Over the years I have noticed a trashcan of rags and tatters of thought from atheists who believe in “nothing.” The atheists are always infatuated with the origins of design coming from “nothing.” Any reasonable person knows this is nonsensical.
They say the “Great Nothing” created the universe; and this is intelligent? The word probability is banter around in the atheists’ community as their father, chance as their son and time as their spirit; it is the secularists’ deity. Probability is their progenitor of their illusionary worldview to maintain their respectability. Voltaire to Richard Dawkins are some of the greatest showmen on earth. They are master jugglers mixing fiction with facts. Atheists are whiners against anyone who are not like-minded. Therefore, I will substitute atheists for whiners when I feel it is appropriate in my article.
First, how do you assign probability to nothing? A simple statistical probability of throwing dice where double sixes land is 1 in 36 chances. However, if there is no dice and no hand to throw them, even once, probability disappears. Therefore, their theatrics continue with disparaging remarks against those that believe in the Hand of God who threw the dice with certainty. Yet if you want to continue to believe that somehow chance created all things rather than an intelligent God, consider that it would only take a school child of average intelligence minutes to pick in order every letter to spell “The Theory of Evolution” from a pool of all letters lowercase and capital. The probability that chance could do this is one in 4,553,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If chance could draw letters at the speed of a billion draws per second, it would take over 140,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. That is over 28,000,000,000,000 times the assumed (5 Billion years) age of the earth. It does not take a rocket scientist to see which explanation of the origins of life is more reasonable when considering the complexity of life.
My faith is in a Personality not in nothing. Those who believe in nothing are constantly closing their eyes to everyday design to foist their fairy tale of the great “Nothing.” They call this being a free thinker. They are so free with this inquiry of probability plus chance and time which eventually will be sucked back into the black hole where it came from. Additionally, as a side note, atheists and humanist are the same, a secular non-theistic belief, of which, the U.S. Court Appeals ruled as a religion. Therefore, atheists’ faith is in their vain imagination of nothing producing matter. Now, that is one big leap of blind faith across Space where no man dares travel.
Atheist's weak definition of Christian
The atheist claims “Christian” means no more by than a person who attempts to live a good life. In this sense they say anyone who attempts to live a good life are Christians even the good atheists. They continue to be the ever-arrogant schoolmasters. They think they are teaching us what a Christian should be, before you have a right to say you’re a Christian. They lecture us on scriptures, not having the slightest literary forensics of correct interpretation. Amateur atheists’ claim that the Bible condones rape, murder and the like. The book of Judges, for example, records horrific actions, not endorsing, but demonstrating what it is like when individuals decide what is right or wrong without reference to God.
They lecture us on what is a Christian; their first is one of a dogmatic nature— namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. True, but there is more that this feeble sophomoric lecture. If you do not believe in those two things, you cannot properly call yourself a Christian. Then secondly, you must believe in Christ. Again, it is more than this truncated statement. After their cutting remarks about Christ, the atheist continues to explain from this syllogism why they pay allegiances to and worship the “Great Nothing.” They start out with nothing and they end up with nothing. And nothing is going to convince them otherwise. How can metaphysics be derived from nothing?
Whiners do not believe in God and in immortality; secondly, why do they not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, though they grant Him a very high degree of moral goodness? They always lump Buddha, Confucius and the like equal to Christ. The historicity of Christ they believe is doubtful. Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t deny the historical Jesus, though he rejects any divinity associated with Him. Another unwise creed of atheists is a belief there is no justice. Really! Let me rob you of your possessions and murder your relatives, like the atheist Lenin did against his own people. They would be the first to cry foul play. Again, they’re chasing their tails never catching up with reality.
A Couple of rags and tatters of thought from the whiners why there is no God. Their first argument why there is no God is a pathetic fictional solution to their dilemma of the philosophical First Cause and secondly, they believe science has killed God by explaining what was once unexplainable by using logic that is equally as unexplainable.
The modern disagreement of God being the Creator came from Bertrand Russell, “Who made me?” cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, “Who made God?” That very simple thought showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause.” If God had no first cause, why not the existence of the world having no cause?”
Unreasonable, comparing a personality to nothing; it is a poor philosophical argument about First Cause. This analogy is like comparing the iphone to Apple engineers. “Who made me said-iphone” cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, who made Apple engineers? Since who made the Apple engineers cannot be answered, so why not a universe of iPhones without a cause. I know what you’re thinking; so let me say it for you, “How Stupid.” Bertrand Russell’s bashing of Frist Cause is just as stupid.
Socrates, who believed in deity, coined God as “the Great Author.” He knew the fallacy in comparing irredeemable arguments. What sounds reasonable to you, nothing created everything; or existence came into being by a designer? Many scientists and astrophysicists are expressing the necessity of a designer; agnostic Professor David Bohn is one of many.
Obviously, common sense and mathematical permutations are suited for a personality behind design. Mathematics is unkind to probability that “nothing” with chance plus time created the world. Nature itself reveals design. Any reputable mathematical professor knows the laws of probability are so excessive of creating the Cosmos from “nothing” is improbable.
Understanding how something works is not the same as how it came to be. Science has limitations. Explaining how it came to be is where scientist use their vain imagination for creation. It is hard for many to separate facts from fiction as scientists intertwine both in the subject of Cosmology. Using your imagination that “nothing” created all is selling snake oil as the cure all. Now Dawkins, using his imagination, knowing how unintelligent it sounds that nothing sparked creation is making another unintelligent statement that ‘nothing is something.’ And the atheists applaud him for having such wisdom. Snake oil anyone? Step right up and get your free bottle of “nothing” guaranteed to explain how the universe started from nothing.
 Coppedge, James F., Evolution Possible or Impossible, Probability Research in Molecular Biology, Santa Clarita, CA, 2002.
 The Washington Ethical Society functions much like a church, but regards itself as a non-theistic religious institution, honoring the importance of ethical living without mandating a belief in a supernatural origin for ethics. The case involved denial of the Society's application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption. The Society terms its practice Ethical Culture. Though Ethical Culture is based on a humanist philosophy, it is regarded by some as a type of religious humanism. Hence, it would seem most accurate to say that this case affirmed that a religion need not be theistic to qualify as a religion under the law, rather than asserting that it established generic secular humanism as a religion.Learn More