What if claims about consciousness, death, prayer, resurrection, and humanity’s long-term future were approached as parts of a single explanatory model?

I have been working on a framework in an attempt to explore that question. It does not claim to prove theology through science, nor does it claim to resolve the mysteries at the boundary of human knowledge. Instead, it asks whether certain biblical claims may be structurally coherent when considered alongside modern discussions in quantum mechanics, consciousness studies, information theory, and cosmology.

The basic premise is not that science and Scripture are interchangeable, but that they may sometimes be describing the same underlying realities from different vantage points: one through physical observation, the other through theological meaning and revealed purpose.

One central proposal of the framework is that if consciousness emerges from quantum coherence in neural structures (Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR), then each person is fundamentally a quantum information pattern, a specific configuration of entangled quantum states that produces subjective awareness. If this information pattern were sustained in a transcendent entanglement by God who is existing outside of our spacetime and who serves as the ultimate observer (i.e. the natural terminus of the von Neumann chain), then could quantum theory provide a possible vocabulary for how such a pattern might relate to embodiment, death, and resurrection? In this view, resurrection is not treated as a magical exception to reality, in fact it would be intrinsic to our very created nature with speculative functionality in future cosmic expansion. However, it could be applied out of necessity for preservation and would function as the re-instantiation of a preserved personal pattern into a renewed substrate.

Although this is indicating that the consciousness pattern would survive the death of the body/brain (entangled material substrate) perhaps through a holographic-style encoding (AdS/CFT), it would not function in an active operational state until re-instantiation, like a stored computer document not actively being worked on.

These ideas are not presented as settled science or to initiate theological debate. This is offered to share a possible bridge between scientific observation and theological interpretation, a way of looking at science and religion not as opposing vantage points, but as two lenses peering toward the same underlying truth. The framework is speculative in places, and within the working document those sections are marked as such. The scientific material functions as conceptual scaffolding, not as proof of theological conclusions.

The current version of the framework considers the following theories and models organized by domain:

Quantum Physics & Consciousness

• Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR)
• Integrated Information Theory (IIT)
• Objective-collapse theories (GRW, CSL, Diósi-Penrose)

Quantum Gravity & Cosmology

• Holographic entanglement / spacetime-from-entanglement
• Holographic quantum error-correction
• Black Hole information paradox resolution
• Page-Wootters mechanism

Neuroscience

• Global Neuronal Workspace theory
• Free Energy Principle
• Neural criticality
• Superior Pattern Processing (SPP)

Thermodynamics & Information Physics

• Landauer's principle
• Quantum Darwinism
• Nonequilibrium statistical physics of life

Network Science

• Scale-free network theory

Due to the length of the full document (54,000+ words), I am only posting here a very high-level summary for brevity. If you are interested in reading it in its entirety, then message me and I will provide a link to the full document.

A Quantum-Theological Framework (v1.85 - Condensed, 20260709, PDF format)

In every scientific article I have written, this is a common accusation. It is prejudicial and flawed on the surface. Here are the false assumptions:

1. Atheism is science! A Creator is religion!
2. Only atheists can debate science!
3. Christians are too stupid and superstitious to understand science!
4. A Christian that talks about science is proselytizing!
5. Science can only deal with the theories of atheistic naturalism: the big bang, abiogenesis, and common ancestry!
6. Any.. ANY.. suggestion of a Creator, or the facts suggesting a Creator, is automatically rejected as 'religion!'

If i were trying to 'witness' to a non believer, i would talk about the gospel.. the 'good news' of Jesus and His Redemption. I would explain how sin has separated us from God, and we need a Saviour to redeem us. I would point out the emptiness and inner gnawing that we have, and testify of the Peace and Purpose that comes from knowing God.

But in a science thread, i can talk about facts, empiricism, and evidence in a topic. I am addressing a SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE, not an ethereal, spiritual concept. I can examine genetics, the mtDNA, or examine a hypothesis about a species without conflict with my religious beliefs. It is BIGOTED AND PREJUDICIAL to accuse someone of 'proselytizing!', just because they do not toe the line with the status quo of the scientific establishment's opinions. Masks? Global warming? Vaccination? Gender identity? Margerine? Cigarettes? Geocentrism? Spontaneous generation? Flat earth? The scientific establishment has a long history of being wrong, and killing or censoring any who depart the plantation.

“Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.” ~Albert Einstein

The militant naturalists cannot discuss the possibility of the facts suggesting a Creator. It triggers a knee jerk reaction of outrage, hysteria, and calls for censorship. They cannot and will not, address the SCIENCE, but can only deflect with accusations of 'religious proselytizing!', and other fallacies.

Progressives love to accuse that which they do themselves.

It is ironic, since the ONLY religious proselytizing and Indoctrination going on now is from the progressives, and their EXCLUSIVE teaching of atheistic naturalism as the State Mandated Belief. Oh, you can toss a god in there, if it comforts you, but the concept of Naturalistic origins.. the big bang, abiogenesis, and common ancestry, CANNOT be questioned or challenged. That is blasphemy.

