Feel free to disagree but imo if there was a god...

Dude, do you think YOU, the god's creation, could hope to find him if he DOESN'T want to be found? th3warr1or

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

How could you be so sure that piss-ants like humans who can't even reach another planet in our own solar system with anything manned could be even close to being able to determine if there was a supreme creator? I can't even wrap my head around the narrow logic needed to come to such a conclusion.

JuarN18

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

How could you be so sure that piss-ants like humans who can't even reach another planet in our own solar system with anything manned could be even close to being able to determine if there was a supreme creator? I can't even wrap my head around the narrow logic needed to come to such a conclusion.

Meinhard1

I'm not even sure what kind of device you would use to "detect" an omni-present God. We're thinking on different scales here.

I don't think there's a god, but if there was it would probably be outside of the universe which we're not even close to seeing.

[QUOTE="JuarN18"] look at your great "discoveries"Meinhard1

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

How could you be so sure that piss-ants like humans who can't even reach another planet in our own solar system with anything manned could be even close to being able to determine if there was a supreme creator? I can't even wrap my head around the narrow logic needed to come to such a conclusion.

Meinhard1

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

How could you be so sure that piss-ants like humans who can't even reach another planet in our own solar system with anything manned could be even close to being able to determine if there was a supreme creator? I can't even wrap my head around the narrow logic needed to come to such a conclusion.

hartsickdiscipl

I'm not even sure what kind of device you would use to "detect" an omni-present God. We're thinking on different scales here.

I feel the holy, guiding hand of God every time he personally screws up my life a little bit more.

I hate that guy.

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

How could you be so sure that piss-ants like humans who can't even reach another planet in our own solar system with anything manned could be even close to being able to determine if there was a supreme creator? I can't even wrap my head around the narrow logic needed to come to such a conclusion.

EntropyWins

I'm just saying that it's discouraging how in the realms of physical science and neuropsychology haven't found any evidence of a god who is supposedly everywhere. I would expect that we would find some sort of mechanism in our brain that allows us to connect with God, or perhaps some evidence of a soul but rather it's well established that everything we are can be explained by the firing of neurons. In the physical sciences we have a good number of theories that can can make predictions with a good degree of validity and reliability, I would expect that in a world where God manipulates matter and performs miracles we would see less consistency to these theories for example

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"][QUOTE="Meinhard1"] Planets in our solar system are pretty far away but the most common idea of God is that he is everywhere... and even if he wasn't omnipresent we would still be immersed in his creation. We piss-ants have been able to come up with some pretty amazing discoveries and the fact that none of them seem to provide any real evidence for the existence of God leaves me a wary. Meinhard1

I'm just saying that it's discouraging how in the realms of physical science and neuropsychology haven't found any evidence of a god who is supposedly everywhere. I would expect that we would find some sort of mechanism in our brain that allows us to connect with God, or perhaps some evidence of a soul but rather it's well established that everything we are can be explained by the firing of neurons. In the physical sciences we have a good number of theories that can can make predictions with a good degree of validity and reliability, I would expect that in a world where God manipulates matter and performs miracles we would see less consistency to these theories for example

Also, you vastly oversimplify neuroscience when you claim that it claims that everything can be explained by the firing of neurons. The mind/body connection is not even close to being settled as far as I can tell. Is depression caused by chemical imbalances, or does depression cause chemical imbalances? These are questions without easy answers.

Also, the natural world and human behavior are not the only places to look for a god. Many intelligent men (and even some women) have written exhaustive philosophical arguments that do in fact provide compelling reasons to believe in a god. You may want to look in depth into some of them if you are genuinely interested.

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"][QUOTE="Meinhard1"] Planets in our solar system are pretty far away but the most common idea of God is that he is everywhere... and even if he wasn't omnipresent we would still be immersed in his creation. We piss-ants have been able to come up with some pretty amazing discoveries and the fact that none of them seem to provide any real evidence for the existence of God leaves me a wary. Meinhard1

I'm just saying that it's discouraging how in the realms of physical science and neuropsychology haven't found any evidence of a god who is supposedly everywhere. I would expect that we would find some sort of mechanism in our brain that allows us to connect with God, or perhaps some evidence of a soul but rather it's well established that everything we are can be explained by the firing of neurons. In the physical sciences we have a good number of theories that can can make predictions with a good degree of validity and reliability, I would expect that in a world where God manipulates matter and performs miracles we would see less consistency to these theories for example

Well if God is everywhere, then everything has God in it, and as such we have no control group against which to compare that does not contain God.

You're assuming that if God exists, then random crap would happen for no natural reason. That doesn't seem like a logical assumption.

Bob was walking to work. At the same time, Alice was ordering a hot dog at a kiosk downtown. It just happened that bus route 12 was running a little late. As Alice waited for her delicious snack the man working at the hot dog stand announced that he was out of condiments. Alice had to go to the convenience store to get some ketchup and mustard. She purchased the condiments and went on her way. She eventually came to an intersection, where Bob walked by the other way. Bob walked into the store while Alice waited for the "walk" signal. He purchased a small carton of chocolate milk and exited the store, then continued to the cross-walk. Alice, growing impatient saw an opportunity to cross when it appeared there was no traffic coming. She began walking toward the curb, when Bob collided with her, causing her to drop her hot dog. Bus 12 went by, as Bob helped Alice clean up. While assisting, Bob's chocolate milk slipped from his grip and fell to the ground. They apologized to each other, and each went on their way. At work Bob took a drink of his coffee, but couldn't taste it because his nose was stuffed from having a cold; he didn't mind because he didn't drink coffee just for the taste. A homeless man came by the scene later and saw the chocolate milk on the ground. Exclaiming that it was his lucky day, he picked up the milk, and took a sip. The man immediately spat the milk out and read the label, realizing it was two weeks expired. He went in to the store and complained, the clerk gave him a full refund.
I, for one, believe there are no coincidences; which was the point of this silly story. You will only find proof of God if you look for it.

The difficulty in believing in something beyond our comprehension lies in the invention of the concept of zero. It is a mathematical place holder.

Physically, nothing cannot exist. If it did, in the form of an absolute vacuum, it would consume the entire universe at the speed of light. This begs the question, what was here before the universe existed? It couldn't be nothing because something cannot materialize from nothing.

There is no nothing beyond our physical universe, just as there is no nothing beyond our conscious existence. The idea of God (in some form or another, for me its the one from that old book everybody complains about) and an afterlife is found in virtually every culture, which is to say it is a natural tendency for humans to believe. Abstract scientific thinking asks us to discard this natural tendency and embrace the idea if we can't experience it it doesn't exist.

Take for example the atom. We ascribe a positive charge to the proton and a negative charge to the electron. Why do we do this? The psychology behind this naming places emphasis on the thing instead of the relationship between things. We see that atoms with very large nuclei become radioactive, and decay, or basically self destruct over time. Conversely, the electron field around an atom is what binds it to other atoms, and what buffers it against them. Without this field, this relationship, there can be no matter. It is in fact a nurturing relationship that fosters the growth of matter. Atoms share electrons with other atoms to form molecules. Staring to see a connection?

When you base the microcosmic model of the universe on a lump of mass surrounded by an negative energy field, you get a model that fosters the idea that the macrocosmic parallel in the human experience is one where the human is central, and the relationship between the self and other humans is secondary. It is a means to sustain the self. Also, the goal of scientific exploration into the origin of the universe is, "Where did mass first come from?" The emphasis is on the stuff, not the relationship between the stuff.

Now lets turn things on its ear.

Say we make the focus of the microcosmic model the electron, the relationship, the force that allows mass to exist as it does in its current state. A positive force. A life giving force. Light has no mass, and electrons have a very mall mass. Photons have no mass at rest. Photons make up what we know as light.

Now, we try to ascribe origins to things. The molecule comes from the atom, the atom comes from the quark, and now we have string theory telling us that quarks are made up of vibrating two dimensional energy strands. The only problem is that scientists had to do things that horrify mathematicians to get here. Yes, they created 11 different dimensions to make this theory work. The 11 dimensions weren't there to begin with, 11 just fit the equations they needed to make the theory work. Presto! Scientific eh?

The simpler solution is this. Mass is a devolved form of energy, or light. Light has no mass, protons and neutrons have mass. Atomic dust within atoms is subatomic detritus, strings (if they do actually exists) are electron shavings residing within the atom.

