Somewhere around 6,000 years ago someone declared, from a personal encounter, there is only one true Higher Power/Supreme Being– also known as, GOD. This declaration of theirs they passed on to the generations after them and told them to do the same, and it has gone on until this present day in time.
From this point in history on people have made it a life endeavor attempting to prove this age old claim to be false. Now some will say that this age old claim was made from an assumption taken from independent reasoning. With this said, we can now see from the studies of certain things like *Astronomy, *Cosmology, and *Biology that those centuries ago who declared God exists aren't looney; which in turn means the burden of proof is truly on those who oppose this claim to not simply show reasonable doubt but “foolproof” doubt. Yet, if one who accepts the existence of God can show even an ounce of solid, concrete evidence for it the case against it, no matter how sophisticated it may be, is no more. For who can truly prove that something doesn’t exist if there is even one shred of solid evidence that says it does?
Here are three things I believe is solid and simple evidence for the existence of God.
The Universe
Scientists say, by way of their “Big Bang Theory”, that the universe has always existed, originating in a coalition of energy: gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Well, using their theory, energy––an effect and also a cause, but in this case an effect because of its four manifestations––cannot exist (come to be, occur) without the direct result of some other “cause” (action). In order for this such “cause” (i.e. action by somebody or something else) to create/cause this such “effect” (i.e. energy [and eventually matter] that makes up this immeasurable universe), this such “cause” would have to be something absolute––the origin/starting point of all “CAUSE”, something that always was, is, and will be. Otherwise, this universe remains an effect (a state) of energy (and eventually matter) without a sufficient “cause” (action by some “thing” completely separate from the “effect”), and that’s scientifically impossible. In all of the efforts to explain the “Big Bang” (the origin of the universe aside from a Higher Power), it still doesn’t and will never be able account for how the “Big” was provided for the “Bang” to take place.
The Earth
Earth is too perfectly placed within this galaxy. Any closer to the sun it would be too hot for life and any further away it be too cold for life, and it’s not blocked by the Asteroid Belt having a perfect view to view the rest of the universe. It's too perfectly suited for the different kinds of life forms on it to be an accident, chance, or luck. The percentage of that happening is in the billions times billionth percentile. Again, this is far too scientifically improbable to explain with certainty without some Higher/Supreme Power causing it.
Humankind
Evolution? Scientists from the same field aren’t all on the same page with evolution. (Scientists from the same field aren’t all on the same page on a lot of things, but that’s for another discussion). Scientists can only tell us educated guesses (empirical claims) not precise, absolute facts. They theorize from pictures of space, equations, certain species, and so forth of how life on earth came to be. (The same is to be said for their explanation for the universe and earth as well). For example, stories and reenactments from ages ago where we do not have anything credible or tangible to support them are fictitious and speculative not absolute or necessarily true. So the stories and reenactments we read and watch about dinosaurs, life ten’s of thousands to millions and billions of years ago, and so on, have no such support for how they are being told or described. Thus they are speculative not definite. They cannot tell us from a first person position only a third person position, and a third person position is not solid enough to be accepted as first-hand facts (in this case); which is exactly why they’re still called theories and not absolutes. Therefore, there is no “fail-safe” scientific way to explain the existence of humankind except for a Higher/Supreme Power; that is, atleast starting the process of “evolving” or something of the sorts. Again, humankind is such an “effect”, like that of the universe or the position of earth within the galaxy, that it needs such a “cause”.
Conclusion
I read somewhere, “People claim to not believe in God because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.”” Yet, we can see that not believing in a Higher Power is actually what is “not scientific”. These three alone give ample enough evidence that there is a God out there who atleast is the cause for the universe, the positioning of and the situating of life on earth, and then humankind; as well as reasonable doubt on the allegation that there is no existence of God. It’s after acknowledging the existence of a Higher Power that we have to ask the question of, does this Higher Power want something to do with us, or did it start it all and leaves it to it’s own devices? This is where I believe some of the different faiths/beliefs come from, trying to answer this question. Nonetheless, the reality of the existence of God is much more credible than that of those who adamantly disagree. Even well-known, non-Christian scientists agree. Renowned astrophysicist and evolutionist Stephen Hawking said,
There’s an old saying I like to close with, “A fool says in his heart, there is no God.”* And that’s because you’d have to be a fool to not see the evidence of the existence of a Higher/Supreme Power, or dim-witted enough to cover ones eyes and say, “I don’t see anything.”
