time table, the battle of Midway was fought in June [not January as planned by the Japs] and, since that had given us time to rebuild our Pacific fleet, [and thanks to some excellent strategy by the admirals and heroic efforts by many pilots] we won the battle of Midway.

Trust me: When we finally realize that our very way of life is being attacked today [just as in 12/41], our domestic problems will shrink as we fight the real enemy.

That’s the end of my first campaign speech.

[Maybe you disagree with my platform: I welcome questions/challenges to my admittedly simple platform.]

But I like simplicity. We obfuscate real needs with a multiplicity of junk issues while killing off our innocent young people. How can you live with yourselves while being a part of that random sacrifice [without hope of winning, just like Vietnam] of our youth?

I offer you a ‘return to yesteryear’; a return to when America was the greatest nation in the world, a return to success!

P. S. You want to know my name? You don’t like BB4G? Well, I’m sure that many of you know my name. You can easily figure out my name from all of the clues I gave you in ‘Who Am I?’ [with the help of the web], can’t you? Just to prove it, a 6 pack of Bud to the first person who posts my name in a comment — if you’re wrong, you owe me a case.

 

For a stronger, successful, America, I am BB4G.

No, this isn’t going to be an idiot exposition on metaphysical foolishness.

However, I thought you might like to know a little about me. I noted on a previous post that the existence of God has been proven in my lifetime. You may figure out that the concept of the universe as it truly is, the current concept of its enormity, was ‘born’ around the year I was born. I’ve been around for a while. Here’s a brief history of me:

My B S. [Geology major, Phi Beta Kappa] was from the U of Washington, 1956. You can’t beat geology as a foundation for the previous posts. I see much ado given to the lack of homogeneity in the initial universe; essential for the formation of galaxies, etc. If you had studied dendritic stream patterns, you’d understand. [True, it didn't hurt to be guided through the process by J. Hoover Mackin.]

Speaking of Dr. Mackin, it was he who first tutored me on the relationship between the Big Bang and the proof of God’s existence. It was at the close of a lecture. At that time, of course, Science held that the universe was eternal, immutable and unchanging. No creation. The lecture had just covered a portion of the text where that was reiterated. Dr. Mackin, his sly humor peeking out, said: ‘We all know the universe is eternal, immutable, etc. But there’s this Big Bang theory. It’s not accepted by science. We should all be aware, however, that if it ever is, the existence of God will have been proven by science.’

That long ago lecture led to this blog.

In my senior year at the U of W, I committed to the ministry. [The denomination into which I was born, and still belonged to at that time, was the Disciples of Christ - normally called the 'Christian' churches such as 'First Christian Church of Seattle'.] After graduation, since I was a ROT Corp person, I went to summer camp, received my commission in the U. S Army, Artillery, AAAGM [Guided Missiles]. During my stay at Ft. Bliss [11/1956 - 11/58] after completing OBC, I was assigned to the teaching group. My primary area of instruction was the computer of the Nike Ajax Guided Missile. I really enjoyed teaching.

While in El Paso, as a pre-the ['the' as in theme] person, I became active in the El Paso First Christian church . While there, to make a long story short, I learned [by way of a tragedy] that my goals as a preacher were not attainable. I abandoned my commitment to preach although I was still committed to apply to Yale Divinity. While in the Army, my family had moved to L. A.; I joined them while waiting for Yale Divinity [where John Oliver Nelson taught] to reject my application. I got a job as a lab technician in an R&D lab; I was eventually to become in charge of that lab. I was in the consumer manufacturing industry.

[That lab was, as far as I know, the first statistical lab in industry in the U.S. -- in the world, for all I know. That's how I became expert in small sample size statistics.]

I moved into Quality Control [another short version of a long story]. Eventually, I wanted my own department. [Naively enough, I thought that would make me happy in industry.] In those days, to get your own department, either an MBA or an MS in Business was required. So I got my MS in Business. My thesis was: ‘The Requisite Functions of a Quality Control Department’. [My GPA: 4.0.] As planned, I got my own department. It didn’t make me happy. Upon the advice of a friend, I decided to apply to law school.

I did so. Although my actual grade point at the U of W was just over 3.5, because of grade inflation it was entered, for purposes of admission to law school, as 3.75. The LSAT was the big barrier to law school. In those days, it was scored on a scale where 500 was average, 550 was required to get into any law school, 600 to get in to ABA schools [such as Loyola], 650 would get you in to any law school, 800 was max. I believed, with my IQ, I should get a score of more than 750. I received a 787. Loyola [the best ABA school in So Cal with a night program - I still had a family to support] welcomed me.

That’s where I got my J. D. [top 10%, St. Thos. More]; attained when I was 40 years of age. After 30 years in practice, the last 20 as a litigation lawyer [I advanced to the Sr. Litigation chair before I began my own practice], I closed my practice last June and, as of 1/1/07, I am an inactive member of the
California bar.

I am now planning to resume a 20 year dream — build a boat [my design, patent pending]. [The prototype was launched in 1984 - another long story.]

