"Materialism requires adherence to its rules
especially if that means getting the
biggest questions completely wrong." -Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio takes on all atheists, with:
- Five irrefutable observations disproving the atheist belief that they even have a theory of origins
- Ten atheist clichés each refuted in under ten seconds
- No symbolic logic functions in the classical laws of physics and chemistry
- Methodological naturalism requires adherence especially if that means getting the biggest questions completely wrong
- Bob Enyart vs. Bertrand Russell
- Materialists vs. everything
- Materialists vs... matter?
- Our "Does God Exist?" debate with the psychologist Zakath, TheologyOnline's resident atheist
- Ten atheists we've interviewed and debated include Lawrence Krauss, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer, and we've sparred with others including PZ Myers, NASA's Mary Voytek, Phil Plait, Aron Ra, and Jerry Coyne
- Bonus resources including a cure for atheism, our debates with accomplished opponents including a geophysicist and a theistic evolutionist, and our $23,000 grant offer to Jurassic Park famed paleontologist Jack Horner to carbon date a bone.
* Do Atheists Even Have a Hypothesis on Origins? Because atheists don't have a workable hypothesis to account for human consciousness, therefore they don't even have a theory to explain where we've come from, let alone a robust theory. The following pattern shows that atheists do not have even a hypothesis on origins, as demonstrated by these five irrefutable observations:
- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse
- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from already existing alien life
- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence
- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes
- the origin of species by neo-Darwinists begins with existing complex reproducing life.
This pattern demonstrates that many in the public, following a gullible media, have undue confidence in the claims about origins from materialists. Consider also:
- Plate tectonics theory begins with plates already in existence, and has no mechanism for the initial breaking of the crustal plates.
- Water as the key to originate life ignores what NASA's senior astrobiologist Dr. Mary Voytek admitted to us that because water is the universal solvent, it is not the solution but the abiogenesis problem because it ruthelessly dissovles "prebiotic" molecules. The list of abiogenesis killers, that is, the resources that are vital to maintain life but that are destructive of prebiotic molecules, includes water, sunlight, ions, and oxygen.
- Just the right chemicals could come together for life to arise, allegedly. Yet at every moment around the world quintillions of dead organisms at every stage of decomposition provide all the chemicals needed in astounding abundance yet as predictable from the foundational law of biogenesis, life does not arise.
- Even the origin of planets and stars are extremely difficult for physicists to account for without beginning first with already existing protoplanets and protostars or with the explosion of already existing stars.
* The Laws of Physics and Chemistry Have NO Symbolic Logic Functions: Therefore, any biological scheme that uses symbolism cannot arise by any material means based on classical physics and chemistry. So the genetic code, and the visual data that is encoded and transmited to the brain's optical cortex for deciphering and interpretation, etc., cannot evolve. Consider from Bob's presentation at Pepperdine University...
Consider also the origin of something as relatively simple as the eye's trochlea (click or just Google: PZ trochlea), for which famed evolutionist PZ Myers admits that a lifetime of studying Darwinism gives him no insight into how such utter simplicity could have evolved. Then how about something complex? In very general terms, how might a material process originate to encode a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule as an instruction set for building that protein? Atheists have nothing. And they will forever have nothing, because a high-level understanding of physics and information affirmatively demonstrates that the laws of physics do not include symbolic logic functions. Information is not physical, and hence, strictly material systems cannot give rise to information systems.
Here is another way of stating this: Not a single journal paper has ever proposed even a vague theoretical method of how a scheme of biological information could have arisen by material processes. Such a scheme minimally includes three parts: 1) a protein or other life-enabling device 2) an information molecule containing the instructions for building that protein, and 3) a mechanism that implements the instructions. Materialists cannot answer this question because it is unanswerable. Consider the inventor of ASCII who arbitrarily assigned the letter "A" to the number 65, and explained that the system should render an "A" whenever it encounters the value 65. A scheme is not a physical system and thus cannot arise by materialistic means. Atheists have been unwilling to appreciate this fundamental reality because it is an enormous threat to their belief system. (See our video on this below.)
From Bob Enyart's Does God Exist debate here's a list of ten atheist clichés that can be disproved in eight seconds or less.
Atheist Cliché 1: There is no truth!
Theist Rebuttal: Is that true? [1 second]
Okay, well then...
Atheist Cliché 2: Truth is unknowable!
Theist Rebuttal: How do you know? [1 second]
Well then, for certain...
Atheist Cliché 3: There are no absolutes!
Theist Rebuttal: Absolutely? [1 second]
Well, okay, but...
Atheist Cliché 4: Only your five senses provide real knowledge!
Theist Rebuttal: Says which of the five? [2 seconds]
Ouch. Got me there. Okay, well at least...
Atheist Cliché 5: Logical arguments are not "evidence."
Theist Rebuttal: What is your evidence for that? [2.5 seconds]
Atheist Cliché 6: Only the physical realm is real!
Theist Rebuttal: That claim itself is not physical, so it's self-refuting. [3 seconds]
Atheist Cliché 7: Great suffering proves that a loving God cannot exist!
Theist Rebuttal: The unstated assumption is false, that suffering can have no value or purpose. [4.5 secs]
Atheist Cliché 8: Atheism is scientific, because science does not allow for a supernatural interpretation of an event!
Theist Rebuttal: This circular reasoning tricks atheists into assuming that which they thought they proved. [5 seconds]
Atheist Cliché 9: Widespread evil proves that a righteous God cannot exist!
Theist Rebuttal: The two unstated assumptions are false: that love can be forced; and that some love is not worth enduring much hate. [6.5 seconds]
Atheist Cliché 10: If theists claim that the universe could not have always been here, then God couldn't have always been here either.
