(i) Some people don’t what deal with the question of how and why the universe exists because they don’t like its philosophical/metaphys- ical implications, and/or they say “we are here now and that’s all that matters”, as if the context of our existence is irrelevant. Similarly, others say the question is meaningless, perhaps to cover that their methodologies cannot handle the question. (See David Albert, Professor of Physics and Philosophy, Columbia University, in New York Times Review of Books (Lawrence Krauss A Universe from Nothing) March 23, 2012). Still others say that we can't really know anything (even that?), or trust our senses, but even they bet their life on what they see, hear, and think every time they (e.g.,) cross a busy street.

(ii) Michael Shermer says "If God were using some presently unknown natural forces that we will someday understand but as yet do not, then those would still be within the realm of natural science, or at least future science. [But] if God uses forces that we cannot even in principle understand no matter how far science develops in the future - then the only way for us to know them would be to become God-like in our ability to transcend this world into another world. This would require more than just reaching the singularity of human/artificial intelligence, or the Omega point of infinite knowledge. It would require that we would become supernatural beings ourselves. At this point we are completely off the page of science and into some other book of speculation and conjecture, or perhaps the realm of theology." Skeptic Vol. 20 No. 2 2015 pg. 37.

(iii) No one can e.g., observe an always existing universe, or, 'pre' big bang: Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time 1980 and others define 'space time' as relationally intertwined with matter, energy and objects, so that if they don't (yet) exist then neither does time. Thus he says time began at the Big Bang (because that’s when matter/energy/objects began), so it is meaningless to ask what existed ‘before’ the Bang, because doing so is like asking what is south of the South Pole. An intriguing word picture, but it evades the main issue: what produced the matter/energy/objects in the ‘first’ place? Hawking, oscillating and multiverse theorists do not answer this question. In the spring of 2011 the Physics Department at the University of California San Diego gave a public lecture in the Great Hall auditorium on the Big Bang. In response to a question during Q&A after that lecture, Department Chairman Dimitri Basov (?) stated, “Physics cannot tell you where the Big Bang came from. If you want to pursue the topic further I suggest you consult the Philosophy Department, or the Religious Studies Department.”