That’s my story and the end of this planned portion of this blog. I may post other items in the future that I need to get off my chest.

What now? I hope that you’ll be evangelical. As I said before, I hope everybody who believes in God knows that they have won the bet. The existence of God can not be challenged by any reasonable, honest person.

Be good to yourself.

What now brown cow?

According to Quentin Smith, and I agree, the numbers of atheists have gradually declined as the Big Bang moved towards acceptance. They dwindled steadily until the discovery of the CMB in 1965 [which killed Hoyle's 'steady state' nonsense] and then many more followed. Ditto when Penzias & Wilson won the Nobel prize. Current estimates of atheists in America range from 0.5% to 2.5%. [The 0.5% estimate is apparently the most accurate, i.e., based on much the larger sample size.]

In the ‘Roaring Twenties’, I am told, the percentage of atheists in America was about 20% [college students at that time were about 40% atheists].

To those honest folk who saw that they had lost the bet and honored it, I extend my congratulations. I respect a person who, upon losing a bet, pays up. Without protest or excuse. He/She placed the bet and honored its requirements. Such people are honest and honorable. By the way, numbered among those honest folk are Einstein and Hoyle; both of whom, although lifelong atheists, recognized God, the creator of the universe, before they died. [Not on their death beds, but while they were alive and well, but convinced by the evidence.]

But we still have atheists among us. I’m sure you know some of the more famous: Hawking and Quentin Smith, and, among college folk, I suppose Jon Voisey deserves a mention, for example.

Hawking is the most outrageous example. Most people don’t know that his wife is a Christian and prays for his survival every day and credits her belief in God for the strength to, first, marry him, and second to keep him going, day by day, for what is now over 40 years that he has suffered from ALS. Over 40 years! The second longest survival of ALS [the average is about 5 years] that I could find was 24 years. How can he deny the power of prayer? But he does.

Everyone who is still an atheist [or agnostic] is a welcher. A person who loses a bet and then denies making it. A dishonest person. A dishonorable person.

Now, of course, instead of admitting they lost the bet, Hawking and Smith have invented new arguments of cosmology that avoid God’s act of creation. Strange that none of these arguments appeared back in the 1750′s. Or by 1850. Or by 1875. Or by 1900. Or by 1925. Or even after 1935 when it was pretty clear the bet had been lost. No. No new arguments. No new bets . They stuck to their guns. “Nothing out of Nothing.” Now “Nothing out of Nothing” is exactly what Hawking argues. Nobody heard of a singularity in 1850. After 250 years of consistency [honest consistency], now the diehards have welched on the bet and scurry around like cockroaches looking for a way to escape the obvious conclusion that God created the universe.

How obvious is it? Ever heard of the watchmaker analogy?

I don’t refer to Paley’s bastardization of the watchmaker analogy in 1802. An that time, Paley changes it into an intelligent design argument.

No, the original argument which led to the watchmaker analogy is very simple. That argument is an example of our friend, the syllogism: 1. Every creation has a creator. 2. ‘This thing’ is a creation. 3. Therefore, whatever ‘this thing’ is, it has a creator.

The analogy was to a watch/watchmaker: 1. You see a watch. 2. You know it to be a creation. 3. Therefore, there must be a watchmaker; a creatorevery creation has a creator.

The key issue is whether or not a thing is a creation. Now you see where we’re going, right? The atheists, in order to deny the existence of God, the creator of the universe, had only one option: They had to deny the creation of the universe. They did so. For centuries no one could prove the universe was, indeed, a creation. How do we define a creation? It has a beginning.

The atheists said the universe had no beginning. It was eternal. It had always been and would always be: eternal; immutable; unchanging. That was their only option.

Now that option is gone; the universe is known to have had a beginning. About 13,708,010,000 years ago, right? [Not, as Hawking, et al, say, 13,708,020,000 years, right?]

Therefore atheism and agnosticism are no longer rational, nor scientific, options. Nor is Naturalism [the belief that God is 'everywhere' inside of the universe]. Let’s go back to our watchmaker analogy. You see the watch, right? You want to find the watchmaker, OK? Where do you look for the watchmaker? I don’t know either, but I can tell you one thing: You won’t find him inside the watch. So much for Naturalism.

So, how do we conclude? Very simply. Today, anyone who is an atheist, or an agnostic, or a naturalist must be labeled as: 1, Non-scientific, not a scientist, 2, irrational, 3, a welcher, 4, illogical, and 5, immoral.

Why non-scientific? Why cannot an atheist or agnostic or naturalist logically claim to be a scientist? Because the scientific evidence for the Big Bang is so overwhelming [see the COBE an WMAP data -- billions and billions of data points] that it couldn’t be disproved in our lifetimes [even if one of you is 5 years old and lives to be 125].

Why irrational? A person is irrational if that person ignores conclusive scientific data. The universe had a beginning; it is not eternal. It is a creation. It has a creator. The name we give to that creator is God.