Theist Rebuttal: The natural universe is subject to the physical laws, so it would run out of useable energy; a supernatural, spiritual God is not subject to physics. [7.9 seconds]
Alex Rosenberg in his Atheist's Guide to Reality argues that "Words have no meaning." To this bonus atheist cliché we reply, "But what do you mean?" If your worldview can be dismantled within eight seconds, then get a better one. (For more, see Bob Enyart's Battle Royale VII: Does God Exist? at TheologyOnline.com.)
* In Case You Skipped the Video Above, Really, You'll Want to See It! Trading Genesis: No Atheistic Theory of Origins Even Exists. Atheists say that God doesn't exist, but what actually doesn't exist is an atheistic theory of origins. See Bob Enyart detail this in his talk in Malibu on the Pepperdine University campus:
* Famed Materialist Richard Lewontin Makes the Creationist Case about Materialism: Famous atheist, evolutionary biologist, mathematician, and geneticist Dr. Lewontin (doctoral student of Theodosius Dobzhansky) confirmed Bob Enyart's observation at 34:10 into the above video, that atheism is not based on any law of science or scientific discovery but instead on mere assumption:
We take the side of [materialist] science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs [and] in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations... - Richard Lewontin
The New Testament indicates that even Christianity itself is falsifiable stating that, If Christ is not risen, then our faith is false (1 Cor. 15:14). Yet materialists cannot match such courage, covering themselves in a layer of non-falsifiable anti-science. Materialism provides the ultimate bias. Most rules of investigation are designed, at least superficially, to discover the truth. Contrary to that, says Bob Enyart, "Methodological naturalism requires adherence to its rules especially if that means getting the biggest questions completely wrong." So when an atheist claims that atheism is more scientific than theism or that science affirms atheism, he is showing his ignorance, or fear, or he's just lying. And as it turns out, as at rsr.org/sayings, the most famous atheist is the one who can say the greatest absurdity with the straightest face. Frank Turek, an apologist who's appeared on RSR, has asked, "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?" The atheist and others who answer, "No" tell you all you need to know.
Today's Resource: Please browse the Science Department
of our online store and help keep Bob Enyart's
Real Science Radio program on the air!
* Bob Enyart vs. Bertrand Russell: One of the leading atheists of the 20th century, and the most intelligent, Russell, similarly to the above examples, contradicts himself constantly. When asking, "whether we really know anything at all," Russell alleges that, "All knowledge is more or less uncertain and more or less vague." He seems contentedly oblivious to the observation that his statement is self-refuting, for if it were true, it would be uncertain, which of course would invalidate the very claim he was making. Contradicting himself yet again, also in Russell's Theory of Knowledge for Encyclopedia Britannica, the first half of his concluding paragraph is completely falsified by what follows, evidently unrealized by Russell:
Logic and mathematics on the one hand, and the facts of perception on the other, have the highest grade of certainty; where memory comes in, the certainty is lessened; where unobserved matter comes in, the certainty is further lessened; beyond all these stages comes what a cautious man of science would admit to be doubtful.
Bertrand seems oblivious to the fact that his claim itself would be doubtful. He could offer no mathematical proof for it. (In fact, he can't even prove mathematically that mathematics exists.) The laws of logic don't require it. And neither logic nor math are of any use without memory, which again undermines his claim, which itself is not made of matter, and certainly not of any "observed" matter, so the doubtful nature of his claim has multiplied yet again. So, by both standards, by Bertrand's own standards that he had just listed, and by the biblical standards that he seeks to undermine, his own claim is nonsense. Yet he continues:
The attempt to increase scientific certainty by means of some special philosophy seems hopeless, since, in view of the disagreement of philosophers, philosophical propositions must count as among the most doubtful of those to which serious students give an unqualified assent. [Enyart: Again, Russell is blissfully unaware that he is offering a philosophical proposition, all of which propositions, he says, must be "among the most doubtful".] For this reason, we have confined ourselves to discussions which do not assume any definite position on philosophical as opposed to scientific questions. -Atheist Bertrand Russell thoroughly contradicting himself
Without God all is nonsense. Further, on any of ten thousand topics, it is not humility to claim that, "No one can know for sure." Rather, that statement often amounts to a claim of virtual omniscience. Bertrand Russell above has presented not a belief established by scientific experimentation but a philosophical proposition which he simultaneously claims should not be given any credibility. And this is someone whom the culture ranked as among the most intelligent atheists in the world. Undoubtedly.
Compare Russell's ignorance to the brilliance of the father of quantum mechanics, Max Planck, who said, "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind." Further, in the same speech in Florence, Italy, Planck said that he's not afraid to call this creator "God." Compare Planck's intellect, and that of Isaac Newton, considered the greatest scientist and among those with the highest IQ ever, to Bertrand, who's rebellion against God brings him to contradict himself relentlessly. And see at our Creationist Fathers of the Physical Sciences show page our trivial rebuttal to Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian.
* RSR's Materialists vs. Everything List: (see this also at rsr.org/information#is-not-physical)
- Numbers are not physical.
- Math is not physical.
- Information is not physical.
- Grammar is not physical.
- Logic is not physical.
- Reason is not physical.
- Ideas are not physical.
- Science is not physical.
- Concepts are not physical.
- Morality is not physical.
- Truth is not physical.
- Souls are not physical.
- Spirits are not physical.
- Codes are not physical.