(iv) Not to be confused with traditional cosmological/contingency arguments, or with mathematical infinities, no series of dependent events (i.e., nature) can account for its own existence, i.e., none can have always exited, nor can they have begun/produced it themselves, because every event within that series is dependent upon its prior. So, this dependency problem within that series can never be resolved, even if taken back to infinity, because each one extends rather than resolves the dependency problem. Same with energy; if it is to be replenished by [questionable] energy reversals, every one of them is dependent upon a 'prior' reversal, i.e., it's another series of fallacious dependent (energy) events). That is why they are functional fallacies (of infinite dependent material regress, IDMR, or infinite dependent energy regress IDER), because both are logically and functionally impossible. So, nature, as a series of dependent events, can exist only if some sufficient source outside of that series (i.e., outside of nature) makes it happen. Now, some people deny that and say IDMR/IDER are not functionally fallacious. If you think that, try this thought experiment: imagine 100 dominoes standing end to end as a potential series of dependent material events. Can you think of any way they can “fall” by themselves without any outside influence? (Wind, etc., are outside influences) [Some say wooden dominoes will eventually decompose and then 'fall' by themselves. Not so. With 'no outside influence' - like in a vacuum, there is no decomposition, and thus no 'fall'. Plus, we are attempting here to account for the composition /origination of stuff, not the decomposition of stuff that already exists.] The reason you can't think of a way to get them to fall by themselves is, as stated above, because every ‘faller’ is completely dependent upon its prior. But, many naturalists essentially think they can solve this dependency problem by adding more dominoes to the mix. Will ten more dominoes do it? No, dependency is still there. How about 1000 more? No. A billion? No. A trillion? No. An infinity of dominoes? Here, some say yes – no outside influence is needed because the dominoes have always been falling (‘always’ in the macro sense, not just micro as in end note vi). Well, ‘always’ does not solve the dependency problem, it simply ignores it, begs the question, and ‘kicks the can down the road.’ The weakness of this ‘out of sight out of mind’ move is demonstrated by its proponents – they cannot rationally say/specify what happens somewhere between ‘a trillion’ and infinity that solves the dependency problem. They need some mechanism that can actually produce the necessary material work to get a/the dominoes to fall. Without that, nothing will happen. And, they don't have one. Here, some appeal to mathematical infinite regress, saying it works with numbers. That is true, but it misses the point. Such mathematical abstractions are categorically different from IDMR. They are not (serially) dependent in the way that a material regress is, e.g., the number 4 is not dependent upon the number 3, and, numbers don’t/can't produce anything material (yes, 4 is the ‘product’ of 2+2, but it is not a material product. Try writing the equation 2+2=4 on a piece of paper and see if it produces any material quantity). That is why mathematical infinities are logically possible, and IDMR/IDER are not. (See Oxford mathematician John Lennox in God and Stephen Hawking 2011 pgs. 29-32, and God’s Undertaker 2009. See also Nature 12/16/2014 re. mathematician David Hilbert: infinities are "needed to complete mathematics, but occur nowhere in the physical world." (See also Microsoft Academic; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cosmological Argument) Some object that this domino analogy does not apply to nature, for nature is not static like standing dominoes, but unstable and/or dynamic, i.e., nature moves on its own and thus will ‘fall’ on its own. If that is the posit, then it misses the main point: the issue here is primarily not one of motion, but of ontology. i.e., it’s primarily not about how dominos, or e.g., electrons move– it’s about how it is that they exist. So, if we deny the fallacy of IDMR/IDER, then we are left with ‘eternally’ self existent dominos/electrons (and everything else), which, as seen severally on this site, is logically/functionally impossible. It also violates the second law of thermodynamics on overall entropy; in a closed system (which nature is in naturalism's "nature is all that there is") useful energy depletes to zero over time. So, using various interpretations of quantum mechanics and/or special/general relativity and/or singularity theories to ignore that and/or negate IDMR/IDER fallacies, overall entropy and the necessities of source/production is a composition fallacy, category mistake, and a red herring. E.g., as noted previously, even uncaused 'virtual particles' are regressively dependent: upon the prior existence of a vacuum, etc. (W.L. Craig Reasonable Faith 2008 pgs. 150-156). Physicist Lawrence Krauss objects in a 2013 Melbourne Australia debate with Craig. Citing personal correspondence with Alexander Vilenkin, Krauss says Vilenkin doesn't argue for a finite past (beginning). But further examination showed Krauss intentionally misrepresented Vilenkin, who does argue for a finite past. (See also Craig’s Q&A 336 “Honesty, Transparency, and Full Disclosure of the BGV Theorem”). Others object to the IDMR/IDER fallacy using Zeno’s paradox, saying that since his arrow does make it to the target, the ‘halving’ of the distance which says that it won’t is false and, so too then, is the fallacy of IDMR?IDER. But this is a non sequitur. IDMR/IDER makes it impossible for naturalism to rationally say what is the source of nature's ontology and motion, which is the issue. But with Zeno, the source of the arrow’s ontology and motion is already rationally furnished - by the archer and his bow, which is why the arrow is on its way (unlike naturalistic cosmos 'explanations'), and (barring obstacles) why it will arrive at its target regardless of Zeno's 'mathematics'. If you doubt that, try standing in front of the target and see what happens.

