Month: June 2016

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Herein we will consider when and why certain personages became Atheists. We will parse these into Statistics, Influential Atheists, Ex-Catholics, Ex-Hindus and Hoi Polloi Atheists. As of now, I list the tales of 107 Atheists. You can find them all at the When and Why They Became Atheists Project page.

These examples are taken from Quora.

Kumar Ayush:
Family were “‘officially’ Hindus…not into superstitious stuff…never ask God for anything, and never thank him for anything…my mother told me…We don’t care if you believe in God or not. Pray to him or not.”

Main points:
No age given.

Interestingly, Kumar writes, “I would never say ‘I don’t believe in God’. Atheism is defined by contemporary dictionaries to be ‘denial in existence of God’ but I don’t agree to it in a philosophical way. We don’t have a proof ‘for’ him, but we have no evidence which can logically establish his non-existence. A true atheist in my opinion, when asked about existence of God, would say, ‘I am not sure.’” Well then, a true Atheist is an agnostic then.

Divyanth Jayaraj:
Gives a nice age by age account beginning with “At 15, I had a somewhat vague idea of what God is. My religion was mostly in line with Hindu beliefs…At 16, I saw the movie, passion of the christ and I was greatly moved by it. I wanted to follow the example of Jesus. Even though I was too tired to read the Bible, I looked for other sources; folklore about Jesus, Moses and other Abrahamic figures.”

Main points:
26 yrs old.

“At 18” reacted to non-stop news about Islamic terrorism and “human-rights abuses in Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan and I developed a genuine hatred for Islam…began trolling and bigoting on various internet forums…At 19, I met someone” who appears to have turned Divyanth on to Muslim mysticism.

At “26…finally realized…Submission” in a mystical Islamic manner “only made me more ignorant and more fearful of my own thoughts…I learned of logical fallacies and found out that Quran is full of it…that’s the story of my atheism. But I still think about God, Allah, Krishna and Jesus for kicks’ sake.”

Lastly, Divyanth notes “I’ve also realized that being an atheist literally frees your mind to endless thought processes” which is the exact 100% opposite of the case. Well, okay, an Atheist can think that which they will but Atheism itself will restrict their conclusions to only those that are materialistic/naturalistic.

Diniel Patel: Interestingly, Diniel begins by noting “Found no evidence to believe in the omnipresent god(s)” and yet, in order to have searched out all such evidence Diniel would have to be omniscient.

Thus, Diniel falls into folly instantly and continues falling further from there by noting, “May be there is a god. I am yet to see any empirical proof of it/him/her. And yeah, Abrahamic religions, why just HE? Greek, Indian religions at least give justice to all genders.”

Main points:
Mid-teens.

It may be a language gap but this is an utterly mistaken and confused assertion. Diniel does not define that which is meant by empirical proof in their estimation but only asserts that they have seen none. The Abrahamic religions do not believe that God is a male yet, generically refer to God via male gender terms. Jesus came as a male but there is no indication that the Godhead, in nature and essence is male. In fact, since the Abrahamic religions believe that God is spirit, it is literally impossible for God to be a male since, as Jesus put it, “a spirit has not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).
Now, what this has to do with “justice” is unclear but while you are at it you can read Is the Bible misogynistic? and Biblical Women.

As it turns out, Diniel was “Born in to a believer Hindu family, not super religious…went to an [Seventh Day] Adventist school” and notes “how are we different from the stupid Catholics…I could not bring myself to accept god…by the middle of my teens.”

Diniel recalls “praying to god, for a nice pen, a nice girlfriend, end of my dad’s alcoholism, tasty food everyday” and upon being “told to be altruistic…thought, ok, maybe god won’t give me what I ask for myself but maybe he will listen to my prayers AND ACT ON THEM, if I asked for other people” yet upon doing this, “NOTHING WORKED.”

He then went from condemning God for not obeying his commands, prayers, to appealing to the problem of evil as “I couldn’t bring myself to accept a god who brings a child into this world that has cancer or a broken limb or any other diseases or deformities.” Given his Hindu background, he notes that “The concept of sins from your previous birth affecting your current birth, still does not make sense to me” and me neither.

He ends with “I wont believe in god till I find evidence, that can withstand test of time” and yet, does not hint at what such evidence would look like.