- The square root of negative one is not physical. Knowing where the truth leads, some atheists are afraid to acknowledge that numbers are not physical. In their fear, they throw a temper tantrum and insist that numbers, such as the number 3, are made of matter. One wonders what they'd think about the number googol, which is 1 followed by a hundred zeroes, a quantity greater than the number of particles in the known universe. For that matter, exponentially, they should be able to realize that a googolplex, 10 to the googol power, also cannot be made of matter because there too that much matter doesn't exist. And next we could ask the same atheist, "Are imaginary numbers, such as the square root of negative one, physical?" An imaginary number is a concept and as such, obviously, and like all concepts and all numbers, it is not made of matter. Yet scientists use imaginary numbers to better understand electric circuits and quantum mechanics. A strictly materialist big-bang universe though would be incapable of using an imaginary number, because imaginary numbers are not physical. Therefore, the square root of negative one reveals the intellect of the Creator! When He designed the function of quantum mechanics, like our own designers, He conceived of and implemented optimal designs using an immaterial concept that has no parallel in the physical realm. See more including what Wigner and Einstein thought about such things, at rsr.org/math#sq-rt-neg-one.
- Infinity is not physical. Yet it is real. Don't believe us? Then believe Vsauce...
- Consciousness is not physical. The best an atheist can make of a physical explanation for consciousness comes from one of the world's leading mathematical physicists, Roger Penrose, who wrote of the brain that it somehow has harnessed, "details of a physics that is yet unknown to human physicists." Other atheists including Daniel Dennett and Jerry Coyne argue that consciousness is an illusion. Why? They intuitively recognize consciousness, that is, awareness, as evidence against their materialism and for non-physical reality. Ironically though, even if it were an illusion, an illusion, being a concept, is non-physical, so that they can't even argue against such reality, since arguments too are non-physical. (See also above #no-origin-theory-exists and rsr.org/consciousness.)
- Genomes are not physical. They are information, that is, a genetic code, and can be losslessly copied onto different media; and while nothing physical can hitch a ride on a photon, a genome's information can be transported on fiber cable, for example at light speed, which is just another indication of its nonphysicality; etc.
- Pain is not physical. Non-sentient plants feel no pain; brain surgeons operate with a local anesthetic for the skull but without anesthetizing the brain, for the brain is the organ that feels no pain, yet ironically, it is the only organ where pain is "felt"; emotional pain is far greater than physical pain, for example, the excruciating pain of childbirth can be overcome in hours whereas even years often minimally mitigate the emotional pain that comes from the loss of a child; for physical pain first must to be translated into to the non-physical realm of awareness before being "felt"; etc.
- Your mind is not physical. Minor observations consistent with this include that when neurosurgeons magnetically or physically stimulate the part of the brain that causes a patient to lift an arm, and the patient says that while he is completely aware that his arm lifted, he is also aware that "he" is not the one who made the decision to lift his arm. Whether or not all (or even most of) the atoms in your brain are replaced over your lifetime, that does not replace you or your mind.
- Laws are not physical. This is true of perhaps all laws and certainly of criminal laws, civil laws, social rules, house rules, etc. Yet consider even the physical laws. Are they made of matter? Apparently not. Are they made of energy? Apparently not. As one consideration, quantum laws are probabilistic, and probability is a concept and not physical.
- And God is not physical.
And Materialists vs... Matter??? Perhaps, yes. So, how about matter itself? There still remains the very difficult question, "What is matter?" What if it turns out that matter is not physical? That is, would it matter if matter was not made of matter? Some scientists suspect that matter is information based, such that matter itself may not even be material. If so of course then, materialism is deader than a doorknob; it's less than a zero, after it's been erased. But that wouldn't even give most of them pause. They'd just become godless spiritualists. Consider though how leading physicists have wrestled with the fundamental nature of matter, and even whether it might be information based. Renowned physicist John Wheeler (1911-2008), a strong advocate of information theory, coined the terms "black hole" and "wormhole", collaborated with Einstein and Bohr, and advised graduate students Everett, Thorne, and Feynman. Wheeler described his career, and hence, his growing understanding of the universe, in three stages. First, "Everything is Particles." Second, "Everything is Fields." And finally, "Everything is Information." (To illustrate the uncertainty, see CIT's Sebens over at Aeon explains the raging uncertainty about whether electrons, etc., are actually particles or fields.) And over at BigThink in a 2017 article, The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information, they quote Wheeler's 1989 paper for the Santa Fe Institute:
"every it--every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself--derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely--even if in some contexts indirectly--from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits."
And Philip Perry at BigThink continues:
There are lots of theories on what the basis of the universe is. Some physicists say its subatomic particles. Others believe its energy or even space-time. One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos. Although this line of thinking emanates from the mid-20th century, it seems to be enjoying a bit of a Renaissance among a sliver of prominent scientists today...
If the nature of reality is in fact reducible to information itself, that implies a conscious mind on the receiving end, to interpret and comprehend it.
There is much in quantum mechanics that supports that. And the scientific origin even of the (absurd) multiverse/many-worlds belief was exactly an effort to avoid the implied requirement of consciousness which appears to many brilliant minds to be at the heart of physics. (See rsr.org/mutliverse#princeton.) Of course though in his article, like in that excerpt, Perry skips the conscious Mind that would first be on the transmitting end.
IBM's Phil Tetlow, writing of MIT, CIT, CMU's Edward Fredkin, sometimes Feynman collaborator, sometimes physics professor, quotes him saying, "I've come to the conclusion that the most concrete thing in the world is information" and as Wired puts it, Fredkin insisted that "everything we see and feel is information."
Tim Malden's 2019 text on Quantum Theory published by Princeton discusses "quantum information theory" in which physical changes in a system can occur based on "what someone believes about the system." On the first page of his book he asks, "What is matter?" Malden answers his own question, "The best theory of matter presently available is quantum theory. Our main task is to understand just what quantum theory claims [yet] no consensus at all exists among physicists about how to understand quantum theory... Instead, there is raging controversy." Perhaps then science will finally arrive at the New Testament teaching in Hebrews 11:3 that "the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" for "In the beginning was the Word, and... all things were made through Him" John 1:1-3. After all, God didn't generate, but He "said, 'Let there be light.'"
