Thursday, November 24, 2016

THE GOD OF REALITY


.
I received a interesting question from a dear e-mail friend of mind that got me thinking about the birth of Christ.  Since it is the Christmas Season I share some ideas on the topic..........

My friends question.........

 Getting close to Christmas. As a biology teacher. Have you considered the blood of Jesus had to come from being a virgin birth? What if Jesus had a blood transfusion. Would his blood been contaminated or he was pure enough that the blood would have been purified?

My response........



........ didn't have transfusions back then! Erythrocytes (red blood cells) do not have a nucleus (except in the early stages of formation in bone marrow) therefore they do not contain DNA......"purity is a condition of the DNA." (besides the cells given in a transfusion are replaced in several weeks anyway!)



Clarification…..the Virgin Birth was NOT about “parthenogenesis”…biological development of a non-fertilized ovum which produces offspring with a monoploid compliment of DNA. (half the amount…common in several plants and invertebrate animals.) Jesus was human in every way except sin…He was NOT a “haploid.”)

 The virgin birth was about DIVINITY...the "purity" is about DNA .....NOT MORALITY......Mary, His mom was 100 % Homo sapiens...she gave Jesus 23 human chromosomes (DNA) from the House of David that goes ALL the way back to Patriarch Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Israel) THIS fulfilled the "promise" made to Abraham through HIS righteousness given to him directly from God. The "other" 23 chromosomes (DNA) DID NOT COME FROM THIS PLANET! Those chromosomes (DNA) were "pure"...DIVINE.....from God's Eternal Cosmic Kingdom. Gabriel (an Angel of God...and Extraterrestrial I might add by definition since he was not from Earth) announced to Mary that she was FAVORED by God through her "purity in the blood line of Abraham." (being Catholic we have this in our Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.....HER conception....VERY important concept when talking DNA and GENETICS!  She was in a “pure” state in reference to Her DNA….She was not a “haploid” either!) You don't have to be a biologist (like me!) to realize we are talking "artificial insemination."

I know that my faith would say she conceived by the Holy Spirit as recorded in Scripture WHICH IS TRUE ....HOWEVER...since the Holy Spirit of God dwells within ALL who accept God's Gift of Grace....AND there is no question Gabe was very "pure" as well... the 23 Divine chromosomes involved in the Holy Conception of the Son of God was via "artificial insemination." Scripture is NOT contradicted! (duh….Gabe didn’t do the inseminating ala’ the Nephilum. Angels are forbidden to procreate with humans)

The reason many will not understand what I am saying is that man equates sexual reproduction with morality. Sexual reproduction has NOTHING to do with morality......it is about God's PERFECT Law of "Genetic Recombination of Gene Codes." The "morality" issue occurs when man ABUSES this Law! The Conception of Jesus (Yeshua ben Joseph) in the Blessed Womb of Mary was a FULLFILLEMENT of God's PERFECT Genetic Laws AND had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY. Man's mind tends to be in the "gutter" which is expected since we are in a fallen state in DIRE need of the Blood of Christ to resolve our disconnect with a Holy God!!!

We know that Jesus had seemingly apparent "supernatural powers" (whatever that means!) recorded in God's Holy Word. With 50% of His DNA coming from God's Cosmic Kingdom....no wonder He could "walk on water" etc.!

Bill...the Holy Bible is ABSOLUTE TRUTH.....no mistakes...contradictions etc. The problem is that the INTERPRETATION of Scripture is illusion. God's "gift" of Science ...given at this "time" of human history actually PROVES the Bible is TRUTH. God wants INFORMED Faith..NOT blind Faith.  

 The power of positive prayer is evidence of the God of Reality and I suspect the prayer works at the "quantum level." I find it ironic that today's Scientists are BLIND to the reality of Scripture and Science.  It is VERY sad that alleged believers reject the connection between Science and the Bible





....... didn't have transfusions back then! Erythrocytes (red blood cells) do not have a nucleus (except in the early stages of formation in bone marrow) therefore they do not contain DNA......"purity is a condition of the DNA." (besides the cells given in a transfusion are replaced in several weeks anyway!)



Clarification…..the Virgin Birth was NOT about “parthenogenesis”…biological development of a non-fertilized ovum which produces offspring with a monoploid compliment of DNA. (half the amount…common in several plants and invertebrate animals.) Jesus was human in every way except sin…He was NOT a “haploid.”)

 The virgin birth was about DIVINITY...the "purity" is about DNA .....NOT MORALITY......Mary, His mom was 100 % Homo sapiens...she gave Jesus 23 human chromosomes (DNA) from the House of David that goes ALL the way back to Patriarch Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Israel) THIS fulfilled the "promise" made to Abraham through HIS righteousness given to him directly from God. The "other" 23 chromosomes (DNA) DID NOT COME FROM THIS PLANET! Those chromosomes (DNA) were "pure"...DIVINE.....from God's Eternal Cosmic Kingdom. Gabriel (an Angel of God...and Extraterrestrial I might add by definition since he was not from Earth) announced to Mary that she was FAVORED by God through her "purity in the blood line of Abraham." (being Catholic we have this in our Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.....HER conception....VERY important concept when talking DNA and GENETICS!  She was in a “pure” state in reference to Her DNA….She was not a “haploid” either!) You don't have to be a biologist (like me!) to realize we are talking "artificial insemination."

I know that my faith would say she conceived by the Holy Spirit as recorded in Scripture WHICH IS TRUE ....HOWEVER...since the Holy Spirit of God dwells within ALL who accept God's Gift of Grace....AND there is no question Gabe was very "pure" as well... the 23 Divine chromosomes involved in the Holy Conception of the Son of God was via "artificial insemination." Scripture is NOT contradicted! (duh….Gabe didn’t do the inseminating ala’ the Nephilum. Angels are forbidden to procreate with humans)

The reason many will not understand what I am saying is that man equates sexual reproduction with morality. Sexual reproduction has NOTHING to do with morality......it is about God's PERFECT Law of "Genetic Recombination of Gene Codes." The "morality" issue occurs when man ABUSES this Law! The Conception of Jesus (Yeshua ben Joseph) in the Blessed Womb of Mary was a FULLFILLEMENT of God's PERFECT Genetic Laws AND had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY. Man's mind tends to be in the "gutter" which is expected since we are in a fallen state in DIRE need of the Blood of Christ to resolve our disconnect with a Holy God!!!