Ian Sawyer:
It is interesting that he seems to boast, “50+ years as an atheist, and nothing has convinced me to believe otherwise” when one could also say something to the likes of 50+ years as a fugitive, and nothing has convinced me to turn myself in.

This one is very short and simply notes that “Only a small percentage of people here” with reference to Australia and New Zealand “are particularly religious….over half of us are either atheist or agnostic, so any atheistic ‘coming out’ is pretty much a non-event.”

Main points:
No age given but apparently from birth.

Well, the question was not when did you come out as an Atheist but why did you become one. In short, he affirms that he is merely the product of his secular culture.

Steve Doig:
This one is very short as well noting, “My parents took us to church…out of a sense of social duty” which means that walking away from that was walking away from nothing.

Main points:
“was an unconscious atheist early”

He terms religion a “virus” and that is about it.

Jason Kramer:
This short one references “questions” which “kept becoming bigger and deeper” and “Reading religious texts ironically made my doubts and questions multiply.”

He simply notes that “Eventually, every pastor or peer got really bummed out and every answer became ‘You should pray to God for the answer’” and that “He didn’t answer.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Twitter: #atheism, #atheists
Facebook: #atheism, #atheists

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to airport delays and bonuses THE TSA IS HIRING!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

Twitter: #TSA, #airport, #travel
Facebook: #TSA, #airport, #travel

Herein we continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, considering the “Devil” in text generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels in general and in apocryphal texts here. See my section on Cherubim and Seraphim in general and in apocryphal texts here.

Devil in Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Gospel of Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate, Wisdom of Solomon aka Book of Wisdom, Book of John the Evangelist aka Interrogatio Iohannis.

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians – 110-140 AD
7 …whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil.

Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of Pilate – 4th century AD
I Pilate saith unto them: By what evil deeds? They say unto him: He is a sorcerer, and by Beelzebub the prince of the devils he casteth out devils, and they are all subject unto him. Pilate saith unto them: This is not to cast out devils by an unclean spirit, but by the god Asclepius.

VI He that was healed saith: On the sabbath. The Jews say: Did we not inform thee so, that upon the sabbath he healeth and casteth out devils?

VIII And certain others, even a multitude both of men and women cried out, saying: This man is a prophet and the devils are subject unto him. Pilate saith to them which said: The devils are subject unto him: Wherefore were not your teachers also subject unto him?

XIV And these signs shall follow upon them that believe: in my name they shall cast out devils.

VI (XXII) After the same manner all the legions of devils were stricken with like fear and cried out all together in the terror of their confusion.

VIII (XXIV) Ye that by the tree and the devil and death were condemned, behold now the devil and death condemned by the tree.

Wisdom of Solomon aka Book of Wisdom – late 1st century BC or from the 3rd century BC to the 1st century AD
2:21-24 Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

Book of John the EvAngelist aka Interrogatio Iohannis And he Commanded to bring a reed, and the devil planted it in the midst of paradise, and so did the wicked devil hide his device that they knew not his deceit…Notwithstanding, the devil entered into a wicked serpent and seduced the Angel that was in the form of the woman, and he wrought his lust with Eve in the Song of the serpent. And therefore are they called sons of the devil and sons of the serpent that do the lust of the devil their father, even unto the end of this world. And again the devil poured out upon the Angel that was in Adam the poison of his lust, and it begetteth the sons of the serpent and the sons of the devil even unto the end of this world…From the time when the devil fell from the glory of the Father and (lost) his own glory, he sat upon the clouds, and sent his ministers, even Angels flaming with fire, unto men from Adam even unto Henoch his servant…

And therefore did my Father send me into the world that I might make it known unto men, that they might know the evil device of the devil…But then (now) did the devil proclaim unto him (Moses) his godhead, and unto his people, and commanded a law to be given unto the children of Israel, and brought them out through the midst of the sea which was dried up…And the Lord said unto me: Before the falling of the devil with all his host from the glory of the Father [in prayer], they did glorify the Father in their prayers…Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his Angels…And the Son of God shall walk with his elect above the firmament and shall shut up the devil, binding him with strong chains that cannot be loosed.

