Does God exist? Or, is there a God?

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully

It's a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive himself."

Dawkins

Well, I guess I found where everyone has been hanging out.

Someone, perhaps in this thread mentioned "the uncaused, cause." I refer you to the 1st law of motion (aka The Law of Inertia).

Math, not science proves things. Science is the method of eliminating all known variables of non-affect. Therefore, science is confounded by the idea of proving an unprovable unknown.

I was reared in a Christian family by phenomenal parents so I have from birth been taught to believe. Sometimes it was easy; sometimes it was hard. But now, as somebody who has spent a lifetime in law enforcement and seen things for which there is no material rhyme or reason; for which logic and probability don't account, I am assured that there is an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God. I have been touched repeatedly by circumstances which but for the grace of God would have ended very much differently, and have likewise seen others experience similar events.

The career unfortunately also has given me the opportunity to have more than a passing relationship with death. Death is the pivotal moment when this life passes away and something else starts. To be present in that short time with another person who is experiencing death in its fullness offers a look into something that cannot and will not be explained by science or mathematical probability. Some of the people I have seen die were clearly good, and as many were clearly bad, but each offered a chance to see something not of this world.

The most poignant of these occurred during the death of my own father. It was just the two of us in the hallway of the house where I grew up. He had been sick for almost two years, and we both knew that he wouldn't recover. At the moment of his death I was holding him in my arms. In an instant, there was another presence with us. I cannot explain it. I have not before or since experienced such a feeling. It was plain to me that something other worldly had settled on him. It was more than an understanding that he would be released from his pain. It was more than resolution to his suffering. It was fuller and deeper than anything I have ever experienced in my life. It has to be God.

TO ALL Atheists and Agnostics - DISPROVE GOD by disproving this argument, if you don't; therefore God Exists!

Thomas Aquinas:
2 of 5 arguments for the existence of God.
(my summary, forgive any errors, they are my own)

As a proof the God exists, God is the "first cause"

Summary:
1) Some things are caused.
2) Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
3) An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
Conclusion: This cause, everyone calls God.

Can you disprove it or break this logic?

Interesting discussion I once had. It began with a bunch of us that are religious but from different faiths. An atheist as an EMT. If you don't believe in a God (what every one calls their high power) can or should you really try and play the hand of God and try saving lives?

Personally I believe in God because I have seen many times his acts in changing my life fo better. But with that strong belief he has also given me the ability and strength to accept those that don't believe in him and to be tolerant to their beliefs.

Every now and then I will find someone or they will find me and want to exploit my beliefs because they have some strange mission to morally destroy mainly Christians. I will tell you that God exist and whether or not you believe is not of my concern nor will I go out of my way to convince you. I will not debate it or argue the fine points of a theological lecture. I will say that one should look around one's self and the world. How can we be on accident? A car or air craft is an amazing invention. Someone had to make that. The human body is infinitely more amazing than any invention man as ever made. How can we be on accident?

You might as well ask for arguments for or against the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, or Zeus- all the same. With so many brainwashed as children, a time when you are most vulnerable to influence to believe these stories told as fact instead of something written by Dr. Seuss, it is difficult to acknowledge these supernatural beliefs for what they really are as a critically thinking adult even when presented with zero evidence to back any of it up as you would demand for any other wildly absurd claim.

Believe whatever crackpot fairy-tales you want- we have that freedom. Religion is toxic, destructive mental slavery, pure and simple. The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of people that buy into it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

The Big Bang Cosmology

COSMOLOGY
“SOMETHING MUST BE THE THING FROM WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE COMES.”
DR. STEPHEN MEYER

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (b.1872 – d.1970) was a British philosopher, logician, essayist and social critic best known for his work in mathematical logic and analytic philosophy. His most influential contributions include his defense of logicism (the view that mathematics is in some important sense reducible to logic), his refining of the predicate calculus introduced by Gottlob Frege (which still forms the basis of most contemporary logic), his defense of neutral monism (the view that the world consists of just one type of substance that is neither exclusively mental nor exclusively physical), and his theories of definite descriptions and logical atomism. Along with G.E. Moore, Russell is generally recognized as one of the founders of modern analytic philosophy. Along with Kurt Gödel, he is regularly credited with being one of the most important logicians of the twentieth century. Over the course of his long career, Russell made significant contributions, not just to logic and philosophy, but to a broad range of subjects including education, history, political theory and religious studies. In addition, many of his writings on a variety of topics in both the sciences and the humanities have influenced generations of general readers. After a life marked by controversy—including dismissals from both Trinity College, Cambridge, and City College, New York—Russell was awarded the Order of Merit in 1949 and the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950. Noted for his many spirited anti-war and anti-nuclear protests, Russell remained a prominent public figure until his death at the age of 97.
In an interview with Ben Stein, atheist Richard Dawkins was asked what he would you do if he met God after he died?”
Dawkins replied:
“Bertrand Russell had that point put to him and he said something like, ‘Sir,why did you take such pains to hide yourself?’”
Contrary to popular arguments, God has not “hidden himself.” In fact, God seems to have gone out of His way in order TO reveal Himself. There four primary ways in which He has done so.

1. General Revelation (Creation)
2. Special Revelation (Scripture/The Bible)
3. Physical Revelation (Jesus Christ)
4. Spiritual Revelation (The Holy Spirit)
If it is the case that God HAS revealed Himself in creation (or through creation) then we do not NEED to use the other three revelations to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an external Agency (defined by the same characteristics as God) actually exists.

WHAT DO YOU ALREADY KNOW?
Loosely stated, there are two primary competing theories surrounding the cause of the universe.
 Naturalism (Matter is Prime Reality)
 Intelligent Design (An External Agency is Prime Reality)
Contemporary cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers generally accept a “Big Bang” as the moment that the universe “exploded” into existence. Many Christians are uncomfortable accepting the idea of a Big Bang as they view it as an idea that is in direct competition with Biblical Revelation.
In this session, we will explore whether or not there is evidence to prove the so called “Big Bang.” We will also explore whether or not Christians can, or should, accept the idea.