We know that Jesus had seemingly apparent "supernatural powers" (whatever that means!) recorded in God's Holy Word. With 50% of His DNA coming from God's Cosmic Kingdom....no wonder He could "walk on water" etc.!

Bill...the Holy Bible is ABSOLUTE TRUTH.....no mistakes...contradictions etc. The problem is that the INTERPRETATION of Scripture is illusion. God's "gift" of Science ...given at this "time" of human history actually PROVES the Bible is TRUTH. God wants INFORMED Faith..NOT blind Faith.  

 The power of positive prayer is evidence of the God of Reality and I suspect the prayer works at the "quantum level." I find it ironic that today's Scientists are BLIND to the reality of Scripture and Science.  It is VERY sad that alleged believers reject the connection between Science and the Bible


 

Check out my Blog.......
http://thedoubtingthomasjourney.blogspot.com/



-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Sweet
To: 'David'
Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2016 11:24 pm
Subject: RE: signs
 

Getting close to Christmas. As a biology teacher. Have you considered the blood of Jesus had to come from being a virgin birth? What if Jesus had a blood transfusion. Would his blood been contaminated or he was pure enough that the blood would have been purified?


Friday, November 11, 2016

ALGOREisms


 
...Global warming is a cyclic process based on the Sun's cyclic processes. The reason it is NOT affected by man's alleged carbon emissions is because of the following....... the "green house effect" is based on silicon GLASS IN THE CEILING of a green house that allows sunlight to pass through and prevent loss of the warmth created by the light inside the "house" warming up the house The reason carbon can't do this is because it exists as a gas called carbon dioxide (CO2) (erroneously called a "green house gas") that weighs 44 grams per mole...it is the heaviest gas in the atmosphere (densest) and IT SINKS TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH and is absorbed by green plant life (mostly the microscopic phytoplankton in bodies of water) that manufactures carbohydrate nutrients and OXYGEN AND dissolves in bodies of water forming bicarbonate ions which bind to calcium ions (minerals) depositing LIMESTONE. THE RERSULT OF this is that CO2 is a BUFFERED gas...as it increases, biomass and limestone deposition increases keeping the net amount CONSTANT. The ice core studies that claimed human activity has increased CO2 to dangerous levels DID NOT take Biology and Geology into the issue. Wonder why? READ BELOW....... (BTW...ONE VOLCANO RELEASES MORE CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THAN ALL THE CARS COMBINED SINCE THE MODEL "T" FORD!.....I taught these truth to my students...they KNOW the truth)

Man made global warming is a Novus Ordo Seclorum (secular new world order) device to help control human populations and bring them under a one world EVIL government. (Brexit and the election of Donald Trump has forced the secular new order to goon the "back burner" until the time of the Biblical Tribulation.)

The news media disperses false information that all scientists are in agreement on man made global warming. I and thousands more like me KNOW THE TRUTH...so does President elect Donald Trump. MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A WEAPON OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER.

In addition....man has learned how to modify weather patterns using aluminum silicates and barium salts at high altitude ("chem trails") that absorb very high energy electromagnetic radio energy from DARPA's HAARP project.

DARPA.....The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is an agency of the U.S. Department of Defense responsible for the development of emerging technologies for use by the military. DARPA was created in February 1958 as the Advanced Research Projects Agency by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Its purpose was to formulate and execute research and development projects to expand the frontiers of technology and science, with the aim to reach beyond immediate military requirements. The administration was created in response to the Soviet launching of Sputnik 1 in 1957, and DARPA's mission was to ensure U.S. military technology would be more sophisticated than that of the nation's potential enemies.

HAARP.....High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

Sounds innocent? It was in the beginning! When they found out their experiments were altering weather patterns they knew they needed a "smokescreen" to cover-up what was happening and the secular new world order that infiltrated out government after President Eisenhower suddenly knew they had a "tool" to affect world populations. THEY NEEDED A FALSE FLAG......hence..MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.



Thursday, November 10, 2016

POST ELECTION PROTESTING


 
It is very sad that we see so much post-election protesting, sadly in many places with violence, being propagated by the clinton supporters. (probably supported by George Soros) Some how I suspect if hilary had won it would be a lot different....sadness yes....but I doubt they would attempt to destroy our Constitution and overturn the voice of the people with petitions and violence. Protesting the opinions of others is an American right but is protesting the votes of other fellow Americans really an acceptable right?  The election is over....it is .time to heal NOT continue the protesting of the campaign!

Until the California vote came in (which went for hillary as expected, and after Donald already had the election basically won by electoral vote, Donald was leading the popular vote by hundreds of thousands......AFTER the California vote came in hilary was ahead in the popular vote by 200,000 votes. I for one would NOT appreciate the election of a president based on such a close margin AND the the vote of ONE LIBERAL STATE or possibly even votes by a state with a large population of ILLEGALS . I guess if I was a liberal I would selfishly say "go California", however, I hope I would instead realize that the "people of America" are infinitely more important than my selfish desires.

 (NOTE....just in at 6pm Nov.9.....the popular vote margin is decreasing and the trend is that Donald may actually end up winning the popular vote as well.)

ALSO...for those who hate the Electoral College...I suggest you look up the 1787 Constitutional Convention. I feared that hilary would beat Donald in the Electoral vote and be the 45th President of the United States and Donald would win the popular vote and lose the election like Governor Samuel Tilden whose monument I use to fly kites off of when I was a kid. I feared a clinton presidency so much that I would have screamed "get rid of the Electoral College" like so many are doing as I write this email.

If anything is learned by this election...it's the fact that our framers of our country were geniuses in creating the "checks and balances" of the Electoral College. Protection of our Constitutional Government "trumps" (pun intended!) the popularity of any single person running for any political office and the Electoral College PROTECTS our Constitution by protecting the election of the President.

 CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ON THE ELCTORAL COLLEGE.......

"Some elements of the Electoral College, such as the indirect vote through intermediaries, were hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was eventually justified in part as a stopgap to potentially 'reverse the vote if the people elected a criminal, traitor, or similar kind of heinous person.' The Founders wanted to empower democratic elements in the American system, but they feared a kind of pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great republics of the past."