Why a welcher? Because they lost the bet and won’t pay up. Sure, I agree that calling a teenager atheist a welcher about a bet they probably have never heard of may seem unfair. We know many who claim to be atheists have never researched that position. They are only a welcher de facto. Your job is to explain to them that the basis of the belief they have glibly ascribed to is long gone. Then if they don’t accept the fact that God created the universe, they’re welchers.

Why illogical? If you don’t accept the ‘watch/watchmaker’ syllogism, you’re illogical.

Why immoral? Advocating a position [such as atheism, agnosticism or naturalism] that may lead others to accept it, knowing that that position is invalid, is erroneous, can do damage to that person. Willfully attempting to mislead another person is immoral.

—– That’s the way it was;

—————That’s the way it is;

————————-That’s the way it will be.

I hope I’ve answered all of your questions. I hope you understand the conclusiveness of the scientific evidence that God created the universe. That any cosmology must begin with His act of creation. It must recognize e = mc^2, not ex nihilo.

I hope you feel comfortable in challenging an atheist’s beliefs; especially if the atheist [or agnostic or naturalist] is criticizing you for your belief in God. I hope you now realize that only belief in God, the creator of the universe, can be logically accepted. It is not you who is illogical; who is non-scientific; who is immoral: It is the non-believer. Yes, I challenge you to do so. I challenge the non-believer to accept God, the Creator of the universe.

True, I’m only saying that God as the creator of the universe must be accepted. Just that first step. The step that Einstein and Hoyle took. I’m not saying the Nicene Creed, or the Apostles’ Creed, or any other creed, must be accepted. I’m not even saying that God as the Father of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, and my Savior, must be accepted by a non-believer. No, just the first step: God as the creator of the universe. I don’t say that’s the end; but, just like those 500 lawyers, it’s a good start!

Thanks for your time and attention. I’ve said what I have to say. My next post will just say a little about me should you care.

Time to indulge in a little history lesson concerning how science came to be dominated by atheists. [Yes, not all branches of science, but most assuredly physics and astronomy.] Why do we care? To be able to prove that atheists no longer have a logical basis, we have to understand that when atheism became popular, they did.

At one time atheists, theists, agnostics, naturalists, all had a logical basis for their beliefs. Although that time began 250 -300 years ago, it persisted for a long time. Certainly it was viable as late as 1920. But that’s not when it started.

In the ‘dark ages’ [roughly 1000 to 1400], after Rome had converted to Christianity, the Roman Catholic church dominated everything.

Then came the Renaissance. The influence of the Roman Catholic church [of which I am a member] began to wane. But the Inquisition was still in progress. [Strangely, perhaps, the reformation, started by Luther in 1517, which diminished the control the the Roman Catholic church, fueled the most egregious witch hunts -- which were not a part of the Roman Inquisition.]

The Roman Inquisition lasted, more or less, through 1750. [The Spanish, through 1834 in Euruope.] But, even though the influence of the Roman Catholic church was waning, everybody believed in God, in heaven and in hell. What happened?

The Renaissance awakened scientific thought free from outright control by the Roman Catholic church.

The first clash between science and religion happened. It was the argument about Heliocentricity. Heliocentricity [accepted centuries before in India etc] was cautiously lectured on before Copernicus. The Church, of course, believed the earth was the center of the universe [although their concept of the universe was very ill-defined].

Then came along Copernicus. He had data to prove the sun was the center of the solar system; the earth revolved around the sun as did the other planets. He was afraid to publish his theory and supporting data because of the church and the Inquisition. A student nagged him into doing so. Did that lead to an inquisition trial? Did the Church prosecute Copernicus for his beliefs? No; it wasn’t published until he was on his death bed in 1543; he was given a copy, appeared happy and died.

The Roman Catholic church did not accept his teaching, of course. In the early 1600′s, another heliocentrist was burned at the stake. But the idea wouldn’t did, Galileo picked up the torch and advocated heliocentricity. He was tried in 1633, convicted of heresy and sentenced to house arrest. He died under house arrest for the crime of heresy. [He was too famous to execute..]

Obviously, scientists [all of which were heliocentrists, of course] in the late 1600′s to mid-1700′s were not enamored with the Roman Catholic church. Not having Kierkegaard’s ‘Attack on Christendom’ [it was written about 100 years later] to help them distinguish from belief in God and belief in the church ['Christendom'], they lashed out at God and widely rejected belief in God’s existence. They needed a theory to support such an outrageous [at that time] belief. [Outrageous then, reasonable 75 years ago; outrageous now.]

As the Scientific Revolution progressed, by the mid-1700s, the doctrine of materialism had gained much strength. It dates back, at least, to ancient Greeece. There the ‘Materialists‘ thought nothing mattered except matter. [The other major branch of philosophy then was the 'idealists'. They believed matter didn't exist; it was just an 'idea'.] The materialists thought reality began and ended with matter. They thought matter was eternal, immutable and unchanging. It had existed eternally. Consequently, so had the universe. There was no Creation.

