Anti-(Miso) theists are forced to believe in Anti-science

[Occam's Spork]

Good science shows that in this world, perpetual motion machines and ‘free energy’ machines are absolutely impossible. The first and second laws of thermodynamics dictate with absolute certainty that these machines are impossible, and any claims of making or discovering such a machine are either mistaken or fraudulent. But upon reflection, this knowledge leads, if you are willing, to believe in our glorious Creator, God.

So, either way, for atheists, the universe must be a ‘free energy’ perpetual motion machine, by unavoidable definition.
Perpetual motion machines and ‘free energy’ machines are imaginary machines that can either run forever without additional fuel, or they can produce more work, energy and/or fuel than they use.

Now, the whole universe can be thought of as a kind of machine. It has moving parts, it contains fuel, it uses energy in stars and in the sun and in other ways, and it does a kind of work. But, for people who don’t believe that a creator God exists, the universe is in fact—as will be shown—a ‘free energy’ perpetual motion machine. Why?

For atheists, the universe (defined as all the matter and energy that exists, which also covers any hypothesized ‘multiverse’), either:

Came into being without any work or fuel or energy provided from any other source. I.e. it made all the work and fuel and energy there is. Or:

Is eternal. In which case it is by definition capable of running forever without any energy being added from the ‘outside’.

Most today would opt for option 1, as they are aware that the universe is heading towards the ‘heat death’ demanded by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which inescapably means it had a beginning.

But this obviously also demands that the energy arose ‘for free’, in contradiction to the First Law of Thermodynamics. So, either way, for atheists, the universe must be a ‘free energy’ perpetual motion machine, by unavoidable definition.

Thus the atheist hypothesis of a ‘Universe from Nothing’ is revealed to be no better than the futile imaginings of some misguided tinkerer, trying to harness ‘free energy’ or build a perpetual motion machine in his garage.

If, however, you believe that God created the universe, you don’t have to irrationally believe in a universe that must be a perpetual motion machine.
Make no mistake; it is bad science to believe in perpetual motion machines and ‘free energy’ machines. One atheist ‘copout’ is to postulate that the laws of science are themselves not fixed, evolved somehow, or are different in other parts of the alleged ‘multiverse’ mentioned earlier. It should be obvious that by abandoning the foundational axioms of observational science itself to support a preferred philosophy, proponents of such a rejoinder are abandoning the rationale for calling their view ‘scientific’ in the first place. If, however, you believe that God created the universe, you don’t have to irrationally believe in a universe that must be a perpetual motion machine. You can adhere to the very highest standards of observational and experimental science.

The sometimes atheist response, that this requires believing in a God who is the ultimate perpetual machine, is an obvious mistake (apart from the slight of describing God as a machine). Machines consist of matter and energy, part of the material world which God (who is spirit, and whose “kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) created. Science only dictates that perpetual motion machines are impossible in this material world, which is subject to the laws that God Himself put in place.

So the choice comes down to either having to believe in an entity that science says is impossible—the nonsensical, self-contradictory, unscientific atheistic notion of a universe that must be a ‘free energy’ perpetual motion machine, or believe in the eternal God who gave rise to the universe—all matter and energy—and instituted the laws by which it operates.

Hence reason, logic and science lead to belief in our wonderful, mighty, glorious Creator, God!

[Gort]

Matter or Anti-matter?

[Occam's Spork]

Aug 4, 2020 14:42:32 GMT 10 Gort said:

Matter or Anti-matter?

Anti-matter.
Everyone's favourite destructive relative.