The violence we see taking place as we write is VERY disturbing. The right to protest is a Constitutional right BUT NOT with violence. It is sad that the present administration is silent on this and the news media is playing it up instead of condemning it. (especially that racist Juan Williams of Fox News) 150 years ago a French political analyst Alexis DeToqueville said that a true Democracy requires a politically educated citizenry. What we have had up to today is more like "junior high student council voters." Maybe enough Americans have awakened as evidenced by the election of a non-political outsider. It would NOT have happened without the protection of our forefather's Electoral College and California could have ALONE elected a President tainted by criminal investigation. If you don't believe this is an issue, there would be no need of the present administration to consider "pardoning" the losing candidate for President. I am still perplexed that the democrat party even considered nominating a candidate with so much baggage. The republican political party DID NOT NOMINATE THE WINNING CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.....THE PEOPLE DID! Infact.....their leadership opposed their own candidate and went with the opposition candidate......something that violates the Regan postulate. DeToqueville sure knew what he was talking about!



Tuesday, November 08, 2016

The Electoral College May SAVE America




hillary & The FBI  and DOJ....... Corruption and  FBI problems at end of email.................??????







.......SEEMS scary (article at end) .....but believe it or not......our forefathers designed a "checks and balances" to prevent such a problem...THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.   The delegates of each state are pledged but NOT obligated by law to vote for the states winner. The winner of tonight's election is NOT President Elect UNTIL the Electoral College  holds its vote the Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the election.  It is at this time we have a "President Elect."  



The following quote reveals the "checks and balances" in the electoral system......(Entire article on the Electoral College is below the quote and comment.......)



"Some elements of the Electoral College, such as the indirect vote through intermediaries, were hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was eventually justified in part as a stopgap to potentially 'reverse the vote if the people elected a criminal, traitor, or similar kind of heinous person.' The Founders wanted to empower democratic elements in the American system, but they feared a kind of pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great republics of the past."



With the FBI changing it's mind every week and more WikiLeaks coming and the statements made by the New York Police Department.....no matter who is elected tonight.....there is plenty of time for ANYTHING TO HAPPEN TO CLINTON AND OR TRUMP! (Trump may also be under investigation)





Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote



America’s presidential election system was designed to empower the states, not just the American people as an undifferentiated mass

Commentary By




Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett.

The Electoral College remains in place over two centuries after the framers of the Constitution empowered it to select presidents. Though occasionally maligned, this system of electing a chief executive has been incredibly successful for the American people.

Many modern voters might be surprised to learn that when they step into a ballot box to select their candidate for president, they actually are casting a vote for fellow Americans called electors. These electors, appointed by the states, are pledged to support the presidential candidate the voters have supported. The Electoral College holds its vote the Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the election.

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College after much debate and compromise, but it has provided stability to the process of picking presidents. Though the winner of the national popular vote typically takes the presidency, that vote failed to determine the winner in four elections: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

Some see the Electoral College as a peculiar and mystifying institution that ensures only a few, select individuals will ever cast a direct vote for president in the United States. Others complain that the system rewards smaller states with more proportional power than the large ones.

Every four years, around election time, there are murmurs about revamping the system and moving toward a direct, national popular vote.

The Founders’ College

As one of The Heritage Foundations legal experts, Hans von Spakovsky, noted in a paper on the Electoral College: “In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.”

Some elements of the Electoral College, such as the indirect vote through intermediaries, were hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was eventually justified in part as a stopgap to potentially reverse the vote if the people elected a criminal, traitor, or similar kind of heinous person. The Founders wanted to empower democratic elements in the American system, but they feared a kind of pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great republics of the past.

The product of the Founders’ compromise has been well balanced and enduring, and we would be wise to leave it intact.

Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “desirable” that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

Hamilton also wrote that this system of intermediaries would produce a greater amount of stability, and that an “ … intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”

As students of ancient history, the Founders feared the destructive passions of direct democracy, and as recent subjects of an overreaching monarch, they equally feared the rule of an elite unresponsive to the will of the people. The Electoral College was a compromise, neither fully democratic nor aristocratic.

The Constitution states:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.

In addition to balancing the protection of individual rights and majority rule, the Founding Fathers attempted to create a “federalist” system that would keep most of policymaking power reserved to states and localities. America’s presidential election system also was designed to empower the states, not just the American people as an undifferentiated mass.

The total number of electors and thus electoral votes across all states and the District of Columbia—included after the passage of the 23rd Amendment—adds up to 538. The winner must receive a majority, or 270, of these votes to become president.

The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers. Farmers in Iowa may have very different concerns than bankers in New York. A more federalist system of electing presidents takes that into account.

The states are free to select the method in which they choose their electors. In the early days of the republic, most states chose to have their legislatures pick electors, rather than the people. But, over time, the states shifted to choosing electors via the state’s popular vote instead. Every state has opted for popular election at least since the Civil War.

Calls to Abolish

Modern opponents of the Electoral College argue against what they call antidemocratic aspects of the institution, criticizing both the intermediary electors and the state-by-state system of voting.

Calls to fundamentally change the Electoral College reached a peak after Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore in the tightly contested 2000 election. Gore narrowly won the national popular vote, and many of his supporters howled that the system—even without the Supreme Court stepping in—was unfair.

One organization, National Popular Vote, has worked toward eliminating the Electoral College through an amendment to the Constitution or a state compact. National Popular Vote argues that the current system encourages presidential candidates to spend most of their time in “swing states” rather than campaigning for votes across the entire country.

This plan for a national popular vote has received a moderate level of support, but Heritage’s von Spakovsky has called it bad policy, based on mistaken assumptions. Swing states, he wrote, “can change from election to election, and many states that are today considered to be reliably ‘blue’ or ‘red’ in the presidential race were recently unpredictable.”

Many states have signed on to a bill that essentially would tie a state’s electoral votes to the national popular vote. Those states will pledge to swing all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national vote.

But this is because the incentives would be to appeal only to the biggest population centers. Swing states change over time, and the 2016 election could be a prime example of swing-state unpredictability and erosion of the traditional partisan political map.

Additionally, if the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.

Over 200 Years of Success

Unneeded tinkering with a process that is over two centuries old could destabilize one on the steadiest political systems in the world.

As author and Texas lawyer Tara Ross wrote in a Heritage Foundation memorandum:

America’s election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200 years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended purposes. America’s presidential election process preserves federalism, prevents chaos, grants definitive electoral outcomes, and prevents tyrannical or unreasonable rule. The Founding Fathers created a stable, well-planned, and carefully designed system—and it works.