That was just what the atheist scientists needed. If there was no creation, there was no God. This was there foundational position! They adopted materialism, and the God-less universe, en masse. Hume writes of the ‘eternal universe’ in the 1750′s.

Perhaps Politzer stated it best circa 1840: “The universe was not a created object; if it were, it would have to have been created instantaneously by God and brought into existence from nothing. To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first place, the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist, and that something came out of nothingness. This is something to which science can not accede.”

He recognized the ‘something out of nothing’ fallacy; note that he makes it clear that if the universe was created, there must be a Creator. [He constrains the Creator to do it in a moment -- he failed to recognize that before the creation of the universe, as we have discussed, there was no time; he also constrained the Creator to do it out of nothingness, but he didn't know about e = mc^2, did he?]

The important thing is that he recognized the bet. He believed he had the ultimate hole card: Nothing comes from Nothing. But e = mc^2 shows us that the universe came, not from nothing, but from God’s incredible energy

The atheists made their point clear: The universe was eternal, immutable and unchanging; therefore, there was no creation; nothing comes from nothing; they said there was no Creator; there was no God.

That was the bet!!!

The agnostics, when agnosticism became the choice of the intellectual, more or less in the 1920′s, made it clear. They told the atheists: ‘You deny the creation of the universe and therefore of God’s existence, but you can’t prove that there was no creation. We won’t join you in your belief until you can prove it.’ On the other side of the coin, the told the thests: ‘You believe that the universe was created and you can’t prove that either. We won’t join you until you can prove the universe was created.

They recognized the bet. Everyone did.

Then came Einstein,, Eddington, Lemaitre, Hubble [aided by Leavitt and de Slipher], Gamow and Penzias & Wilson: By 1967, with the latter’s work published and accepted [they were to win the Nobel prize in 1978], it was clear that the theists had won the bet. Creation was proven. God, the Creator, existed!!!

End of bet. End of any logical basis for atheism [and, of course, for agnostism]. [Naturalism, herein defined as the belief that God is everywhere within the universe {in the stars, in the trees, in the birds, in the bees} also bit the dust. A word about that later.].

Next post we’ll talk about what happened to atheism and today’s atheists, i.e., the welchers.

Time to indulge in a little history lesson concerning how science came to be dominated by atheists.  [Yes, not all branches of science, but most assuredly physics and astronomy.]  Why do we care?  To be able to prove that atheists no longer have a logical basis, we have to understand that when atheism became popular, they did.  At one time atheists, theists, agnostics, naturalists, all had a logical basis for their beliefs.  Although that time began 250 -300 years ago, it persisted for a long time.  Certainly it was viable as late as 1920.  But that’s not when it started.

In the ‘dark ages’ [roughly 1000 to 1400], after Rome had converted to Christianity, the Roman Catholic church dominated everything.  Then came the Renaissance.  The influence of the Roman Catholic church [of which I am a member] began to wane.  But the Inquisition was still in progress.  [Strangely, perhaps, the reformation, started by Luther in 1517, which diminished the control the the Roman Catholic church, fueled the most egregious witch hunts -- which were not a part of the Roman Inquisition.]  The Roman Inquisition lasted, more or less, through 1750.  [The Spanish, through 1834 in Euruope.]  But, even though the influence of the Roman Catholic church was waning, everybody believed in God, in heaven and in hell.  What happened?

The Renaissance awakened scientific thought free from outright control by the Roman Catholic church.

The first clash between science and religion happened.  It was the argument about heliocentricity.  Heliocentricity [accepted centuries before in India, etc.] was cautiously lectured on before Copernicus.    The Church, of course, believed the earth was the center of the universe [although their concept of the universe was very ill-defined].

Then along came Copernicus.  He had data to prove the sun was the center of the solar system; the earth revolved around the sun as did the other planets.  He was afraid to publish his theory and supporting data because of the church and the Inquisition.  A student nagged him into doing so.  Did that lead to an inquisition trial?  Did the Church prosecute Copernicus for his beliefs?  No; it wasn’t published until he was on his death bed in 1543; he was given a copy, appeared happy and died.

The Roman Catholic church did not accept his teaching, of course.  In the early 1600′s, another heliocentrist was burned at the stake.  But the idea wouldn’t die; Galileo picked up the torch and advocated heliocentricity.  He was tried in 1633, convicted and sentenced to house arrest for the crime of heresy.  He died under house arrest.  [He was too famous to execute.]

Obviously, scientists [all of which were heliocentrists, of course] in the late 1600′s to mid-1700′s were not enamored with the Roman Catholic church.  Not having Kierkegaard’s ‘Attack on Christendom’ [it was written about 100 years later] to help them distinguish from belief in God and belief in the church ['Christendom'], they lashed out at God and widely rejected belief in God’s existence.  They needed a theory to support such an outrageous [at that time] belief.  [Outrageous then, reasonable 75 years ago; outrageous now.]