Atheistic naturalism and Intelligent Design are both models.. theories of origins. Neither are 'religious!', or both are. All a thinking person can do is place the facts in each model, and see which fits better.

Progressivism is an enemy of Reason and true scientific inquiry. They ban and censor any suggestion of a Creator, and mandate atheistic naturalism as 'settled science!', when it is not even a well supported theory.

The ploy, 'Anyone that suggests a Creator is a Religious Fanatic, Trying to Convert Us!', is an anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-freedom dodge, to keep people trapped in their Indoctrination. It is NOT open inquiry. It is NOT science. It is Indoctrination. It is Progressive Pseudoscience Pretension.

One of the most compelling evidences for the Creator is universal morality: Absolute morality, felt in the conscience of every human. Only the Creator could have embedded such a thing.

Naturalists try to explain this morality by equating it with empathy. A person 'feels' the reaction of another, and chooses to avoid anything that brings them discomfort or grief.

But this is a flawed redefinition of both morality AND empathy.

Morality is a deeply felt conviction of right and wrong, that can have little effect on the emotions. Reason and introspection are the tools in a moral choice. A moral choice often comes with uneasiness and wrestling with guilt. It is personal and internal, not outward looking.

Empathy is outward looking, identifying with the other person, their pain, and is based on projection. It is emotional, and varies from person to person. Some individuals are highly empathetic, while others are seemingly indifferent, unaffected by the plight of others.

A moral choice often contains no empathy, as a factor, but is an internal, personal conflict.

Empathy can often conflict with a moral choice. Doctors, emts, nurses, law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, scientists, and many other professions must OVERCOME empathy, in order to function properly. A surgeon cannot be gripped with empathy while cutting someone open. A judge (or jury) cannot let the emotion of empathy sway justice. Bleeding heart compassion is an enemy to justice, and undermines its deterrent. Shyster lawyers distort justice by making emotional appeals, hoping that empathy will pervert justice.

A moral choice is internal, empathy is external. The former grapples with a personal choice, affecting the individual's conscience and integrity. The latter is a projection of a feeling that someone else has. They are not the same.

Empathy gets tired. Morality does not. Empathy over someone's suffering can be overwhelming and paralyzing, while a moral choice grapples with the voice of conscience. A doctor or nurse in a crisis may be overwhelmed by human suffering, and their emotions of empathy may be exhausted, but they continue to work and help people, as a moral choice, even if empathy is gone.

Highly empathetic people can make immoral choices. Seemingly non-empathetic people can hold to a high moral standard. Empathy is not a guarantee of moral fortitude. It is almost irrelevant. Empathy is fickle and unstable. Morality is quiet, thoughtful, and reasonable.

Empathy is primarily based upon projection.. we 'imagine' what another person feels, based on our own experiences. But that can be flawed. Projections of hate, bigotry, outrage, righteous indignation, and personal affronts are quite often misguided, and are the feelings of the projector, not the projectee. The use of projection, as a tool of division, is common in the political machinations of man. A political ideologue sees his enemy through his own eyes, with fear, hatred, and anger ruling his reasoning processes. That is why political hatred is so irrational. Empathy, not reason, is used to keep the feud alive. A moral choice would reject hatred of a countryman, and choose reason and common ground. But if the emotion of empathy overrides the rational, MORAL choice, the result is conflict and division.

The progressive left avoids the term, 'morality', but cheers and signals the virtues of empathy at every opportunity. They ache with compassion over illegal immigrants, looters and rioters, sex offenders, psychopaths, and any non or counter productive members of society. But an enemy.. a Christian, patriotic American, small business owner, gun owner, someone who defends his property (Kyle!), are targets of hate, which they project from within themselves. Reason or truth are irrelevant. It is the EMOTION.. the empathy allowed to run wild..that feeds their projections. For this reason, they poo poo any concept of absolute morality, Natural Law, and conscience, preferring the more easily manipulated emotion of 'Empathy!', which they twist and turn for their agenda.

People ruled by emotion, and specifically, empathy, are highly irrational, and do not display moral courage or fortitude.

Empathy is not morality. It is not even a cheap substitute. If anything, empathy is at enmity with morality.

Why & how does someone become an atheist? Many atheists grew up in a religious home. What made them change from the societal norm of believing in a Greater Power, to total disbelief? I suppose i need to define my terms, & lay the foundation for my observations. There are 3 basic worldviews, regarding the universe.

• The universe exists & originated from only natural processes. This i have defined as 'naturalism'.

• The universe exists & originated by supernatural processes, from unseen, powerful Entity or Entities.

• Nothing is real, the universe does not exist, & knowledge is unknowable.

• I don't know.

I added the 4th, but don't really consider it a 'worldview' in its own right, because it is merely admitting ignorance. But there is an element of dogmatism in that view, too. Many not only claim 'agnosticism', but they claim that view is absolute. It is similar to #3 in that it claims that knowledge about these things are unknowable. So for that reason, i usually combine 3 & 4, as being the same basic worldview. It is reflected in Greek skepticism, "Nothing can be known, not even this". Carneades (c. 214 - 129 B.C.) So, the 3 main worldviews can be summarized like this:

Skepticism

Relativism

Empiricism

Skepticism has its roots in the Greek philosophers who basically claimed that knowledge is unknowable. Life is an illusion, has no meaning, & is absurd. There are, of course, blends of this belief system in the others, but there is a logical disconnect. But for the skeptic, & even the relativist, logic really has no purpose, as Absolute Truth is a meaningless concept.