(v) Nature which does not (yet) exist cannot produce itself, because it is nothing, and all the evidence there is shows that nothing can’t be or produce anything. Yet, Krauss, Hawking, and Vilenkin (end note iv) disagree, saying that their ‘new nothings’ do produce. But, they equivocate/bait and switch. E.g., Krauss’ ‘nothing’ is actually a pre existing ‘vacuum’ already filled with energy, where virtual particles’ (are said to) pop in and out of existence as they borrow and return that energy. Well, that energy is something rather than nothing, and Krause never explains where it came from. (See Tom Sigfried, Strange Matters J. Henry Press/National Academy of Science, 2002, pg. 102, David Albert, Columbia University, New York Times Book Review of Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing, and Krauss/Craig 2011 Youtube debate. Krauss admits his 'nothing' is a "lure" designed to draw people in (Atlantic 4/23/12.) [Given all of that it is interesting that Dawkins nevertheless praises Krauss in his afterword to Krauss' book (pg. 191) “If the Origin of Species was biology’s deadliest blow to the supernatural, we may come to see A Universe From Nothing as the equivalent in cosmology.” An ironic statement indeed, given that despite the hyped titles of both books, neither Darwin or Krauss deal with actual origins in biology or cosmogony.] Stephen Hawking says that because there is a law of gravity the universe can and will create itself out of nothing (The Grand Design ibid. pg.180). Well, Hawking’s ‘nothing’ is actually pre existing positive and negative energy (matter and gravitation) which he mathematically cancels out to ‘zero’. (ch. 8). But, like enormous weights balanced on a see saw, that ‘zero’ is not nothing. And if his law of gravity is anything more than a mere after the fact human description of how gravity behaves once it and the objects it interacts with exist, then it too is something rather than nothing. Hawking responds that “absolute nothing” is a falsehood concocted by philosophers, and that what fundamentally exists in nature is (the above) energy, that it precedes all else, and that it doesn’t come from anywhere because it has always existed. Well, if that is so, then, since in Hawking’s cosmology time began at the big Bang, his ‘always’ is micro, i.e., his energy has ‘always’ existed only since the big Bang. But that is contradicted by his assertion that energy precedes all else – which would include the Bang. This temporal contradiction is further/again contradicted by his energy: it is dependent upon the pre existence of matter and gravitation, which in turn is dependent upon the pre existence of the energy, etc. Well, such contradictions and bootstrap circularities can’t produce anything, let alone a ‘zero’ energy ‘nothing’ that has ‘always/not always’ existed. (See end note vii, and Oxford mathemetician John Lennox in God and Stephen Hawking 2011 especially pgs. 29-32, and in God’s Undertaker 2009.) Moreoever, his energy is further contradicted by the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, which says that within a closed system (which if you are a naturalist is what the entirety of the cosmos is) useful energy depletes over time. Therefore, useful energy, like matter, has not always existed. Others object, saying that the 2nd law is statistical, and that given enough time entropy/useful energy can/will and has reversed, so energy has always existed (even in the macro pre bang sense). Well, the above shows why Hawking’s energy refutes itself and thus cannot exist at all, let alone ‘always’ (micro or macro). Plus, no energy reversal has ever been observed (R. J. Mortimer ibid pg. 106). Nor is it likely that such a reversal will ever be observed given the billions of years its proponents say is necessary to see even one. So, it’s not real science, especially where it matters most - on the necessary cosmological macro time level. But the real killer here is that any such hypothetical cosmological energy reversal would be an event, which would then be dependent upon a prior energy reversal event, etc., etc. Such a series of dependent energy reversal events is in principle no different than a series of dependent material events. Both commit the fallacy of infinite dependent regress by attempting to solve the dependency problem by appealing to (infinite) prior dependencies (e.g., oscillating/cyclical cosmologies, energy reversals) and are thus logically impossible. Thus, reversal theories cannot ultimately explain the existence of energy or matter, even in principle. (for discussion of different laws of nature and/or logic, see end note xvi) Now, add to all that Hawking's philosophy of science - 'model dependent realism,' wherein he says, "it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation" (pg. 46). So, since Hawking's model does not agree with observation or logic, then it, by his own criteria is inferior to the Biblical model, which does resolve the above infinite regress issues. Lastly, Vilenkin’s ‘nothing’ is likewise incoherent. ‘It’ has no mass, no space and no time, yet ‘it’ follows pre existing natural law to randomly tunnel through a pre existing energy barrier and inflates to become our universe (pg. 179-182). So Vilenkin’s ‘nothing’ is dependent upon pre existing energy, pre existing natural law (pg. 205), and the pre existing multiverse (pg. 203-204). Yet, he (too) cannot say where any of them came from. Thus, since all three of the above ‘nothings’ do not account for the energy or the natural law or other ‘stuff’ their ‘nothings’ depend upon, none of them ultimately explain the origin/existence of the cosmos or, thus, anything else. ↩