The “New Atheism”?
New atheists assert that there’s no positive evidence for God’s existence and that it’s much more likely there’s no god at all. This sounds like the same old atheism. It is. What is different about New Atheism is that it is very hostile in its approach.
From “newatheists.org”
“[‘New’ Atheism espouses] Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion; indoctrination of logic, reason and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview.”
“Tolerance of pervasive myth and superstition in modern society is not a virtue. Religious fundamentalism has gone main stream and its toll on education, science, and social progress is disheartening. Wake up people!! We are smart enough now to kill our invisible gods and oppressive beliefs. It is the responsibility of the educated to educate the uneducated, lest we fall prey to the tyranny of ignorance.”

Christopher Hitchens (Late)
Christopher Eric Hitchens (born April 13, 1949) was a British-American author, journalist, and literary critic. He was a columnist at Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, The Nation, Slate, and Free Inquiry. Hitchens is known for his atheism and anti-theism and was a firm believer in the Enlightenment values of secularism, humanism, and reason. Hitchens became a United States citizen on his 58th birthday, April 13, 2007. He passed from complications of esophageal cancer on Dec. 15, 2011
Richard Dawkins
Clinton Richard Dawkins (March 26, 1941), is a British zoologist, born in Nairobi, in Kenya. He is currently Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, and is one of the most prominent biologists alive today. He is an ardent and outspoken atheist, Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society and Vice-President of the British Humanist Association. In his essay "Viruses of the Mind", he interprets religions using the memetics theory.
Sam Harris
Sam Harris is the author of the bestselling books The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, The Moral Landscape, Free Will, Lying, and Waking Up. The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction. His writing and public lectures cover a wide range of topics—neuroscience, moral philosophy, religion, spirituality, violence, human reasoning—but generally focus on how a growing understanding of ourselves and the world is changing our sense of how we should live.
Daniel C. Dennett
Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942, in Boston, Massachusetts) is one of the leading academic writers and activists engaged in promoting scientific atheism. His field is the philosophy of mind, of science, and of biology in particularly. Dennett joins Dawkins, too, in shrugging off the efforts of other Darwinian activists who wish to give the public the impression that Darwinism may be reconciled with traditional ideas of religious faith. In an article in the London Guardian (April 4, 2006), he singles out Eugenie Scott, direct of the National Center for Science Education, and philosopher Michael Ruse.
Dennett criticizes the two for “favor[ing] the tactic of insisting that evolution biology doesn’t deny the existence of a divine creator” and for their alleged “evasiveness” on this point. Following major, life-threatening open-heart surgery in 2006, Dennett wrote an essay assuring readers he had no near-death conversion to theistic belief but that, instead, he had enjoyed a renewed appreciation for “Goodness.” Instead of “Thank God,” he urged thoughtful and enlightened people like himself to say “Thank Goodness!”

Cosmology
“A branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe” Miriam-Webster
The origin of the universe is controversial due to the existential implications. If the universe has a natural cause, then there may be no evidence for a transcendent Being. However, if the universe has a beginning from absolutely nothing, it necessarily implies a cause that is external to our universe; an intelligent cause; one to which we may have to answer.

John Ray (1627-1705) John Ray was a highly influential English naturalist and botanist whose contributions to taxonomy are considered groundbreaking and historic. He is also well-known in the world of botany for the establishment of species as the ultimate unit of taxonomy.
Johannes Kepler(1571-1630) Johannes Kepler is one name that will always be remembered in the field of astronomy. He was the chief founder of contemporary astronomy and also a great mathematician and astrologer. The German astronomer was the first person to explain planetary motion. His three laws on planetary motion were codified by later astronomers based on his works Astronomia nova, Harmonices Mundi, and Epitome of Copernican Astronomy. They also served as the basis for Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation. Moreover his publication Stereometrica Doliorum formed the foundation of integral calculus, and he also made imperative advances in geometry.
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Among his many discoveries, Galileo discovered the first moons ever known to orbit a planet other than Earth, discovering Jupiter’s four largest moons: Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. Together these moons are now called the Galilean Satellites in his honor. Galileo lived at a crucial crossroads in the history of science when different strands of thought met and clashed. These were: natural philosophy based on Aristotle’s incorrect ideas; the beliefs of the Catholic Church at the time; & evidence-based scientific research. In the end, the ideas of Galileo and other scientists triumphed, because they were able to prove them to be true. Although his ideas triumphed, Galileo paid a high price for his science: he spent the last eight years of his life under house arrest, and the Catholic Church banned the publication of anything written by him.
Issac Newton (1642-1727) Isaac Newton, universally considered to be one of the greatest and most influential scientists of all time, was an English mathematical and physicist, widely known for his outstanding contributions to physics, mathematics and optics. He also invented the calculus, and formulated the three laws of motion and the universal theory of gravitation. Newton proved that sunlight is the combination of several colors. He performed as the master of the Royal Mint in London and as the president of the Royal Society of London.
Robert Boyle (1627-1691) Robert Boyle was an Anglo-Irish natural philosopher, scientist and theological writer. As one of the early pioneers of modern experimental scientific method, Boyle’s contributions ranged over a number of subjects, including chemistry, physics, medicine, hydrostatics, natural history and earth sciences.