On Election Day, Americans should appreciate the great and long-lasting constitutional tradition bequeathed to them—including the quirky Electoral College system created by the nation’s Founders.



SCARY ARTICLE...........................



  Some truth, some speculation.  The first paragraph is pure speculation and a guess as to why Comey caved to the Clintons.

 

There is no question that the game is rigged, but it isn’t easy to prove it.  The players are too good at it. 

America is now like a third world country, the government is corrupt and in full control.  There is no two party system and no checks and balances.











Just passing this on... quite likely our next President!  







Lynch and Obama made it clear to Comey that, if he pressed for an indictment, he would be taking the Democrat nominee for president out of the election. If he failed to get a conviction, then he would be facing charges of tampering with and changing the outcome of a federal election, to which he would be facing the rest of his life in prison, and Obama and Lynch, as well as others, would see to it that he did. Now you know why he presented his case the way he did and why it was so obvious he was reluctant to not press for an indictment. 

Hillary's statement to the FBI was intentionally given without a court reporter present or without any recording of her testimony to prevent her from having any further exposure to legal charges such as perjury. If she lied to Congress, they have no written FBI deposition to confront Hillary with. This was set up to let her walk without fear of being charged with giving False Testimony or being charged with Obstruction of Justice. This is what those in the "legalese world" call a "Straw Man" legal charge. (It is a charge designed to make someone, especially lawyers, appear innocent of the charges!) 



EXAMPLE: Bill beats up Shirley at their home. Bill is arrested for "Felony Spousal Abuse" . Bill's lawyer gets the charges dismissed because Bill is not married to Shirley! (They are only "live-in boyfriend and girlfriend".) Bill walks out of court totally exonerated of the charges––thanks to a technicality! The twist in the case is the arresting officer knew all along Bill was not married to Shirley, because the officer and Bill are old fraternity brothers. The officer intentionally charged Bill with something he knew would not stick. Bill would easily have been convicted of Assault and Battery, but he was not charged with that! This is what is known as the "STRAW MAN" charge. It is how you make a guilty person appear innocent. This is exactly what was done with the Hillary Clinton case! 

If she had been charged with "Destruction of Government Documents", she would have easily been convicted, because she admitted to doing this! Instead, she was charged with "Mishandling Classified Documents" which has wiggle room for reasonable doubt regarding Criminal Intent! I think citizens are finally fed up with the Clintons and the cesspool of corruption that is our current government. Real Americans are ready to take our country back. All of these years of corruption have taken a toll on American lives. Citizens' opinions of a lying White House, a corrupt Congress, the "pay to play" politicians, the legalese lawyers and lobbyists, big overspending "welfare mentality" government, the "looking for a loop hole" justice system, the lying media, and our censored educational system with an agenda to dumb down the next generation, is at its lowest point ever. Hillary is on the wrong side of every issue. 

The British Exit from the EU (Brexit) is just a small sign that real citizens of civilized nations are ready to take their country back. They are sick of the results of open borders and globalization led by power-hungry elitists. Hillary Clinton has no character or integrity. She is an arrogant, condescending political elite who is only interested in lining the Clinton pockets with donations to the Clinton Foundation (wink, wink) from PACs, lobbyists, and foreign nations that buy access and favors.



The Clinton Foundation is nothing more than an operation used to launder money for the Clintons and other politicians involved in illegal activities. The Clintons are able to use the information of those participating to obtain cover for their activities, or blackmail those who are laundering money through them. Just count the number of politicians who arrive in Washington with nothing, but then leave as millionaires and billionaires. Did their votes serve in the best interest of their constituents or did they only benefit themselves? If the representatives of your state fall in this category, then I suggest an investigation be launched.

FYI....It has come to light that Comey was (or still is) on the Board of Directors of the HSBC Bank where the Clinton Foundation has holdings.



ED KLEIN who wrote the book on the Clintons, now published and available -- said Hillary was called to the office of Valerie Jarrett and Obama back in 2009 and told her she had to stop sending emails thru her personal server ––– OBVIOUSLY SHE DIDN'T LISTEN TO THEM. So, YES, Obama knew and Jarrett knew and Huma knew, ... along with how many others!!!!

"FBI Director James Comey basically delivered a coded message to the American People and the world. He said...she is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, certainly should not be president, and should be brought to justice ... However, our country has been infiltrated and is basically corrupt.



Another key point is in what Comey said:  There were 80 email chains, which means an exchange between people, ... Hillary sending AND RECEIVING, ... so if he charges Hillary, he has to charge the others in the chain. What if the exchange is with Obama? It is not a stretch to think the Sec of State would be in email contact with PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES).

Let's just say...Bill went to Loretta and said shut this down...or else if Hillary is charged she will tell under oath that some of the emails were with the President...so he is also guilty of a felony...THAT is IMPEACHABLE .




The law firm Kahn worked for is also the law firm for the royal court of Saudi Arabia and the tax lawyers for the Clintons and for the Clinton Foundation. It is also the firm Loretta Lynch worked for. They also represent a small Tech firm in Denver Colorado. which so happens to be the same Tech firm that managed Hillary's private server. Coincidence?

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Christian Diaspora?


 My comment to article below………..









 Christians, especially American Christians, are responsible for the rise of islamic terrorism in today's world and God WILL hold us accountable BECAUSE His Son Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus the Christ) WARNED the world that "false prophets" would come after Him.  According to Jude 3, ALL religious figures after 75 AD are FALSE.  It is obvious that many who claim to be followers of Christ fail to "trust" the words of the Lord Jesus from the Crusades when islam attempted to destroy the teachings of Christ all the way to today with political correctness and tolerance allowing islam to infiltrate and take over the world.  Thousands of years ago the Jews failed to trust and obey God when they became tolerant of the Philistines against God's will and allowed them to proliferate and we know the result of that....."The Diaspora."    Is history repeating itself? God has brought  the Jews back to their "homeland", will He do the same for Gentiles?



ARTICLE…………………





Please note the part in quotes below.  You hear of it every day on the news.