(vi) Producing ‘all’ logically requires all power, which here (also) means that 'before' the universe existed there ultimately was no power 'anywhere' outside of 'whatever'. Many concede that the above points a) through f) (i.e., no matter, no mechanism(s), no events, no series, completely independent, and enormously powerful) could originate/produce the universe(s) but reject g) (some way of organizing and initiating that power) saying it begs the God question and is unnecessary. Well, can power by itself begin/produce the universe(s)? Even naturalists (E.g., Hawking, Vilenkin) say no; an ordering principle - natural law - is needed. Others deny that, pointing to biology as an example of how random ‘power’ eventually produces functionality, and they seek to use that as a model for cosmogony (e.g., Dawkins “universal natural selection” 1983). But they miss two points - natural selection in biology (and everywhere else) follows natural law, and, more importantly, it merely selects stuff that already exists, it doesn’t originate the stuff in the first place – which is the issue in cosmogony. So, what they need is some form of random origination. But, originate from what? Well, there are only two naturalistic options: 1) from an infinite regress, and 2) from nothing. End notes x and xii show that both are logically and functionally impossible. Thus, random power could not have originated the cosmos – whether it be a universe, multiverse, or…? Neither can natural law, for, descriptive natural laws have no power to do anything, they merely describe, after the fact, how nature behaves – once nature already exists. And, supposing pre existing prescriptive natural laws do exist and have power over matter/energy, they are nonetheless null because, as just shown above and by definition, before origination there is nothing for those laws to act upon. So, no combination of natural power and/or randomness and/or natural law could have originated the cosmos. Another problem for natural cosmogony is, as also shown above, nature/the cosmos is not eternal in the past, but its cause or source must be. So, that cause/source must be able to delay and 'later' initiate its effects (otherwise, the effect - nature - would (also) be eternal in the past, contrary to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and the fallacy of IDMR which shows that a past eternal nature is logically impossible). The only causal/source forces known to do that are intentional free agent causation (Craig Reasonable Faith pgs. 150-156). But some object saying that the multiverse provides delay through its series of universes. True, a series of dependent universes does explain the delay of 'local' individual universes, but not the delay of the overall multiverse coming into being in the first place, which is what is at issue here (see end note x). Others say the multiverse has different laws of nature and logic, which could explain overall delay. OK, just what are those laws/explanations, especially for overcoming the crucial IDMR dependency problem? Specifically, what kind(s) of laws of nature or laws of logic could possibly explain how any event is not dependent upon a prior, or where the overall multiverse came 'from', and why/how was that delayed and initiated? Here some say that a non agential "pulse" that has all the properties of the above a) through e), but no f) could do it. In this model 'it' is eternally pulsing out universes, which accounts for all local delays, and is not subject to overall delay because 'it' eternally exists/pulses. But, this violates c), i.e., 'it' is a series. They agree, but say this series, unlike IDMR, is not dependent, because series is part of what 'it' is. But, that is the problem - 'it's' defined existence is dependent - upon that series, unlike the above 'whatever'. So, unlike 'whatever', a pulsing 'it' doesn't meet the above criteria and thus does not work. So then... no hypothetical/theoretical multiverse dependency and delay solutions and no observational evidence = no science. In fact, it is not even a coherent idea. Nevertheless they assert 10 to the 500th universes, within which every conceivable outcome will be realized in one or more of them. That would mean e.g., that somewhere out there a moon really is made of green cheese, pigs fly, and Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist Christian. Really? Is he OK with that? Depends on what universe he lives in? Well then, though he does not acknowledge (or recognize?) it, in his view there is no truth – only local manifestations, which means that in the macro sense he has no grounds to assert or deny anything. “Angels dancing on the head of a pin” pale in comparison to such musings, which show the lengths some people will go to avoid the simplicity and implications of Ockham (endnotes x, xx, xxii). Namely, despite the hype, no naturalistic cosmogonies can ultimately accomplish anything because none of them, including multiverse, can logically get around the IDMR problem. But the above all powerful supranatural agent can - simply by intending to create and doing it. And unlike naturalism and contrary to popular opinion, such an agent would not have created “out of nothing”, but out of His/Her own necessarily enormous supranatural power and wisdom.