Many of the “Fathers” of modern science were Christians or at least believed in an itelligent designer. While these scientists are often misrepresented, it was their belief in an external Being that drove them to do their research in many cases. The latter all believed:
 Creation is intelligible because it was the product of a rational mind.
 God made the world to be orderly
 Because our minds were made in the image of the same rational mind that made the world, we can understand it as well
“The Copernican Principle”
AKA the Principle of Mediocrity
We should assume there’s nothing special about our situation, our location in the universe, the particular features of the Earth, the solar system, or humans themselves - Stephen Meyer
Copernicus’ discovery - the sun doesn’t revolve around the Earth, but the Earth revolves around the sun - supposedly “demoted” humankind physically & philosophically. Supposedly, prior to Copernicus, the ancients believed that mankind was at the center of the universe. However, that presupposition is false. Ptolemy, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and Dante did NOT believe that man was the center of the universe.
Philosophically, Dante believed that Earth was an intermediate place. Aristotle believed:
 The earth (being the heaviest element) was at the bottom
 Earth was the place where things decayed and died
 Everything above the moon was quintessence …God dwelled in the heavenly sphere and man was in an intermediate place
Dante inverted the levels as you go the other way to hell; 9 levels up to God and 9 levels down to Hell.
The physical position of our planet in the universe has no bearing on our existential importance as human beings. However, our physical position does allude to our importance due to the fine tuning parameters involved to allow life on earth. We will cover that in a later session.
Challenge Accepted
Stephen Meyer was called before Congress to testify on bias against Intelligent Design. One of the Representatives asked Meyer if it was true that many of the early scientists believed in Intelligent Design. Meyer responded affirmatively and pointed to Newton as one example. An opposing witness claimed that while Newton was personally religious, Newton never included “God” in his science. However Meyer had just completed research on Newton and happened to have that research with him.

The General Scholium to Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica
“Though these bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of their orbits themselves from those laws. Thus this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Newton was explaining that while gravity explains why things hold together, it does NOT explain how they were placed. Newton’s conclusion was that they were placed by an “intelligent and powerful Being.” (Newton capitalized “Being.”)

TAKING GOD OUT
Pierre Laplace (1802)
The French mathematician and astronomer, Pierre-Simon Laplace, published his five-volume work Mécanique Céleste (Celestial Mechanics) between 1799 and 1827. Laplace based much of his work upon Newton’s discoveries and relied heavily on Newton’s recent invention of calculus. However, in stark contrast to Newton's view on the subject, Laplace explained the origin of the Solar System by reference to the Law of Gravity alone with no design. Purportedly, when Napoleon read Mécanique Céleste, he summoned Laplace. Laplace told Napoleon “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.” (That is, “The God Hypothesis”)

The attitude that a “God Hypothesis” is unnecessary continues to be held today. For example, Douglas Futuyma (Evolutionary Biologist) stated,
“By coupling the undirected, purposeless variations to the blind uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made the theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
On September 2, 2010, Stephen Hawking published his book, “The Grand Design.” In it, Hawking wrote,
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist...It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

There is a problem with Hawking’s position. “The Law of Gravity” and all other physical laws of nature are merely descriptions of interactions of material parts within the universe including its space-time configuration. If we were to go back to a point before the universe itself existed, there would be no natural laws and therefore, they have no ability to create anything at all.

At the time of Laplace and Darwin scientists believed that the universe was infinite in time and space. They believed that there were material causes all the way back with no beginning point. In fact, the assumption ever since the ancient Greeks had been that the material world is eternal. (Epicurus). There were contrary views, including Christianity. Christians had denied this on the basis of biblical revelation. Western secular science always assumed the universe’s eternality.
The Materialists’ View of the Universe
 Eternal
 Self-existent
 Self-creating
 Self-organizing
 Autonomous from any outside forces – No design, no purpose, no god

The Materialists’ Argument…
What caused human life?
(evolved from lower animals)
Where did they come from?
(still lower animals)
Where did they come from?
(amoeba or single-celled organisms)
Where did that come from?
(simpler chemicals)
Where did they come from?
(elementary particles)
Where did they come from?
(They were there all the time)

A popular argument;
“From eternity past were the particles and the particles became complex living stuff. And the living stuff became aware and the living stuff conceived of god.” WHAT’S THE BIGGER IDEA
There are two problems with a “Static State” theory of the universe.
 Mathematical Evidence
 Scientific (Empirical) Evidence

An actual infinite number of things creates absurdities. For example, let’s assume that I have an infinite number of marbles. Let’s further assume that I want to give you an infinite number of marbles. One way I could do that would be to give you ALL of my marbles. You would then have an infinite number of marbles and I would be left with zero marbles. In this case, Infinity (I) – Infinity (I) = 0. However, there are other ways that I could give you an infinite number of marbles.
Assume that all of my marbles are numbered “one” through infinity. If I gave you all of the ODD numbered marbles, I would be left with all of the EVEN numbered marbles. In this case, we would both have an infinite number of marbles. In this scenario, (I) – (I) = (I). There is yet another way to give you an infinite number of marbles. I could give you all of my marbles that are numbered “four” and above. In this case, you would have an infinite number of marbles, and I would be left with three marbles. In this scenario, (I) – (I) = 3. Carried a bit further, there are an infinite number of possibilities depending on the numbered marble with which I begin. Within Transfinite Arithmetic, there are an infinite number of solutions to the problem of “Infinity – Infinity = X”
Assume from the example above that I still have an infinite number of marbles. Assume that I have one marble numbered “zero.” The remaining marbles are split evenly and half are numbered “one” through infinity while the other half are numbered “negative one” through infinity (see below).
…,-15, -14, -13, -12, -11, -10, -9, -8, -7, -6, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, …
Now, I want you to count ALL the negative marbles until you get to “zero” (ALL of the negative marbles - not just the ones on this page). You can’t do it; no one can. There’s no point at which to begin. There are always more negative marbles. One can NEVER arrive at the “zero” marble. Now, let us replace the “marbles” with “events.” Instead of a “zero marble” we now have a point on the timeline marked “the present.” In this scenario, one can NEVER arrive at “the present” because one can never advance through ALL of the “past events” to arrive at the present. Mathematically speaking, the universe cannot be infinite in the past because one could not arrive at the present. An infinite past is mathematically impossible. It is “impossible to traverse the infinite.”