Here's a link to another site that shares a lot of information on this same topic:
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/collapse_of_evolution.htm
_________________________________________________________________
From this point in history on people have made it a life endeavor attempting to prove this age old claim to be false. Now some will say that this age old claim was made from an assumption taken from independent reasoning. With this said, we can now see from the studies of certain things like *Astronomy, *Cosmology, and *Biology that those centuries ago who declared God exists aren't looney; which in turn means the burden of proof is truly on those who oppose this claim to not simply show reasonable doubt but “foolproof” doubt. Yet, if one who accepts the existence of God can show even an ounce of solid, concrete evidence for it the case against it, no matter how sophisticated it may be, is no more. For who can truly prove that something doesn’t exist if there is even one shred of solid evidence that says it does?
Here are three things I believe is solid and simple evidence for the existence of God.
The Universe
Scientists say, by way of their “Big Bang Theory”, that the universe has always existed, originating in a coalition of energy: gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Well, using their theory, energy––an effect and also a cause, but in this case an effect because of its four manifestations––cannot exist (come to be, occur) without the direct result of some other “cause” (action). In order for this such “cause” (i.e. action by somebody or something else) to create/cause this such “effect” (i.e. energy [and eventually matter] that makes up this immeasurable universe), this such “cause” would have to be something absolute––the origin/starting point of all “CAUSE”, something that always was, is, and will be. Otherwise, this universe remains an effect (a state) of energy (and eventually matter) without a sufficient “cause” (action by some “thing” completely separate from the “effect”), and that’s scientifically impossible. In all of the efforts to explain the “Big Bang” (the origin of the universe aside from a Higher Power), it still doesn’t and will never be able account for how the “Big” was provided for the “Bang” to take place.
The Earth
Earth is too perfectly placed within this galaxy. Any closer to the sun it would be too hot for life and any further away it be too cold for life, and it’s not blocked by the Asteroid Belt having a perfect view to view the rest of the universe. It's too perfectly suited for the different kinds of life forms on it to be an accident, chance, or luck. The percentage of that happening is in the billions times billionth percentile. Again, this is far too scientifically improbable to explain with certainty without some Higher/Supreme Power causing it.
Humankind
Evolution? Scientists from the same field aren’t all on the same page with evolution. (Scientists from the same field aren’t all on the same page on a lot of things, but that’s for another discussion). Scientists can only tell us educated guesses (empirical claims) not precise, absolute facts. They theorize from pictures of space, equations, certain species, and so forth of how life on earth came to be. (The same is to be said for their explanation for the universe and earth as well). For example, stories and reenactments from ages ago where we do not have anything credible or tangible to support them are fictitious and speculative not absolute or necessarily true. So the stories and reenactments we read and watch about dinosaurs, life ten’s of thousands to millions and billions of years ago, and so on, have no such support for how they are being told or described. Thus they are speculative not definite. They cannot tell us from a first person position only a third person position, and a third person position is not solid enough to be accepted as first-hand facts (in this case); which is exactly why they’re still called theories and not absolutes. Therefore, there is no “fail-safe” scientific way to explain the existence of humankind except for a Higher/Supreme Power; that is, atleast starting the process of “evolving” or something of the sorts. Again, humankind is such an “effect”, like that of the universe or the position of earth within the galaxy, that it needs such a “cause”.
Conclusion
I read somewhere, “People claim to not believe in God because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.”” Yet, we can see that not believing in a Higher Power is actually what is “not scientific”. These three alone give ample enough evidence that there is a God out there who atleast is the cause for the universe, the positioning of and the situating of life on earth, and then humankind; as well as reasonable doubt on the allegation that there is no existence of God. It’s after acknowledging the existence of a Higher Power that we have to ask the question of, does this Higher Power want something to do with us, or did it start it all and leaves it to it’s own devices? This is where I believe some of the different faiths/beliefs come from, trying to answer this question. Nonetheless, the reality of the existence of God is much more credible than that of those who adamantly disagree. Even well-known, non-Christian scientists agree. Renowned astrophysicist and evolutionist Stephen Hawking said,
“The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop and so on.”*And again he said,
“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”*Even Charles Darwin himself said,
“The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God … I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose.”*
There’s an old saying I like to close with, “A fool says in his heart, there is no God.”* And that’s because you’d have to be a fool to not see the evidence of the existence of a Higher/Supreme Power, or dim-witted enough to cover ones eyes and say, “I don’t see anything.”
Here's a link to another site that shares a lot of information on this same topic:
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/collapse_of_evolution.htm
_________________________________________________________________
*1 - Astronomy is the scientific study of the universe, especially of the motions, positions, sizes, composition, and behavior of celestial objects.
*2 - Cosmology is the scientific study of the origin and structure of the universe.
*3 - Biology is the science that deals with all forms of life, including their classification, physiology, chemistry, and interactions.
*4, 5, 6 - One Heartbeat Away, Mark Cahill. Retrieved from http://audio.markcahill.org/Heartbeat.pdf, pg. 22, 24, 25.
*7 - Psalms 53:1
2009