TOL's Battle Royale VII: Does God Exist? Bob Enyart debated TheologyOnline.com's resident atheist and psychologist Zakath on the question of Does God Exist? We reproduce here the debate's Table of Contents and two excerpts:
Table of Contents
Introduction & Moderator Begins the Debate
Round 1: Definition of God; Potential cost of atheism and theism; On evidence for the Creator from physics and biology
Round 2: On the existence of truth; On the existence of right and wrong; On the origin of the universe; On the origin of biological life
Round 3: Evidence for truth from multiple frames of reference; On morality; On the origin of the universe; On the origin of biological life; On disagreements over moral values; On the origin of consciousness
Round 4: On absolute morality; On the God of the Gaps; On universal conscience as evidence for absolute morality
Round 5: Implication of widespread evil; On absolute morality; On the God of the Gaps; On falsifiability of natural origins
Round 6: On God as the standard of morality; On falsifiability of natural origins; On disagreements over religious beliefs; On the falsifiability of Christianity; On the physics of creation; On scientific progress and religious faith; On the nature of physical and spiritual laws; On evidence for the Creator from the Solar System
Round 7: On conscience and sociopaths; On guilt as a cause of religious disagreement; On whether God’s nature can theoretically define an absolute moral standard; On the absolute nature of laws; On the effect of conscience; On the possibilities inherent in eons of time
Round 8: Accusations against the God of the Bible; On absolute morality; the mathematics of probability; On evidence for the Creator from human behavior; On atheist morality
Round 9: On evidence from higher biological functions like vision and flight; On natural selection as a conservative force
Round 10: On seven atheist sayings; On the Transcendental proof for God; On atheism and sodium pentothal (truth serum); On the scientific statements in the Bible; On prophecies in the Bible; On the non-prophecies of the Bible; On an offered conclusion
Moderator Ends the Debate
READ THE DEBATE: You can read this entire Battle Royale VII: Does God Exist? debate for free online in the 'Center Ring' in the 'Coliseum' at TheologyOnline.com or you can call 1-800-8Enyart (836-9278) or just click to purchase a comfortable paperback to read in bed or while at the park or sitting in your favorite arm chair! Here at Bob Enyart Live, we promise: You'll love this book, or your money back! (Now, how many authors make that offer? Our standard, no-small-print, five-word practice is: 30-day money-back guarantee!)
Russian Translation: If you have a Russian friend you'd like to share this with, thanks to Olga Nellis of Texas who is originally from Ukraine, you can download our translation of the initial rounds in Russian! (If you are fluent in Russian and would like to help Olga continue the translation, please email Bob@KGOV.com!)!
TWO EXCERPTS: Higher Biological Functions & The Transcendental Argument
Excerpt 1: Higher Biological Functions
I will show that it is irrational to believe that irreducibly complex higher biological functions like for example, vision, flight, echolocation, and even a giraffe's neck, could arise by chance. Science makes awesome progress in describing how things work. The entire cosmos, and especially biological life, is much more complex than what mankind had previously imagined. Remember the honeymoon period of atheism? As long as atheists still agree that complex functioning systems cannot appear by chance in one single step, then the more complexity science discovers, the more difficult it becomes to fathom a chance explanation for origins.
Vision: Consider vision systems, and the supposedly primitive brains with which evolutionists think eyesight evolved. Science has taught us that vision systems are wildly more complex than unscientific men may have imagined. For example, when photons strike the rods and cones in our eyeballs, the images they illuminate are communicated to our brains using symbols that do not correspond to the image itself. Look at my picture to the right. [Note, on TheologyOnLine, a member can have a graphic image called an avatar appear with each of his posts.] This picture format is called an Avatar. Yes… that picture, showing me in a suit and tie. Now, imagine that a primitive creature, say a mosquito, can use vision to increase his chances of survival, since it would help if he bites my neck rather than my shirt. Functioning vision systems provide extraordinary survival benefits to organisms. But that handsome picture of me (I'm bragging about the picture quality, not my looks), is not nearly as instructive (or as good looking) if you look at the actual data in the .GIF (Graphics Interchange Format) file that contains that picture. Most readers can right-click on the photo and then from the shortcut menu that pops up, select "Save Picture As…" and save it to your desktop as Bob.txt. Then, most readers can right-click on that file and open it with a text editor like Microsoft Notepad. By doing this, you can see what that picture data looks like to a word processing program like Notepad. That rubbish looks much more like what a bug would see when trying to decipher the information coming to his brain as a visual image. Here's what I look like when encoded as a stream of data:
Now, how does the supposed evolving bug brain begin to decipher such a data stream to identify in the above symbols, say, my nose? Can you spot my nose in the above image data? You couldn't spot Jimmy Durante's nose in those symbols. But the job for the bug is way more complicated. The above gibberish interprets the data in my photo as though it were ASCII and ANSI (computer text) characters. We could view the same information in hexadecimal characters (base 16), or in a binary series of bits (but then we'd have to look at about 4K, or 4,073 bytes, i.e., 32,584 bits of zeros and ones), but at least the above is a single, unchanging, defined set of information. For the bug, the stream of electrochemical signals is continuous, and constantly changes. Get that?