In the next segment, we will consider The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea, History of Joseph the Carpenter, 2 Enoch aka Slavonic Book of the Secrets of Enoch, Latin Life of Adam and Eve aka Slavonic Life of Adam and Eve (both aka Vita Adae et Evae) and Greek Life of Adam and Eve aka Apocalypse of Moses.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

Twitter: #devil, #theology, #apocrypha
Facebook: #devil, #theology, #apocrypha

Herein we continue, from part 1, part 2, considering the “Devil” in text generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels in general and in apocryphal texts here. See my section on Cherubim and Seraphim in general and in apocryphal texts here.

Devil in Epistles of Ignatius to Romans, Magnesians, Ephesians, Smyrnaeans, Trallians, Philippians.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans – 105-115 AD
5 Let fire and the cross; let the crowds of wild beasts; let tearings, breakings, and dislocations of bones; let cutting off of members; let shatterings of the whole body; and let all the dreadful torments of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ. The very torment of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians – 105-115 AD
5 The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is one humanity, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians – 105-115 AD
10 While we take care not to imitate their conduct, let us be found their brethren in all true kindness; and let us seek to be followers of the Lord(who ever more unjustly treated, more destitute, more condemned?), that so no plant of the devil may be found in you, but ye may remain in all holiness and sobriety in Jesus Christ, both with respect to the flesh and spirit…Take heed that no plant of the devil be found among you, for such a plant is bitter and salt. “Watch ye, and be ye sober,” in Christ Jesus.

14 Wherefore none of the devices of the devil shall be hidden from you, if, like Paul, ye perfectly possess that faith and love towards Christ which are the beginning and the end of life.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans – 2nd century AD
9 He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does[in reality] serve the devil.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians – 2nd century AD
4 I therefore have need of meekness, by which the devil, the prince of this world, is brought to nought.

8 Not that I know there is anything of this kind among you; but I put you on your guard, inasmuch as I love you greatly, and foresee the snares of the devil.

10 Do ye therefore flee from these ungodly heresies; for they are the inventions of the devil, that serpent who was the author of evil, and who by means of the woman deceived Adam, the father of our race.

Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians – 2nd century AD
3 I therefore exhort you in the Lord to receive with all tenderness those that repent and return to the unity of the Church, that through your kindness and forbearance they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil.

6 Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince prophets, but denies Christ to be the Son of God, he is a liar, even as also is his father the devil, and is a Jew falsely so called, being possessed of mere carnal circumcision. If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and Earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit.

In the next segment, we will consider Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Gospel of Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate, Wisdom of Solomon aka Book of Wisdom, Book of John the Evangelist aka Interrogatio Iohannis.

Within the original statements to which I initially replied, Zen appealed to the sixth century AD Targum, in this case he appealed to the “Writings of Abraham” which, I must admit, is a little difficult to pin down. All anyone seems to know about it is that it is based on papyri found in Egypt 1831 AD. Thus, for all we know, it is The Testament of Abraham Lincoln as he was born 1809 AD. Well, alright, maybe not.
However, some of the confusion about the text is that there are references to the “The Writings of Abraham,” also to “The Testament of Abraham” and “The Testament of Abraham, The Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, The Narrative of Zosimus” there is “The Testament of Abraham” within the “Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IX” and a “Book of Abraham” which the Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claim that their founder, Joseph Smith, began translating in 1835 AD (FYI: “Egyptologists, beginning with Theodule Deveria in the late-19th century, have disagreed with Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles. They have also asserted that damaged portions of the papyri have been reconstructed incorrectly. The controversy intensified in the late 1960s when portions of the Joseph Smith Papyri were located. Translation of the Egyptian text revealed that the rediscovered portions bore no relation to the Book of Abraham text”— see here).
In fact, one source, The Messianic Evangelicals: New Covenant Assemblies of Yahweh (whatever that is) has the text that Zen Garcia quotes as being “The Second Book of Abraham also known as the Writings of Abraham” and noting, for what is it worth:

The Second Book of Abraham, originally known as the Writings of Abraham…The accuracy of this book (which was not produced by a member of this order and was originally heavily tainted with LDS ideas, both historical and theologically) cannot be vouched for and should therefore be treated with caution. A number of revisions have been made by this ministry to remove the bulk of false LDS teachings from it but this is still not complete.