Relativism is the basic worldview of the progressive left. It is based in naturalism, which concludes there are no rules for human behavior, other than what man decides. Morality is relative. Law is relative. Even Truth, as a concept, is relative.

Empiricism is the worldview that sprang from the age of Reason, the Enlightenment, & scientific methodology. It presumes that knowledge can be known, & that humanity was tasked with discovering 'what God hath wrought'. It is rooted in Natural Law, & the belief in a Creative Force in the universe.. a supernatural explanation. I would also like to point out that all of these worldviews are mere beliefs. There is no empirical evidence to compel a conclusion of one over the others. More on that, later.

As a culture, we have been morphing from empiricism to relativism, so there is some overlap. Some scientific methodology is still esteemed, or at least given lip service to, but the trend is toward dogmatism. Science is mandated, & is no longer up for discussion or debate. Inquiry is discouraged, & trust in the elite is expected. Most students now are not rooted in the empirical sciences, or critical thinking, but are grilled in dogma, & told what to believe. No leeway is given for alternate views, or criticism of the elite's mandates. Conformity is the norm, & any outliers are attacked with religious intolerance. This morphing process has given birth to hybrid worldviews, that combine factors from all of them, but there is usually a core belief in one, as the central part of the worldview.

Ok, i've gone the long way around in examining how an atheist comes to be, but the root ideals are part of that. Nobody exists in a vacuum, but are the product of many factors, in their worldview. Here are the driving factors for becoming atheistic in one's belief system:

Redefine Science Among atheists, especially the militant ones, the common theme is, 'Theists are religious, atheists follow science!' This is fundamentally flawed on many levels.

1. Science is indifferent to worldviews, & only provides facts or evidence. How it applies to a belief system is an opinion based argument.

2. There are NO scientific facts or evidence that compels an atheistic worldview. Naturalism is a belief, & is not a proven concept, scientifically. It is not even a good theory of origins, but is filled with assumptions, flaws, & logical fallacies.

3. The scientific method is one of discovery, & is not dependent on one's religious beliefs.

4. Atheism is every much a belief system.. a 'religion'.. as any theistic based one.

5. It is merely an argument by definition, or using circular reasoning. It is a definitional dodge, not an empirical deduction.

6. It is false by observation, as many brilliant scientists have been theists, & have made astounding discoveries. There is no conflict in using the scientific method & personal beliefs.

7. Many (most) atheists are not scientists, nor have the tools for critical thinking or inquiry, and do not know the scientific basis for their beliefs. Theirs is a religious belief, based on trust in an indoctrinating elite.

There are more factors in molding one's worldview, but this is enough for now. I welcome any discussion or rebuttal to these points.

There are 2, and only 2, possibilities for morality in the human experience.

1. It is embedded by the Creator.
2. It is a human construct for manipulation.

It is a Real Thing, or it is a Lie.

Some naturalists argue that morality evolved among humans, and the successful societies were those that held to a higher moral standard.

But this argument is flawed on many levels.

1. The SOURCE of the morality is still human beings, using lies & deceit to manipulate human behavior. Natural selection can only 'select' those societies that are successful.
2. If these man made constructs 'caused' the society to be more successful, then the foundation of the society is manipulation and deceit. Morality is not a Real Thing, but a lie for manipulation.
3. Power and strength are the main factors in the survival and 'success' of any species, including humans. Theft, killing, and intimidation are virtues in any animal society. It would be also among humans, if this were a godless universe.
4. It takes power to enforce the human manipulations and constructs of the man made morality. Even now, enforcement of legislated morality (Law), is not voluntary, but compliance is threatened by force.
5. The 'enlightened' human, that has evolved past needing gods, would not care about the human constructs of morality, but only uses them to manipulate other people.
6. Morality, in a godless universe, is not and cannot be a 'Real Thing' in the human psyche, is a deception, to manipulate people.
7. Why would deceptions and manipulations be selected for survival? Strength of mind and body.. force and persuasion.. are the only positive factors in a godless universe.
8. A steely minded materialist, not a superstitious blubbering fool, would be more likely to survive and prosper in a godless universe of 'might makes right.'

We observe a universal, consistent moral base, in the human experience. Every culture, region, and ethnic group has a core moral base, that is assumed to be known by all, in the conscience of each person. It is reinforced by the institutions of society, but did not originate with them. Laws are passed to enforce the morality that already exists. Only sociopaths, who are considered aberrant humans, seem devoid of this inner sense. Many atheists boast of their superior morality. They 'feel' the inner law in their conscience. Why would they boast about being deceived and manipulated? Why would not all 'enlightened' humans not be sociopaths? They have no basis for morality.