By the way, an eyelid could close to give the bug time to think about the last image he saw, but would that lid have evolved prior to the brain evolving sufficiently to interpret the data sent to it by the forming eye? And while we're at it, a broadband optic nerve with sufficient data transfer rates must develop by pure chance. I know the atheists in the Grandstands are particularly obtuse about this, thinking that atheism does not depend upon pure chance to create such new functions. But by atheism, there is no directing force to develop sight in a blind creature. And natural selection could not preserve sight (eyes, nerves, processing, comprehending) until its component parts operated together at least as a rudimentary vision system.
So the bug needs to develop (by chance) a method of interpreting the symbolic vision data stream. But if every atom in the known universe represented a trillion ways per second of interpreting the above data, and we enlarged that universe by a trillion, trillion, trillion times, and let such an inquisitive bug live a trillion years, that poor slob of a bug couldn't begin to touch the possibilities of chance coming up with the correct way of interpreting that data. The primitive bird brain or bug brain would have no conception that the incoming stream of electrochemical signals could indicate the look on my face. How would it even begin to analyze the data? Would the data represent heat, sound, touch, taste, or smell? If it represented an image, would the picture appear as a series of lines (vectors) or arrays of pixels? Would pixels be arranged row by row? Column by column? Columns of what length? 640 x 480? 1024 x 1024? Color or B&W? How many bits (or millivolts) per pixel? Would it store the image for processing as vector (lines & shapes) or bitmapped (dots)? And remember, the bug brain is not even trying to interpret the data. It just has to fall upon this ability by chance! Yes, natural selection will preserve the living daylights out of the first bug to come upon sight by chance. But natural selection can only preserve the functioning system once it begins to give its host a survival advantage. In churning through the possible ways of interpreting vision data (which itself is an inexplicable and functionally meaningless concept for randomness), an evolving bug brain would happen through a googolplex of complex algorithms before it randomly fell upon one that might give it some semblance of a valid interpretation. For example, while the above vision data actually encodes a photo of me in a tie, as far as the bug knew, it might represent:
• The sound of thunder
• A predator's mouth
• The taste of mold
• Zakath's fingers in ten splints
• The heat of a flame
• A spider's web
• The smell of ozone
The atheist shows himself irrational by suggesting that a non-directive force of chance can begin to correctly interpret symbolic data. The irreducible complexity of higher biological functions like vision cannot arise by chance. For, any vision system must convert photons reflected by an object into a symbolic data stream, and the functions of processing, encoding, storing, and interpreting that data (all before the system yields any survival benefit) cannot happen by chance. This is just one of millions of ways to refute evolution as contrary to reason, math and science, and based upon blind faith. The symbolic nature of any vision system by itself damns the atheist. Regarding the object to be viewed, to avoid reducing it into a series of symbols, you would have to put the entire object inside the collector (the eye) of the organism. That is, if you want to avoid symbols in a creature's sight, you will have to put the object itself into the creature, that is, a mosquito would have to suck an entire Tyrannosaurus Rex into its eyeball, and physically feel and touch it to identify it. But of course, that would no longer be a vision system. Thus, a vision system cannot avoid the processing of encoded symbolic information. And the nature of symbolic representation is that there is an almost infinite variety of ways to symbolize data. During WWII, the Allies worked strenuously to decode the transmissions of the Japanese and the Germans, and we knew what the goal was, we knew the data streams contained linguistic content, we knew the parameters of the meaning of that content, we presumed where the data streams started and stopped, and we systematically worked through algorithms using an enormous base of knowledge about the people doing the encoding. A bug brain could not by chance decode and identify Midway as the destination of the Japanese fleet. A bug brain, without goal-oriented direction, could not accidentally happen upon a way to decode symbolic data. No conceivable series of chances could accomplish such a feat. Not once! And yet, all the diverse species, genera, families, orders, classes and six phyla of sighted organisms have backed almost all atheists into assuming that vision evolved repeatedly, many times over! Paired eyes exist in three phyla: vertebrates, arthropods and mollusks, and ninety-five percent of all animal species have sight, and so far, eleven different eye types that have been identified, including most recently the telephoto lens of the chameleon. So, evolutionists believe that eyesight can so readily evolve, that it is not surprising that it has evolved multiple times! What foolishness. Here's a message to decode, from science itself to the atheist: the physical laws have no symbolic logic function!
Life is as much based upon information as it is upon chemicals. Atheists are fond of imagining that an innumerable variety of completely different proteins can accomplish specific tasks. That is not true. And of googols of possible algorithms for interpreting the above vision data, only the smallest percent (close to zero) can realistically interpret such symbols. But wait! How about the initial development of vision to begin with? For, before the brain can begin to unravel the symbolic data, that data stream must be delivered to it. How does that happen? Well, the pre-sight creature could not possibly comprehend that harvesting photons could improve his chances of getting a meal, or avoiding becoming one. So, he must develop his eyes by a fluke, by a fortuitous accident. Many evolutionists have imagined that perhaps a sunburn, or a pimple, introduced light sensitivity and then vision into organisms. (Can you say: sun chariot?) But of course, if you get sunburn, your next baby won't feel the sting. Atheists constantly forget the difference between the phenotype and the genotype, i.e., between the actual features of an organism and its genetic code, for genetics control reproduction, not experience. You can jump until the cows come home and your offspring will not inherit springy knees; a horse can stretch his neck all he wants to eat from tree branches, and his great-great horse-son will not become a giraffe. Such a gaffe is about as embarrassing a blunder as one could make in biology. Yet such ideas abound in our public-schooled society with its atheistic curriculum. And belief in evolution is the cause of the prevalence of these genetically-challenged, anti-intellectual ideas.