As the Scientific Revolution progressed, by the mid-1700s, the doctrine of Materialism had gained much strength.   It dates back, at least, to ancient Greece.  There the ‘materialists’ thought nothing mattered except matter.  [The other major branch of philosophy then was the 'idealists'.  They believed matter didn't exist; it was just an 'idea'.]  The materialists thought reality began and ended with matter.  They thought matter was eternal, immutable and unchanging.  It had existed eternally.  Consequently, so had the universe.  There was NO creation.

That was just what the atheist scientists needed.  If there was no creation, there was no God.  This was their foundational position!  They adopted materialism, and the God-less universe, en masseHume writes of the ‘eternal universe’ in the 1750′s.

Perhaps Politzer stated it best circa 1840:  “The universe was not a created object; if it were, it would have to have been created instantaneously by God and brought into existence from nothing.  To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first place, the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist, and that something came out of nothingness. This is something to which science can not accede.”

He recognized the ‘something out of nothing’ fallacy;  note that he makes it clear that if the universe was created, there must be a Creator.  [He constrains the Creator to do it in a moment -- he failed to recognize that before the creation of the universe, as we have discussed, there was no time; he also constrained the Creator to do it out of nothingness, but he didn't know about e = mc^2, did he?]

The important thing is that he recognized the bet.  He believed he had the ultimate hole card:  Nothing comes from Nothing.  But e = mc^2 shows us that the universe came, not from nothing, but from God’s incredible energy.

The Atheists made their point clear:  The Universe was Eternal, Immutable and Unchanging. Therefore, there was no Creation; Nothing comes from Nothing; they said there was no Creator; ergo, there was no God.

That was the bet:  ‘Until you can show me that the universe is not eternal; until you can show me that the universe had a beginning; until you can show me the universe was created, I will tell you there is no God.’

The agnostics, when agnosticism became the choice of the intellectual more or less in the 1920′s, made it clear as well.  They told the atheists:  ‘You deny the creation of the universe and therefore the existence of a Creator, namely God, but you can’t prove the universe is eternal and that there was no creation.  Therefore, we decline to believe as you believe until you can prove what you believe.’    On the other side of the coin, they told the theists:  ‘You believe in the creation of the universe and therefore the existence of a Creator, namely God, but you can’t prove that any more than the atheists can prove the other.  Therefore, we decline to believe as you believe until you can prove what you believe.’ 

They recognized The Bet.  Everyone did.

Then came Einstein,, Eddington, Lemaitre, Hubble [aided by Leavitt and de Slipher], Gamow and Penzias & Wilson:  By 1967, with the latter’s work published and accepted [they were to win the Nobel prize in 1978], it was clear that the the theists had won the bet.  Creation was proven.  God, the Creator, existed!!!  End of bet!  End of any logical basis for atheism [and, of course, for agnostism].  [Naturalism, herein defined as the belief that God is everywhere within the universe {in the stars, in the trees, in the birds, in the bees} also bit the dust.  A word about that later.].

Next post we’ll talk about what happened to atheism and today’s atheists, ie, the welchers.

Reality conspired to shoot down the atheists. What happened? There was a fantastic interplay between theory and observation [data collection]. Let me give you my summary of the critical events. I do so in two fonts with a common time scale. The bold font sets forth the theoretical advances; the italic font sets forth the observations that confirmed/advanced the theoretical concepts. Together, this will give us the data to prove the existence of God. Here it is:

1905 Einstein publishes the Special theory: e=mc^2 is born.

1908 Ms. N. S. Leavitt discovers the relationship of period:luminosity for Cepheid stars and begins to study it.

1912 She publishes her results and the ‘standard candle’ is born.

1912 V. Slipher observes a “Milky Way nebula’s” ‘red shift’.

1915 Einstein publishes the General Theory of Relativity.

1919 Eddington, during a solar eclipse, confirms the GTR’s prediction of the amount of gravitational bending of light by the sun and publishes it. [This also acquaints the world with the GTR which, since it was published during WWI, was mostly unknown.]

1927 Lemaitre solves the GTR equations showing an expanding universe and realizes it means the universe had a beginning which he labels ‘the primary atom’ and promotes his findings.

1928 Hubble uses the Cepheid data to prove that the so-called Andromeda ‘nebula’ is in fact a galaxy beyond the Milky Way [UP TO THAT TIME, science believed the Milky Way galaxy was the whole universe]. He then uses de Slipher’s discovery of the red shift to confirm that the universe is expanding and defines the Hubble constant [the rate of expansion] and the world recognizes [Hubble never does] that the inverse of the Hubble constant is the age of the universe. This confirms Lemaitre’s prediction. The impact is lessened, however, because Hubble’s first estimate of the Hubble constant is 500 [6 to 7 times too large, right?] so it predicts an age of the universe of only 2 billion years; at that time the earth is known to be over 3 billion years old.

1935 Hubble’s proof that the Andromeda ‘nebula’ is in fact a galaxy is accepted by mainstream science, and, by that time, Hubble has found many more galaxies so that the universe is 1,000 [a million? a billion?] times bigger than ever imagined.