THIS  ISSUE IS EVEN MORE PRONOUNCED  AT THIS TIME SINCE THE  MARINE WHOSE DAUGHTER (IN LA PLATA, MD SCHOOL ) RECEIVED  A  FAILING GRADE IN HISTORY BECAUSE SHE REFUSED TO TAKE THE ISLAM STUDY  COURSE ....INCIDENTALLY   NO ALTERNATIVE COURSE WAS OFFERED.  HER MARINE FATHER BROUGHT THIS TO THE FOREFRONT   ...SINCE HE FOUGHT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN , AND IS VERY AWARE OF HOW  DANGEROUS THIS RELIGION IS...DEFINITELY NOT ONE OF PEACE. 

     When we get 100,000,000, that's one  hundred million willing Christians to BOND together, voice their concerns and vote, we can take  back America with God's help.  Become one of the One hundred million... Then let's get 200 million.  It can be done just by sending this email to your  friends. Do the math. It only takes a single willing  heart and a fed up SOUL. God  Bless Americaand Shine your light  on Her!

     “Now President Obama is encouraging schools to teach the Quran for extra credit, while at the same time, they cannot even talk about the Bible, God, pray, or salute the American Flag.”



  The direction this country is headed should strike fear in the heart  of  every Christian, especially knowing that the Muslim religion  believes that if Christians cannot be converted, they should be annihilated

   



 Tolerance cannot afford to have anything to do with the fallacy that evil may convert itself to good !






Tuesday, July 12, 2016

The Problem with Science AND Religion


The problem for Creationists and Scientists is that they BOTH reject each other's basic premise.  There is no question that the Bible is the absolute inerrant Truth, however, the literal, fundamental, Creationist  interpretation of it is NOT, therefore Scientists unfortuneately do not realize that God's "gift" of Science reveals the absolute Truth revealed in the Bible. ALL Scripture can be verified by Scientific analysis.

Examples......

.......Adam was created in God's Image from the "dust" of the Earth. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorous are the elements of DNA.....certainly qualifies as "Earth dust." Since God is PERFECT His LAWS ARE PERFECT so  obviously God Created Adam via Recombinant DNA hybridization.... NOT Darwinian Natural Selection of Simian stock. (Not enough "time" because of the "lethal" nature of DNA mutation...the ONLY source of "new" genetic information. Adam contained "divine DNA from God's Cosmic Family).......

.......Eve was created from a "rib" of Adam and when she was presented to him "all grown up after Adam's deep sleep"...he exclaimed "At last this is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone, I will call her 'women' because she comes from man."  Since the "rib" is the richest and easily accessible source of adult stem cells which are easily "re-set" to an early embryonic state (Induced Pluripotency), obviously Eve is a "modified clone" of Adam.."flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone." The "deep sleep" obviously was a suspended animation to allow Eve to grow into a sexually mature women.)   Two IPScells are involved.  The "Y" chromosome of one is removed and discarded. The cell is saved. An "X" chromosome is removed from the second IPScell and is inserted into the nucleus of the first cell which is easily induced to start cleavage and form a blastocyst which is implanted into a surrogate womb (in vitro) where gestation is completed and 9 months "baby Eve" is born. Obviously this is the Science but the Creationist would say God violated His PEFECT Laws and crated Eve as a grown woman!  God does NOT violate ANYTHING...man does!

Monday, June 06, 2016

Why?


 I am perplexed as to why Creationists reject the Big Bang when it actually supports their fundamental literal interpretation of Genesis. Frankly, it seems Creationists are VERY selective as to which Scientific revelations they accept and which they reject. If it doesn't support their fundamental interpretation of Scripture, they reject it as pseudoscience.  Sadly the result of this superficial view of God's inerrant Word and absolute truth in the Bible, is that they tend to accept pseudoscience over the evidence revealed in God's "gift" of the Scientific Method because it appears to be incompatible with their fundamental interpretation of Scripture.




 Fundamental Christians often quote the following Scripture that I believe tends to create a fear and mistrust in Science.......Isaiah 55:8-9......




8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,

neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. 9 As the heavens are higher than the earth,

so are my ways higher than your ways

and my thoughts than your thoughts."


 I submit God was NOT talking about His "gift" of Science because there was no Science back in Biblical times.  I believe God was refering to His Love, Compassion, Patience, Forgiveness, Holiness, etc.  God is PERFECT...His Laws are PERFECT...and we are Created in His Image therefore....... discovering and understanding His PERFECT Laws that govern reality is expected and in no way violates Isaiah 55:8-9.  God's "gift" of Science allows man to discern truth from illusions especially in this time of restoration of the planet to God's Kingdom upon the arival of His Son Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. (ie; The pseudoscience of "manmade global warming" has ONE purpose...to eventually destroy America's economy and thereby remove America as the last obstacle to the fufillment of Novus Ordo Seclorum...the "secular new world order."




Atheists reject the Bible because they too believe it is contradictory to Scientific revelation and therefore pure fantasy.  The problem is NOT that the Bible is incompatible with Science...it is the "fundamental, literal" interpretation that IS incompatible with Science and logic.  Sadly, because of this way too many Scientists reject the truth and wisdom revealed in God’s PERFECT Word.  So much of what Science has discovered through the Scientific Method is verified in the Holy Bible in disease, medicine, agriculture, Astrophysics and  even Cosmology……”In My Father’s House there are many Mansions.”  (there’s a lot more to this than “rooms”or dwelling places and it is more than obvious that the “House” is God’s Cosmos..the CREATION!)



Modern Cosmology is tending to a model based on quantum mechanics that the “Big Bang” was just ONE of an infinite number of “space-time-matter inflations” which is compatible with an infinite God that always existed and always will exist and never had a “beginning” which is revealed in God’s Word.

Saturday, May 07, 2016

An Inconvenient Truth REVISITED




CO2 is a buffered gas....it weighs 44 g/mole....biomass and limestone deposition has constantly increased since the Industrial Revolution....CONNECT the dots.






Here are some dots………





An Inconvenient Truth: Liberal Climate Inquisition Can’t Explain Past Temperature Changes



   David Kreutzer



David Kreutzer is the senior research fellow in energy economics and climate change at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. In this position, Kreutzer researches how energy and climate change legislation will affect economic activity at the national, local, and industry levels. Read his research.







In the week prior to the administration signing what should constitute an international climate treaty, one think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was subpoenaed for casting doubt on the agreement’s associated science of climate catastrophe.