 Premise 1 – Whatever begins to exist has a
cause
 Premise 2 – The universe began to exist
 Premise 3 – Therefore, the universe has a
cause
Premise 1: “Everything that has a beginning has a cause.”
This principle is known as The Law of Causality. It is foundational to the scientific method. If it were not true, then scientific endeavors would prove pointless.
Premise 2: “The universe began to exist”
There is now ample evidence that the universe had a beginning. That evidence has been organized into an acronym by Frank Turek.

To deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality -
It’s “self-defeating”
Rational thinking requires thoughts (causes) that result in conclusions (effects).
If someone ever denies this law, simply ask,
“What caused you to come to that conclusion?”

“In the beginning there was a great ‘SURGE’”
Turek
SURGE
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Universal Expansion
Radiation from the Big Bang
Great Galaxy Seeds
Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity

Second Law of Thermodynamics
 First Law states that the actual amount of energy in the universe remains constant
 Second Law says the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. It is also known as the Law of Entropy
Arthur Eddington (Astrophysicist – Britain -1882-1944)
“…if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

If the universe was eternally existent in the past, then we would expect that our sun would have burned out at some point in the infinite past. In fact, all stars in the universe would have all burned out at some point in the infinite past. Our universe would have already experienced “heat death.” The beginning of the universe, and the origin of all its usable energy, must be a finite point in the past.

Universal Expansion
The universe is expanding. Below are the series of mathematical and empirical discoveries the prove this to be the case.
 1915 – Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (Shows that as one travels backward in time, gravity causes space time to curve in upon itself resulting in a smaller universe in the past. In fact, it demands an absolute beginning to the universe from nothing.)
 1920’s – Alexander Friedman and George Lemaitre developed models based on Einstein’s theory. Their research showed that the universe should be expanding in the present.
 1929 – Edwin Hubble discovered a “red shift” in
light coming from galaxies outside our own. Galaxies
are moving away from each other. He viewed the
expanding universe.
1940’s – George Gamow predicted that if all
time, space, and matter came into existence at a finite
point in the past, then there should be a background
temperature of the universe just a few degrees (2.7)
above absolute zero.
 1965 - Parno Penzias and Robert Wilson,
accidentally discovered the universe’s background
radiation just 2.7 degrees above absolute zero.
If the universe is expanding in the present, it means that as we move backward in time, the universe contracts. If one goes back far enough everything must compress to a zero point; a point of zero special volume with zero matter and zero time. This implies the need for a cause beyond the universe itself.

Hubble was observing galaxies moving away from us and other galaxies. The further away the galaxy, the faster it was receding.
Red Shift = Doppler Shift
As objects move away, the wavelength of light stretches out. (The light moves to the red end of the spectrum. The opposite end of the spectrum is blue.)

Radiation from Big Bang
The background radiation of the universe is 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. This radiation is light and heat from the initial explosion.

Robert Jastrow (1925-2008)
Former Member of the National Space Society Board of Governors
Robert Jastrow was Director and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Mount Wilson Institute, which manages Mount Wilson Observatory in California on behalf of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Dr. Jastrow was a member of the NASA Alumni Association. Dr. Jastrow received his A.B., M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in theoretical physics from Columbia University. He joined NASA when it was formed in 1958 and was a prominent figure in the American space program from its inception. Dr. Jastrow was the first chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, which established the scientific goals for the exploration of the Moon during the Apollo lunar landings. In 1961, Dr. Jastrow set up NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a U.S. Government laboratory charged with carrying out research in astronomy and planetary science. He served as director of the Goddard Institute until his retirement from NASA in 1981. In recognition of his work in NASA, Dr. Jastrow received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the Arthur S. Fleming Award for Outstanding Service in the U.S. Government. He also received the Columbia University Medal of Excellence, the Columbia Graduate Facilities Award to Distinguished Alumni and Doctor of Science degree (honorary) from Manhattan College. Dr. Jastrow hosted more than 100 CBS-TV network programs on space science. In 1981, Dr. Jastrow left NASA to join the facility of Dartmouth College as Professor of Earth Sciences. He resigned from Dartmouth in 1992 to take up duties as manager of Mount Wilson Observatory. On February 8, 2008, Dr. Jastrow died of pneumonia.

Robert Jastrow, an agnostic astronomer, wrote in 1978,
“…the radiation discovered…was exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed…The Big Bang theory has no competitors.”

Great Galaxy Seeds
If the Big Bang actually occurred, we should see slight variations (ripples) in the temperature of the background radiation. These temperature ripples would have enabled matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies.
In 1989, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) was deployed. Upon viewing the data/images, Project leader George Smoot said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”
COBE showed that the explosion & expansion was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back in on itself. Smoot called the variations the “machining marks from the creation of the universe” and the “finger prints of the maker.”

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
Einstein’s Theory is verified to 17 decimal places (in all but the Planck realm). The theory demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter. It shows that they are co-relative; that is they are interdependent- you cannot have one without the others and all must have the same beginning point.
Einstein’s theory dealt with the law of gravity. It shows that a massive body will curve space around the body; space contracts.
If we were in a universe with no spatial volume, and gravity was the only thing at work, everything would contract and compress in on itself. Einstein’s equations implied that the force of expansion was a little stronger than the force of gravity.
Einstein was not a little disturbed by his theory. He was a believer in the steady state and the implications of his theory called that belief into question. Einstein decided to add his “Cosmological Constant.”
Einstein’s Cosmological Constant
“It was a numeric value that described, not a force of expansion, but a contrary force of contraction that was calibrated just right so that the expanding force and the contracting force were in perfect balance so that we had a static universe again. So it was just sitting here from eternity past doing nothing, not expanding, not contracting, just sitting there.” –Meyer
The problem with his constant is that he had to divide by zero to achieve it! Einstein later said that it was the worst mistake of his career; that he should have just followed the evidence where it led.