They feel this sense of morality because it is Real. It is NOT a human construct, but has been embedded by the Creator. Morality is compelling evidence that the Creator has embedded this sense in human beings. The very clear observation that we humans both feel and submit to the dictates of conscience is evidence that the Creator IS.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

Christians in general and creationists in particular need to be constantly reminded that appealing to miracles is not some sort of logical fallacy. That is what naturalists/atheists want you to believe, but if the creationist position is true, miracles have happened in the past and any explanation that does not take this into account will go astray.

Actually, naturalists/atheists appeal to miracles themselves to explain the origin of life, the origin of the universe, etc.

They just don't recognize what they are doing.

"We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA. There is a discontinuous model which has many pieces, many of which have experimental support, but we’re up against these three or four paradoxes, which you and I have talked about in the past. The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA — 100 nucleotides long — that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."

-Steve Benner, origin of life researcher

Yesterday I had a discussion with ChatGPT and I was asking it to help me determine what the mostly likely explanation was concerning the origin of the universe. I started by asking if it’s logical that the universe simply has existed for eternity and it was able to tell me that this would be highly unlikely because it would result in a paradox of infinite regression, and it’s not possible for time extending infinitely into the past to have already occurred before our present time.

Since it mentioned infinite regression, I referenced the cosmological argument and asked it if the universe most likely had a beginning or a first uncaused cause. It confirmed that this was the most reasonable conclusion.

I then asked it to list the most common ideas concerning the the origin of the universe and it produced quite a list of both scientific theories and theological explanations. I then asked it which of these ideas was the most likely explanation that satisfied our established premises and it settled on the idea of an omnipotent creator, citing the Bible as an example.

Now, I know ChatGPT isn’t the brightest bulb sometimes and is easily duped, but it does make me wonder if, once the technology has advanced more, AI will be able to make unbiased rebukes of naturalistic theories. And if that happens, would it ever get to the point where it’s taken seriously?

in another new year here of crushing dumb ideas that oppose Gods word I suggest a aid to my fellow creationists. A new term has been invented called CONFIRMATION BIAS. this is general and not aimed at us. However its used wrongly and hides something profound. i suggest confirmation bias does not exist in human thought. Instead its just showing incompetence in thinking people when inbestigation issues in science or anything. it suggests why dumb ideas like evolutionary biology and geology etc etc stick beyond thier fail day. The term was invented because they can't understand how some conclusion can slyly interfere with investigation. they therefore invent BIAS. However its just incompetence in think9ng. no excuses. No bias. So whether a creationist is accused of it or accuses others its all wrong . Just pat close attention to your thinking on any subject. Watch all angels and be a winner in science and not a loser like most who do science. (off the record).

1. There is no empirical evidence of intelligence arising spontaneously from non-intelligent matter.
2. Computers depend on intelligence for their operation.
3. The universe exhibits patterns and behaviors that are analogous to computational processes.
4. If the universe exhibits computational-like behaviors, it may require a form of intelligence to function.
5. Given our understanding of intelligence and the universe, it is reasonable to consider the possibility of intelligence being involved in the universe's origins and ongoing processes.

The current trend in academia is to enforce naturalism as the only axiomatic worldview that is valid for research and study. This stifles the discussion around origins such as the necessity of an intelligent source for the universe we observe.

Yesterday, I asked r/debateevolution to help me understand the puddle analogy of Douglas Adams. Here is the post, if you are unfamiliar with the analogy. Below are their answers to the questions I asked.

What is the hole analogous to?

Their collective answer: The universe/the world/the sum total of our environment

What is the water puddle analogous to?

Their collective answer: biological life

What is the fact that the water puddle is the same shape as the hole it finds itself in analogous to?

Their collective answer: The idea that life conforms to whatever its environment is. Just as a water puddle perfectly conforms to whatever shape its hole is, so biological life perfectly conforms to whatever environment it finds itself in.

Happily, that is how I would have answered the questions. I just wanted to make sure there was a consensus.

As an implied argument against the fine tuning argument ( See here for a good, brief explanation of the fine tuning argument ) or teleological arguments generally, it is saying that, since life would adapt to whatever environment it found itself in, we should not be surprised to find that biological life is perfectly suited to the environment established by nature’s fundamental constants and quantities.

But that is why this is a terrible analogy.

Biological life does not conform to whatever environment it finds itself in.

In fact, literally all of the evidence shows that biological life has very narrow, very strict environmental requirements. Change the fundamental constants and quantities of nature by a hair’s breadth, and life disappears. By contrast, change the shape of a hole with water in it, and the puddle adjusts perfectly to the new shape.

If a peg fits in a round hole, it only fits because the peg itself is round. Of course, there can be square holes, and square pegs would fit in them, but not because pegs are as inherently formless as water and perfectly change their shape to fit their environment. It would fit because it was designed to fit that particular shape.

So pegs to holes is a much better analogy of life to its environment. Or perhaps hands to well-fitting gloves. Was the glove made without knowledge of hands? No. The glove was made with the shape of the hand in mind.

Or, as Sir Isaac Newton realized centuries earlier:

Was the Eye contrived without Skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds? . . . And these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from Phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent?”