Since the genetic code determines the offspring, and not a creature's need or experience, consider then what happens to the probabilities when atheists expect that random mutations will bring about improvements in interconnected, interdependent, complex systems. As an example of complex systems that interface with one another, consider banks that wire funds internationally while adjusting for real-time currency exchange rates: any changes that add new functions to that system must be carefully coordinated by the banks and clearing houses, and integrated into all related subsystems. Random changes in one system will eventually break the entire system. When highly interconnected systems enhance functionality, the complexity increases geometrically as compared to systems with fewer connections. [That's partly why PC operating systems from Apple and Linux run more stably than those from Microsoft, because they both interface with far fewer third-party hardware and software goods.] With the non-directive forces of atheism, a single protein will not arise by chance. And the absurdity of hope in the impossible multiplies when atheists believe that systematic improvements frequently arise by chance in the multitude of families of diverse creatures in our world. The human eye has millions of rod and cone receptors which encode visual data, and the wildly complex, very high-bandwidth optic nerve transmits that data to the brain, and different centers in the brain process and decode the symbolic data, and even give executive summary reports of that information to the conscious mind.
Remember, an ambitious pimple with hopes of becoming a receptor cone will not be preserved by natural selection until:
• that pimple starts improving survival;
• and such a cone wannabe can't help sight until it is serviced by a compatible optic nerve;
• and this aspiring cone and nerve can't help sight until the brain can decode their symbolic output.
But forget all that. Really. Let's consider just enhancing an existing black and white system into color vision by granting the atheist the first, say, 1,000 rods, a serviceable optic nerve, and brain circuitry for seeing. The DNA that describes these functions and reproduces them into the offspring is wildly complex. And now an organism begins to develop color sight by the random chance appearance of cones (an absurdity). But wait! The appearance of those cones means nothing without a parallel improvement in capacity and compatibility of the optic nerve (an absurdity squared times a googol). And of course both these must begin in parallel by pure random chance, because until color sightedness actually begins to improve survival, natural selection will not preserve any color components. [And here we find another absolute! Atheists are in absolute denial of this basic function of their own theory.] But wait! Neither the cones nor the nerve mean anything without the integration of a new brain capacity by which it processes light wavelength symbols to yield a dimension of data previously unfathomable to it (an absurdity cubed times a googolplex). For the creature's evolving brain has no hint that color even exists! And before natural selection can even begin to help, the color collectors, encoders, and symbolic decoders all have to occur by pure and utter random chance without the slightest inkling of any goal whatsoever. "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 50:1). Thus, while the probability of a single function first arising, like a new enzyme, is less than would occur in a trillion years with the entire universe as a laboratory, the mathematical probability of non-directed improvements to interrelated complex systems is non-existent. And the more science discovers about biological life, the more we learn that everything is interrelated and wildly complex.
[Here is a personal note to any unbeliever still reading: If you are a committed atheist or agnostic, then the more clear evidence you see that proves the existence of the Creator, most likely, your heart will become increasingly hard and bitter against God. Therefore, I think you should skip the rest of this ninth round. Really. For, shoving truth into someone's face does not tend to produce a humble admission of error. But as for me, I will continue to do my best, and let the results occur as they may. -Bob] KGOV Note: For more, just read the debate...
As soon as the atheist says he wants to resolve this Battle Royale in a rational way, he has lost. Here’s why:
God exists because of the impossibility of the alternative. Unbelievers require theists to provide evidence for God which is not circular, which does not beg the question, that is, they insist that we do not assume that which we should try to prove. They claim that faith puts theists at a disadvantage, because we trust in God. Contrariwise, they claim that they reject faith, and constrain themselves to the laws of logic and reason. Atheists claim that only evidence based upon logic and reason is valid. But how do atheists validate that claim? They cannot. For if atheists attempt to justify "logic and reason" by logic and reason, then they have based their entire godless worldview on circular reasoning; and we find that rational atheism is an impossibility. And if they cannot defend the foundation of their worldview by logic or reason, they leave themselves only with the illogical and irrational, which accounts for arguments actually offered by atheists. To justify logic apart from circular reasoning, you must seek the foundation of logic outside of logic itself. Thus we learn that, apart from belief in God, nothing can be truly knowable. If an honest and consistent atheist could actually exist, he would not claim that atheism is defensible by logic, since logic itself is indefensible by logic apart from circular reasoning. Therefore on the one hand, if the atheist claims to know anything at all, he unwittingly has shown that atheism (the alternative to God) is an impossibility, because apart from God, nothing is knowable, as demonstrated in this paragraph.
On the other hand, as a last-ditch attempt to consistently defend atheism, the atheist may claim to be a know-nothing, that is, to know nothing at all, because by atheism, actual knowledge is impossible. Popular atheism is moving in this general direction. When this happens, we theists point out that the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. As I have said, every observation provides direct evidence for God while atheism struggles to account for anything whatsoever. The honest thinker who wants to work out a systematic atheistic worldview will find that without God, the only things that are possible are nothing and ignorance (the lack of knowledge). Apart from God, nothing can be known or justified, not microevolution nor heliocentricity, not a wit of logic nor even a half-wit. No certainty can exist without Him who is the foundation of truth, and those who love truth, love Him. (Dr. Greg Bahnsen successfully used the transcendental proof for God while debating a leading atheist, Dr. Gordon Stein, at the University of California at Irvine.)
A fundamental difference between God and logic is that logic is a system of thought that attempts to rationally justify ideas, and as an idea itself, logic must somehow be justifiable, or found to be illogical. God is not a system of thought that needs to be justified. He is an actual being. And while the existence of logic apart from God is self-contradictory as just demonstrated in BA10-9, there exists no contradiction in the existence of the rational God whose very mind and thoughts provide the foundation for logic itself. And while we cannot see God, as we cannot see hope or love, the Bible defines "faith" as accepting "the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).