(vii) Each god of Polytheism (e.g., a tree god, a sky god, a water god, etc.), like each part of nature, is limited: there is nothing in any of them which necessitates or enables their individual existence, and getting that from each other is circular. So, ‘cooperating’ to overcome that is nonsense. However, some argue for a non dependent form of polytheism, with multiple gods having all six properties described above (1-6) and in end note xvi - i.e., multiple 'whatevers'. They say that multiple 'whatevers' could have always existed, just like one ‘whatever’, and each could have originated their own universe. Well, such gods would be independent within their own universe, but not overall, for their existence and the existence of their individual universes is part of a larger whole, the cohesion of which is the antithesis of independence. Moreover, (if) one God gets the job done (how does it not?), why ignore Ockham and multiply gods (like Ptolemy's epicycles) needlessly?

(viii) Now, why cling to logically impossible naturalism instead of believing that which is logically necessary? Well, some people simply don’t want there to be a God. E.g., Dawkins and others revile God (partly) because He judges people and, they say, He causes and/or allows suffering. Well, never mind that in the beginning there was no pain or suffering (Gen. 1:29-31). That came later when humans choose to sin (Gen. chp. 3). Sin has consequences (Rom. 6:23, 8:20-23). Dawkins nevertheless thinks we should reject God and have fun by being who we are. Yet Dawkins doesn’t practice what he preaches. Instead, when he is in charge, he judges the behavior of others. Like when ants are having fun being who they are by swarming a piece of pie in Dawkins’ kitchen, or termites by eating his wood framed house, he reasons that as owner of the house he has the right and the obligation to keep it in good order. So, without warning, he kills them. Yet Dawkins and others deny that God on His earth has the same right/obligation to judge us when we do things He doesn't like, even though God gives us plenty of warning, and even though in proportional equivalence, we are far smaller compared to God than ants and termites are compared to us. Dawkins objects, saying that his ants only suffer for a moment, then are gone, but humans suffer the pains of hell forever. Well, unlike with the ants and termites, none of that will happen to you if you accept His Way out. But if after a lifetime of persuasion you still refuse - you're a rebellious ant - what else do you expect? (Romans 1:18-25)

(ix) 1st John 1:1-10, John 2:1-11, 7:37-38, 11:1-45, 14:11-17, 21:4-6:25, Matt. 2:1-12, 4:23-41, 9:18-38, 14:15-21, 17:14-21, 16:15-18, Luke 5:23-25, 7:20-23, Acts chp. 2. Now... imagine that God made possible everything we will ever experience and more (“The heavens declare the glory of God” (ps. 19:1), not our insignificance). As such, we owe Him everything. And yet some people, even while they breathe His air, drink His water, and eat His food, etc., think it is He who owes us. Namely, if He is “all powerful” and “all loving”, He should stop all the pain and suffering in the world – but, He doesn’t. Or He should have made it good to begin with, but He didn’t. And He is oppressive, and shouldn’t be (ants and termites notwithstanding). So, they say, God has or is a “problem of evil”. Well, “all powerful” and “all loving” aren’t Biblical concepts. These and other false dilemmas are often raised in an attempt to make God look bad. Well, the Biblical narrative is that in the beginning God made the world “very good” (Gen. 1:26). Part of that good is that He made us as human beings with free will instead of making us as robots or appliances (‘want’ to be a toaster?). So, because real free will necessitates real choice options (unlike Henry Ford, who offered his Model T cars in “any color you want, as long as it’s black”) God must offer to real choice to everyone, unimpeded, along with the consequences. So, that fullness is what God offered to Adam and Eve, urging them to enjoy His creation, and to walk in His Word - warning them of the unavoidable consequences if they did not (Gen. 2:16-17, Gen. chp. 3, Rom. 8:12-23). And yet, they chose ignore what He said, and ever since then humans and nature have reaped the resulting disasters, calamities, plagues, sickness, and death – they very things God sought to keep us from in the first place. That’s not much different than a mother who urges her children to go out and play, but not in the street. If they defy her and get run over, that doesn’t make her evil. Instead, it shows the consequences of them ignoring her wise love for them. Some disagree, saying that had she exercised more control over her kids they would not have been killed. Yet many of these same people don’t want God to do that with them. They (like the children) want it both ways – freedom to do wrong and no adverse consequences. How would/could that work? Some people think that an all loving all powerful God would/could allow us to do whatever we want, e.g., step off tall buildings (without a parachute, etc.), and then He should/could/would fly in and swoop us up to avert the pain of impact, or, of stubbing our toe, or being dumped by our spouse, etc. Well, the world is able to function and to sustain life only because it follows certain regularities/laws. Without them there would be only chaos and oblivion, even if part or all of that chaos is an ‘all loving all powerful’ God intervening all over the world billions of times per second to avert pain. No one would ever learn much of anything. (Like alcoholics who learn only to use enablers so they can get another drink – it just gets worse over time) A most unloving result. Others say God should have made it so that all of us always freely chose only good – so that there would be no suffering and only blessing in this life and in the next. Well, ‘making it so that we freely always’ is an oxymoron. It is determinism, not free will. E.g., imagine freely flipping a coin 1000 times. What are the chances that it will always freely land on heads? Virtually zero. That’s why we know if it always comes up heads the game is rigged, i.e., determined - the antithesis of free choice. So too is the above. Given all of that, it is far better to accept and respect the holiness of God for what it is (like we do with gravity) and choose to do things His way. But, we are not holy. Unlike God, we sin against others, and others sin against us. And because we’ve all sinned, sometimes we forgive each other, sometimes without exacting payment, because we don’t want to pay for what we ourselves have done. Naively, some of us expect God to do the same with us, and think Him immoral for not being as forgiving with us as we sometimes are with others. Well, necessarily, the God of creation is holy, without sin, which is precisely why He cannot/will not forgive without payment, much like the law of gravity does not ‘forgive’ us when we disrespect it. So, when we sin and/or are guilty of a crime, no matter how sorry we may (or may not) be, justice (like gravity) demands we pay whatever penalty the Law/Judge demands. All the more so with a Holy God, who has amply forewarned us that the penalty for our sin is separation from Him, and death. That condition is permanent unless we accept Jesus’ uniquely qualified restitution and payment for our sin (1st Corinthians 1:18-31). Many people deny that, the above reasons for it, and the above solution, as if pursuing lesser things out of context is a good idea. Denial is never a good idea. Rom. 5:12, 6:23, 8:20- 22, Gal. 1:5, 2nd Tim. 2:26, 2nd Pet. 2:19, Heb. 9:22-28, 1st Cor.1:18-31 and chp.15.