Light has no time dimension- no entropy. It is therefore eternal. Where does light come from? Well, the model of the universe I'm describing says that light was always here. Mass is a devolved, or lower corruption of light. Because it has mass it cannot be eternal, it must decay, it will be affected by gravity, it has entropy. The question then is how did mass get here? Well, light is an eternal constant, and without mass to interact with its natural state is a WAVE. The antithesis of this wave state is a finite particle subject to gravity and entropy. Matter, the smallest mass thereof, is a lesser imitation of light, and anti-concept rather than an anti-particle.

So what we have is a universe model where light exists eternally and has for all time, is not subject to gravity and time, and is a generating and nurturing force. Mass was derived from light in that they are opposites (following the concept that for every particle, thee is an anti-particle). The first mass was surrounded by light as it began to decay, as smaller pieces broke apart from itself. This first piece of matter quickly broke into smaller pieces, and electrons were created out of reaction to this process, fitting in where need to prevent the collision of mass against matter. Once this mass came into existence, time began. Through this contact electrons gained mass by collecting fragments of matter, and thus gained a particle like nature, though never losing its wave like nature. This process continued until neutrons and protons met their current size, which was in balance to the electrons that gained shape around them based on that atomic dust. This is the process referred to as the big bang, the appearance of mass in the universe and the separation and nurturing of atomic growth by the interaction of electron fields.

So beyond the universe, beyond time is light. Light is of course frequently used to describe God (no disrespect to other faiths, I'm speaking from my perspective) Nothing in this model contradicts the belief that an eternal, generative and nurturing force which cannot be measured created and continues to sustain the universe. If you're looking for God around you, he's in light. If you're looking for good within, he's within (or around) every atom.

So you can accept the model of the universe popular science gives you, which says that nothing is beyond something. Or you can at least entertain my model (yes this is of my own deliberation) and realize they're might be scientific evidence for the belief in a perfect, timeless and generative force in the universe ( I call him God).

Or you could just believe what your heart tells you to believe. Because no amount of scientific reason can actually get you closer to God.

Take care!

Can we see as far as the end of the universe? Then look their.

Rutzfuz

Afraid he might catch some disease? Or is he too embarrassed to call us his creations?....

If God left evidence of his existence for us to find, it would destroy the entire system of which religion is based on: Faith.

I'm an atheist but, If god is real, it's untangible to us.

We could be god to another universe, and some sort of being within our mind could be what we consider us. (abstract thought I know)

Make sense? Everything we think of is untangible, we can't touch it, feel it, smell, etc, but we can think of anything we want and it'll happen in our mind. For all we know, there's some kind of beings living within our minds. Our minds = another universe/dimension.

Crazy to think, god doesn't even know it's god.

Evidently theories are now evidence. Evidently the obvious is so obvious we must be reminded of how obvious the obvious isor we would forget justhow obvious the obvious obviously is.

Evidently theories are now evidence. Evidently the obvious is so obvious we must be reminded of how obvious the obvious isor we would forget justhow obvious the obvious obviously is.

MagnumPI

I believe in Multiple gods. I hate it when athiests try and force their views on me.

You can't see God and you're not suppose to and neither can you understand what God is completely. As the Quran says

"No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things."

you will never find concrete proof of Gods existence but only signs which some will see as proof of God while some won't. Heck we cant even confirm the existance of jinns and angels. In Islam we believe in Jinns as well. Jinns are made of smokeless fire and live amongst us and in fact there might be a jinn right next to you and me at this very moment but we can't see it and never will.

You can't prove God because God has not been physically defined by Science in natural terms. Thus we cannot derive what observable effects such a being would have on the universe.

[QUOTE="MagnumPI"]

Evidently theories are now evidence. Evidently the obvious is so obvious we must be reminded of how obvious the obvious isor we would forget justhow obvious the obvious obviously is.

Jamiemydearx3

What's obvious is that nobody knows so obviously there is no reason to consider the obvious being anything other than what it is. Speculation is not evidence.

What form does this being exist? Everything starts somewhere so the idea of (A) ordivine being\beings would mean something had to create it\them which would mean a divine being\beings wouldn't need to exist to begin with. This is why the"god\gods must exist" logic is flawed. It'sthe furthest anything could ever be from irrefutable.

If God is as powerful as people say he is, he could do whatever he wants without us knowing. It's kind of where the all powerful and all knowing part comes in.

I don't know why some theists even bother with debates it all just comes down to faith and God doesn't want to seen or whatever.

If god is an all powerful spiritual being, that cannot be detected in any way, what is the functional difference between god's "existence" and nonexistence?Rhazakna

That's a good question.

If their was evidence that God existed then faith which is the fundamental ingredient in religion would become obsolete.

If their was evidence that God existed then faith which is the fundamental ingredient in religion would become obsolete.

muller39

But faith is a fundamental ingredient because there is no evidence. If there was evidence, then the teachings would most likely be based upon the evidence.

[QUOTE="muller39"]

If their was evidence that God existed then faith which is the fundamental ingredient in religion would become obsolete.

GreySeal9

But faith is a fundamental ingredient because there is no evidence. If there was evidence, then the teachings would most likely be based upon the evidence.

He exists, but not in any type of physical form so discovering him would be impossible ;)

Ultrabeatdown55

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="muller39"]

If their was evidence that God existed then faith which is the fundamental ingredient in religion would become obsolete.

-Sun_Tzu-

But faith is a fundamental ingredient because there is no evidence. If there was evidence, then the teachings would most likely be based upon the evidence.

I don't disagree. I realize that faith has different contexts within religious teaching.

What I'm basically saying is that observable evidence of God would not damage religion in the slightest. I'm sure thiests would seize upon the evidence.

One of the most basic, and most fundamental, issues that can be considered by the human mind is the question, "Does God exist?" In the field of logic, there are principles—or as they are called more often, laws—that govern human thought processes and that are accepted as analytically true. One of these is the law of the excluded middle. When applied to objects, this law states that an object cannot both possess and not possess a certain trait or characteristic at the same time and in the same fashion. When applied to propositions, this law states that all precisely stated propositions are either true or false; they cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same fashion.

The statement, "God exists," is a precisely stated proposition. Thus, it is either true or false. The simple fact is, either God exists or He does not. There is no middle ground. One cannot affirm logically both the existence and nonexistence of God. The atheist boldly states that God does not exist; the theist affirms just as boldly that God does exist; the agnostic laments that there is not enough evidence to make a decision on the matter; and the skeptic doubts that God's existence can be proven with certainty. Who is correct? Does God exist or not?

The only way to answer this question, of course, is to seek out and examine the evidence. It certainly is reasonable to suggest that if there is a God, He would make available to us evidence adequate to the task of proving His existence. But does such evidence exist? And if it does, what is the nature of that evidence?

The theist advocates the view that evidence is available to prove conclusively that God does exist, and that this evidence is adequate to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of God. However, when we employ the word "prove," we do not mean that God's existence can be demonstrated scientifically in the same fashion that one might prove that a sack of potatoes weighs ten pounds, or that a human heart has four distinct chambers within it. Such matters as the weight of a sack of vegetables, or the divisions within a muscle, are matters that may be verified empirically using the five senses. And while empirical evidence often is quite useful in establishing the validity of a case, it is not the sole means of arriving at proof. For example, legal authorities recognize the validity of a prima facie case, which is acknowledged to exist when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact that, unless such fact can be refuted, legally stands proven (see Jackson, 1974, p. 13). It is the contention of the theist that there is a vast body of evidence that makes an impregnable prima facie case for the existence of God—a case that simply cannot be refuted. I would like to present here the prima facie case for the existence of God, and a portion of the evidence upon which that case is based.

CAUSE AND EFFECT—THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Throughout human history, one of the most effective arguments for the existence of God has been the cosmological argument, which addresses the fact that the Universe (Cosmos) is here and therefore must be explained in some fashion. In his book, Not A Chance, R.C. Sproul observed:

Traditional philosophy argued for the existence of God on the foundation of the law of causality. The cosmological argument went from the presence of a cosmos back to a creator of the cosmos. It sought a rational answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It sought a sufficient reason for a real world (1994, p. 169, emp. in orig.).