In giving my first eight lines of evidence (except for the epistemological part of one answer) I assume that atheists often use logic and reason (imitating Christians) even though they cannot logically defend doing so in their own godless worldview. But without a foundation for logic, I also realize that their intellectual discipline allows them to treat all evidence illogically, since they have no ultimate commitment to reason, not even to logic itself, and certainly not to truth or morality. So, in an atheist's attempt to win a debate, there is nothing inherently inconsistent or wrong with lying, cheating, or quitting in an attempt to spoil the endeavor (which I will not let Zakath do); for there is no ultimate reason for honesty, no absolute commitment to truth, and no foundation for an unwavering determination to be logical. Word games, contradictions, unresponsiveness, slight of hand, obfuscation, misstatements, and ignoring arguments all can be used as consistent with atheism in order to attempt to win the debate, and in actual practice, such deception is the strength of the atheist’s ability to persuade.
Yet surely, God either exists or does not exist. (Ahh, see, there I go again! I said "surely!" I've used logic here, which a theist can use with certainty, whereas the atheist cannot absolutely defend even such simple logic.) The atheist worldview is dysfunctional, and they can only operate by borrowing the certainty that is possible with God. By the way, that is an insight we can find in Christ's statement that, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26), by which He was not claiming that square circles could be drawn, nor defending any irrationality, but that all things knowable or doable, especially evident in the matter of salvation itself, are only possible because of God. In contrast to atheism, my theistic worldview is functional, because I recognize that logic and reason do exist, that they are absolutes, and that they are possible because they flow from the mind of God. Logic exists and can only exist as a consequence of the rational thoughts in the mind of God. God is non-contradictory, truthful, logical, reasonable, and knowledgeable, and there is no other epistemological basis upon which we can absolutely defend truth, logic, reason, and knowledge.
Popular atheism has come to accept that it rejects absolute morality. As mankind corporately continues to think through these matters, given enough time, popular atheism will also come to accept that atheism also rejects absolute truth, logic, reason, math, and science. Again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance. We find examples of this in the early rounds of this debate and in the life of Bertrand Russell. Zakath readily talks about morality, and admits that he does not believe in absolute morality (although he recoils from the ramifications), whereas he is more hesitant to talk about truth, and posts 2a to 4b show that his intuition tells him that an atheist should resist defending even the existence of truth. While Zakath consciously acknowledges that atheism disallows absolute morality, only subconsciously does he fear that atheism also disallows truth, logic, and reason. So like most atheists, Zakath has yet to embrace the intellectual, though amoral, ramifications of atheism. Apart from a righteous God, as Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason rightly observed, no such thing as absolute morality can exist; and conversely, if Zakath admitted the existence of absolute morality, he would thereby concede the existence of God. What atheists disdain most about God is absolute right and wrong (because they pridefully rebel against His moral constraints, desiring immorality with impunity). So naturally, the atheist community is most ready to admit to the moral consequence of atheism that denies the possibility of ultimate righteousness. But as the intellectual ramifications of atheism continue to work their way into mankind's corporate thinking, eventually, atheists will lose their hesitancy and admit the same effect regarding logic. Apart from God logic cannot exist, since it is illogical to prove something via circular reasoning, that is, you should not assume (or declare by faith) that which you are claiming to prove, so atheists cannot build a consistent, godless, logical worldview. Notice that it is with foundations and origins that atheists have the greatest difficulty in even attempting to construct a defense, as regarding the origins of the universe, life, consciousness, personality, higher biological functions, and now, even of logic itself. Why is this? Because God is the foundation of all that exists, physical and spiritual, rational and logical. So atheists are stuck beginning with faith in their origins, apart from any evidence, science, logic, reason, or laws which predict or justify their faith in atheist origins, and then by faith they construct arguments for origins which, unlike the theistic origins claims, defy all evidence, science, logic, reason, and law, superficially and fundamentally. So only with a rational God can the laws of logic can truly exist, as can math and the laws of science, and they can be known only because knowledge can exist. Bertrand Russell devoted his long life to providing an atheistic foundation for logic, reason, math, and knowledge, and after many decades, he became increasingly uncertain of almost all knowledge. Again, and again: the pinnacle achievement of atheism is ignorance.
With clarity Los Alamos scientist John Baumgartner reveals an implication of Einstein's Gulf: "If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect an entity [like God] capable of originating linguistic information also is ultimately non-material [i.e., spiritual] in its essential nature. An immediate conclusion of these observations concerning linguistic information [the existence of ideas, knowledge, logic, reason, law] is that materialism, which has long been the dominant philosophical perspective in scientific circles, with its foundational presupposition that there is no non-material reality, is simply and plainly false. It is amazing that its falsification is so trivial."
What gives intelligibility to the world? Only the thoughts in the mind of God can make the cosmos understandable. Nothing but God can demonstrably or even conceivably allow for actual knowledge. The reason Einstein could not identify any way for matter to give meaning to symbols is that there is no way, for the physical laws have no symbolic logic function, and they cannot have any such function because logic is not physical and so is outside of the jurisdiction of physical laws. No physical law can even influence symbolic logic, yet the rules of logic constrain the physical laws, showing Baumgartner's point that the spiritual takes precedence over the physical!