(x) Despite objections to the contrary, there is no better overall proof of anything - natural or supranatural - than to see it happen with your own eyes. Think about it next time you cross a busy street. But, many people say they are or were Christians and have never seen miracles. When I ask them what they mean by ‘Christian’, they tell me they believe(d) in Jesus and/or went to church, and/or prayed and/or read the Bible. I then point them to the sample of verses in end note xxvii. Then I ask them if they have ever stopped and pondered them at length, and lived by them. None of these people said they have done so. That makes it impossible for them to have ever known Jesus, for, He is the Word of God (John 1). So, if they don’t know and live His Word (Mt. 7:24-27) it follows that they can’t know and/or properly experience Him. Now, some will say that this explanation is a ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. Well, no matter how much one may ‘talk up’ the virtues of say, electric cars, it is irrational to expect one to take you very far if you don’t/won’t believe in electricity and charge up the battery. Luke 10:21-24, Matt. 13:10-23. Conversely, others (some citing David Hume) say ‘miracles’ do not occur, that they are merely nature behaving in unusual ways, for which there is a naturalistic explanation, even though we may not yet know what it is yet (nature/science of the gaps?), but those who want to believe there are miracles do so anyway (conformation bias). This is simply a reassertion of metaphysical naturalism as the default explanation for all things – a disconfirmation bias, which ignores the shown fact that naturalism is a non starter which cannot account for the existence of nature in the first place. Instead, as shown, the existence of nature is dependent upon the supranatural. Therefore, the supranatural is the logical default position, not naturalism. Thus, the reassertion is false and genuine supranatural miracles are possible in the micro, and necessary in the macro, as shown severally above.