As disturbing as such thuggery from state attorneys general would be in any case, the premise of the subpoena is faulty. The Competitive Enterprise Institute did not cast doubt on the dubious climate science. The actual data cast the doubt. The think tank and others have simply pointed out what the data show.



It looks like thoughtcrime has now moved from George Orwell’s novel “1984” to the twisted reality of our judicial system. Pointing out facts should never be a real crime.



The Heritage Foundation’s new Paris-bubble-popping science summary is also a case of letting the numbers tell a story. A story many never hear in the media-hyped spectacle that is international climate policy.





DS-climate-science-termperatures-700











For instance, the chart above shows reconstructed average world temperature data for the past 500,000 years. Depending on the magnification and size of your monitor, each pencil dot would span something on the order of 1,000 years. The myriad 10-degree Celsius temperature flips all happened before man-made carbon dioxide could have had any impact—the final temperature spike started at the end of the last ice age.



Now see if you can follow this: The “science thought police” insist that even though none of the temperature variations for the first 499,950 years had anything to do with human activity, virtually none of the temperature increases of the past 50 years had anything to do with nature. Got it?



A question some overzealous attorneys general might be asking right now is, “Where did this ‘denier’ data come from?” The answer is: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center website (to be very clear, it is part of the federal government).



If those who merely point to data that are inconsistent with an imminent climate crisis are thought criminals, how much more subpoena worthy would be those who actually created the data? This expands the thoughtcrime conspiracy to an entirely new set of perps.



Should the hyperventilating attorneys general subpoena the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in its entirety or just the researchers? If donors to think tanks are subpoenaed simply because the think tanks pointed to this data, should not the U.S. Treasury be subpoenaed for actually funding these doubt-creating data?



In any event, it seems disingenuous to wave off huge past temperature changes as entirely natural while branding as science-denying fraudsters those who assert that natural forces are likely still to be playing a significant role. This is a problem for the U.N. Climate Agreement and its signers.



If natural forces have played a significant role in the moderate and unsteady temperature increases of the past 60 years, then what’s the climate hysteria about? If there is no need for hysteria, there is no need for the Paris climate agreement.


Friday, May 06, 2016

micro vs MACRO




There are huge differences between micro-evolution and macro-evolution and until those differences are understood by parties defending "Intelligent Design" vs "Darwinism" , no one will understand the God revealed in the "flesh": 2000 years ago in the Incarnation of Yeshua ben Joseph. (Jesus the Christ) and the reality of "Intelligent Design." 





    

DARWIN vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN





It is critically important to understand there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  Discussing Evolution and Intelligent Design logically is not possible unless both sides of the issue understand this difference. There is no question, even from Creationists, that Darwinian Natural Selection IS involved in genetic change that creates antibiotic resistant pathogens. 



At the root of the controversy is the creation of Adam and Eve...the first humans on the planet.  Science claims man evolved from Simians via Natural Selection. Creationists claim God created man from the "dust" of the Earth via "Intelligent Design."  The Truth is that Science is WRONG because of Scientific reasons and Creationists are RIGHT but for the WRONG reasons.   



The cause of the confusion must be shared by both sides.  Science rejects the wisdom and truth revealed in the Bible and Creationists reject Science out of perceived fear it is incompatible with God's Word.   The Truth is that Science has verified the absolute truth revealed in the Bible.  The alleged incompatibility is the result of the fundamental literal interpretation of the Bible by Creationists...NOT because the Bible is fantasy and full of errors and contradictions as atheists claim. Ironically, Scientific interpretation of the Bible  eliminates all alleged errors , contradictions AND fantasy.



We know that God’s Word reveals that there are many “secrets” that cannot be understood until a future time.  There are many events that are “signs” that reveal these “secrets”, however….I submit that Science is the critical “future” factor that ultimately reveals the Bible’s “secrets.”



Micro evolution involves genetic change within lower phyla.  As stated above…..the  creation of antibiotic resistant pathogens is evidence of process.  The evolution of Homo sapiens from Simian stock however would necessitate macro evolution.  Macro-evolution requires very long periods of “time” because of the time required between generations where natural selection acts. The quantum jump from ape to man was NOT possible on Earth time standards, there has to be a different explanation for the sudden appereance of man. 



Creationists are correct that man was crated by “Ingelligent Design”…however, the mechanism they claim is “magic” (supernatural) They claim this because they do not understand the nature of God revealed in the “flesh” 2000 years ago in the Incarnation iof Yeshua ben Joseph…Jesus the Christ.  God is NOT an “anthropomorphic superbeing”..He is “Elohim” a plural Hebrew word which cannot be resolved with the Christian Doctrine if the Trinity because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “manifestations” of ONE God…NOT three separate gods.  (NOTE: the following Scriptures reveal the nature of the True God of existence……  Genesis 1:26, Psalm 82:3-6, John 14:8-23, Galatians 3:26-28, Colossians 1:27, 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians:3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 John 4:11-16)



As soon as a person understands this true God revealed in Jesus…..the “Elohim”…and understands that God’s Laws are PERFECT and God has no “need” to violate His own Laws….the alleged “supernatural”….  they WILL know that Science has discovered how God Created Adam from the “dust” of the Earth in God’s Image, even though Science has no clue that they have because they have rejected the Truth and Wisdom revealed in the Bible.  The Truth is that Adam was Created by God via Recombinant DNA which is made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorous…the “DUST OF THE EARTH.”



 (AND Eve was a modified clone of Adam….a .”Y” chromosome was replaced by an “X” in the Induced Pluripotent Stem cell from Adams ”rib” marrow that formed a blastocyst and completed morphogenesis /gestation in a surrogate womb (in vitro)  and 9 months later “little baby Eve” was born.    Adam was placed in a “deep sleep” because when God presented Eve to him...she was a sexually mature young women….”At last…this is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone...I will call her women because SHE COMES FROM MAN…,Scripture  fulfilled by God’s PEFECT Laws!!)

Is Naturql Selection Random or "Driven?"




Arguing that "chance" is involved in BOTH genetic change via DNA mutation, genetic recombination and in the environmental "selection agents" acting on these changes is fultile until all involved in the discussion have a common definition and understanding of who and what God is AND that "His" Laws happen to be PERFECT.  The PERFECT Laws of God are so constituted that the concept of "chance" in how those interact with both "living processes" and "non-living processes" is a non-sequitur.