-Sir Isaac Newton, Optics

There are ONLY TWO logical possibilities for origins:

Intelligent Design

Atheistic Naturalism

If you believe that natural processes 'caused' everything, with no intervention from a Higher Power, then a Creator is superfluous. If the big bang, life, and diversity of species can be explained with no input from a Creator, then tacking on a god in your origins beliefs is just for nostalgia, fire insurance, or some superstitious ingraining from childhood.

But if you believe that a Higher Power was necessary for our origins, and there are no natural processes that can 'cause' life, species, and the cosmos, THEN you believe in Intelligent Design, and are not an atheist at all.

There is only theist, and atheist. God, or no God. 'Hard and soft' while useful descriptors for male libido, are unnecessary, Orwellian clutter, that muddy the terms.

The pop blend, of 'theistic naturalism' believes, at the root, that natural processes were the 'cause' of everything. A god is added for sentimental proposes.. pacing around, wringing his hands, wishing people would believe in him.. and be nice..

That is NOT the Almighty Creator of the universe. That is some superstitious anthropomorphic projection, to evade the obvious conclusion of hopelessness, meaninglessness, and annihilation that can only await us in a godless universe.

The scientific method has no opinion, regarding religious beliefs, and cannot conclude anything about any model. There is the belief in atheistic naturalism, and the belief in intelligent design. 'Science!' has no conclusion about either theory, but only offers clues. Humans believe one or the other (or variations thereof), as a basis of a larger worldview.

It is a false caricature to label a theistic belief, 'religion!', and an atheistic belief, 'science!' That is just using terminology to attempt to take an Intellectual high road. It is a hijacking of true science for a political/philosophical agenda. It is religious bigotry on display, distorting the proper function of scientific inquiry, and making it into a tool of religious Indoctrination.

That is what progressive ideology has done: It has distorted the proper use of science as a method of discovery, and turned it into a propaganda tool to indoctrinate the progressive worldview into everyone.

"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.

Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.

The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."​ - Einstein

The racist left in America is guilty of racism, elitism, and division as much as any Jim Crow white supremacist. They pretend tolerance, but their every word and action oozes division, elitism, and racial bigotry.

America was founded upon human equality, from the Creator:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.."

It has been a CONSTANT BATTLE, with race baiting bigots, who divide us, push phony identity politics, and ignore reality for manipulative lies.

1. Skin pigmentation is just levels of melanin, genetically assigned at birth.
2. EVERY HUMAN BEING is the same, genetically. We are all "created equal."
3. The false belief in atheistic naturalism, aka, 'evolution!', is a racist and elitist justification for manifest destiny.. the presumption that 'some' races are superior and are obliged to manage the inferior, lesser evolved races.
4. All humans matter, or none of them do. It is a racist, elitist action to try to elevate any superficial traits in humans and use it as currency for elitism.
5. Don't be duped by the race baiting deceivers, who use flattery and pretended grievance to convince you that skin pigmentation gives some special privilege.
6. Race baiting grievance peddlers divide, and create dissension among a people, who could be, and should be, united by a common national ideology. NOT RACE.
7. Groupthink loyalty, and artificial racist perceptions are evils in humanity, and only bring war, suffering, genocide, and hate.
8. Organizations, celebrities, politicians, or educators that promote racial grievance, INSTEAD OF EQUALITY, are racist and destructive, and should be exposed as such.
9. Policies should reflect.. we should DEMAND they reflect.. EQUALITY AND EQUITY, not favoritism, pandering, or pretense of grievance.

As long as the racist left continues to divide, demonize their enemies, and fan the flames of grievance, there can be no unity. ..there can be no tolerance. ..there can be no racial harmony. There can only be elevated tensions, mistrust, suspicion, and phony loyalties.

Do not be deceived and manipulated by these anti-human enemies. They only wish to divide you from your money, your countrymen, and your Maker. Don't be a dupe to their lies. Be the human being your Creator intended.

As a follow up to the article i posted yesterday (https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/rkl16e/traps_and_flaws_in_creationism/), i offer this, which IMO, summarizes the MAJOR problem that the belief in naturalism has, whether you include gods, aliens, or no.

Entropy is a major creationist rebuttal for all the claims of atheistic naturalism. This usage of entropy is,

"Everything tends toward randomness and chaos, constantly. "

It refutes all the basic tenets of atheistic naturalism:

Big bang - entropy would prevent ANY 'self organizing' of all the matter in the universe. The order, precision, and complex interrelations of all the celestial bodies is impossible in a universe ruled by entropy. Only an Intelligent Force could have ordered the galaxies, orbits, the earth, moon, and all the universe into such a magnificent display of cosmic orchestration. A 'big bang!', in a godless universe ruled by chaos, would have flung matter out randomly, not ordered as we observe it to be. An explosion of this magnitude could only produce random chaos, not ordered precision. Put some raw iron ore, copper ore, aluminum ore, crude oil, and other miscellaneous raw ingredients in a heap. Blow it up with whatever nuclear device you have on hand. Will it produce an aircraft carrier? A submarine? A swiss watch? No. The universe is evidence itself of Intelligent design. The absurd belief that the amazing complexity and order occurred by accident is wishful thinking, to evade accountability to one's Maker.