(xi) Webster's dictionary defines proof as "showing the existence, truth, or correctness of something by using evidence or logic...showing that something or someone has a particular quality, ability, or actuality." (Here Dawkins unwittingly agrees. See: “…reveal…” ibid pg. 73.) Unlike atoms, rocks, and planets, Jesus has a mind of His own. Thus, with Him proof and repeatability are a function of relationship, not mechanics. E.g., if my wife seems distant and/or does not respond to me, I don’t assume that she does not exist. I assume there is a problem in our relationship and I try to find out what it is, and then seek remedies. Similarly, your relationship with Jesus can begin (or be restored) when you realize that your life is not yours – it’s His (1st Corinthian 6:19). That’s because none of us created ourselves, or the universe we live in. As shown above, all of that and everything we know is made possible by Him. So, why not acknowledge and deeply respect that rather than be duped into the popular lack of perspective, thinking only about your immediate circumstances and short term ‘happiness’ (like the above ‘ants on pie’), or transient culture and fashion? Far better to see our brief lives in the real context of eternity and Him who made it all possible. Far better to bond with Him who endures forever. Jeremiah 9:23-24, John 17:3, Mt. 11:28-29.

(xii) How old is nature/the cosmos? Naturalism says it is billions of years old. Well, the age of nature is completely dependent upon the source of nature. And, since we've seen that that source cannot be the slow natural uniformitarian processes which we observe now, using them to date the age of nature is fallacious. (E.g., deriving 13.8 billion years by ignoring all the above and instead inferring backwards from rates only recently observed - which total less than one five millionth of the alleged time scale) Conversely, unlike the above, a supranatural creation and timeline by the God of the Bible is a consistent, rational, complete and coherent cosmogony. Here God created the heavens and the earth in six days, and then He rested. That would mean He was working on the heavens and the earth, i.e., all of nature, for six days, and then He rested. Now, when you are working you are moving faster than when you are resting. So, for those six days God and nature were moving faster than they have ever since. That would mean that contrary to uniformitarian assumptions, nature has existed in two separate speeds - work speed and rest speed. How much faster is work speed than rest speed? Well, some Variable Speed of Light astronomers, even secular ones (e.g., Moffat, Albrecht, Magueijo) say that in the beginning the speed of light moved as much as 60 orders of magnitude faster than it does now (numerous citations listed Wikipedia, accessed 05/02/16. See also AIG Answers Book #4 pg. 262). So too then would everything else tied to it(?). Thus, development and decay would have occurred billions of times faster than what we observe today. I.e., a lot would be accomplished in six days. That would account for why nature looks very old to uniformitarians, but isn't. For example, let's say we somehow time traveled a 21st century uniformitarian scientist back into the garden of Eden on say, day 9, without her knowing that's what happened. As she routinely observed say, a 200 foot sequoia tree, her uniformitarian assumptions would lead her to conclude it was hundreds of years old. But, she would be wrong. Even if she examined (the accelerated ) tree rings etc., she would have no way of knowing it was only, say, nine days old. Some reply that God is thus a deceiver. Well, not if He told us that is what He did (Gen 1). Instead, the deception would be self induced – believing in uniformitarianism despite all its problems (noted above and elsewhere). (See Thousands, not Billions De Young 2005.) Rejecting such for the non starter of ‘all is matter in motion’ would mean humans are simply bags of chemicals, where, even our best ideas, emotions, values, etc., are merely predetermined/random brain states, so none of them could be true - including naturalism and uniformitarianism. At best they’d be 'adaptive' in some micro environments, but not, as shown, in larger issues.

(xiii) Abiogenesis has never been observed. Moreover, there isn’t even a consensual theory about how life could have come from non life. See trueorigin.org/abio.asp. Micheal Behe Darwin’s Black Box 1996 pg. 154-156, Micheal Behe's Blog, Collins ibid. Dawkins says that maybe life came from aliens (without saying how they got it), but not from God. Expelled Premise Rampart 2008. ↩