The Universe exists and is real. Atheists and agnostics not only acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand effect (e.g., see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot account for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be "contingent" because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul has noted: "Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause" (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is a contingent effect, the obvious question becomes, "What caused the Universe?"

It is here that the law of cause and effect (also known as the law of causality) is strongly tied to the cosmological argument. Simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. Just as the law of the excluded middle is analytically true, so the law of cause and effect is analytically true as well. Sproul addressed this when he wrote:

The statement "Every effect has an antecedent cause" is analytically true. To say that it is analytically or formally true is to say that it is true by definition or analysis. There is nothing in the predicate that is not already contained by resistless logic in the subject. It is like the statement, "A bachelor is an unmarried man" or "A triangle has three sides" or "Two plus two are four...." Cause and effect, though distinct ideas, are inseparably bound together in rational discourse. It is meaningless to say that something is a cause if it yields no effect. It is likewise meaningless to say that something is an effect if it has no cause. A cause, by definition, must have an effect, or it is not a cause. An effect, by definition, must have a cause, or it is not an effect (1994, pp. 172,171 emp. in orig.).

Effects without adequate causes are unknown. Further, causes never occur subsequent to the effect. It is meaningless to speak of a cause following an effect, or an effect preceding a cause. In addition, the effect is never qualitatively superior to, or quantitatively greater than, the cause. This knowledge is responsible for our formulation of the law of causality in these words: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall from the table because the fly lighted on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we observe, we must postulate adequate antecedent causes—which brings us back to the original question: What caused the Universe?

There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three options merit serious consideration.

Is the Universe Eternal?

The most comfortable position for the person who does not believe in God is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending, and thus the need for any "first cause" such as God. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light that indicated the Universe was expanding. These scientists suggested that at points in space called "irtrons" hydrogen was coming into existence from nothing. As hydrogen atoms arrived, they had to "go" somewhere, and as they did, they displaced matter already in existence, causing the Universe to expand. Dr. Hoyle suggested that the atoms of gaseous hydrogen gradually condensed into clouds of virgin matter, that within these clouds new stars and galaxies formed, etc.

However, the Steady State Theory was doomed to failure, in part, because it violated one of the most fundamental laws of science—the first law of thermodynamics (also referred to as the law of the conservation of matter and/or energy), which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature. Astronomer Robert Jastrow observed:

But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact (1977, p. 32).

The Steady State Theory eventually was relegated to the relic heaps of history. Yet problems for those who advocated an eternal Universe continued to multiply because such a concept violated the second law of thermodynamics as well. Simply stated, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that as energy is employed to perform work, it is transformed from a usable to a nonusable form. The Universe is "running down" because energy is becoming less available for use. As Jastrow has remarked:

And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates that the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up. Arthur Eddington, the most distinguished astronomer of his day, wrote: "If our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe." When that occurred, and Who or what wound up the Universe, were questions that bemused theologians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the 1920's and 1930's (1978, pp. 48-49).

A year before making that admission, Dr. Jastrow made another important concession when he wrote:

Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that the world has not existed forever;... The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same; modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, pp. 19,30, emp. added).

The scientific evidence states clearly that the Universe had a beginning—something eternal things do not have. Nor do eternal things "run down," yet clearly the Universe is doing just that, as Dr. Jastrow has noted. As Henry Morris has commented, "The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning" (1974, p. 26). Indeed, it does. The Universe is now known not to be eternal.

Did the Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?

In the past, it would have been practically impossible to find any reputable scientist who would be willing to advocate a self-created Universe. George Davis, a prominent physicist of the past generation, explained why when he wrote: "No material thing can create itself." Further, Dr. Davis affirmed that this statement "cannot be logically attacked on the basis of any knowledge available to us" (1958, p. 71). The Universe is the created, not the creator.

However, as surprising as it may seem, some in the scientific and philosophical communities have stepped forward to defend the option that the Universe simply created itself out of nothing. Edward P. Tryon, professor of physics at the City University of New York, wrote for example: "In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing, as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both" (1984, p. 14). But the real push for the acceptance of a self-created Universe came as a result of an article published in the May 1984 issue of Scientific American. Under the title of "The Inflationary Universe," evolutionists Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt wrote:

From a historical point of view, probably the most revolutionary aspect of the inflationary model is the notion that all the matter and energy in the observable universe may have emerged from almost nothing.... The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire Universe evolved from literally nothing (1984, p. 128, emp. added).

Such ideas as those set forth by Tryon, Guth, Steinhardt, and others have set off a wave of controversy within the scientific community, as is evident from heated discussions at annual scientific meetings, articles published in refereed scientific journals, books written on a scholarly level, and even items appearing in popular science magazines. For example, in the summer 1994 edition of the Skeptical Inquirer, Ralph Estling of Great Britain wrote a stinging rebuke of the idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing. Estling suggested:

The problem emerges in science when scientists leave the realm of science and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often grandiose names for mere personal opinion, untrammeled by empirical evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom. And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses, suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out of—out of Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and thereafter expanding faster than light into more Nothing Whatsoever.... They then intone equations and other ritual mathematical formulae and look upon it and pronounce it good. I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists, these universe-makers, are doing is science. I can't help feeling that universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being, ready-made, out of nothing (1994, 18[4]:430).

Estling's article provoked numerous letters to the editor of the Skeptical Inquirer, which were printed, with Estling's response, in the January/February 1995 issue. Estling wrote, in part: "All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren.... There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness" (1995, 19[1]:69-70).

Estling is correct, of course. There is no evidence that would allow matter or energy simply to "pop into existence" of its own accord. This suggestion is in clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, to suggest that the Universe created itself is to posit a self-contradictory position. Sproul addressed this when he wrote that what an atheist or agnostic

...deems possible for the world to do—come into being without a cause—is something no judicious philosopher would grant that even God could do. It is as formally and rationally impossible for God to come into being without a cause as it is for the world to do so.... For something to bring itself into being it must have the power of being within itself. It must at least have enough causal power to cause its own being. If it derives its being from some other source, then it clearly would not be either self-existent or self-created. It would be, plainly and simply, an effect. Of course, the problem is complicated by the other necessity we've labored so painstakingly to establish: It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power (1994,pp. 179,180).

Continued in next post(s)

Science is based on observation and reproducibility. But when pressed for the reproducible, empirical data that document their claim of a self-created Universe, scientists and philosophers are at a loss to produce those data. Perhaps this is why Alan Guth lamented: "In the end, I must admit that questions of plausibility are not logically determinable and depend somewhat on intuition" (1988, 11[2]:76)—which is little more than a fancy way of saying, "I certainly wish this were true, but I could not prove it to you if my life depended on it."

The eminent British astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, put the matter in perspective when he wrote: "The new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable" (1988, p. 132, emp. added). The Universe did not create itself. Such an idea is absurd, philosophically and scientifically.

Was the Universe Created?

Either the Universe had a beginning, or it did not. But all available evidence indicates that the Universe did have a beginning. If the Universe had a beginning, it either had a cause or it did not. One thing we know assuredly, however: it is correct—logically and scientifically—to acknowledge that the Universe had a cause, because the Universe is an effect, and requires an adequate antecedent cause. Nothing causeless happens.

Since it is apparent that the Universe it not eternal, and since likewise it is apparent that the Universe could not have created itself, the only remaining alternative is that the Universe was created by something, or Someone, that: (a) existed before it, i.e., some eternal, uncaused First Cause; (b) is superior to it—since the created cannot be superior to the creator; and (c) is of a different nature, since the finite, contingent Universe of matter is unable to explain itself (see Jackson and Carroll, n.d., 2:98-154).

In connection with this, another important fact should be considered. If there ever had been a time when nothing existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing. In view of this, since something exists now, it must follow logically that something has existed forever. As Sproul has remarked:

Indeed, reason demands that if something exists, either the world or God (or anything else), then something must be self-existent.... There must be a self-existent being of some sort somewhere, or nothing would or could exist (1994, pp. 179,185 emp. in orig.).

Everything that exists can be classified as either matter (which includes energy), or mind. There is no third alternative. The theist's argument, then, is this:

1. Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
2. Something exists now, so something eternal must exist.
3. Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.

1. Either matter or mind is eternal.
2. Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above.
3. Thus, it is mind that is eternal.