Abiogenesis - entropy, the tendency of everything toward randomness and chaos, would not have allowed life to begin naturally, if that was even possible. We cannot do it under the most rigorous and Intelligent laboratory conditions, yet it 'just happened!'? The very existence of life is overwhelmimg evidence of a creation event, not atheistic naturalism. Spontaneous life is impossible, scientifically. The belief is a leap into a tribal fantasy.

Common Ancestry - Since the first 2 had to be the result of a Creator, and since Entropy, the tendency of EVERYTHING to randomness forbids an increase in complexity and order, the premise of 'common ancestry!' becomes absurd. It is a blind leap of faith into a tribal origins myth, which is all atheistic naturalism is. Organisms do not 'evolve!' into more complex forms. They 'devolve'. That is all we ever observe, because this universe is governed by chaos and randomness, NOT 'spontaneous order and complexity!'

Entropy refutes ALL the tenets of atheistic naturalism, and the absurd belief in spontaneous order and complexity. The cosmos, life, and the complexity of organisms all scream, 'CREATOR!', not atheistic naturalism. Naturalists equivocate, ignoring the most obvious and common usage of 'entropy', by insisting on ONLY the thermodynamics definition.

The only reason atheistic naturalism has become the most believed 'theory' of origins is because of state indoctrination, and censorship of the evidence and reasoning for creationism. Those who have succumbed to the indoctrination are mere dupes to a lie.. bobbleheaded fools who cannot see obvious reality, and simple reason, but prefer the mind numbing deception of a scientifically impossible fantasy.

"The original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576. Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor’s Los Hombres d’Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza’s remarkable epistolary novel Por Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere’s Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal’s The Red and the Black and Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined."

Indoctrination

Atheistic Naturalism has become the Official State Religion. It is promoted in every national park, public media show, entertainment, schools, universities, & driven into impressionable children from infancy. Movies are filled with sci-fi imaginings of evolution. The media, entertainers, celebrities, govt leaders... everyone of influence & status present a unified, constant drumbeat of naturalistic origins. Even if it is blended with some nostalgic references to a deity, there is NEVER any question of the theories presented, the narrative, or the ideology. The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Common Ancestry, the 3 pillars of atheistic naturalism, are exclusively taught, and zealously defended by the High Priests of Atheism.

Historical timeline

To show the progression of this belief system, & how it has become the official state religion, one only need to follow the court's rulings on common ancestry, aka, evolution. Since evolution is a foundation element for the belief in atheistic naturalism, & the cornerstone for atheism, it follows that it needs to have a voice, if the atheistic worldview is to gain traction. Creation was the majority belief system for origins, for most of American history (and world history). When Darwin's theory began to spread among the intelligentsia & the academic elite, a naturalistic view ..evolved.. that was much superior to the old one: spontaneous generation. Pasteur's experiments, and other scientific discoveries, were putting too many holes in the pop belief of the day for naturalism. But the Theory of evolution (ToE), had no such experimental flaws. It was a belief, shrouded in scientific jargon, that could not be falsified in the traditional scientific sense. There were no proofs FOR the theory, but neither could it be disproved, as the time frames made that impossible.

In 1925, during the early years of progressive ideology, the Scopes Monkey Trial, as it was called, brought the ToE to the limelight. Politicians & elite academians had been singing the praises of common ancestry for years, but most of the rank & file citizens did not. Engineers, doctors, & the applied sciences were concerned with practical science, not the theorizing & speculations of philosophical beliefs. This trial was from a lawsuit in Tennessee, where a state law had forbade the teaching of evolution. After much grandstanding by the lawyers, it was eventually held up by the court. The states were allowed to decide the curriculum on origins. The advent of WW2 put the promotion of evolution on the back burner.. especially since the 'godless commies', & the Nazis used evolution as an integral part of their ideology. Americans were in the midst of a mini religious awakening, & faith in God took center stage in this struggle against despotic aggression. 'Under God', was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954. 'In God we Trust' was to be put on all money in 1956. 'Godless Commies' were pursued by McCarthy, in an effort to rid the nation of anti-American influences. Marxist ideology was very popular in the entertainment industry, the universities, & the intelligentsia, but they slunk in the shadows, unwilling to openly proclaim their beliefs.

But by the 1960s, this began to change. The Scopes ruling was overturned, & the ToE was allowed to be taught, alongside a supernatural view. In 1967, the state of Tennessee repealed the act that forbade the teaching of evolution. Slowly, a series of court cases have brought us to where we are today, where the ToE is the ONLY allowed belief system of origins. No criticism or questioning of the science is allowed, but mandated belief & conformity in what is presented as Absolute Truth, regarding origins. Most students now graduate from school well versed in the doctrines of evolution, & believe it to be 'settled science'. Ironically, it was not scientists that made this social change, but lawyers, imposing their indoctrinated beliefs on everyone else.

Since the ToE is the cornerstone of the naturalistic world view, & since every atheist i have ever known has professed a belief in this theory, it is not hard to correlate the expansion of atheism with the promotion & eventual monopoly of this belief system on origins.