The Kalam Argument says that if the first two premises are true, then it’s necessary to conclude the third. There is no other reasonable conclusion.
Sir Arthur Eddington (Astrophysicist – Britain -1882-1944)
“Philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole. I simply do not believe the present order of thing started off with a bang…the expanding universe is preposterous…it leaves me cold.”

Note that Eddington gives no evidence. There is no logical reasoning in his objection. He doesn’t he like the expanding universe because he has a personal philosophy (a presupposition) that says you can’t have a finite universe.
Robert Dicke (1916-1997)
An American, Dicke received his PhD in 1941 and worked on radar during World War II at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He spent the rest of his career at Princeton. In the early 1960s he and his student James Peebles independently repeated George Gamow's prediction of a cosmic background radiation, and almost immediately afterward correctly interpreted Arno Penzias's and Robert Wilson's discovery of the cosmic background radiation. Later Dicke and Peebles drew attention of astronomers to a problem concerning the density of matter in the universe, called the flatness problem. A lecture by Dicke inspired Alan Guth to develop the inflationary model of the universe.
Robert Dicke
“An infinitely old universe would relieve us of the necessity of understanding the origin of matter at any finite time in the past” Princeton, 1965
Fast forward to 2010…
Newatheists.org
This is meant to be an attack on theism…

“Irrational Beliefs Not Delusional? (they ask)
An excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders states: Delusions are irrational beliefs, held with a high level of conviction, that are highly resistant to change even when the delusional person is exposed to forms of proof that contradict the belief...Also, for beliefs to be considered delusional, the content or themes of the beliefs must be uncommon in the person's culture or religion.
So it's OK to have irrational beliefs as long as everyone in your group does too”!? (Ending punctuation assumed and added by me)

In light of current discoveries in cosmology, it seems this applies more so to those who continue to insist on material causes for the origin of the universe.
Allen Sandage – Astronomer
“Here is evidence for what can only be described as a supernatural event. There is no way that this could have been predicted with the realm of physics as we know it.”

The “Big Bang” is NOT a cause. It is the very first effect. The Big Bang does not cause any problems for Theism. In fact, it is evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer; it is evidence for the existence of God. When it was first discovered, the materialists were running for alternatives; not theists.
Robert Jastrow (Agnostic, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, author of “God and the Astronomers”)
“This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. It is unexpected because science has had such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backward in time. For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

WHAT IS THE PLANK REALM?
Quantum theory evolved as a new branch of theoretical physics during the first few decades of the 20th century in an endeavor to understand the fundamental properties of matter. It began with the study of the interactions of matter and radiation. Certain radiation effects could neither be explained by classical mechanics, nor by the theory of electromagnetism. In particular, physicists were puzzled by the nature of light. Peculiar lines in the spectrum of sunlight had been discovered earlier by Joseph von Fraunhofer (1787-1826). These spectral lines were then systematically catalogued for various substances, yet nobody could explain why the spectral lines are there and why they would differ for each substance. It took about one hundred years, until a plausible explanation was supplied by quantum theory.
Quantum theory is about the nature of matter.

In contrast to Einstein's Relativity, which is about the largest things in the universe, quantum theory deals with the tiniest things we know, the particles that atoms are made of, which we call "subatomic" particles. In contrast to Relativity, quantum theory was not the work of one individual, but the collaborative effort of some of the most brilliant physicists of the 20th century, among them Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Wolfgang Pauli, and Max Born. Two names clearly stand out: Max Planck (1858-1947) and Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976). Planck is recognized as the originator of the quantum theory, while Heisenberg formulated one of the most eminent laws of quantum theory, the Uncertainty Principle, which is occasionally also referred to as the principle of indeterminacy.

The Uncertainty Principle
Quantum mechanics is generally regarded as the physical theory that is our best candidate for a fundamental and universal description of the physical world. The conceptual framework employed by this theory differs drastically from that of classical physics. Indeed, the transition from classical to quantum physics marks a genuine revolution in our understanding of the physical world.

One striking aspect of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that whereas classical mechanics presupposes that exact simultaneous values can be assigned to all physical quantities, quantum mechanics denies this possibility, the prime example being the position and momentum of a particle. According to quantum mechanics, the more precisely the position (momentum) of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum (position) is. This is (a simplistic and preliminary formulation of) the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle for position and momentum. The uncertainty principle played an important role in many discussions on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, in particular in discussions on the consistency of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation, the interpretation endorsed by the founding fathers Heisenberg and Bohr.

This should not suggest that the uncertainty principle is the only aspect of the conceptual difference between classical and quantum physics: the implications of quantum mechanics for notions as (non)-locality, entanglement and identity play no less havoc with classical intuitions.
The uncertainty principle is certainly one of the most famous and important aspects of quantum mechanics. It has often been regarded as the most distinctive feature in which quantum mechanics differs from classical theories of the physical world. Roughly speaking, the uncertainty principle (for position and momentum) states that one cannot assign exact simultaneous values to the position and momentum of a physical system. Rather, these quantities can only be determined with some characteristic ‘uncertainties’ that cannot become arbitrarily small simultaneously. But what is the exact meaning of this principle, and indeed, is it really a principle of quantum mechanics? (In his original work, Heisenberg only speaks of uncertainty relations.) And, in particular, what does it mean to say that a quantity is determined only up to some uncertainty? These are the main questions we will explore in the following, focusing on the views of Heisenberg and Bohr.