1937 through 1947: World War II virtually shuts down this area of scientific inquiry.

1948 Gamow improves Lemaitre’s criticized model; he predicts the CMB and the fusion of H:He nuclei.

1948 Hoyle advocates the ‘steady state’ model.

1948 On radio, Hoyle sarcastically dubs the Lemaitre/Gamow model the ‘Big Bang’.

1949 Hoyle again uses ‘big bang’; this radio station publishes transcripts.

1950 The phrase ‘big bang’ first appears in print.

1951 Pope Pius XII accepts the Big Bang theory on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church.

1965 Penzias & Wilson accidentally discover the CMB; mainstream science joins Pope Pius XII and accepts the Big Bang. [Today, of course, P&W's work has been confirmed a billion fold, each, by COBE and WMAP.]

TODAY: The Big Bang is no longer a theory; it’s the truth.

That’s the data. Next time we’ll talk about how the bet came to be and how the data resolves the bet against atheists [and agnostics, naturalists, etc.].

Now we know the energy God used to create the universe [i.e., how, in a simple way, he did it, that is, he didn't do it ex nihilo]; we know when He did it and we know the fossil that proves that he did it, right?

How does that fit into the purpose of this weblog? How does that help fulfill the purpose of this weblog? [Remember?: To make Christians aware that only belief in God {as the creator of the universe} is logical. Rational. A scientifically proven fact.]

Why do I care about that? Why should you? Because for more or less 250 years atheists [and agnostics and naturalists] have been calling Christians stupid. And we looked stupid [creation ex nihilo], right? By way of this weblog, we know better, right?

I want it to come to pass that the next time any Christian, anywhere in the world, is confronted with an atheist who says to get with science and become an atheist, that that Christian can say: ‘Whoa, mi amigo. It is exactly science that I am aligned with and science that now proves the existence of God.

I want to get Christians off the defensive and to be assertive as carriers of the torch of truth. Yes, God’s truth. What truth? That we can prove God exists because he created the universe! AND if you disagree, you are not scientific, not logical, and are so biased as to close your mind to the truth.

So, let’s flesh out the previous posts and get down to it. How did the atheists lose their bet?

What bet? They bet that the universe was eternal, immutable and unchanging. It could not possibly be a creation because is had never been created. No creation; no creator. Therefore, God, the creator, did not exist.

What were the stakes of that bet? They bet their right to be atheists, at least to do so logically. [If you've never read Will James' essay, 'The Will to Believe', I suggest you do. It sets forth the atheist, agnostic and theist positions better than anything else I've ever read.]

We’ll talk more about the bet later, but before that we need a common field of data. Not a complete field, but one that covers the essentials required for our discussion. I’ll post that next time.

So what are we saying?

Before we get into that, let me say what we are not saying, i.e., what is the purpose of this weblog?

Unfortunately, although this weblog has been getting a nice number of hits lately [thank you very much], the only comments I have received are from an atheist. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure he’s a real nice kid. I’m sure he’s doing his best to cope with reality. BUT the purpose of this weblog is not to convert atheists. Sure, before I’m done I’ll point out that atheism [as well as agnostism, naturalism] have no logical foundation [although they did 50 years ago]; BUT I don’t expect the atheists to agree.

The purpose of this weblog is to get Christians to understand that only belief in God is logical; what do I mean by ‘logical’? Scientifically provable. Future posts will flesh this out.

What I’m concerned with is that, although I’m getting a nice number of hits, no Christian has commented.

Let’s talk a bit about comments. You don’t have to present an argument like I. Goat did to make a comment. I thought that when I said that Dr. Crain was wrong [about ab initio], I’d get a bunch of comments. That’s a foundational position of his. It has been a foundational position of Jewish-Christian theology for over 3,000 years. It’s wrong. Nothing comes from nothing; I explained how God made the universe [not from nothing; from his tremendous energy]. AND I’ve got no comments.

Are any Christians reading this weblog? Do you all agree that Dr. Crain is wrong and I am right???? Sure, I’d like that to be true, but I find it hard to believe that you can change horses in midstream without a comment.

Here’s some sample comments I’d like to hear from Christians:

How can you call Dr. Crain wrong? Who are you? Dr. Crain is a great man!

Gee, you might be right; tell me more.

Thank you for uniting e = mc^2, which the atomic bomb proves, with God.

You’re going to roast in hell.

Yes, I’ve always believed [reinforceded by my science classes] that 0 = 0.

You’re either crazy or brilliant — I’m waiting.

Our Bible group is going to discuss this with Dr. Crain; more later.

See? You don’t need a lot of words. I’d appreciate the feedback. The next few posts are fertile grounds for feedback. I never intended to lecture on reality. If I had, I wouldn’t have needed a weblog. I could have done a site and published my work and let it go.