The statement made in this article......




"let’s assume for a moment that the frequent assertion that biological evolution is based on chance is itself “entirely untrue.” Assume instead that the process is, in fact, “directional” and “self-steering,” truly an ordering mechanism."




.........  "Directional, self steering, and ordering mechanism" implies that "chance" is not the "driving force" of the evolution of life , however, it would also seem to imply that the the "force" is automatic and "mindless."  This is also "entirely untrue."  Ironically, Fundamental Creationist Christians are CORRECT in that God Created the first man Adam in His Image from thr "dust" of the Earth  by "Intelligent Design", however..their "mechanism" is "entirely untrue" because it would imply that God's Laws are "imperfect." Creationists claim God Created man by "supernatural" power, (whatever that is suppose ti be!) however, this would require the violation of God's PERFECT Laws which is also a non-sequitur because that which is PERFECT does not "need" to be "altered"....that would be imperfection.




Science actually "knows" How God Created Adam but because Science has rejected the wisdom and truth revealed in the Bible, "they" have no "clue" that "they" have discovered God's "secret" .....INTELLIGENT DESIGN.  




If "they" and "believers" understood the God revealed in the "flesh" 2000 years ago in the Incarnation of Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus the Christ) ALL would KNOW that God Created Adam via Recombinant DNA hybridization of Simian stock and Eve by Modified Cloning of Adam's adult stem cells extracted from his "rib", reset to an embryonic state via Induced Pluripotency and induced to start cleavage, form a blastocyst and complete morphogeneis in a "surrogate" womb" (in vitro) and 9 months later baby Eve was born. ("deep sleep" of Adam was a supension because when she was presengted to Adam she was a sexual mature young women.......

"At last, this is flesh if my flesh and bone of my bone, I will call her women because she comes from man."  "GOD IS PERFECT...HIS LAWS ARE PERFECT."




It is my prayer that all who read the following Scriptures  will come to KNOW the True God revealed by Jesus Christ!   (Genesis 1:26, Psalm 82:3-6, John 14:8-23, Galatians 3:26-28, Colossians 1:27, 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians:3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 John 4:11-16)




In Christ...David Brown













Can You Separate Chance and Natural Selection?

ElysseBaumbachApril 7, 2016


1




A common objection to neo-Darwinian evolution highlights the fact that the theory is based to a large extent on chance events, or chance in general. For decades now there has been an extraordinary volume of grim polemics against that objection. I wrote about this here last week in the context of a dispute between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Meyer. To my earlier comments, I would add the following.

Huxley stated in 1962, p. 44:

The frequent assertion that biological evolution is based on chance is entirely untrue. “Chance” events furnish its raw material but the process itself is directional, self-steering, but automatically steering itself in a definite direction. This is because…natural selection is not a random but an “ordering” mechanism.

Ridley 1985, p. 124, concurred:

How can I hope to succeed with three authors (Denton, Hayward, and Pitman) who, like the Victorian astronomer Sir John Herschel, think that evolution by natural selection is the “law of higgledy-piggledy” — a “random search mechanism” (Denton), of “pure chance” (Hayward and Pitman)?

And up to the present, authors including Lorenzen, Mayr, Krauss (2016), and Dawkins (2016) have made similar statements (see here for Stephen Meyer’s response to Dawkins).

Now, let’s assume for a moment that the frequent assertion that biological evolution is based on chance is itself “entirely untrue.” Assume instead that the process is, in fact, “directional” and “self-steering,” truly an ordering mechanism.

In that case, what is the biological basis for the “survival of the fittest”? The survival is very clearly dependent on the functionality of the anatomical, physiological, genetic (and more) structures, synorganized and cooperating in the organism (including its behavior or conduct), about whose origin we just asked. How did these structures and functions evolve?

A hare runs faster, a lion jumps farther, a zebra senses a carnivore better, an eagle spots prey at a greater distance, a chimp responds more effectively than his or her conspecifics. Why? Because — according to the neo-Darwinian doctrine — the chance events of mutation and recombination have equipped them as needed, with all structures originating until then as well as the newly gained improvements. All this occurs in a continuous process of evolution. Thus, chance events determine everything in evolution: form and function of all structures dominating natural selection in the struggle for life and hence the entire phylogeny of plants and animals.

There is, of course, even according to neo-Darwinian theory, no selection without form and function of already existing and subsequently improved structures. Let me emphasize: all must be generated by random micro-mutations with “only slight or even invisible effects on the phenotype.”





Hence, natural selection is in itself neither self-steering nor an ordering mechanism, etc. Instead it is the result of structures, features, forms, functions, and capabilities altogether produced by the chance events of accidental mutations alone, including the overproduction of descendants.

It is the habitual method of many supporters of the modern synthesis to disconnect or decouple natural selection from chance events, but this is totally unjustified. For me this disconnection or detachment appears to be part of a wily and widespread propaganda effort, seeking to manipulate public and scientific opinion to make neo-Darwinian evolution more acceptable and digestible. For evolution by an almost infinite series of fortunate strokes of small serendipities seems to be, prima facie, implausible to most thoughtful people.

And yet, consistent with evolution, the entire world of organisms has to be, in fact, traced back to pure chance events and random occurrences. Nobel laureate Jacques Monod seemed to belong to a minority of evolutionists who fully comprehend the consequences of the synthetic or neo-Darwinian theory. He wrote concerning mutations:

We call these events accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism's hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. [Italics by Monod.]

Yet, Monod's assertions on the origin of the biosphere are essentially all wrong. See here, please, for the facts and inferences in my encyclopedia article about natural selection. For references, see here.

Image credit: Malene Thyssen (Own work) [GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

3



21



1

Google +

0










God and Creation


WHAT IS CREATION?



ARTICLE FOLLOWS MY COMMENT……..





The problem I see in discussing such issues is having a common understanding of Creation. Since we are mortals....we tend to define events in terms of a beginning and an end.  Most consider there was no Cosmos before Genesis 1.  For the writer of Genesis....the earth and the sky was pretty much "the Cosmos."   They had no ability to comprehend the Cosmos as we do today.