They reference a “fourth revision of the original” but do not provide any information about the original beyond the statements above and that “There has been some debate as to whether it should be removed altogether…a fifth revision may be made in the future to remove all remaining traces of Mormonism.”

The point being that the text Zen quotes appears to be very much literal apocrypha with no one knowing anything about its author nor date or authorship (any info on this would be appreciated). Now, I certainly have no problem whatsoever in urging researches to read such texts as we can derive some historical and cultural context as well as to discern what sorts of theological speculations were afoot at the time of authorship. My problem with Zen Garcia is that he has turned discernment on its head. One is to read such texts and judge them by the Bible but Zen judges the Bible by such texts. This is evidence in many, many ways such as, for example, his claim that Adam and Eve were disembodied beings of light who did not have bodies and did not live on Earth until after the fall—based on apocryphal texts. But why make such claims when the Bible states very, very clearly that this was simply not the case. Genesis 1 references the earth 21 times and Genesis 2 references it 6 times (with it sometimes referring to the planet and other times to the soil/dirt upon the planet). Moreover, Genesis 2 specifies that Eve was made from Adam’s rib and that when he saw Eve he said, “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” and Jesus elucidated “spirit hath not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).

Yet, Zen does not allow the Bible to correct his conclusions that he bases on apocrypha rather, he contradicts the Bible based on the apocrypha.

Zen Garcia and Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh

Worse yet, much, much worse; Zen has actually told his audience to read the Nag Hammadi and the problem is not that the told them that they should merely read them but that they should do so because they are, or so he claimed, the writings of the apostles.
This is an utterly shocking claim as the Nag Hammadi texts represent some of the purest forms of literally Satanic doctrine. Now, in making this claim I am not merely offering a random opinion but am appealing to someone with whom Zen Garcia has some acquaintance. Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh is a fellow (to Zen) believer in the serpent seed of Satan theory and in her book “Eden: The Knowledge of Good and Evil 666” (which I reviewed here) devotes an entire section to the Nag Hammadi texts which she calls “Satanic.” Here is some of what she has to say on the matter (emphasis added for emphasis):

…hypnotic vibration allowed Satan, envisioned as a bright light, to enter their souls and possess their minds. Gnostics believe that once a person accepts the light, they have become illuminated. Those possessing this illumination declare that they have received a divine spark that has given them a god-like status, thereby making them equal to the Angels. Those who practice Gnosticism today follow teachings from texts that were found buried in Egypt.

These texts, called the Nag Hammadi, are believed to have been written by their god. The Nag Hanunadi is a library of books that include a total of 51 texts called Codices…a closer look at the Gnostic Codices so we can further distinguish their differences from Christianity’s biblical accounts.

Codex One uses New Testament language. It records that secret books were written regarding the resurrection of Jesus and were given to the Apostles. These secret books explained to the Disciples the ‘Craft’ of Black Magic…They were apparently written in an effort to downplay the true resurrection of Jesus.

Codex Two rejects what is in the Genesis account of the Bible. It totally magnifies Satan as the good god of mankind. The texts composing his Codex explain that it was Jehovah who was the deceiver in the Garden of Eden…Therefore Satan, not Jehovah, is applauded as the ‘Bringer of Light and Truth’ to mankind…

The Texts also taught that mankind was capable of re-incarnation so that he could, eventually, obtain god-hood through successive visits to earth.

In the Gospel of Phillip contained within this Codex, Mary Magdalene is referred to as the most loved Disciple of Jesus. She is recorded as being Jesus’ favorite companion, whom He often kissed…Jesus loved her more than anyone else.

If Zen takes issue with this, he can contact Dr. Pugh and report back their discussion. It is a fact that the Gnostic Nag Hammadi texts turn the Bible upside-down, inside out and backwards. For some details see Gospel of Judas, part 5 of 7 : AEON SOTER – Some Gnosis of Gnosticism.

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment, we will consider Zen’s elevation of apocrypha, 2 of 2.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse
—Romans 1:20

When you have been in the Q&A of apologetics long enough you see patters with tend to repeat; many people have the very same questions. Yet, on occasion you run across a question of statement that really makes you think…think something to the likes of, “Oi vey!”