But, I didn’t have enough time to do the research I would have liked to do. So I thought a weblog, which can be interactive, would be the way to go. I’d set forth my position and invite comments. So far, that hasn’t worked. You’ll notice I don’t site my sources. I hope to get you to look for what I found. Maybe you’ll find something better! Maybe we’ll come up with something we all could call the truth. Ain’t that what we all want? For that matter, isn’t that what God wants?

So much for the position portion of this post. Now on with it.

I repeat: So what are we saying?

First, we are saying that we agree with one thing the atheists and everyone else [Hawking, Guth, Lederman, Smith, etc.] agrees with:

At the beginning, at the first instance, at the time the Big Bang began, nobody knows what happened. That’s important! That puts us all on a level playing field. The basis of this weblog is what happened at the beginning.

Let me point out a few contradictions within the atheistic view. I’ve already pointed out Smith’s description of the singularity as a ‘caldron’. Ain’t no zero dimensional caldrons, are there? Hawking has a similar problem. First, he says that the singularity was a time when ‘all the laws of physics would have broken down’. Later, in the same lecture, he says ‘the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe’. Gee, Steve, you can’t have it both ways. The ‘laws of physics’ are the ‘dynamical laws’. All atheists have a problem in that they attempt to describe how things were when the Big Bang began.

Why is it that atheists have such a problem getting the Big Bang started? That’s easy. They’re trying to do the impossible. When does time begin?

Everyone sems to have forgotten about our friend Einstein. Remember spacetime? One word. Inseparable. Until space is created, time does not begin.

We all know this about creations. Take a well-known example. A creation we’re all familiar with. A car. Sure, we call this a mass-produced product. But it is still a creation. It is created. So when does a car become a car? The creation process begins, let’s say, when the frame goes on the assembly line. Is that a car? Obviously not. Then you have the body, [but not the doors] and, let’s say, the engine but not the transmission,, etc I ask again, is that a car? Nope. When does the car become a car? When it’s completely created and not a moment before.

But, you say, I can measure the time it takes to create that car. True enough. But that’s because, now, the universe is created [and has been for 13,708,010,000 years, right?] and spacetime is a reality. But, as I’ve noted before, before the universe was created, spacetime did not exist and time had not begun. That means that for the universe time does not begin until the creation process is complete.

That means it is nonsense to ask how ‘long’, that is, how much ‘time’, it took. There was no time. Did God convert the energy of 5 quintillion quintillion quintillion A-bombs into matter giving us the CMB in an instant? Oops! You see how easy it is to ask about time before time began. However God did it, it took no time, because time did not exist. How arrogant of man to believe he can understand the process by which God did it. We cannot.

That’s why the atheists have such a tough time explaining it. They cannot. Nor can anyone.

What’s important is that the Big Bang proves the existence of God.

That’s obvious, right? Well, we’ll talk some about it in the next posts.

As we said last post, the CMB is the fossil of the Big Bang. When the CMB was formed, God’s act of creation was over. All matter and all energy were present in the universe. How long ago was that? When we know that, we’ll know the age of the universe.

First, we’ll need to know, on the atheist cosmology, how old the universe was when the CMB was formed. The number will be small compared to the total age of the universe. Then, simply by subtraction, the age of the universe will be determined. I don’t like subtracting numbers with wildly different orders of magnitude.

I’ve said before I accept the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years [to 3 significant figures]. I still do, but it’s much more shaky than I thought when I wrote that. Before the 13.7 figure, the age was said to be 15 billion years. And the solar system was thought to be 5 billion years old. Then the estimates became 13.7 billion years for the universe and 4.567 billion years for the solar system. Notice that 13.7 divided by 15 = 5 divided by 4.567 [4.567 is really 4.56666]. I thought that indicated an agreement among authorities as to the value of the Hubble constant although I mentioned it didn’t seem perfect. I was wrong.

For this effort, I needed a value for the age of the universe to 7 significant figures [that takes it down to the 10's of thousands of years column -you'll see why I care in a moment]. I researched recent estimates of the Hubble constant. Harvard publishes them all. Rather than converging nicely in the recent past, the estimates varied a bunch. So much for a value accepted by science.

Data analysis is the next step. I wanted to see if any appeared fit to average. If your value is based on an average, more significant figures can be justified. If n = 10, 1 additional significant figure can be claimed; if n = 100, 2, etc.

I viewed all estimates from 2004 forward. 2005 has little data, so I compared 2005 & 2006 with 2004. [If they had been fit to average, I would have gone further back until data not fit to average was found.] The 2004 data was not fit to average with the 2005-2006 data. [Only one point from 2005 was included.]

Some of the 2006/5 data claimed significantly less variability of the result than others. That is, the accuracy claimed was significantly greater than the others. That indicates that the more recent data is more correct than 2004. The 2006/5 data could not be averaged [logically] with the other values. I averaged those with the 2006/5 data – those with the significantly greater accuracy [smaller +/- values].

The average value of the Hubble constant was 72.95, exactly, or 72.950000 [n = 40]. No, my data isn’t enough for 8 significant figures, but the statistical sins are small.