The notion of ‘uncertainty’ occurs in several different meanings in the physical literature. It may refer to a lack of knowledge of a quantity by an observer, or to the experimental inaccuracy with which a quantity is measured, or to some ambiguity in the definition of a quantity, or to a statistical spread in an ensemble of similarly prepared systems. Also, several different names are used for such uncertainties: inaccuracy, spread, imprecision, indefiniteness, indeterminateness, indeterminacy, latitude, etc. As we shall see, even Heisenberg and Bohr did not decide on a single terminology for quantum mechanical uncertainties. Forestalling a discussion about which name is the most appropriate one in quantum mechanics, we use the name ‘uncertainty principle’ imply because it is the most common one in the literature.

Theory of Relativity - A Brief History and Factual Implications
The Theory of Relativity, proposed by the Jewish physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) in the early part of the 20th century, is one of the most significant scientific advances of our time. Although the concept of relativity was not introduced by Einstein, his major contribution was the recognition that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and an absolute physical boundary for motion. This does not have a major impact on a person's day-to-day life since we travel at speeds much slower than light speed. For objects travelling near light speed, however, the theory of relativity states that objects will move slower and shorten in length from the point of view of an observer on Earth. Einstein also derived the famous equation, E = mc2, which reveals the equivalence of mass and energy. When Einstein applied his theory to gravitational fields, he derived the "curved space-time continuum" which depicts the dimensions of space and time as a two-dimensional surface where massive objects create valleys and dips in the surface. This aspect of relativity explained the phenomena of light bending around the sun, predicted black holes as well as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) -- a discovery rendering fundamental anomalies in the classic Steady-State hypothesis.

For his work on relativity, the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation, Einstein received the Nobel Prize in 1921.
Theory of Relativity – The Basics
Physicists usually dichotomize the Theory of Relativity into two parts. The first is the Special Theory of Relativity, which essentially deals with the question of whether rest and motion are relative or absolute, and with the consequences of Einstein’s conjecture that they are relative. The second is the General Theory of Relativity, which primarily applies to particles as they accelerate, particularly due to gravitation, and acts as a radical revision of Newton’s theory, predicting important new results for fast-moving and/or very massive bodies.

The General Theory of Relativity correctly reproduces all validated predictions of Newton’s theory, but expands on our understanding of some of the key principles. Newtonian physics had previously hypothesized that gravity operated through empty space, but the theory lacked explanatory power as far as how the distance and mass of a given object could be transmitted through space. General relativity irons out this paradox, for it shows that objects continue to move in a straight line in space-time, but we observe the motion as acceleration because of the curved nature of space-time. Einstein’s theories of both special and general relativity have been confirmed to be accurate to a very high degree over recent years, and the data has been shown to corroborate many key predictions; the most famous being the solar eclipse of 1919 bearing testimony that the light of stars is indeed deflected by the sun as the light passes near the sun on its way to earth. The total solar eclipse allowed astronomers to -- for the first time -- analyze starlight near the edge of the sun, which had been previously inaccessible to observers due to the intense brightness of the sun. It also predicted the rate at which two neutron stars orbiting one another will move toward each other. When this phenomenon was first documented, general relativity proved itself accurate to better than a trillionth of a percent precision, thus making it one of the best confirmed principles in all of physics.

Applying the principle of general relativity to our cosmos reveals that it is not static. Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) demonstrated in 1928 that the Universe is expanding, showing beyond reasonable doubt that the Universe sprang into being a finite time ago. The most common contemporary interpretation of this expansion is that this began to exist from the moment of the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago. However this is not the only plausible cosmological model which exists in academia, and many creation physicists such as Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett have devised models operating with a biblical framework, which -- to date -- have withstood the test of criticism from the most vehement of opponents.

Using the observed cosmic expansion conjunctively with the general theory of relativity, we can infer from the data that the further back into time one looks, the universe ought to diminish in size accordingly. However, this cannot be extrapolated indefinitely. The universe’s expansion helps us to appreciate the direction in which time flows. This is referred to as the Cosmological arrow of time, and implies that the future is -- by definition -- the direction towards which the universe increases in size. The expansion of the universe also gives rise to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the overall entropy (or disorder) in the Universe can only increase with time because the amount of energy available for work deteriorates with time. If the universe was eternal, therefore, the amount of usable energy available for work would have already been exhausted. Hence it follows that at one point the entropy value was at absolute 0 (most ordered state at the moment of creation) and the entropy has been increasing ever since -- that is, the universe at one point was fully “wound up” and has been winding down ever since. This has profound theological implications; for it shows that time itself is necessarily finite. If the universe were eternal, the thermal energy in the universe would have been evenly distributed throughout the cosmos, leaving each region of the cosmos at uniform temperature (at very close to absolute 0), rendering no further work possible. The General Theory of Relativity demonstrates that time is linked, or related, to matter and space, and thus the dimensions of time, space, and matter constitute what we would call a continuum. They must come into being at precisely the same instant. Time itself cannot exist in the absence of matter and space. From this, we can infer that the uncaused first cause must exist outside of the four dimensions of space and time, and possess eternal, personal, and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capabilities of intentionally space, matter -- and indeed even time itself -- into being. Moreover, the very physical nature of time and space also suggest a Creator, for infinity and eternity must necessarily exist from a logical perspective. The existence of time implies eternity (as time has a beginning and an end), and the existence of space implies infinity. The very concepts of infinity and eternity infer a Creator because they find their very state of being in God, who transcends both and simply is.
See more at: http://www.allaboutscience.org/theory-of-relativity.htm#sthash.NMigRJC2.dpuf

So the question is not about the Bible ro even Christ. Simply, Can one prove that there is a God.

Simple math proves it. Let's begin.
Evolutionists would like us to believe that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. That seems preposterous to me given the information we have now but it doesn't matter. We will give them the benefit of the doubt and then hang them with it (metaphorically speaking of course).