I recently received the following statement regarding the article God and the science classroom with particular regards to the “universe (which the Bible does not say God created, BTW).”

We simply must appreciate the fact that such astute and erudite scholars have finally concluded that Jews and Christians have been in error for millennia upon millennia as they have wrongly assumed that the Bible does, indeed, state that God created the universe. This is the level of scholarly arrogance with which we are dealing. This is tantamount to Sam Harris’ claim that you can get a justification for stoning someone for adultery from the New Testament—something which no other person in two millennia noticed; not even Jesus BTW.

One simply has to wonder what drives people to such unfathomable depths of ignorance (literally lacking knowledge). Is it a basic bankruptcy as to the contents, contexts and concepts of the Bible which plague our society and the pop-internet-culture? Is it the misinformation promulgated by websites such as evilbible.com, positiveatheism.org,
skepticsannotatedbible.com, Capella’s Guide to Atheism, ex-christian.net, et al?

Yet, even if such websites provide the misinformation, misinterpretations, misapplications, misreading, misunderstandings that they do one would expect an honest skeptic to search these things out and conclude that they are simply unscholarly emotive devices.

So what is it? Well, on an individual level only the individual and God knows. Ultimately, it is an issue of spiritual warfare and that atheism is an emotional rejection of God disguised behind a thin veil of scientific and intellectual respectability.

This has merely been food for thought, now to the issue. While one would love to simply dismiss such statements as mere malarkey the fact is that, as per 1st Peter 3:15, apologists are to be ever ready to give an answer for the hope that is in us with gentleness and respect.

So, away we go: the assertion was that the Bible does not state that God created the universe.

Now let us consider the evidence:

I know, I know, you are thinking, “Just quote Genesis 1:1 and get it over with.” Well, I suspect that quoting “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” will be considered as referring only to the sky and soil or some such thing. I suspect that regardless of the many texts to which we may refer an attempt will be made to claim that it does not specify “the universe” in the manner in which we define the words today, etc.

So, how about John 1:1-3?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Thus, anything that was made, that had a beginning, was made by Him, the Word, Jesus, who was with God in the beginning and therefore, has no beginning Himself. “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” and in the original Greek “all” means “all”—just a little apologetics humor, very little :o)

How about Colossians 1:16?

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

“all things…All things” all and everywhere / anywhere. So firm is this text that Jehovah’s Witnesses—who deny that Jesus is the eternal God almighty—manipulate the text in their translation via brackets and thus, render it as:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the Earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist.

The texts says “all” but they must force it to say “all [other]”; I, at least, give them credit for using brackets in this case (for details on this, see Show Me the Scripture!!! …context…context…context…).

Consider Revelation 4:11,

You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.

God “created all things” which is why the Kalam Cosmological argument holds as it states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist and so it had a cause, God never began to exist and so does not require a cause—see On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.

But why not reference Genesis 1:1? Let us elucidate it:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

“In the beginning” refers to time, “the heavens” refers to space, “the earth” refers to matter. “In the beginning” refers to the finite creation of the universe. “God” refers to a preexistent time-less, space-less, matter-less being or; eternal, not confined to locality nor subject to natural laws, immaterial or spirit.

“created” refers to being brought into being, infused with energy/matter, designed.

What about Hebrews 11:3?

the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Hebrews 1:2 states that God,

has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds

By the way, that Jesus was “appointed heir of all things” is the meaning of “firstborn” in the text previously considered.

What of 2nd Peter 3? Some claims that this text refers to God not creating out of nothing but forming out of pre-existing stuff (although, keep in mind that God did form after having created out of nothing).

Interestingly, the text makes reference to uniformaterianism as it is related that “mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.’”

The verse in question follows directly upon this and states:

For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.

At least two things must be kept in mind, as per usual when doing hermeneutics: 1) the immediate context and 2) the greater context. 1) is that Peter is correlating water with water: the water out of which the earth was formed with the water of the flood.

2) is that Genesis 1:2 states, “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.”

Thus, first “God created the heavens and the earth” which took place “In the beginning.” Afterwards “the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” Then:

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

This is why Peter could state that, “the earth was formed out of water and by water.”

For info on hermeneutics see:
Hermeneutics: on how to properly interpret……..DNA!?!?!