So try this: go and find an unsuspecting atheist, and ask him two questions. First, Q1: Is atheism logical? Second, Q2: Are the laws of logic absolute or has society only agreed upon them by convention? He will be happier with the first question than with the second. To the first, a typical atheist today will answer, yes! A1: Atheism is logical. (Why that answer? Atheists crave a foundation and so they are still substituting an indefensible, reasonless rationalism for the reasonable God whom they rebel against.) But for the second question, the atheist's fear of the absolute will cause him to hesitate. If that phobia is strong enough, it could bring him to expose his own rejection of logic itself. A2-1: "No, the laws of logic are not absolute!" as the leading atheist Stein maintained in the above mentioned debate. And if logic is not absolute but rather a consensus of rules which some men have created, then any logical argument for atheism is really just an appeal to authority, an appeal to the authority of those men or those societies which agreed upon the current set of laws. And since atheists reject the source of all authority (God), they especially despise appeals to authority. (When pressing for an answer to Q2, expect some obfuscation, word games, or unresponsiveness.) When it dawns upon them, whether consciously or not, that denying its absolute nature turns logic into an argument from authority, some atheists then hesitate to say that logic is not absolute. But the unbeliever must step out of his own realm of atheism and become inconsistent to answer yes. A2-2: Yes, the laws of logic are absolute. He will then face the immediate follow-up question for which we will not permit him a circular justification: “What validates logic?” What justifies your faith in logic? Atheists tell the theist not to beg the question by using circular arguments. So by his own worldview, we will not allow him to assume (by faith) that which he claims he should be able to prove by logic (remember A1). This atheist finds himself with the same difficulty as his predecessors who tried to defend absolute morality apart from God: it can't be done. And so, popular atheism has long ago yielded absolute morality to theists. (With even knowledge, logic, and reason falling victim to atheism, not surprisingly, the godless long ago discarded wisdom and righteousness.) Paralleling their loss of absolute morality, apart from God today's atheist cannot defend the absolute laws of logic either. Regarding A2-1, as with morality, atheism will move toward a consensus against the existence of logic. For eventually, either atheism collapses, or its trust in logic collapses. They will redefine logic to mean just convention, as they have redefined right and wrong. As atheists fall into denial by increasingly rejecting the universality of logic, they will eventually yield logic to theists, just as they did with morality. Such intellectual schizophrenia demonstrates the claim of Christians that atheism is inherently self-contradictory, and more than just morality, atheism also undermines logic. For, rational atheism is easily demonstrated to be impossible, and the transcendental proof for God affirms His existence by the impossibility of the alternative. And so, which worldview is logical, theism or atheism? Once again I will grant that if right and wrong does not exist, and now if logic does not exist, then God does not exist. So if Zakath wanted to resolve this Battle Royale disagreement over God's existence in a rational way, he has lost, for atheism has no rational basis.
Partial List of Atheists who have Debated Bob Enyart:
- Anti-creationist Eugenie Scott of the Nat'l Center for Science Education, exhumed 2005
- Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) with evidence against the big bang 2012
- Aron Ra, popular YouTube anti-creationist who repeated denied that Isaac Newton was a creationist 2011 & 2012
- Reginald Finley, aka The Infidel Guy, whose family appeared on ABC's Wife Swap show 2007
- TheologyOnLine's psychologist Zakath in a 10-round moderated written online debate and available in soft cover
- John Henderson who wrote the book God.com 2006
- Freedom from Religion Foundation founder Dan Barker (put the atheist sign near the Nativity at the capitol in Seattle) who was involved with the ministry of Kathryn Kuhlman, one of a group of so-called faith healers. 12-11-08 (See a BEL listener who initially compared Bob to Benny Hinn until...)
- Carlos Morales, Fox News, Huffington Post, pres. of Atheist Agenda, U of Texas Bible-turn in program 2010 on TTL
- I Sold My Soul on eBay author Hemant Mehta talks with Bob about gullibility 12-14-10
- Michael Shermer, an editor with Scientific American and the Skeptic Society who in this famous 73-second excerpt on BEL denied that the sun is a light, illustrating that it's tough debating atheists when they're hesitant to admit to even the most obvious common ground. rsr.org/michael-shermer-denies-that-the-sun-is-a-light
And we've sparred with many including:
- PZ Myers on why Darwinists can't even give a rough algorithm for how the simple trochlea could evolve
- NASA's Mary Voytek on water being the enemy of abiogenesis
- Phil Plait on astronomy's use of "evolution"
- Aron Ra on atheism, earth's age and evolution
- Jerry Coyne on his claim that the genomes that just don't fit Darwin's evolutionary tree are common only within bacteria.
Do They Really? Atheists hate God. Also...
- Atheists Believe in the Supernatural
- Atheists Just Want to Fornicate
- Atheists Say the Darndest Things
- Atheists Admit Being Angry at God
- Atheists Lead People to Jesus.
- Bob's Age of the Earth Debate against a geophysicist and a mathematician from the University of Colorado.
- Paleontologist and technical advisor for Jurassic Park movies Jack Horner turns down Bob Enyart's $23,000 offer to carbon date his soft-tissue T. rex.
- Bob's debate with Christian evolutionist James Hannam who later wrote, as quoted by PZ Myers, "For a start, I know a fair bit about evolution and genetics. But when it came to familiarity with the arguments, Bob Enyart was way ahead of me. On epigenetics, RNA/DNA chemistry, and animal physiology, I was hopelessly outclassed. Bob is not ignorant..." -Well-received British author and Darwinist James Hannam
- Richard Dawkins proving Bob Enyart right for in 1997 on national television Bob made the extraordinary claim against the perception of millions of Darwinists regarding Dawkins promotion of evolution: "Read any of his books, and you will see that he is not a scientist who is laying out evidence." Many years later, Dawkins himself confirms this by saying, "My previous books have all been about evolution but not the evidence for it, they've assumed evolution is true."
- And see Bob's Cure for Atheism: Belief in the true age of the earth (as at our youngearth.com) is an effective 100% cure for atheism as indicated over at realscienceradio.com/list-of-not-so-old-things.
Cite this article as: Enyart, Bob. 2010 - 2018. Real Science Radio vs. Atheism. rsr.org/atheism