In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists. However, that viewpoint is no longer intellectually credible, as a result of the scientific experiments of British neurologist, Sir John Eccles. Dr. Eccles won the Nobel Prize for distinguishing that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere intention to do something, without the motor cortex of the brain (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former is not reducible to the latter. Eccles explained his methodology in The Self and Its Brain, co-authored with the renowned philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (see Popper and Eccles, 1977). In a discussion centering on Dr. Eccles' work, Norman Geisler discussed the concept of an eternal, all-knowing Mind.

Further, this infinite cause of all that is must be all-knowing. It must be knowing because knowing beings exist. I am a knowing being, and I know it.... But a cause can communicate to its effect only what it has to communicate. If the effect actually possesses some characteristic, then this characteristic is properly attributed to its cause. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. If my mind or ability to know is received, then there must be Mind or Knower who gave it to me. The intellectual does not arise from the nonintellectual; something cannot arise from nothing (1976, p. 247).

From evidence such as that presented here, Robert Jastrow (an agnostic, by his own admission) was forced to conclude: "That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact" (1982, p. 18). The evidence speaks clearly regarding the existence of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.

CONCLUSION

The law of cause and effect, and the cosmological argument based upon that law, have serious implications in every field of human endeavor. The Universe is here, and must have an adequate antecedent cause. In addressing this problem, R.L. Wysong commented:

Everyone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe and then believe in that which is unnatural, unreasonable, and...unbelievable.... The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy (1976, p. 412, first ellipsis in orig.).

Dr. Wysong then presented an interesting historical case to illustrate his point. Some years ago, scientists were called to Great Britain to study orderly patterns of concentric rocks and holes—a find designated as Stonehenge. As studies progressed, it became apparent that these patterns had been designed specifically to allow certain astronomical predictions. Many questions (e.g., how ancient peoples were able to construct an astronomical observatory, how the data derived from their studies were used, etc.) remain unsolved. But one thing is known—the cause of Stonehenge was intelligent design.

Now, suggested Dr. Wysong, compare Stonehenge to the situation paralleling the origin of the Universe, and of life itself. We study life, observe its functions, contemplate its complexity (which defies duplication even by intelligent men with the most advanced methodology and technology), and what are we to conclude? Stonehenge might have been produced by the erosion of a mountain, or by catastrophic natural forces working in conjunction with meteorites to produce rock formations and concentric holes. But what scientist or philosopher ever would suggest such an idea?

No one ever could be convinced that Stonehenge "just happened" by accident, yet atheists and agnostics expect us to believe that this highly ordered, well-designed Universe, and the complicated life it contains, "just happened." To accept such an idea is, to use Dr. Wysong's words, "to break stride from what is natural to believe" because the conclusion is unreasonable, unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts at hand. The cause simply is not adequate to produce the effect.

The central message of the Cosmological Argument, and the law of cause and effect upon which it is based, is this: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The Universe is here; intelligent life is here; morality is here; love is here. What is their adequate antecedent cause? Since the effect never can precede, or be greater than the cause, it stands to reason that the Cause of life must be a living Intelligence that Itself is both moral and loving. When the Bible records, "In the beginning, God...," it makes known to us just such a First Cause.

One of the laws of thought employed in the field of logic is the law of rationality, which states that one should accept as true only those conclusions for which there is adequate evidence. This is sensible, for accepting as true a conclusion for which there is no evidence, or inadequate evidence, would be irrational. In establishing the prima facie case for the existence of God, theists present—through logic, clear reasoning, and factual data—arguments adequate to justify the acceptance of the conclusion that God exists. The approach is intended to be positive in nature, and to establish a proposition for which adequate evidence is available.

The evidence used to substantiate the theist's proposition concerning God's existence may take many forms. This should not be surprising since, if He does exist, God would be the greatest of all realities. His existence, therefore, could be extrapolated not from just a single line of reasoning, but from numerous avenues. As one writer of the past suggested:

The reality of such a Being can be firmly established only by concurrent reasons coming from various realms of existence, and approved by various powers of the human spirit. It is a conclusion that cannot be reached without the aid of arguments inadequate by themselves to so great a result, yet valid in their place, proving each some part of the great truth; proofs cumulative and complementary, each requiring others for its completion (Clarke, 1912, p. 104).

The various arguments presented by theists, all combined, make an ironclad case for God's existence. Where one particular argument fails to impress or convince an inquirer, another will avail. Considered cumulatively, the evidence is adequate to justify the intended conclusion. It is my purpose here to present and discuss additional evidence substantiating the proposition: God exists.

DESIGN IN NATURE—THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

In contending for the existence of God, theists often employ the Teleological Argument. "Teleology" has reference to purpose or design. Thus, this approach suggests that where there is purposeful design, there must be a designer. The deduction being made, of course, is that order, planning, and design in a system are indicative of intelligence, purpose, and specific intent on the part of the originating cause. In logical form, the theist's argument may be presented as follows:

1. If the Universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer.
2. The Universe does evince purposeful design.
3. Thus, the Universe must have had a designer.

This correct form of logical reasoning, and the implications that flow from it, have not escaped the attention of those who do not believe in God. Paul Ricci, an atheistic philosopher and professor, has written that "...it's true that everything designed has a designer..." (1986, p. 190). In fact, Mr. Ricci even conceded that the statement, " 'Everything designed has a designer,' is an analytically true statement" and thus requires no formal proof (p. 190). Apparently Mr. Ricci understands that one does not get a poem without a poet, a law without a lawgiver, a painting without a painter, or design without a designer.

He is in good company among his disbelieving counterparts. For example, atheistic evolutionist Richard Lewontin made the following admission in an article he authored for Scientific American:

Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer (1978, 239[3]:213, emp. added).

To be fair to both of these authors, and others like them, let me quickly point out that while they agree with the thrust of the theist's argument (i.e., that design leads inevitably to a designer), they do not believe that there is evidence warranting the conclusion that a Supreme Designer exists, and they therefore have rejected any belief in God. Their disagreement with the theist would center on statement number two (the minor premise) in the above syllogism. While admitting that design demands a designer, they would deny that there is design in nature providing proof of the existence of a Great Designer.

A good example of such a denial can be found in a book written by British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins. During the 1800s, William Paley employed his now-famous "watch argument." Paley argued that if one were to discover a watch lying upon the ground, and were to examine it closely, the design inherent in the watch would be enough to force the conclusion that there must have been a watchmaker. Paley continued his line of argumentation to suggest that the design inherent in the Universe should be enough to force the conclusion that there must have been a Great Designer. In 1986, Dawkins published The Blind Watchmaker, which was intended to put to rest once and for all Paley's argument. The dust jacket of Dawkins' book made that point clear:

There may be good reasons for belief in God, but the argument from design is not one of them.... [D]espite all appearances to the contrary, there is no watchmaker in nature beyond the blind forces of physics.... Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially nonrandom process that Darwin discovered, and that we now understand to be the explanation for the existence and form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker (1986, emp. in orig.).

The disagreement between the theist and atheist is not whether design demands a designer. Rather, the point of contention is whether or not there is design in nature adequate to substantiate the conclusion that a Designer does, in fact, exist. This is where the Teleological Argument is of benefit.

Design of the Universe

Our Universe operates in accordance with exact scientific laws. The precision of the Universe, and the exactness of these laws, allow scientists to launch rockets to the Moon, with the full knowledge that, upon their arrival, they can land within a few feet of their intended target. Such precision and exactness also allow astronomers to predict solar/lunar eclipses years in advance, or to determine when Halley's Comet can be seen once again from the Earth. Science writer Lincoln Barnett once observed:

This functional harmony of nature Berkeley, Descartes, and Spinoza attributed to God. Modern physicists who prefer to solve their problems without recourse to God (although this seems to be more difficult all the time) emphasize that nature mysteriously operates on mathematical principles. It is the mathematical orthodoxy of the Universe that enables theorists like Einstein to predict and discover natural laws, simply by the solution of equations (1959, p. 22).

The precision, complexity, and orderliness within the Universe are not in dispute; writers such as Ricci, Dawkins, and Lewontin acknowledge as much. But while atheists willingly concede complexity, and even order, they are not prepared to concede design because the implication of such a concession would demand a Designer. Is there evidence of design? The atheist claims no such evidence exists. The theist, however, affirms that it does, and offers the following information in support of that affirmation.