Hermeneutics Resources

Tips that Atheists [et al.] can use for Understanding the Bible

How do You Read the Bible?

All Interpretations Are Not Created Equal

Therefore, since God created “all” things, both seen and unseen; He created the universe.
And since the claim was about the “universe (which the Bible does not say God created, BTW)” the claim is fallacious.

Also, see the essay at this link for an example of Trinitarian doctrine in the Bible as it refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the creator.

Samuel Melser:

Samuel Melser wrote an interesting article about “prehistoric photography” which refers to reconstructions of the past in portrait-like photos, the photography of fossils, the photography of the reconstructions of fossils, etc.

Following are some of his points:

During the middle of the 19th century photography became integral to scientific observation. Photography was thought to be capable of providing detailed, accurate and objective depictions of whatever was in front of the camera, giving science a totally transparent window on reality. Today, however, critics and art historians have learnt to deconstruct the easily-doctored pictorial and semiotic devices that constitute a photograph.

For some time now, photography’s pretensions to scientific objectivity have been under scrutiny. Within the discipline of visual studies there now seems to be a general consensus as to the heuristic and epistemological limits of documentary images. It is accepted that they are incapable of faithfully recording any but a few superficial dimensions of reality.

Images that pretend to illustrate nature or reality are nowadays often viewed as little more than subjective interpretations of a constructed and arbitrary vision prescribed by some unacknowledged political, institutional or ideological agenda. Archaeologists are also questioning the objective pretensions of photography in relation to their own methods of research and documentation…

a great number of reconstruction images of prehistoric man reflect the socio-cultural environment in which they were made more than a putative prehistoric reality…

It is now evident to those working in the field of archaeological documentation that there is no natural relationship between reality and its representation…

The notion that a special logical and/or scientific procedure is in operation here is used as a narrative device in all of the ‘sciences of the past’. It helps rationalise the spectator’s inevitable tendency to imaginatively fill in gaps, left by the archaeologist, relating to the morphologies and environments of ancient life forms. Logical deduction is assumed to be employed by the prehistorian in much the same way as it is employed by the detective…

the artist has ‘a license to resurrect’. Within reason, he or she may speculate as much as he or she likes. The artist’s job is to go where the scientist is forbidden to go – to insert a realistic persona and life-force into the morally vacant identikit [“a computer-generated ‘portrait robot’ (a 3D identikit image)”]. In order for the public to fully appreciate the scientific and archaeological findings, the image the artist arrives at must be natural, believable and compelling – such as to require a psychological interpellation, an empathic response, from the viewer…

Although the majority of recent reconstructions, such as those of Elizabeth Daynes, are based on fact, on scientific data, it is impossible to recreate plausibly human-like images of our distant past ancestors without a certain amount of unverifiable speculation. Even though the speculation is educated or informed and the unknown variables are restricted to as few as possible, fictional devices must be employed to gain contact with the spectator.
Ultimately, it is these fictional devices that enable us to communicate with the prehistoric time-travellers, to perceive them as fellow human beings. If a reconstruction sculpture based only on a few scattered and fragmented fossils and footprints is to be credible as a document it should, according to Jorge Wagensberg:

‘…be scientifically compatible with the available reality, technically updated in terms of materials and methods, artistically likely to combine beauty with facial expression revealing a certain mood, and finally, it should convey an emotion within a museum context’ (Wagensberg 2007 : 241)…

The anachronism inherent in the concept of prehistoric photography is actually helpful for the contemporary spectator – enabling him to project our modern humanity onto humanlike creatures of long ago…

The apparent objective realism of photography helps create the illusion of an effet du reel and, although we know it is impossible to photograph a prehistoric scene, we still believe this is what we are seeing. The photographic image provides a method of hypernaturalism necessary to convince the public of the truth of the evolution story and the reality of our common ancestry with the great apes.