That gives an age of the universe of 13,708,019,191.91919 [the last two digits, of course, are a repeat pattern] years. That agreed nicely with the 13.7 figure and can be rounded off to 13,708,020,000 years. See hello to the first 7 significant figure estimate of the age of the universe! [Do we believe those 7 significant figures are accurate? Well, not necessarily, but do you have a better one? As I said, I need a 7 significant figure estimate to correct the atheist cosmology, so I'm going to use it to do so. You'll see that to 3 significant figures, it still comes out to 13.7, but you'll see the difference.]

Where were we? Oh, yes. When did the CMB form? Not when did it emerge. [Normally referred to as the 'Epoch of Last Scattering' and normally given an age the varies between 300,000 to 400,000 years after the big bang]. [As I'm sure you know, none of the opinions expressed here are original with me {With the exception of that 7 significant figure effort}. I read and report.]

Most discussions of the model don’t describe the nacent CMB. They go from a few minutes to the Epoch of Last Scattering in one step. One does. It focuses on the 10,000 year mark. At this time the creation of the H:He nuclei ratio has begun. Eventually, the energy density in the matter becomes larger than the energy density in radiation. Matter will then dominate in determining how the universe expands from this era on. The nacent CMB has been born — at 10,000 years.

At this time, the universe is a fog. The nacent CMB will take about 300,000 to 400,000 years to emerge from the fog. [The analogy is to clouds we see today. The light we see from clouds is from an epoch of last scattering, but the light isn't born at that epoch. It came from the sun, right? The CMB is formed within the universe, at the 10,000 year mark, but still must leave the matter behind. The rate of movement of the CMB is the speed of light; the matter a bit slower.]

This cosmology state that the nacent CMB is the beginning of the universe. At 10,000 years. It’s the end of God’s creation process. How old is the universe?

13,708,020,000 years minus 10,000 years = 13,708,010,000 years.

Sure, that rounds off to 13.7 billion years, but we know the difference, right? In time, maybe we’ll have an estimate of the universe to 7 significant figures. Maybe not.

The point is, that this cosmology agrees with the atheist cosmology for more than 99.9999% of the atheist cosmology. That’s less than 1 part in 1 million. Surely, you’re not going to let a factor of 1 part in 1 million exclude God, are you?

Next time, we’ll discuss this result a bit.

We’ve learned that the singularity never happened. Like 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, that’s a good start! But it’s not enough. We’re not through.

After the singularity, the atheist LambdaCDM model next tells us that something called ‘inflation’ occurred. [Clever folk, those atheists. They know we all believe in economic inflation {but who really understands it's cause?}, so why not ask us to believe in a cosmic kind of 'inflation'?]

‘Inflation’ is just as impossible as was the singularity. ‘Inflation’ is supposed to be a time, after the singularity, in which the universe expanded at a speed greater than the speed of light! I hope that makes you LOL.

We know that that cannot happen, right? Didn’t some guy say that even if an object just reached the speed of light it would be infinitely heavy? Didn’t he say that the speed of light cannot be exceeded? Doesn’t most everybody believe this guy? I know his GTR is pretty well accepted. His special theory was well enough received to lead to the atomic bomb. I don’t think a process, i.e., ‘inflation’, that violates the GTR can be seriously considered.

Just like the singularity, ‘inflation’ is another figment of the atheist imagination. Again, we have to ask, as we did last post, why do the atheists love it?

That’s easy. It goes back to the discovery that confirmed the big bang as fact. The straw that broke the back of the big bang detractors, i.e., Hoyle and his ‘Steady State’ theory. A discovery that was predicted long before it was found. What am I referring to? The CMB [cosmic microwave background radiation -- now it's referred to, usually, as CMB rather than CMBR]. The existence of the CMB was predicted by Gamow way back in 1948. Originally visible light, now, over 13 billion years later, it would have red-shifted all the way to the microwave spectrum. And be really cold; almost absolute zero. And be visible no matter in what direction you looked.

In 1963, it was discovered, accidentally, by Penzias and Wilson. They got the nobel prize for its discovery in 1978. Subsequent data collected by COBE and WMAP have confirmed everything Gamow predicted.

The CMB is often referred to as the big bang fossil. Physical proof that the big bang occurred. It cannot be doubted by any reasonable, honest person; nor can the big bang be doubted.

That’s the problem the atheists faced. Theists know that God created the big bang. No singularity; no ‘inflation’; God. [Although it seems I'm the only theist who will integrate God into a big bang cosmology -- see next post.] The atheists had to come up with a theory that avoided God. It takes two impossibilities to do it. The singularity wasn’t enough [it got rid of God, but didn't give us the universe]. ‘Inflation’ gave us the CMB. The CMB gives us the universe. That’s why the atheists had to have it.

But two impossibilities don’t make a right, right? As Eddington said, “Accidental truth of a conclusion is no compensation for erroneous deduction.” Next post we’ll make it clear when God created the universe, that is, when ‘in the beginning’ began.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.