Here we go, taking a few steps back, starting off lets look in from the outside, the theist has a decent body of evidence to work with in supporting this case to show that God does exist, the atheist on the other hand has no evidence at all, zero in fact, to show that God does not exist and science has proven the orgin of life, atoms, and molucular processes, including all the laws of nature in chemistry and physics, not in any way. . The main thing you all have used against me is the bible and saying it contradicts itself, most of this comes from misreading and not understanding the full message, in this post I will give links at the bottom of some excellent sources that go through every single one of the claims against the bible and logically makes sense of them.
But in this post I'm going to try my best to show why I'm pursuaded to believe what I do and why I believe it to be rational, In no way can I prove to you all, that you are all wrong or please listen to me your a bad person and I am good one let me show you the way, please dont misunderstand what it is i am actually doing because it is nothing like that. I have no reason to think any of you to be bad people or myself, whether a person is bad or good I repect them and I think they are of individual worth and value. I respect each of your opinions and I just want to really show you why I believe what I do. now I'm not a philosopher or a scientist so if you can please bear with me I try my best to present a large variety of information. I'm gonna start with a more cosmological argument, First I give you this link,
http://www.harvardhouse.com/Scientific_Evidence_for_Beginning.htm, I post this because someone
has tried to say that the universe could be eternal, and we know that isn't what is going on now. So let's really interact on this, how then if there was indeed a begining of time, matter, and space, how then do you explain a cause for this that existed prior to the singularity? You can't tell me it was a natural something that caused it because that would produce an unending cycle of things that need a prior cause, no abrstract object of sorts can explain this begining, the only logical explanation as I then see it is a supernatural, infinite(uncreated), all powerful being. I don't think it is logical either to say all this in the universe came to be by chance from absolute nothingness. So I'll ask if you can explain the universe and earth and how it came to be without the supernatural involved that is logical?
I know Richard Dawkins has a whole chapter in one of his books arguing mainly this idea, saying that God can't be the solution because the solution can not more complex then that which you are trying to explain. I have put great efforts in eliminating bias, and rationally considering many writtings similar to Dawkins. But everytime I do so, in my best understanding and evaluation these types of logical inconsistent statements pop up many, many times. This is what I see when I read his statement, first logically truth is exclusive, and we can all agree if two intelligent people saw an ancient symbol carved into the rock of a cave, they would both agree the symbol was made by a person with a mind. So there is on good and clear example of the solution or explanation to the symbol lies in the human mind that created it which is far more complex then just the symbol. We have many explanations in physics, Quantum physics, biology, and chemistry and in each the explanations given are far more complex then that which it is explaining. Or in another sense he was saying God is to complex an answer for it to be plausible and true. His statements are self defeating if he believes in science and modern science. This is due to the fact that not only is science and mathematics complex, as time goes further and further both science and mathematics, also grows vastly more complex with time and human progress.
Take gravity alone from newton to Einstein, both who saw science proving more and more to them that because of all that incredibly ordered, magnificent, and beautiful Complexity that sience and math reveal to us, and actually for newton he believed and science only strengthened his belief and Einstein of course later in life believed but it was science that played a large role in him finding God. That in itself to me is some revealing of how God can work, as to how each had a different personal path to their belief.
Ok so if we look at all of the matter in existence, the whole physical world, and we break one section down into the smallest section we could possibly find. In all these material sections or whatever you would like to call the matter, no natural life or existence of materiel Has the cause of its existence in itself. This, I don't think you can deny but we will see. Now to wrap all this up with quoting from some drawn out arguments on what I'm talking about.
Kalam cosmological argument
The aim of this argument is to show that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. The argument battles against the existence of an infinite, temporal regress of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument implies the existence of a First Cause.
The form of the argument is:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Thomistic cosmological argument
What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite
Conclusion: There must be a first cause in the sequence of contingent causes
Leibnizian cosmological argument
The argument comes from a German polymath, Gottfriend Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz wrote, "The first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?"
The argument runs as follows:
Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
The universe is an existing thing.
Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.
Some atheists object to premise 2 in that God does not have to be the explanation, but that the universe can be what is called a necessary being (one which exists of its own nature and have no external cause). This was a suggestion of David Hume who demanded, "Why may not the material universe be the neccesarily existent being?" (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, part 9). The Kalam Cosmological Argument is helpful. If Hume (and other atheists) is right in saying that the universe is a necessary being/thing, then this implies that the universe is eternal. This is exactly what the Kalam argument seeks to disprove. Thus, the Kalam is a valuable supplement to the Leibnizian argument.
Ok next I'm going to be talking about morals and what naturalism forces one to do when it comes to morals. As I see it, the postmodernism claim is that truth is relative and there is no absolute truth, now I'm not saying all of you believe in this exact way but just pointing something out. That claim I have stated there, is in itself an absolute truth claim and that is the very concept in which they have stated clearly doesnt exist at all. Now this idea of absolute morality, whether you think they don't exist or you think they are a bi-product of biology and society, neither case gives a good description of reality at all. I say this because I thought we all agreed that rape and murder and things of that nature were in fact bad or just caring for one another because of evolutionary instinct it is better for the survival of humans to care for each other. So first if you agree that those acts I described before we both consider not good, but if morals are relative and not absolute there is no reason to agree or not there is not even the chance either of us could actually be telling the truth. And second, to morals or ethics for evolution and society first I don't understand how you call it caring for one another when we each would only be acting that way, because it aids our own survival, that is actually caring for ones self more then others. And there would be no source of an absolute ethic guide it would differ in societies and lost into another sea of relativism, which relativism makes the absolute truth claim that all truth is relative. Where is the logic in that?
I think God gives us a good example(in my opininion)of how there is an absolute moral law and he is the absolute which we are to refer to. Take one look at the economic crisis that is taking place in most of the world, the cause of just about every last bit of it is due to borrowing an amount in which we can't afford, or printing money with no absolute reference like gold in this case, results in bills that lack any trust, which only the absolute can give. I would love to go more into detail on this which I have borrowed on the economics, but its that time. I'm going to pick up where I left off and hopefully bring together the full piece of work in its whole, and connect all what I'm trying to express here thanks to all of you.
I just throw in this link to this man here who is very well known in the science community just another's perspective on some of these kinds of questions if you care to read his, very intelligent way of pointing certain things.
http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/qanda.html