Hypernaturalism is as much a belief (an ideology) as it is a tendency or a movement. Precision, clarity and detail are characteristics of this representational tendency. All of these are visual strategies the author uses in order to take the spectator on a perceptual journey. Furthermore, the above scenario is analogous with our understanding of the visible world: if something is not ‘clear’, be it idea or thing, it is more difficult to grasp.
The form of scientific representation we are discussing here, reconstruction, is logically ‘realistic’ or more precisely ‘naturalistic’. An ‘abstract’ visual scientific reconstruction of a prehistoric figure is inconceivable. Naturalism as a representative strategy is inherent in the language of this kind of scientific imagery; it is witness to the objective realism the images aspire to…”2

Examples of Reconstructions:
I will emphasize something that he does not very much and that is that artists—photographers, painters, sculptors—are often a scientists’ best friend. This is because the artist can invent “evidence”—where evidence is lacking the artist can simply invent it.

For example, let us consider Elizabeth Daynes’ silicon sculpture reconstruction Lucien, l’Australopitheque:

Let us grant that we have as much as a complete and exquisitely preserved skeleton: How does Elizabeth Daynes know what the eyes looked like—her reproduction has whites in the eyes which apes do not have. How does she know what the nose looked like—cartilage does not fossilize. What about the pensive visage? Etc., etc., etc.

This sort of thing is obviously ubiquitous:

Consider “Nebraska Man”: this is what was presented by the newspaper Illustrated London News in 1922 as representing the fossil find:

Now consider the actual evidence:

One artists’ representation of an entire scene of two creatures, their habits and habitats based on one pig’s tooth.

What about “Lucy”? Here is the actual fossil find:

Note the missing feet and mere fractions of one hand. In fact, Lucy’s knee joint was found a mile and a half away from the rest of the skeleton.

Now, consider the reconstruction:

Complete with human-like feet and hands:

In fact, here is Lucy with her main squeeze:

Or consider the reconstruction of Gigantoraptor:

The reconstruction displays feathers while the fossil does not:

Gigantoraptor had long arms, bird-like legs, a toothless jaw, and probably a beak. There are no clear signs as to whether it was feathered. However, judging from its close affinity to other dinosaurs known to have been feathered, Xing Xu of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing speculates that it was. [emphasis added]3

What about Ambulocetus Natans and Pakicetus:

To fur or not to fur, that is the question.

The BBC reported, “Ambulocetus looked like a furry crocodile or a giant otter, it was actually an early whale.” Furry crocodile, giant otter, “early” whale—whatever you want: just draw it, sculpt it, paint it, mold it shape it until it fits your preferred theory. It walks, it swims, it slices, it dices!

Also consider:

Atheism and Archaeopteryx

Scientific Cenobites, part 3 of 9

In the main essay on Atheism posted on the Creation Ministries International’s website there is a section titled Why Atheism is chosen (and a subsection titled Natural born Atheist). Therein some examples are provided of just that: why Atheists choose to be Atheists.

While some Atheists claim lofty reasons—such as having come to a knowledge of the one true truth about YHVH’s non-existence (or whatever sect of Atheism they chose) and the reality of materialism / naturalism at very early ages—other Atheists provide alternative reasons. The essay on Atheism provides quotations and citations to statements which reference, for example and in short, here are some of those:

I used atheism as a reaction to a very difficult childhood.

I don’t seem to have a choice over whether or not I believe in God, I simply find that I do not.

Her father…had told her there was no God when she was a child. She hadn’t really thought about it much since then.

I want atheism to be true…I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God.

Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist.

Recently, cosmologist Lawrence Krauss has provided another example (even as he plays semantic games with the term Atheism):

I personally wouldn’t call myself an Atheist because I don’t presume to claim there’s no God. If anything, I declare myself as an anti-theist because I can’t say with absolute certainty there is no God. But what I would say is I’d much rather prefer to live in a universe without one.

Expecting that the universe will subject itself to your will nay, expecting that YHVH would is putting yourself in the place of YHVH. If nothing else, note that he bases his worldview on preference. You can watch him making this statement as part of an interview wherein he attempts to claim that it is scientific, or in any ways rational, that the universe came from nothing—see video here.

At bottom, Atheism is not only an anti-Christian support group but is a combination of consoling delusions such as the consoling delusions of absolute autonomy, the consoling delusions of lack of ultimate accountability, the consoling delusions of being more evolved than thou, the consoling delusions of erudition, etc. and this is why any reason at all is grasped at in order to attempt to justify the unjustifiable and the unjustifiable is Atheism itself.