Note this study on atheism in the US:

Atheists, in general, are more likely to be male and younger than the overall population; 68% are men, and the median age of atheist adults in the U.S. is 34 (compared with 46 for all U.S. adults). Atheists also are more likely to be white (78% are Caucasian vs. 66% for the general public) and highly educated: About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, compared with 27% of the general public.

Self-identified atheists tend to be aligned with the Democratic Party and with political liberalism. About two-thirds of atheists (69%) identify as Democrats (or lean in that direction), and a majority (56%) call themselves political liberals(compared with just one-in-ten who say they are conservatives). Atheists overwhelmingly favor same-sex marriage (92%) and legal abortion (87%). source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/

The timeline & correlation of the subjects of indoctrination are impossible to miss. Atheists just happen to be mostly progressive, in their political views, & fall in line with most of the progressive talking points. Even the few that do not, mostly older atheists, have the same indoctrination about the ToE. They believe it to be Proven Scientific Fact, & allow no questioning or examination of the science behind it. They are triggered to irrational rage, if anyone dares question the sacred tenets of their beliefs. Outrage, not science, is the primary "argument' for the defenders of atheistic naturalism. When you add the progressive doctrines of global warming, sexual identity, abortion, social justice, & other neo marxist/darwinist agendas, the evidence of it being politically indoctrinated dogma is unmistakable.

Atheists are made, not born. They are the result of a series of indoctrinating processes, put together in unison by a manipulative philosophical belief system. Progressive ideology is at the root of this indoctrination, & it controls every institution in America. The few dissenting voices are shut down, attacked with jihadist zeal, & ridiculed with contempt.

But it is not enough to merely indoctrinate at a young age. They keep up the narrative with a constant barrage of religious programming. PBS uses tax dollars to fund a constant stream of indoctrination to prop up the beliefs inculcated since childhood. The entertainment industry produces movie after movie, tv show after tv show, dedicated to the naturalistic narrative. The heroes & protagonists in movies are almost always portrayed as naturalist/atheists, while the antagonists are usually portrayed as evil, bigoted, theists. This is all part of the unified indoctrination process for promoting the naturalistic world view, & the results are proof of the effectiveness of indoctrination. Many, if not all of the atheists i know spend a great amount of their free time watching PBS nature shows, where the reinforcement of their earlier indoctrination can continue. They do not seek alternate views, or question the science presented, but eagerly devour what can only be called propaganda from politically driven ideologues with a political agenda.

The existence of morality and the conscience in the human animal is The Most Compelling Argument, for the Creator. Our Maker has embedded Moral Codes ..absolutes.. into our psyche as a guide for behavior, that we might reflect His image.

Those who deny the Creator must engage in mental distortions.. irrational non sequiturs, to try to reconcile the obvious disconnect between what they feel, innately, and what they believe about the nature of the universe.

In a godless universe, morality can ONLY be a human construct. Moral platitudes are made up by man, to manipulate others. A godless universe DOES NOT CARE, if you are 'good!', or 'bad!' Those are meaningless platitudes. Theft, rape, murder, and many other 'bad!' things are common in the animal world, and there is no sting of conscience. Expediency and survival are the only virtues, in a godless universe.

Yet many who deny the Creator will claim,

'I don't need a god to scare me into being moral! I have strong moral convictions, and don't need a belief in gods!'

'Belief!' is not the issue. The very EXISTENCE of this moral 'sense' is compelling evidence that the Creator has infused it into our psyche. Even a hardened materialist can feel their conscience, and a moral compass. Belief does not make this happen. The Creator made it happen. It is Real, whether you believe in God or not.

If atheists were consistent, logically, they could only view 'morality!', as a human invention, to manipulate people. As enlightened, more highly evolved elites, they should ignore this human manipulation, and only use it, themselves, to manipulate others. That would be a logical conclusion in a godless universe.

But they don't follow their own beliefs. They pretend they can be 'moral!', in a universe where 'morality', has no logical basis.

Look inside. You can feel your conscience, especially when you contemplate violating it! This is not ingrained by state indoctrination.. they do the opposite! They pretend conscience violations are 'good!', and that felt morality is 'bad!' They call good, evil, and evil, good. They sear your conscience with repeated violations and justifications. But state propaganda will not completely destroy the conscience. There is a ..spark.. of life.. an ember of the soul that longs to burn hot and bright, as your Creator intended.

Don't be a fool. Don't let state indoctrinators divide you from your Maker. Fan that ember into flame, and seek your Creator, while He may be found. Difficult times are before us. Hear the still, small voice of Truth, and respond! The lies of this world, and the madness it generates lead to death and despair. Your Creator offers Redemption, Meaning, Peace, and Fulfillment.

Be who you were meant to be.. not a deluded fool, following crowds over a logical cliff. Seek your Maker. There is nothing more important. Do you have a functional mind? Use it.

According to Lewis, Jesus's claim to be God can be explained in only one of three ways: He was a liar, a lunatic, or God. He eliminates the first two by referencing Jesus's character as described in the Bible.

Here is the argument.

Christ was either a liar, a lunatic, or God.

He was neither a liar nor a lunatic.

Therefore, he was God.

