The Cosmological Argument

(A) The existence of an effect indicates the existence of a cause.

The atheist or agnostic at best, can only say a first cause for the universe is uncertain or unknown. And before the Cosmic Egg is more uncertainty. This is a non-answer because we know from nothing, comes nothing.  Some who does not know what caused the universe is not an atheist but an agnostic. So atheists must believe nothing created everything  "...space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it." http://curious.astro.cornell.edu  (Scientists at Cornel Univ.)

"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing--is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice".  (Prof R. Dawkins. “The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution”)

Yes someone would be mad trying to explain it.

"To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something." Discover Magazine “Physics & Math/Cosmology” http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover

'Quantum' mechanics never produces something out of nothing. It's true matter can produce energy but that's not something from nothing. It's scientifically impossible and metaphysically absurd to claim something came from nothing. And intellectually embarrassing to believe 'nothing created everything'. In nothingness, not even potentialities exist. There had to be a cause and that had to be immaterial, unchanging and timeless - a free agent who freely wills to produce.

So nothing cannot make something. If it can then its something not nothing. And if there was "something" to begin with, where did that "something" come from? Hence there is no intelligent secular origin theory, since every idea is based on pre-existing matter or energy.

We know of nothing in this world without a cause behind its existence, so there must be a cause behind the world and universe. Even an atheist must admit there was a first cause, because there obviously was. Things everywhere are explained by a cause lying outside them. We are forever inquiring into causes.  We can’t make sense of anything without a cause behind its existence. There is no reason to deny what we experience as true everyday. There is no single case of a physical state or event  observed or known to originate from nothing.  If there was, our leading scientific societies would love to know about it.  All science, history, & law enforcement would collapse if 'cause and effect' are denied. The fact the universe exists at all, is significant. Why is there 'nothing' instead?

(B) All events have a beginning and cause.

 In contrast God doesn't need a cause since He is neither an event nor a contingent being. He is an uncaused Being, self-existent and eternal. So everything else must be subject to the law of 'cause and effect' and must have as its source an independent and must be traced back to a first cause, the Creator.

'Who designed the creator? Another creator? Then who designed him? This is a pointless argument. One has to stop somewhere with an ultimate explanation, or there is no knowing ultimate truth. No evidence in a Law Court could be accepted true. One does not need to go on and on. But as with other questions, we accept explanations and a proper stopping point. The universe requires a cause, because it had a beginning. Unlike the universe God had no beginning. Einstein showed that time is linked to matter and space, so time begun with matter and space. God as Creator is not linked to matter or space.

  It's true, limited human minds struggle with God's infinite  nature. The universe then, is a good example of God's nature. "His eternal qualities are clearly seen in the things he has made, even his eternal power and Godhead, therefore they are without excuse". (Rom.1:20). So the infinite in our mind presupposes the infinite Himself.

The 'cause and effect' argument then, looks into the past and inquires as to the origin, the ‘whence’ of all existence. It says if the universe began to exist at some time, its reasonable to assume something caused it's beginning (ie., “here is a book someone must have written it” (books  don’t write themselves). The First Cause must have intelligence because there are intelligent beings in the universe and the universe is intelligible, capable of being studied and described intelligently. And moral and spiritual realities are not self-produced, since we are aware of such, its certain the First Cause must be both moral and spiritual in an exceedingly high degree.

The Teleological Argument

The Teleological Argument looks into the present and considers the ‘how’ of all existence. It argues from design in order, purpose, beauty, simplicity, complexity and information. The world not only exists, it has these in abundance. Flowers, feathers, snow-flakes, blades of grass, finger prints etc. This argument has not been destroyed by Hume or Darwin but is reborn due to scientific discoveries. We KNOW every building, car, plane, boat etc has design. Every watch has design. Our minds always link design to construction and a product of a mind, not chance, a feature that goes with intelligence. It would be silly to talk of “Random design”. Design must have a Designer.  

DESIGN: The earth is astonishingly well suited for highly conscious beings like men. It's not outrageously impossible that design is the reason. The odds of a naturalistic development of design are virtually infinity to one. The naturalistic account can provide no reason for expecting any arrangement which yielded life to come about, other than the fact it just happened to be the perfect arrangement. So when science finally discovered that the factors necessary for life (predicted in the Christian framework) are finely balanced this confirmed Christian theism. Atheism however can only suggest these cosmic constants with life are coincidences. For the world and universe is so finely tuned and delicately balanced and so sensitive to minor alterations that numerical values are evidence for cosmic design.