We live in a tremendously large Universe. While its outer limits have not been measured, it is estimated to be as much as 20 billion light years in diameter (i.e., the distance it would take light to travel across the Universe at a speed of over 186,000 miles per second; see Lawton, 1981, 89[1]:105). There are an estimated one billion galaxies in the Universe (Lawton, 1981, 89[1]:98), and an estimated 25 sextillion stars. The Milky Way galaxy in which we live contains over 100 billion stars, and is so large that even traveling at the speed of light would require 100,000 years to cross its diameter. Light travels in one year approximately 5.87 x 1012 miles; in 100,000 years, that would be 5.87 x 1017 miles, or 587 quadrillion miles just to cross the diameter of a single galaxy. If we drew a map of the Milky Way galaxy, and represented the Earth and Sun as two dots one inch apart (thus a scale of one inch equals 93 million miles—the distance between the Earth and the Sun), we would need a map at least four miles wide to locate the next nearest star, and a map 25,000 miles wide to reach the center of our galaxy. Without doubt, this is a rather impressive Universe.

Yet while the size itself is impressive, the inherent design is even more so. The Sun's interior temperature is estimated to be over 20 million degrees Celsius (Lawton, 1981, 89[1]:102). The Earth, however, is located at exactly the correct distance from the Sun to receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to sustain life as we know it. If the Earth were moved just 10% closer to the Sun (about 10 million miles), far too much heat and radiation would be absorbed. If the Earth were moved just 10% further from the Sun, too little heat would be absorbed. Either scenario would spell doom for life on the Earth.

The Earth is rotating on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, and moving around the Sun at 70,000 miles per hour (approximately 19 miles per second), while the Sun and its solar system are moving through space at 600,000 miles per hour in an orbit so large it would take over 220 million years just to complete a single orbit. Interestingly, however, as the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, it departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every eighteen miles. If it departed by one-eighth of an inch, we would come so close to the Sun that we would be incinerated; if it departed by one-tenth of an inch, we would find ourselves so far from the Sun that we would all freeze to death (Science Digest, 1981, 89[1]:124). The Earth is poised some 240,000 miles from the Moon, whose gravitational pull produces ocean tides. If the Moon were moved closer to the Earth by just a fifth, the tides would be so enormous that twice a day they would reach 35-50 feet high over most of the Earth's surface.

What would happen if the rotation rate of the Earth were halved, or doubled? If it were halved, the seasons would be doubled in their length, which would cause such harsh heat and cold over much of the Earth that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to grow enough food to feed the Earth's population. If the rotation rate were doubled, the length of each season would be halved, and it would be difficult or impossible to grow enough food to feed the Earth's population. The Earth is tilted on its axis at exactly 23.5 degrees. Were that tilt to be reduced to zero, much of the Earth's water would accumulate around the two poles, leaving vast deserts in its place. If the atmosphere surrounding the Earth were much thinner, meteorites could strike our planet with greater force and frequency, causing worldwide devastation.

The oceans provide a huge reservoir of moisture that constantly is evaporating and condensing, thus falling upon the land as refreshing rain. It is a well-known fact that water heats and cools at a much slower rate than a solid land mass, which explains why desert regions can be blistering hot in the daytime and freezing cold at night. Water, however, holds its temperature longer, and provides a sort of natural heating/air-conditioning system for the land areas of the Earth. Temperature extremes would be much more erratic than they are, were it not for the fact that approximately four-fifths of the Earth is covered with water. In addition, humans and animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. On the other hand, plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. We depend upon the world of botany for our oxygen supply, but often fail to realize that approximately 90% of our oxygen comes from microscopic plants in the seas (see Asimov, 1975, 2:116). If our oceans were appreciably smaller, we soon would be out of air to breathe.

Can a person reasonably be expected to believe that these exacting requirements for life as we know it have been met "just by accident"? The Earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun; it is exactly the right distance from the Moon; it has exactly the right diameter; it has exactly the right atmospheric pressure; it has exactly the right tilt; it has exactly the right amount of oceanic water; it has exactly the right weight and mass; and so on. Were this many requirements to be met in any other essential area of life, the idea that they had been provided "just by accident" would be dismissed immediately as ludicrous. Yet atheists and agnostics suggest that the Universe, the Earth, and life on the Earth are all here as a result of fortuitous accidents. Physicist John Gribbin (1983), writing on the numerous specific requirements necessary for life on our planet, emphasized in great detail both the nature and essentiality of those requirements, yet curiously chose to title his article, "Earth's Lucky Break"—as if all of the precision, orderliness, and intricate design in the Universe could be explained by postulating that the Earth simply received, in a roll of the cosmic dice, a "lucky break."

For more than a decade and a half, British evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle has stressed the insurmountable problems with such thinking, and has addressed specifically the many problems faced by those who defend the idea of a naturalistic origin of life on Earth. In fact, Dr. Hoyle described the atheistic concept that disorder gives rise to order in a rather picturesque manner when he observed that "the chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" (1981b, p. 105). Dr. Hoyle, even went so far as to draw the following conclusion:

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate.... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences...even to the extreme idealized limit of God (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.).

Atheist Richard Dawkins was forced to admit: "The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer" (1982, p. 130, emp. added). That is the very conclusion theists have drawn from the available evidence—in keeping with the law of rationality. The statistical improbability of the Universe "just happening by blind chance" is staggering. The only alternative is an Intelligent Designer—God.

Design of the Human Body

Many years ago, the ancient scholar Augustine observed: "Men go abroad to wonder at the height of mountains, at the huge waves of the sea, at the long course of the rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motion of the stars; and they pass by themselves without wondering." Indeed, while we stand in amazement at so many stunning scenes from our unique Universe, we often fail to stand equally amazed at the marvelous creation of man. According to those who do not believe in God, the human body is little more than the result of a set of fortuitous circumstances credited to that mythical lady, "Mother Nature." Yet such a suggestion does not fit the actual facts of the case, as even evolutionists have been forced to recognize from time to time. The late George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard once suggested that in man one finds "the most highly endowed organization of matter that has yet appeared on the earth..." (1949, p. 293). Another evolutionist observed:

When you come right down to it, the most incredible creation in the universe is you—with your fantastic senses and strengths, your ingenious defense systems, and mental capabilities so great you can never use them to the fullest. Your body is a structural masterpiece more amazing than science fiction (Guinness, 1987, p. 5).

Can one reasonably be expected to conclude that the "structural masterpiece" of the human body—with its "ingenious" systems and "highly endowed organization"—is the result of blind chance operating over eons of time in nature as atheism suggests? Or would it be more in keeping with the facts of the matter to suggest that the human body is the result of purposeful design by a Master Designer?

For organizational purposes, the human body may be considered at four different levels (see Jackson, 1993, pp. 5-6). First, there are cells, representing the smallest unit of life. Second, there are tissues (muscle tissue, nerve tissue, etc.), which are groups of the same kind of cells carrying on the same kind of activity. Third, there are organs (heart, liver, etc.), which are groups of tissues working together in unison. Fourth, there are systems (reproductive system, circulatory system, etc.), which are composed of groups of organs carrying out specific bodily functions. While we will not have the space in this article to examine each of them, an investigation of these various levels of organization, and of the human body as a whole, leads inescapably to the conclusion that there is intelligent design at work. As Wayne Jackson noted: "It is therefore quite clear...that the physical body has been marvelously designed and intricately organized, for the purpose of facilitating human existence upon the planet Earth" (1993, p. 6). In light of the following facts, such a statement is certainly justified.

A human body is composed of over 30 different kinds of cells (red blood cells, white blood cells, nerve cells, etc.), totalling approximately 100 trillion cells in an average adult (Beck, 1971, p. 189). These cells come in a variety of sizes and shapes, with different functions and life expectancies. For example, some cells (e.g., male spermatazoa) are so small that 20,000 would fit inside a capital "O" from a standard typewriter, each being only 0.05 mm long. Some cells, placed end-to-end, would make only one inch if 6,000 were assembled together. Yet all the cells of the human body, if set end-to-end, would encircle the Earth over 200 times. Even the largest cell of the human body, the female ovum, is unbelievably small, being only 0.01 of an inch in diameter. Cells have three major components. First, each cell is composed of a cell membrane that encloses the organism. Second, inside the cell is a three-dimensional cytoplasm—a watery matrix containing specialized organelles. Third, within the cytoplasm is the nucleus, which contains most of the genetic material and serves as the control center of the cell.