The Bible is clear that God existed before the Earth was formed...this means God is eternal ...no beginning and no end. I submit that this means "existence always existed and always will."  I suspect that this means the Cosmos always existed and always will and that the current Cosmological Theories  suggests that the "Big Bang Inflation of space/time/matter and energy is NOT a single event but is just ONE of an infinite  number of "inflations." (Bubble Theory)



  In addition the Law of Biogenesis, verified by French Chemist Louis Pasteur 145 years ago in his simple "S" shaped flask experiment, also supports the "eternal" nature of existence because "ALL Life MUST come from pre-existing Life."



Theoretical Physicist Stephen Hawking in his most recent book claims the Laws of Physics are so constituted that there is no "need" for a God for Creation. Ironically Hawking has inadvertently DEFINED who God is. God is PERFECT...His  Laws are PERFECT. The ancient "inspired"  writings compiled into the "library" called the Bible reveals that God is the "WORD" (John 1)  The WORD is communication and thought. and the mathematics of the Laws of Physics is the highest "level" of communication and thought......GOD IS HIS LAWS. This real God incarnated in the "flesh" 2000 years ago as Yeshua ben Joseph not only restores mankind to the Cosmic Kingdom of God, He also reveals the ETERNAL God in the "WORD."



ARTICLE……………




Could God cause the beginning of the universe?

Published: 9 April 2016 (GMT+10)

iStockphoto

space

The beginning of the universe is a common fact used to argue for God in an argument called the Kalām Cosmological Argument. The argument runs like this: everything that has a beginning has a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. But is God a suitable cause for the universe?

Daniel C from the United States writes:

When my acquaintance asked who created God, I replied, God is defined as eternal and uncreated, and therefore it is invalid to ask “who created God.”
But then he asked, “Can you prove or reason that God is eternal? What if he isn’t?”
I don’t know what to say. Help?

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

Your acquaintance has become doubly distracted. Your response to his first distraction was correct, but the purpose of such a response is to push people back to dealing with the claim ‘everything that has a beginning has a cause’ as given. Your acquaintance is refusing to do this, and instead is focusing on being distracted by ‘God’ in doing what all untrained agnostics/atheists do—demanding evidence for anything about God that can be named. One way to disarm the objection is to say: ‘God? I haven’t brought God up yet! The claim isn’t about God (at least, not directly); let’s just deal with that first without getting distracted. God isn’t going anywhere.’

If everything that has a beginning has a cause, then all uncaused beings have no beginning.

Moreover, the claim implicitly gives us the eternality of the universe’s cause (or, more technically, the ultimate cause). Since the claim runs like this:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause,

to affirm it is also to affirm this:

Everything that has no cause has no beginning.

We can see why if we turn the claim into an if-then statement:

If something has a beginning, then it has a cause.

If we negate both parts of the statement and flip them around, we get what’s known as a contrapositive:

If something has no cause, then it has no beginning.

And the thing about contrapositives is that they always have the same truth value as the original statement. In other words, if everything that has a beginning has a cause, then all uncaused beings have no beginning.

This means that if the claim is true, there are only two possible options for ending the causal chain of beings with a beginning—an uncaused cause (which must be eternal if the first premise is true) or an infinite regress of causes with beginnings. Although calling the latter option a ‘possible’ option is a bit of a stretch! The uncaused cause is clearly the better option—it’s simpler, explains all the data, and avoids an infinite regress.

Rather than it being problematic that the uncaused cause would be sentient, it’s highly likely that it would need to be sentient to be able to produce a contingent effect like the universe.

The important thing to note here is that we have said nothing about God yet. We haven’t even provided any warrant for accepting the claim! (After all, your acquaintance is too busy being distracted by a red herring of their own making.) We have only shown that the only plausible implication of the claim is an eternal, uncaused, first cause. Is God eternal and uncaused? Irrelevant at this point.

Nonetheless, here is another counter thought for your acquaintance: ‘Why call a being with a beginning “God”’? By demanding evidence for God’s eternality, they’re implying that we should believe God has a beginning before we have any warrant to reject such a notion. But why think any being with a beginning and a cause worthy of the title ‘God’? Your acquaintance has their intuition precisely backwards; the onus is on those who think the greatest conceivable being (i.e. the being we call ‘God’) must have a beginning to prove their case, not those who think such a being is eternal. After all, it’s pretty obvious to just about anyone who thinks about it for longer than a second that an eternal being is greater than a being with a beginning. And since ‘God’ is simply a moniker we use for the greatest conceivable being, ‘God’ so defined clearly can’t be anything other than eternal!

And most importantly, the Bible abundantly testifies to God’s eternity (e.g. Genesis 1:1, Psalm 90:2, 1 Timothy 6:16, and Revelation 4:8) and self-sufficiency (1 Chronicles 29:11–14, Acts 17:24–28). Bible believers have a reason to believe God is eternal even before we look at these arguments, and the Bible is certainly consistent with God as the eternal uncaused cause.

For more information, please see Who created God?



T.O. from the United States comments:

And most importantly, the Bible abundantly testifies to God’s eternity and self-sufficiency.

I read the following argument, which portrays itself as a rebuttal to the Kalām argument.
(P1) Everything that is sentient has a cause.
(P2) God is sentient.
(C) Therefore the God has a cause
Would you accept this as a sound argument?

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

First, we need to be clear about what such an argument is trying to rebut about the Kalam argument. The Kalam argument usually takes this sort of form:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause

The universe had a beginning

Therefore, the universe had a cause

Subsequently, the nature of the effect (the universe) is analyzed to determine what type(s) of cause(s) could’ve produced it. Note that the form of the argument you presented doesn’t refute anything in the Kalām argument as presented above—even if God has a cause, the universe still needs a cause in view of it having a beginning. Rather, the argument you mention tries to show that no sentient being can be an uncaused cause, so that if we think that the cause of the universe itself has to be uncaused, it can’t be God because “Everything that is sentient has a cause”.

Nonetheless, we would consider the argument unsound because the first premise is false. Why think that all sentient beings have causes? There is no evidence for the first premise. Worse, there are powerful positive reasons to reject the first premise. To avoid an infinite regress of contingent causes, we would need a first, uncaused, necessary being to ground the causal chain in reality. But how else could a necessary being cause a contingent effect, other than by being able to choose to create, which is of course something only sentient beings can do? Rather than it being problematic that the uncaused cause would be sentient, it’s highly likely that it would need to be sentient to be able to produce a contingent effect like the universe.

Related Articles










Further Reading


Related Media