(xiv) Macroevolution has never been observed. The problem with historical ‘science’ (unlike real, testable, repeatable, observable, operational science, e.g., chemistry, aeronautics, etc.) is that no one can observe the phenomena in question. Dawkins objects, saying in The Greatest Show on Earth 2009 that we can see macro evolution occurring “before our very eyes.” His “best evidence” for that are the many different breeds of dogs observed to have been produced in just a few hundred years through artificial selection (chp. 3). And he also cites bacteria that have been observed to acquire the ability to eat citrate (chp. 5). From this Dawkins says that it is not hard to imagine that over millions of years more such variation "could" transform fish into humans (pg.82). Well, how does he know that? He doesn’t. “Could” is not evidence, nor are millions of unobserved years. He is merely wishfully thinking - and contradicted by his own data. Namely, his dogs remain dogs, and his bacteria remain bacteria (with citrate ingestion the result of already existing capacities (Sarfati, 2010 pgs. 65-67)). Well, none of that is evidence for macroevolution. Ironically, it is instead evidence for [Biblical] stasis. Nevertheless, Dawkins adds “millions of years” to that as an inscrutable safe harbor, from which (in further irony) he then twistedly labels as “history deniers” those who don’t believe what he only pretends to demonstrate. Well, contrary to Dawkins, real history is written by people who actually saw what they are talking about (e.g., the Holocaust), not the politically correct ad hominem question begging invalid inferences asserted by Dawkins. See Evolution, Still a theory in Crisis Michael Denton 2016; The Greatest Hoax on Earth? J. Sarfati 2010; The Edge of Evolution (the search for the Limits of Darwinism) M. Behe 2008; Icons of Evolution J. Wells, 200; Genetic Entropy J. Sanford 2008; Explore Evolution: the Arguments for and against neo Darwinism Steven Meyer, et al. 2007; Evolution vs. God Ray Comfort 2013.

(xv) Unrisen others can't show you the power of God because they are dead (e.g., Buddha, Mohammed, etc.) Instead they promote(d) self righteousness by having you do 'good' deeds (e.g., Islam) or self diffusion (eastern religions) or unaccountable deism (refuted by fns. z-gg), but they don’t save because they ignore sin/justice/penalty and the holiness of God. Namely, when we are guilty of a crime, no matter how sorry we may (or may not) be, justice demands that we pay whatever penalty the law and the Judge demands. E.g., suppose I raped and killed a child when I was 22, then escaped to Europe where I lived an exemplary life for thirty years, when I was then found out and deported back to the US to stand trial. And when the judge asked how I plead, I sorrowfully admitted my guilt, and then cited my life of good deeds ever since my crime. If the judge dismissed the charges against me because of that, everyone would protest that his decision was unjust. All the more so with a holy God, who has amply forewarned us that the penalty for our sin is separation from Him, and death. That is why there is so much suffering in the world, and why our condition is permanent unless we receive Jesus’ unique restitution. Gen. 2:16- 17, Acts 2:37-40, Rom. 5:12, 6:23, 8:20-22, Gal. 1:5, 2nd Tim. 2:26, 2nd Pet. 2:19, Heb. 9:22-28, 1st Cor.1:18-31, and chp. 15.

See also Creation Myths, including naturalistic ones, (David and Margaret Leeming, Oxford, 1994, pgs. 113-115). And, no other monotheisms claim you can/will see the kind of instantaneous supranatural miracles (google supernatural miracles) noted in fn. 33, or the fulfilled prophecies noted in fn. 26,34.

(xvi) Philosophy can be interesting, gratifying to the ego (I can do this, therefore I am smart) and deceptive. E.g., as mentioned in end note (ix), the canard “all loving and all powerful” is not in the Bible, but some people imply it is anyway, as if seeking to use suffering in the world to make God/the Bible look bad and/or incompetent and/or contradictory. Well, as shown in (ix), this false dilemma is a straw man fallacy. A similar false dilemma is “if God is all knowing how can we have free will”? This ignores the difference between being able to know ahead of time what someone will do, versus making that person do such. “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form”. (Col. 2:8-9) “I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.” (2nd Cor. 11:3) “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” (1st Cor. 1:18-21) “…because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved… God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.” (2nd Thess. 2:10-12). So, why let “education,” mockery and other imposters exploit your lusts and hormones? (See miracles section of this web site) Why lose everything to the deceptions, pollutions, addictions, and consequences of sin? Numbers 35:33, Psalms 14:1-3, 106:38, Prov. 25:26, Is. 24:5, 59:1-2, Jer. 3:2, 9, 5:31, 16:18, 23:11, John 3:4-10, 8:34-47, 10:10, Duet. 30:11-20, 2nd Tim. 2:22-26, 3:1-5, 2nd Pet. 2, 3:1-4, Jude, 1st Jn. 3:7-12, Rom. 1:18-32, 2nd Cor. 11:14, Eph. 6:10-17, 1st Pt. 5:6-10, Acts 17:19-32, Matt.11:27-30, Rev. 20:11-21:8, 22:11-31.