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.