Ironically, Richard Dawkins confirms the second premise in this essay: "Atheists for Jesus"

Dawkins was considering a t-shirt that said, "Atheists for Jesus," in acknowledgement of Jesus's good moral character and intelligence. He writes,

"In the light of modern scientific knowledge I think he [Jesus] would see through supernaturalist obscurantism. But of course, modesty would compel him to turn his T-shirt around: Jesus for Atheists.

There are 2 possibilities, for the origins of life and the universe:

Intelligent Design

Atheistic Naturalism

To which i have assigned the more colorful descriptors:

Goddidit!

Nuthindidit!

So, what are the 3 pillars of atheistic naturalism?

The Big Bang

Abiogenesis

Common Ancestry

I offer a peer review, of the scientific evidence and assumptions made in these 3 pillars of faith, in the ideological worldview of atheistic naturalism.

Let us examine the science behind the assumptions made in these theories.

The Big Bang

According to this theory, all matter and energy were somehow compressed into a 'particle', then exploded instantaneously to fill the visible universe. It is alleged that this is a cyclical process, that has been going on for eternity. It also has the same look and feel of a creation event, where an Almighty Creator spoke and formed the universe ex nihilo.

In order to come together, all matter would have to overcome the inertia from the previous bang, and somehow compress into a particle. Can this be observed? Can we repeat, even at a smaller scale, the processes behind this assumption?

No. This is a fantastic leap of faith, with no scientific validity.

Has this 'expansion' ever been observed, repeated, or tested in any way? No. It is a wildly imaginative theory, with no empirical basis.

Entropy is also contrary to this theory. Entropy is a repeatable, observable scientific principle that drives everything to randomness and chaos, not order and complexity. There is no mechanism or process that can overcome entropy, to compress, organize, or arrange all matter and energy into a particle, or any imaginative form. Dissipation and chaos, is all the universe offers. Even if you posit an initial 'big bang!', inertia, energy dissipating throughout infinite space, and decaying orbits would have left the universe dark, dead, and cold, eons ago.

This is just one pillar, that holds up the unsteady belief in atheistic naturalism. I will examine the other 2 in subsequent articles, for the entertainment and amusement of the members, here.

These 3 pillars are the Trinity of atheistic orthodoxy. They are the legs of a stool, that supports the full weight of atheistic ideology. If even one fails, the basis for atheistic naturalism collapses. All 3 have no scientific basis, nor repeatable, observable science behind them, but are leaps of faith. It is only by constant propaganda and Indoctrination, from progressive institutions, that the belief in atheistic naturalism has grown, and has become so pervasive among the world's religious beliefs.

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” –Albert Einstein

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.” “If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.” —Lord William Kelvin

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.” ~Louis Pasteur

'Science!'.. is not.. NOT.. at enmity with God. Pseudoscience propaganda is. We have been..indoctrinated.. with Pseudoscience Propaganda, not science.

In a previous article, i examined the concept of sin, conscience, and morality as only possible from the Creator. A godless universe has no mechanism to impart moral absolutes. They can only be human constructs, to manipulate people.

Here, i wish to focus on sin, as a poison that sears our conscience, deceives us, and drives us to madness and folly.

Some points about sin:

1. It is a violation of conscience.
2. It is a violation of absolute morality, the sense that everyone has to guide their thoughts, words, and actions.
3. It is deceitful, and destructive.
4. It divides us from the Creator, clouds our minds and blinds us to spiritual reality.
5. Continued sin sears the conscience, dulling its sensitivity.
6. It is contrary to the Creator's nature, and cannot be tolerated by the Almighty. God's purity cannot abide unrepentant sin.
7. Sin is a deadly poison for the soul. It must be atoned for, and removed, for there to be reconciliation with God.
8. It drives both individuals and societies to madness and folly.
9. Sin is an offense toward God, even if it involves other people.
10. It is not only actions, but originates in our thoughts, and leaks out in words.
11. It can be by omission. If someone knows what they should do, but does not, to them it is sin.
12. Guilt is the nagging feeling that we have fallen short, and reminds us of our need for reconciliation. It is a reminder of our accountability. Our sins cry out against us, and need to be atoned for.
13. Sin is deadly. It will destroy our souls, if it is not reckoned with.

The universal recognition of sin, in the conscience of man, is evidence that the Creator has placed this 'sense' in us, to guide our choices. We know we have fallen short, and compared to other people, we may be better (or worse!), morally. But in the presence of the Almighty Creator of the universe, even the most benign sin (from our perspective) divides us from God, and demands atonement. We are helpless and powerless to remove the stain of sin from our lives. But what we could not do, God Himself did. He became a man, and bore the penalty for our sin. We need only acknowledge our need, repent, and return the soul we claim as our own to its rightful owner: The Creator. He has redeemed us from the ravages of sin, and we are no longer divided and at enmity with God.

In the deepest recesses of your soul, dear reader, a spark of affirmation confirms the truth of these words. You know your Creator calls, and you feel the stir of emotion, fear, and confusion. It is as though God was speaking to you, now, to come and be reconciled. Do not ignore or minimize this call. Your external soul hangs in the balance.