“Most scientists speculated that the deeper they delved into the cell, the more simplicity they would find. But the opposite happened.”
–Michael Behe

The DNA molecule is VERY complex. A single strand carries the same amount of info as a volume of encyclopedia. A single celled amoeba has as much information as 1000 complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. These 1000 sets do not consist of random letters but letters in a very specific order.
Proteins are absolutely essential for what goes on inside the living system. Proteins perform a function in virtue of their shape; shape and function are related. Proteins do hundreds of different jobs in the cell.
 They serve as structural parts for motors
 They catalyze reactions within the cell (enzymes)
 They process information on the DNA strand
 They have a very complex 3 dimensional shape
 All functions depend on the specific shape of each protein

The naturalist/atheist responds to the origin of specified complexity in DNA by appealing to Random Chance, Natural Selection, or Chemical Affinities and Self-Ordering.

Albert L. Lehninger
Albert Lester Lehninger was born in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He received his B.A. in 1939 from Wesleyan University and his M.S. in 1940 and Ph.D. in 1942 from the University of Wisconsin. After receiving his Ph.D. in biochemistry, he held several faculty positions at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Chicago. Lehninger came to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 1952 as the DeLamar Professor and director of the department of physiological chemistry. He is credited with making fundamental contributions in bioenergetics, a field which deals with the way in which nutrients derived from food are oxidized and converted into a biochemically useable form. He is the author of three classic texts: Biochemistry, The Mitochondrion, and Bioenergetics.

“We now come to the critical moment in evolution in which the first semblance of ‘life’ appeared, through the chance association of a number of abiotically formed macromolecular components.”

We need to ask, “Can chance alone produce Specified Information?” The problem of assembling the genetic information in DNA has sometimes been compared to getting two lines from Shakespeare. The assumption is that given enough time, one could get “To be or not to be, that is the question” by randomly dropping scrabble letters on a table.
There is a significant problem however. This postulation assumes quite a bit. It assumes there ARE scrabble pieces. It assumes a dropping mechanism. It assumes a table. It assumes the physical and chemical components of the scrabble pieces. It assumes a mechanism for producing the scrabble pieces, the paint, the device to apply the paint, a functioning alphabet. The odds of randomly ordering the scrabble pieces are dependent upon the odds of all the preexisting conditions coming about randomly. The odds against this are staggering.

Imagine a combination lock on a briefcase with four dials. There are 4 dials and each dial has 6 choices. The objective is to line the “6’s” up at random. What are the odds? If we have 2 dials each with 6 options, we determine the possibility of achieving our objective through multiplication. Therefore 6x6=36. The chance of getting the correct solution is one chance in 36.
-If 3 dials: 6x6x6=216 (One chance in 216
-If 4 dials: 6x6x6x6=1296 (One chance in 1296)
-Possibilities grow exponentially, NOT additively
So, let’s look at the odds of getting a combination by chance assuming 4 dials with 10 digits each.
 4 dials with 10 digits = 104
 10000 possible combinations
 The odds are one chance in 10000
Now let’s assume there are 10 dials, each with 10 digits.
 10 dials with 10 digits = 1010
 10,000,000,000 possibilities
 The odds are one chance in 10 billion
Now let’s look a Amino Acid Sequencing (Protein Formation).
There are 20 protein forming amino acids. The remaining amino acids are not used in protein formation. We’ll assume just five sites.
glycine valine cystine histidine tryptophan
Since there are 20 possibilities, we have a 1/20 chance at each site.
 In 2 sites it’s 20x20=400
 In 3 sites it’s 20x20x20=8000
 In 4 sites it’s 20x20x20x20=160,000
 In 5 sites it’s 20x20x20x20x20=3,200,000
So, to get specific amino acids from among the possible amino acids at just five sites is one chance in 3.2 million.
Most proteins, even modest or “short” proteins have 100-150 amino acids; not five. An average length protein may be 300-400 amino acids in length.
Let’s now examine the odds of assembling a minimally complex protein of 150 amino acids.
 150 amino acids with 20 possible at each site = 20 to the 150th power
 Converted to base 10 there are 10 to the 195th power possibilities
As it turns out, functional sequences of amino acids are EXTREMELY rare. Doug Axe (Ph.D, Cal. Tech) asks a critical question. “How common (or rare) are functional sequences (ie: proteins) among all the possible combinations of amino acids?” In other words, for every protein that forms a function, how many combinations of amino acids are there?
For a series of 150 amino acids:
 Functional folds of a given length = 1
 Number of sequences of a given length = 10 to the 74th power
 So, just to get the amino acid sequence is one chance in 10 to the 74th power
Something else is also required. Only Peptide Bonds hold the amino acids together. Non-peptide bonds CANNOT form proteins. About half of the bonds are not peptide bonds. So at each site we have a 1/2 chance.
To form a protein 150 amino acids long, you’ve got a ½ chance of forming a peptide bond at each site (actually it would be 149 sites but we will round up to 150 for teaching purposes).
 ½ x ½ x ½ x…=1/2 to the 150th power = 1/10 to the 45th power
 So the odds are one chance in 10 to the 45th power
We are not done. We also need the correct Optical Isomers. Amino acids come in left and right handed versions. The left handed version is the only one that can be used in building proteins. Just ONE right handed amino acid and the protein won’t fold properly.
 So again, this is ½ at each of the 149 sites (again, rounded up to 150) which again is a probability of 10 t the 45th power
 So one chance in 10 to the 45th power of getting the correct Optical Isomers at 150 (149) sites
So, the odds of getting a functioning protein of 150 amino acids are:
 10 to the 74th power x 10 to the 45th power x 10 to the 45th power = 1/10 to the 164th
 The chance of finding a functional protein BY CHANCE is one chance in 10 to the 164th power!
Keep in mind that all this time, we’ve been talking about ONE protein. It is estimated that between 250 & 400 proteins are needed to form a minimally complex single celled organism. Humans have approximately 100 trillion cells and many different cell types. Every cell is comprised of hundreds of different kinds of proteins doing hundreds of different jobs. Going on, there is approximately 6 feet of DNA in each human cell. There are approximately 100 trillion cells in the human body. Therefore, there’s roughly 600 trillion feet of DNA in a human body.
Now we have a BIG problem. If we have 13.7 billion years with which to work, do we have enough resources in the universe to overcome the odds? In other words, can we explore all the possibilities?