[pim]

Paradoxes are nothing new Occam. We have a secular conservative government of which two of the past three prime ministers have been - and are - icons of conservative, dare I say reactionary, Christian fundamentalism. The first of these was a former trainee priest seminarian. I’m amazed at how these people can pivot to advocate positions that are in total conflict with Christian values and yet present as staunch upholders of Christian values. Tony Abbott, a close personal friend and soulmate of your Stephen Harper, spoke at a conservative dinner in London as guest of honour to explain Australia’s hardline policy on boat people and he spent the speech explaining how Christianity was an obstacle to the national interest when it comes to refugees and that what was needed was not Christian charity towards the stranger at the gate but a hardening of hearts. The current Prime Minister is a fervent Pentecostalist and if his actions since entering politics are a guide to 1 Corinthians 13 then Pentecostalism would be denounced by St John’s gospel on the Apocalypse as being a creation of the Anti-Christ. On the secular level we have currently a government by a political coalition that for all of its existence of 100 years has advocated small government and low taxes and budget surpluses to fund middle class welfare that in the past 5 months has pivoted a full 180 degrees and has implemented a Keyneseyan program involving the expenditure of eye-watering amounts of hundreds of billions of taxpayer $$$ to keep the economy on life support and which has placed the prospect of balanced budgets (forget surpluses) beyond the lifespan of anyone alive today. Circumstances change, facts change, minds change. The universe carries on, indifferent to the paradoxes of the chattering bipedal life forms that infest the third planet from a middle aged star on the edge of one of the trillions of galaxies doing whatever it is that galaxies do.

[pim]

Slight clarification on "reactionary": I don't mean to imply that all devout Christians are ipso facto" reactionary. People don't all receive the Christian gospel in the same spirit. I can think of two Australian senators offhand whose social conscience is informed by their Christian faith and they've each taken it in a very progressive direction. One is originally from Ohio but has lived in Australia for decades, Kristina Keneally and the other is originally from Malaysia and is now the Labor leader in the Senate, senator Penny Wong.

While Kristina Keneally and Penny Wong, both members of the Labor Party and representing, respectively, the States of New South Wales and South Australia in the Australian Senate, are progressive Christians whose Christianity informs their politics as Labor Senators - indeed they would argue that it was their Christian faith that drew them to the Labor cause, there are others such as the Prime Minister Scott Morrison whose Christianity has led him to take positions on social and political issues that are the complete negation of the Christianity of Keneally and Wong. But the standout example of a very public Christian - a one-time seminarian, or trainee Catholic priest - who does a public somersault with pike in both avowing Christianity and yet at the same time pointing to its social message, such as in the parable of the Good Samaritan as well as the teachings on brotherly love and charity contained in Matt 25:35-40 and 1 Cor 13, as subversive and harmful - particularly as it relates to asylum seekers. His latest brain snap is to denounce as a “health dictatorship” health care professionals who take their Hippocratic Oath seriously and care for the all the victims of the coronavirus Including the elderly instead of letting them die. Occam you don’t know Tony Abbott like we do. This is not a one-off isolated brain snap.

Tony Abbott: some elderly Covid patients could be left to die naturally

‘Health dictatorships’ failing to consider economic costs of crisis, ex-Australian PM says



www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/01/tony-abbott-some-elderly-covid-patients-could-be-left-to-die-naturally

Tony Abbott, the former Australian prime minister tipped to become a UK trade envoy, has railed against Covid “health dictatorships”, saying the economic cost of lockdowns meant families should be allowed to consider letting elderly relatives with the coronavirus die by letting nature take its course. He claimed it was costing the Australian government as much as $200,000 (£110,000) to give an elderly person an extra year’s life, substantially beyond what governments would usually pay for life-saving drugs. Abbott said not enough politicians were “thinking like health economists trained to pose uncomfortable questions about the level of deaths we might have to live with”. More politicians should have asked whether the cure was proportionate to the disease.

The goal of governments had moved from preventing hospitals being overwhelmed with coronavirus patients to achieving zero transmission, he said, with the aim of preserving almost every life at almost any cost. Abbott claimed the cure for the pandemic, including extended lockdowns, was creating a “something for nothing mindset” among young people living on furlough.

“It’s a bad time for anyone with the virus, but it is also a bad time for people that would rather not be dictated to by officials, however well meaning,” he said in a speech at the Policy Exchange thinktank in London. In this climate of fear it was hard for governments to ask ‘how much is a life worth?’ because every life is precious, and every death is sad, but that has never stopped families sometimes electing to make elderly relatives as comfortable as possible while nature takes its course.”

[KTJ]

[fat]

One day Mr Abbott will be old too.