 Belief in a God then, is not a religious idea based on a nebulous 'faith', but based on what we know. When I say, "I believe there is a God" its a statement based on facts.

(B)  A sense of absolutes makes man a Moral Being. He has a sense of right and wrong, a desire to pursue a greater right and avoid evil. As moral creatures man is higher than animals. Hence a civil court will punish man if he transgresses certain moral boundaries. No animal court system exists among animals to pursue justice.

If 'bad' came from animal ancestors where did 'good' come from? Because if evolution is true and there's no God why should I be moral? Why include in life any moral dictates? Yet men everywhere recognize that 'good' is better than 'bad' and 'right' better than 'wrong'. And intuitively know the difference between right and wrong, even though they may disagree about precise definitions.

The Bible describes this as a conscience given by God, commonly inherited in man. It tells us what we are and ought to be and if we don’t measure up we feel guilt & fear punishment. It's the clearest and simplest expression of the exalted character and dignity of human life. It touches upon that which makes man above the animals.  According to a Christian worldview, virtue-properties exist, and can be seen in people. While virtues and vices can be epistemologically distinguished.  But atheism cannot accept that as true.

Even the existence of evil in the world argues God's existence. If there is no God, there cannot be such a thing as 'evil'.  Evil is the reason men can behave worse than animals. And the most convincing atheist with their most persuasive argument will fail, to an honest man who realises guilt before God when they did what they know was evil.

Ethics then are not testified by science but transcendental and everyone has a standard of morality. When two argue each will claim to be right and have an ultimate standard they’re closer to than the other. If moral values exist and can be known, it isn't strange to say God exists and can be known since moral and religious knowledge are similar. The Creator then, isn’t an inanimate force but a moral being and must have standards. Moral consciousness can be explained only in terms of the First Cause with a great moral consciousness.

If there's no God, then nature becomes God. If no absolutes, then the media rules, the elite, the 51%, the dictator, or gun. If man is nothing but chemical material, the product of an 'up-bringing' then he's not responsible nor should he be punished for doing wrong. So if one kills another, it's what's right for them. If there is no God, there can be no injustice in this world, only indifferent evolutionary processes. No need to bring criminals to justice for their crime, for responsibility, morality or punishment does not make any sense if we are merely physical animals.

The Biological Argument

How did the galaxies form? With the spiral arms and billions of stars? How did our solar system form independent yet within this galaxy? Of all the kinds of universes that could develop by chance, life-permitting universes like this one with its fundamental forces, physical constants and precision are wildly improbable. The chances of a life-permitting universe would need to be far less.  There are thousands of alternative possibilities to ours and life would be impossible. The more we examine other kinds of universes which physics allow, then the more special this one appears. An atheistic account provides no reason for expecting the arrangement that yielded life to come about,  other than the mere fact that it was just the one that happened.

We are not surprised there are conditions in this universe incompatible with our existence but we ought to be very surprised that we observe ALL the conditions compatible with our existence. There are no easy obvious answers in natural processes which are all according to chance.  One cannot assign numerical probability to life. Those who speak of billions and billions of years are simply trying to fool you into thinking chances are high.  There are enormous complexities and improbabilities by chance.

However, if Darwinian evolution were true and there is no God, when, why, and how did evolution by naturalistic means and chance produce both male and female species, as we see in all creation? And the geological strata should contain millions of transitional forms between species. But these are not found, there is only a handful of disputable claims. It remains a scientific fact,  life can only come from pre-existent life not from matter alone. The basis for atheism is that matter and chance produced life. And what’s the matter with that? The problem with matter, is that its not eternal, it could only have come from non-matter. So matter must have originated some time in the past by a method equivalent to creation.

You must either say, "in the beginning God", or in the beginning 'nothing'. "Some find it hard to think God could make everything from nothing, it's even more unthinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything".  Nothingness has no nature, properties or power for the production of a specific state of affairs. Its absurd to speak of nothing as identical  to an existent state with properties. So how can nothing produce matter and matter produce life, when even the simplest biological living things are amazingly complex.   There is a close analogy between man-made machines and various aspects of the natural world. Since the former are designed, why not the later. Otherwise we are asked to believe non-living matter jumped the many hurdles required to form living cells. Natural selection can't explain the origins of the first life. And the random formation of a single enzyme from amino acids anywhere on earth by chance is outrageously impossible, so much so it should not even be considered possible.