Probabilistic Resources of the Universe…
 Elementary Particles = 10 to the 80th power
 Seconds since the Big Bang = 10 to the 16th power
 Maximum number of interactions between elementary particles = 10 to the 43rd
 10 to the 80th x 10 to the 16th x 10 to the 43rd = 10 to the 139th power.

So the odds of randomly assembling a minimally complex protein are one in 10 to the 164th power. However, the probabilistic resources available in a 13.7 billion year old universe are only 10 to the 139th. This means that if every event from the dawn of time were devoted to trying to find even a single protein comprised of 150 amino acids there is not enough time to search all the possibilities. This assumes a mechanism that every option would only be explored once and would never be repeated. And what are the odds of that happening?

Chance is not a good hypothesis. When you have a highly improbable event, which also performs a function, then chance is very unlikely. Scientists are increasingly skeptical that the chance hypothesis is going to accomplish the task. According to Stephen Meyer, no serious scientist thinks that life began by chance. It’s ALWAYS going to be more probable that it DIDN’T happen by chance then that it did. It’s time to look at other options.

Let’s assume that I am walking home from work. I accidentally fall into a 12 foot hole and cannot climb out. Suddenly, I remember that I have a 15-foot extension ladder at home! I run home, get the ladder, and climb out of the hole.
This begs the question; how did I get out of the hole to go get the ladder?
Begging the Question
An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to “beg the question.”
Natural Selection
 The process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations
 It is an UNDIRECTED mechanism that can mimic the powers of a designing intelligence
Prebiotic Natural Selection
This theory posits that this process began BEFORE life arose. There is an insurmountable problem with this theory.
 Natural Selection depends on differential reproduction.
 Natural Selection presupposes organisms that can copy themselves.
 The reproduction depends on information rich DNA and functional proteins.
 One cannot get Natural Selection going; one can’t get information; unless one already has information.
Christian René de Duve
Belgian cytologist and biochemist Christian de Duve was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1974, for his research into subcellular biology. He discovered lysosomes (the cell's digestive system) and peroxisomes (organelles where crucial metabolic processes take place), and shared his Nobel honors with Albert Claude and George E. Palade. He was born to refugee parents in England, but his family returned to Antwerp while he was still a child. A naturalized citizen of Belgium and promoted to Viscount by the Belgian king in 1989.
Medical School: MD, University of Louvain (1941)
University: MS Chemistry, University of Louvain (1946)
Professor: Biochemistry, University of Louvain (1947-85)
Professor: Biochemical Cytology, Rockefeller University (1962-88)
Administrator: International Institute of Cellular and Molecular Pathology (1974-91)
Nobel Prize for Medicine 1974 (with Albert Claude and George E. Palade)
Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Author of books: The Lysosome (1963) Lysosomes in Biology and Pathology (1975, with Roger Thornton Dean and J T Dingle) Cellular and Molecular Biology of the Pathological State (1979) A Guided Tour of the Living Cell (1984, with Neil O Hardy) Blueprint for a Cell: The Nature and Origin of Life (1991) Vital Dust: Life As a Cosmic Imperative (1996)

Constraints on the Origin and Evolution of Life (1998) Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning (2002) Singularities: Landmarks on the Pathways of Life (2005) The Origin of Life (2006, video)
Theories of prebiotic natural selection “need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place.”
Dean Kenyon
Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University. He received his Ph.D. in Biophysics from Stanford University. He was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California at Berkeley, a Research Associate at NASA-Ames Research Center, and a Visiting Scholar at Trinity College, Oxford University. Prof. Kenyon coauthored which is one of the leading “Biochemical Predestination” monographs on the origin of life, and “Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins.” He contributed chapters to the Festschrift volumes for origin-of-life researchers A. I. Oparin and Sidney W. Fox, and has published papers on chemical evolution, protocell models, and the RNA-world hypothesis. Dr. Kenyon's current research interests focus on linguistic, statistical, and visual imaging analysis of coding and non-coding DNA sequences.
Dean Kenyon Proposed Self Organization
 Example – Salt. A alternating sequence of NA & CL
 1985 – He rejected his own idea
o He came to realize that the critical question was not the origin of proteins but rather the origin of information in DNA
o Self-Organization couldn’t explain the arrangement of
characters in the DNA digital code
o Example – Magnetic Letters
 Magnetic force (force of attraction) cannot explain the functional organization of the
letters to communicate a message
 The same is true of DNA
 Information is attached to the backbone of the DNA strand but there’s no force of
attraction between the letters (bases)

Michael Polanyi
“As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.”
Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry

Undirected processes do not produce large amounts of specified complexity – information – starting from chemical processes. There is no naturalistic explanation for the origin of the information one needs to build the first life. Since this is the case, maybe we’re looking at something that appears to be designed because it really is designed.

In conclusion, there simply isn't enough time in the universe for anything to have created itself. It had to be designed. If there is a design, then there is a designer. No other species besides man has decided that it needs to worship something bigger than itself. If somebody went through the trouble of designing all of this, then they must have had a reason. If we were designed, and we have the capacity to wonder why, then there is a reason and the creator created us with the capacity to know this reason. WE were made to worship Him. We were given the power of choice because choice is the foundation of worship.

I believe in a Supreme Being (God), so for me He is real. As for others, well that is up to them. I don't believe in pushing my beliefs on others and I hope others will show me the same respect