The lipoprotein cell membrane (lipids/proteins/lipids) is approximately 0.06-0.08 of a micrometer thick, yet allows selective transport into, and out of, the cell. Evolutionist Ernest Borek has observed: "The membrane recognizes with its uncanny molecular memory the hundreds of compounds swimming around it and permits or denies passage according to the cell's requirements" (1973, p. 5).

Inside the cytoplasm, there are over 20 different chemical reactions occurring at any one time, with each cell containing five major components for: (1) communication; (2) waste disposal; (3) nutrition; (4) repair; and (5) reproduction. Within this watery matrix there are such organelles as the mitochondria (over 1,000 per cell in many instances) that provide the cell with its energy. The endoplasmic reticulum is "believed to be a transport system designed to carry materials from one part of the cell to the other" (Pfeiffer, 1964, p. 13). Ribosomes are miniature protein-producing factories. Golgi bodies store the proteins manufactured by the ribosomes. Lysozomes within the cytoplasm function as garbage disposal units.

The nucleus is the control center of the cell, and is separated from the cytoplasm by a nuclear membrane. Within the nucleus is the genetic machinery of the cell (chromosomes and genes containing deoxyribonucleic acid—DNA). The DNA is a supermolecule that carries the coded information for the replication of the cell. If the DNA from a single human cell were removed from the nucleus and unraveled (it is found in the cell in a spiral configuration), it would be approximately six feet long, and would contain over a billion biochemical steps. It has been estimated that if all the DNA in an adult human were placed end-to-end, it would reach to the Sun and back (186 million miles) 400 times.

It should also be noted that the DNA molecule does something that we as humans have yet to accomplish: it stores coded information in a chemical format, and then uses a biologic agent (RNA) to decode and activate it. As Darrel Kautz has stated: "Human technology has not yet advanced to the point of storing information chemically as it is in the DNA molecule" (1988, p. 45, emp. in orig.; see also Jackson, 1993, pp. 11-12). If transcribed into English, the DNA in a single human cell would fill a 1,000 volume set of encyclopedias approximately 600 pages each (Gore, 1976, p. 357). Yet just as amazing is the fact that all the genetic information needed to reproduce the entire human population (about five billion people) could be placed into a space of about one-eighth of a square inch. In comparing the amount of information contained in the DNA molecule with a much larger computer microchip, evolutionist Irvin Block remarked: "We marvel at the feats of memory and transcription accomplished by computer microchips, but these are gargantuan compared to the protein granules of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA" (1980, p. 52). In an article he authored for Encyclopaedia Britannica, Carl Sagan observed that "The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 1012 bits [i.e., one trillion—BT]..." (1974, 10:894). To emphasize to the reader the enormity of this figure, Dr. Sagan then noted that if one were to count every letter in every word of every book in the world's largest library (over ten million volumes), the final tally would be approximately a trillion letters. Thus, a single cell contains the equivalent information content of every book in the world's largest library of more than ten million volumes! Every rational person recognizes that not one of the books in such a library "just happened." Rather, each and every one is the result of intelligence and painstaking design.

What, then, may we say about the infinitely more complex genetic code found within the DNA in each cell? Sir Fred Hoyle concluded that the notion that the code's complexity could be arrived at by chance is "nonsense of a high order" (1981a, p. 527). In their classic text on the origin of life, Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen addressed the implications of the genetic code found within the DNA molecule.

We know that in numerous cases certain effects always have intelligent causes, such as dictionaries, sculptures, machines and paintings. We reason by analogy that similar effects have intelligent causes. For example, after looking up to see "BUY FORD" spelled out in smoke across the sky we infer the presence of a skywriter even if heard or saw no airplane. We would similarly conclude the presence of intelligent activity were we to come upon an elephant-shaped topiary in a cedar forest.

In like manner an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence....

We believe that if this question is considered, it will be seen that most often it is answered in the negative simply because it is thought to be inappropriate to bring a Creator into science (1984, pp. 211-212, emp. in orig.).

The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically-coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact that this "supermolecule" simply could not have happened by blind chance. As Andrews has observed:

It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident.... A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it.... This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the "Moonlight Sonata" be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano! Codes do not arise from chaos (1978, pp. 28-29).

Indeed, codes do not arise from chaos. As Dawkins correctly remarked: "The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer" (1982, p. 130, emp. added). That is the exact point the theist is making: an intelligent Designer is demanded by the evidence.

CONCLUSION

Atheistic philosopher, Paul Ricci, has suggested that "Although many have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity of functions of the human body (the eye, for example), there is no obvious designer" (1986, p. 191, emp. added). The only people who "have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity" found in the Universe are those who have "refused to have God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28). Such people can parrot the phrase that "there is no obvious designer," but their arguments are not convincing. One does not get a poem without a poet, or a law without a lawgiver. One does not get a painting without a painter, or a musical score without a composer. And just as surely, one does not get purposeful design without a designer. The design inherent in the Universe is evident—from the macrocosm to the microcosm—and is sufficient to draw the conclusion demanded by the evidence, in keeping with the law of rationality. God does exist.

An examination into the existence of morality and ethics provides yet another link in the chain of logical thought that establishes the case for the existence of God. The evidence often is discussed by means of what is referred to as the anthropological, or moral, argument for God's existence. Morality is the character of being in accord with the principles or standards of right conduct. Ethics generally is viewed as the system or code by which attitudes and actions are determined to be either right or wrong. Ethics sometimes is defined as the justification of criteria by which one human life can be judged to be better or worse than another (see Henry, 1973, p. 220). Morality and ethics, then, assert that there exists a differentiation between right and wrong, and between good and evil. Moreover, by implication, there must be an appeal to some ultimate standard by which these character traits can be distinguished. The purpose of morality and ethics is inseparably connected with the purpose of life itself.

If there is no purpose in the Universe, as Simpson and others have asserted, then actually there is no purpose to morality or ethics. But the concept of a purposeless morality, or a purposeless ethic, does not make sense, and so men have sought to read some meaning, as far-fetched as it may be, into the natural human inclination to recognize the need for morality. Let us give brief attention to several of the theories that propose to explain the function of human ethics.

Hedonism

Hedonism is the philosophy which argues that the aim of moral conduct is the attainment of the greatest possible pleasure with the greatest possible avoidance of pain. That is to say, the single moral criterion is the preponderance of pleasure over pain. A phase of hedonism, known as psychological hedonism, contends that one can act only in this manner. But if that is the case, how could one's actions be considered as "moral" in such circumstances? A man hardly can be viewed as moral for doing that which he cannot help doing.

Hedonism, however, is woefully inconsistent, and its advocates rarely, if ever, will stay with its logical conclusions. What if one, in the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, must inflict pain upon others in order to achieve the goal? In other words, what if one must act immorally in order to practice his "morality"? What is there about hedonism that would motivate a person to forego his own pleasure in the interest of others? Absolutely nothing! Renowned British agnostic Bertrand Russell frustratingly wrote:

We feel that the man who brings widespread happiness at the expense of misery to himself is a better man than the man who brings unhappiness to others and happiness to himself. I do not know of any rational ground for this view, or, perhaps, for the somewhat more rational view that whatever the majority desires [called utilitarian hedonism—WJ] is preferable to what the minority desires. These are truly ethical problems but I do not know of any way in which they can be solved except by politics or war. All that I can find to say on this subject is that an ethical opinion can only be defended by an ethical axiom, but, if the axiom is not accepted, there is no way of reaching a rational conclusion (1969, 3:29, emp. added).

But what if a person is simply an egotistical hedonist and thus announces, "I care not at all for others; I intend to live my life solely for my own pleasure with no consideration for others, save when such is in my own interest." But someone doubtlessly would be tempted to respond, "That is so selfish." So, what is wrong with selfishness if it brings pleasure to the committed hedonist? Some are willing to actually go to that extreme. Atheistic philosopher Ayn Rand even authored a book titled The Virtue of Selfishness—A New Concept of Egoism, defending the concept of hedonistic selfishness. Yet who would want to live in such a society?