 So there is no explanation for life, because without a Creator life has no sense. It makes more sense to believe that “in the beginning God created the heavens and earth” than in the beginning nothing produced something. And then millions of atoms fell together by themselves without a blueprint and made a simple cell. The origin of life is a problem for materialists because natural selection can't explain it. Its pointless discussing natural selection if there are no two contenders to start with. Natural selection can not account for the first life forms. It only functions AFTER you have life forms that reproduce. Darwin did not know, that there is no such thing as a 'simple cell'. What was once believed as a 'simple cell' is now regarded as highly complex.

There must be intelligence to start with, to direct atoms. All things left to themselves fall apart, not together. Computers don’t happen by chance and matter, it takes intelligence to produce something intelligent. So how can matter and chance (both void of intelligence) ultimately produce something as complex as the human brain? Something more complicated than the world's most advanced computer. If the brain and sensory faculties resulted from random chance, there's no reason to trust them to give accurate information about the world. Yet the reliability of our cognitive sensory capacities is most reasonably explained in the light of the fact they were designed to give reliable information about the world. When 'scientists' discover primitive stone tools in caves they recognize intelligent input and conclude an intelligent creature was responsible.

Finally, information is stored on DNA code, but the code itself is not intelligent nor improved by random chance. Genetic defects or accidents never improve DNA only destroy or damage it. So the problem with biological chance is that the odds are too great. Chance is a non-answer, chance is something we apply to something we don’t have a sensible explanation for. The origin of life by chance is fantastically improbable.

The Historical Argument

Man first appears on the pages of human history as a full-grown, intelligent worshipper. Human history points to an unseen hand, guiding the destinies of the nations ie., Israel, Egypt, Babylon, Persia and Assyria. While the Bible accurately describes historical events, history attests to Scripture. Eg., the rise and fall of great empires like Greece and Rome (Dan.2:39-40) and the destruction of cities (ie Tyre, Sidon Isa.23). Tyre's demise is recorded by ancient historians who tell how Alexander the Great lay siege to the city for 7 months. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had failed in a 13-year attempt to capture the seacoast city and completely destroy its inhabitants.

How does one dismiss away tangible evidence like Hezekiah's tunnel (2 Chr.32:10)? This 533 meter tunnel under Jerusalem still exists today, one can walk through it. Hezekiah's inscription describing the construction work was found in the tunnel wall, its in the Museum in Istanbul today.

The Bible has 100% accurate prophecy regarding history and nations. The  rebirth of the modern state of Israel today is another fulfillment of Scripture.  Verses which foretold a return to the land after captivity in Babylon/Assyria have come alive since 1984 when Israel again became a nation and Jew's returned to their ancient land. The Jewish people were the ones to whom the Scriptures were given.

The bible is rooted in history. It's historical accuracy is far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. The events recorded did not take place secretly "in a corner" (Acts 26:26) but were objective facts of history. The Hebrews were meticulous at keeping records of their kings, even at times in two separate books. While Luke for example, has been described by experts as the greatest historian that ever lived.  God maybe not the kind of God we would want to project (surely one would want a more tame person, not so holy or demanding) yet even this verifies the truthfulness of the writers.

Historically every Easter and Christmas point to God existence.  Months and years are governed by solar cycles but humanity universally numbers the calendar by a working week. Where did that come from? The week originated from Genesis 1-2. This was the period of time of creation and ever since governed how humanity marks time. It points to God's existence.

Historically the lives of people point to God’s existence. What a person believes has an impact on what they do. So there should be certain patterns of life change that will occur in people.  When they occur they serve as evidence of the hypothesis which predicts them. God is real since He produces real effects. Multitudes worldwide have testified to answered prayer and demonstrated changed lives. And willing to live or die in the consolation of their assurance. God's actions in history are central to Christianity and all Christian theology is rooted in history. This sets Christianity apart from all other world religions and validates its truthfulness. It's based on objective events (the bible, history, the resurrection) when one has a basis for predicting certain patterns of life change will occur, this becomes plausible evidence of reality.

Dismissing God as a 'psychological crutch' refutes itself. For what we need usually exists (eg water, air) so if we need God that also provides some evidence for His existence.