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, advocated by Jeremy Bentham, J.S. Mill, and others, is built upon the foundation of hedonism, and argues that "good" is that which gives pleasure to the greatest number of people. Again, however, the theory is seriously flawed for several reasons. First, it cannot answer the vital query: If pleasure to the greatest number of people prevents a man from achieving his own personal pleasure, what is there to motivate him toward the pleasure of the many? Second, utilitarianism provides no guideline to determine what the "pleasure" (genuine happiness) of the many actually is. Third, it is the philosophy that stands behind, and is perfectly consistent with, numerous atrocities perpetrated in the alleged interest of humanity. When Hitler slaughtered countless millions, and bred people like animals in behalf of evolving his master race, he felt he was operating in the genuine interest of mankind as a whole. The principle is: If some have to suffer in order for the ultimate good to be accomplished, so what? Of course, the leaders of such movements always are willing to step forward with their definition of what that "ultimate good" is!

Finally, however, this idea cannot provide any rational reason as to why it would be "wrong" to ignore what is in the interest of the many and, instead, simply pursue one's personal pleasure. There is an amazing commentary on this point in an interesting book, My Father Bertrand Russell, written by Russell's daughter, Katherine Tait. Mrs. Tait was born in London in 1923, and was educated at her parents' innovative school, Beacon Hill, which was dedicated to the promotion of atheistic humanism. In her fascinating volume, Mrs. Tait explained what it was like being the famous philosopher's only daughter.

For example, Bertrand Russell believed that a parent must teach his child "with its very first breath that it has entered into a moral world" (Tait, 1975, p. 59). Yet, as with all atheists and agnostics, he had a most difficult time explaining why, if man is merely the product of natural forces, children should be taught morality. Tait recalled that as a child she might say, in connection with some moral responsibility, "I don't want to! Why should I?" A conventional parent, she observed, might reply, "Because I say so..., your father says so..., God says so...." Russell, however, would say to his children: "Because more people will be happy if you do than if you don't." "So what," she would respond, "I don't care about other people." But her father would declare, "You should!" In her naive innocence, young Katherine would inquire, "But why?"—a question to which the redundant rejoinder would be, "Because more people will be happy if you do than if you don't." And, Tait noted, "We felt the heavy pressure of his rectitude and obeyed, but the reason was not convincing—neither to us nor to him" (Tait, 1975, pp. 184-185). Indeed, such specious reasoning will convince no one who thinks beyond the superficial level.

MORALS/ETHICS AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

The truth of the matter is that only the theocentric approach to morality can explain the purpose of life, and therefore provide adequate motivation for a genuinely ethical approach to life. Though proof of God's existence is abundantly evident in the beautifully designed Universe, His character is made known only in His verbal communications (available to us in the biblical documents). Thus, the Bible declares that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17), and that He is morally perfect. Not only is God holy (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8), just and righteous (Psalm 89:14), and good (Psalms 100:6; 106:1), but in the ultimate sense, only God is good (Mark 10:18). Since the God of the Bible is perfect (Matthew 5:48), it is to be expected that all that proceeds from Him is initially good. Accordingly, that which He created was good (Genesis 1:31), and all that He does, commands, and approves is likewise good (Psalm 119:39,68).

The "good," therefore, is what God is; what He has commanded results from Who He is, and thus is likewise good. In the Old Testament, the prophet Micah declared of God: "He showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6:8). Similarly, in the New Testament Peter admonished: "As he who called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, Ye shall be holy: for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:15).

Moral sensitivity (i.e., the awareness that right and wrong do exist) has been implanted in the soul of man by virtue of his creation in the image of the God Who is eternally good. Though created upright, man, as a being of free willpower, fell from his lofty estate. Accordingly, God, by means of divine revelation, seeks to bring man back into harmony with Himself—a process that entails both religious and moral obligations.

Biblical morality has several thrusts: (1) It is designed to develop within man right attitudes, or to state it another way, to instill a divine level of thinking; (2) Too, it is intended to help humanity translate spiritual attitudes into actions that will be helpful to all others; (3) Finally, the desired result is to guide man back into accord with the divine ideal, thus ensuring both his present and eternal happiness—to the glory of God.

Additionally, we may note that biblical revelation provides a sufficient motive for moral conduct. Those who have not foolishly thrust God from their minds (Psalm 14:1) acknowledge that the creation testifies of Jehovah's existence (Romans 1:20-21), and that His orderly Universe is evidence of His good and loving nature (Acts 14:17; James 1:17; I John 4:8). The love of God in providing Christ (John 3:16) for sinful man, and the love of Jesus in offering Himself to redeem us (Revelation 1:5; Philippians 2:5ff.), are motive aplenty for leading a moral life. We love, hence, obey Him (John 14:15) because He first loved us (I John 4:10-11,19). The Scriptures provide both purpose and motive for their ethical base, whereas unbelief has neither.

OTHER CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING ETHICS

All theories regarding morality assume some standard by which moral judgments are made. Whether that standard is "pleasure," "majority opinion," "survival," etc., these theories all have one thing in common: they assume some sort of ethical "yardstick" by which conduct is measured. I now want to give brief attention to several of these proposed standards to see how they fare in the light of logical scrutiny.

Nihilism

Nihilism springs from the atheistic notion that since there is no God, there can be no rational justification for ethical norms. Advocates of this viewpoint have contended that nihilism is the condition which allows that "everything is permitted." Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky, in his work, The Brothers Karamazov (1880), has one of his characters say that if God is dead, everything is allowed! French existential philosopher Jean Paul Sartre wrote:

Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself.... Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior (1961, p. 485).

Sartre contended that whatever one chooses to do is right; value is attached to the choice itself so that "...we can never choose evil" (1966, p. 279). These men are correct about one thing. If there is no God, "anything goes."

The hypocrisy of this dogma, however, is revealed by the fact that the propagators of such an idea really mean that "everything is permitted" for them alone. They do not mean that the theft of their property, the rape of their wives, and the slitting of their throats is permitted!

Relativism

Moral relativism rejects the idea that there can be universal criteria for determining values. All value systems are thought to be culturally originated and conditioned, hence, all cultural ethical systems are equally valid. No moral system, it is claimed, can be said to be either true or false.

Again, though, relativism falls of its own weaknesses, and its proponents will not stay with it. What if a particular culture, e.g., that of the "Bible Belt," believes that ethics is absolute? Would the relativists yield to that? Perish the thought! In some cultures, infanticide has been (or is being) deemed a proper form of population control. Is that then "right"? What about slavery, or the abuse of women? Where is the relativist that will declare openly and publicly the morality of such practices?

Situationism

Situationism (commonly known as "situation ethics") also repudiates the concept of any absolute system of values. For our present purpose, we may divide situationists into two classes—atheists and theists.

The atheistic position perhaps is best expressed in the Humanist Manifestos I and II. Written in 1933 and 1973, respectively, and signed by such notables as John Dewey, Isaac Asimov, Francis Crick, Julian Huxley, Antony Flew, and others, they contain the following statements:

We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous, and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human needs and interests. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life (Humanist Manifestos I and II, 1977, p. 17).

A more contradictory and absurd position would be difficult to conceive. If one argues that ethics is situational, he is suggesting that an act cannot be judged by an absolute standard, and that its rightness or wrongness is dependent upon the situation. For example, it would be wrong to lie if that falsehood was hurtful to others; however, if the lie could be helpful, it is said, then it would be right. However, as previously indicated, morality is alleged to be autonomous. That word means "self law," suggesting that every man is his own law. If that is the case, how could there ever be a situation in which a person could do wrong? Human ethical autonomy and situational morality are mutually exclusive.

Then there is theistic situation ethics, most popularly expounded by Joseph Fletcher. Fletcher (1966, p. 55) claimed that situation ethics represents a sort of the middle-of-the-road position between the extremes of "antinomianism" (i.e., no ethical rules exist) and "legalism" (i.e., moral decisions may be made by appealing to a rule book, e.g., the Bible). For him, "love" was the sole factor in making moral judgments. It must be noted, though, that his "love" is purely subjective—each individual must decide for himself, in a given context, what the loving course is.

The theory is fraught with insuperable logical difficulties. First, it affirms, "There are absolutely no absolutes." "Are you sure," we would ask? "Absolutely!" claims the situationist. Situation ethics claims there are no rules save the rule to love, yet by their own rules the situationists would define love. Second, God is removed from the throne as the moral Sovereign of the Universe, and man is enthroned in His place. Man, then, with his own subjective sense of "love," makes all final moral judgments. Situationism thus ignores the biblical view that man is lacking in sufficient wisdom to guide his earthly activities (Jeremiah 10:23). Third, Fletcher's situationism assumes a sort of omniscience in the application of his "love" principle. For example, the theory contends that lying, adultery, murder, etc., could be "moral" if done within the context of love. Yet, who is able to predict the consequences of such acts and determine, in advance, what is the "loving" thing to do? Let us suggest the following case.

A young woman, jilted by her lover, is in a state of great depression. A married man, with whom she works, enters into an adulterous relationship with her in order to "comfort her." Fletcher would argue that what he did might very well have been a noble deed, for the man acted out of concern for his friend. What a myopic viewpoint! Let us consider the rest of the story. The man's wife learned of his adulterous adventure, could not cope with the situation, and eventually committed suicide. One of the man's sons, disillusioned by the immorality of his father and the death of his mother, began a life of crime and finally was imprisoned for the murder of three people. Another son became a drunkard and was killed in an auto accident that also claimed the lives of a mother and two children. Now, was that initial act of adultery the "loving" thing to do? Hardly.

Fourth, situationism assumes that "love" is some sort of ambiguous, no-rule essence that is a cure-all for moral problems. That is like suggesting that two football teams play a game in which there will be no rules except the rule of "fairness." Fairness according to whose judgment? Team A? Team B? The referees? The spectators? That is utter nonsense! Fifth, even when one suggests that "love" be the criterion for ethical decisions, he presupposes some standard for determining what love is. Situationists contradict themselves at every turn.

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"]

How could something as big and powerful as a creator go unnoticed?

metroidfood

Because he doesn't want to be found?

That's the answer right there, TC. If He is all powerful, then He should be able to hide Himself if He wanted, right?

Determinism

Another false concept regarding human conduct is determinism. Determinism, whether it be social, biological, or theological, has a necessary logical consequence—it absolves man of personal responsibility for his conduct. Let us consider several facts of this general thesis.

Behaviorism, as developed by John Watson (1878-1958), a psychologist at Johns Hopkins University, argued that personality, hence conduct, is the end product of our habit system. Watson taught that man is merely an animal resulting from the evolutionary process. B.F. Skinner of Harvard became the leading proponent of behaviorism; he believed that man, as an animal, is the product of environment, and so even to speak of human responsibility was nonsense in his view. A practical example of these theories was seen in Clarence Darrow's defense of murderers Leopold and Loeb, who killed 14-year-old Bobby Franks as an "experiment." Darrow argued that they were in no way responsible for their act since brutal forces of their past had shaped their destinies (see Weinberg, 1957, pp. 16-88).

Sociobiology is a newer notion that attempts to synthesize the social sciences with biology. It sees man as a mere machine, somewhat analogous to a computer, which has been programmed by its genetic makeup. Human behavior is the result of physical and chemical forces, and, as we do not hold a machine accountable, so neither should we man.

A few comments concerning these ideas are in order. First, if determinism is true, there is no such thing as human responsibility. This is a necessary corollary of the theory. In spite of this, determinists frequently speak, write, and act as though human accountability existed. Consistency is a rare jewel among them. Second, if man is not responsible for his actions, such terms as "good" and "evil" are meaningless. Third, if man is not accountable, no one should ever be punished for robbery, rape, child abuse, murder, etc. Do we punish a machine that maims or kills a person? Fourth, how can we be expected to be persuaded by the doctrine of determinism, since the determinists were "programmed" to teach their ideas, and thus these ideas may not be true at all. Fifth, determinists won't abide by their own doctrine. If I recopied Edward Wilson's book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, and had it published in my name, I quickly would find out whether Wilson thought I was responsible for the action or if only my genetic background was!

IS THERE ULTIMATE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY?

A crucial question that must be addressed is this: "Is there any ultimate consequence to immorality?" Atheists are fond of saying that one should not be unethical because of social sanctions, i.e., society's disapproval, legal punishment, etc. The implication is, unethical conduct is only "bad" because you might get caught! I once asked an atheist this question: "Paul, the apostle of Christ, and Adolf Hitler are two well-known historical characters. Both are dead. Now, so far as they are concerned, does it really make any difference that they lived their lives in such divergent directions?" He replied that it did not! If that is the case, human existence makes no sense whatsoever. But that is infidelity's position, of course.

CONCLUSION

In this article, we have discussed human moral obligations. The fact that we have considered morality is something unique to our kind. No two apes ever sat down and said, "Let's talk about ethical obligations today." That ought to say something about our nature. In their book, Why Believe? God Exists!, Miethe and Habermas have observed:

At every turn in the discussion of moral values, the naturalistic position is weighted down with difficulties. It has the appearance of a drowning swimmer trying to keep its head above water. If it concedes something on the one hand, it is condemned on the other. But if it fails to admit the point, it appears to be in even more trouble. It is an understatement to say, at the very least, that naturalism is not even close to being the best explanation for the existence of our moral conscience (1993, p. 219, emp. in orig.).

As I draw this discussion to a close, there are some important summary observations that should be mentioned.

1. Human moral responsibility is based upon the fact that God is our Creator (Psalm 100:3), and that we have been made in His spiritual image (Genesis 1:26). Just as a potter has a right over the clay he is fashioning, so our Maker has the right to obligate us morally and spiritually to right living (see Romans 9:21).
2. Since morality is grounded in the unchanging nature of God (Malachi 3:6; 1 Peter 1:15), it is absolute—not cultural, not relative, not situational.
3. God's will for human behavior is not a matter of subjective speculation that every man figures out for himself; rather, Jehovah has spoken (Hebrews 1:1), and His Mind is made known in objective, biblical revelation (1 Corinthians 2:11ff.; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
4. Though the Lord possesses an unchanging nature, His revelatory process was progressive and adapted to man as he developed spiritually in those times of antiquity. Accordingly, in ages of the past Jehovah tolerated, and even regulated, certain acts that are not permissible in the Christian era. This, of course, does not mean that God vacillates in His morality; it simply means that He dealt with man as he was in that infantile state (Matthew 19:8; Acts 14:16; 17:30-31). Today, the New Testament stands as the Lord's final and ultimate standard of morality.
5. Though the New Testament is the "law of Christ" (Romans 8:2; Galatians 6:2), it is not a "legal" system in that each aspect of human conduct is prescribed with a "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not." Yes, there are both positive and negative commands in the New Testament, but they do not spell out every specific activity. The inspired document contains many rich principles that challenge us to develop a greater sense of spiritual maturity and to soar to heights that are God-honoring.
6. One must recognize also that New Testament ethics does not deal merely with actions, but addresses motives as well. For instance, what if one accidentally runs down with his automobile (and thereby kills) a careless pedestrian? He is not held accountable before God, for his act was unintentional. On the other hand, one can be guilty (in disposition) of both adultery and murder (cf. Matthew 5:28; 1 John 3:15).
7. It is imperative that men recognize that ethical activity (i.e., right relations with one's fellows) is not the totality of a person's obligation before God. The centurion Cornelius certainly learned this truth (Acts 10). There are spiritual responsibilities that the Lord has prescribed as a test of true faith, and yet men frequently ignore such divine obligations.
8. Finally, even though the Almighty has called His human creation to a high moral level, we must recognize that He is aware that we are but frail, dusty flesh (Psalms 78:39; 103:14). And so His marvelous grace has been revealed in the unspeakably wonderful gift of His Son. Those who in loving faith submit to Him (Hebrews 5:8-9) can know the pardon of their moral blunders (Acts 22:16), and are challenged to live righteous and godly lives in this present world (Titus 2:11-14).

Copy/paste from a wordpad document. I've done this a lot.

Supid smileys.

I just proved God exists, the point of this topic I thought, and you won't read it? I can't say I'm surprised, honestly. When people have their views challenged they do stuff like that.

That's why I don't believe. I just can't find any evidence. It's just my mindset, I'm very analytical.

I feel like everyone is refusing to read what I posted. >_>

I feel like everyone is refusing to read what I posted. >_>

ShadowNinja606