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.  One 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 he would be mad and couldn't 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 which 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 it come from? Hence there is no intelligent secular origin theory, since all are 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 and is not subject to a cause. Einstein showed that time is linked to matter and space, so time begun with matter and space. God as Creator is not subject 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, computer etc has design. Atheists would have us believe that only these had to have a designer, but the complex systems of life forms happened by chance. Yet our minds always link design to construction and a product of a mind, not chance, its 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. A naturalistic account can provide no reason for expecting any arrangement which caused life to come about, other than the fact it just happened to be a perfect arrangement. So when science finally discovered that the factors necessary for life (predicted in the Christian framework) are so finely balanced this confirmed Christian theism. Atheism however can only suggest these cosmic constants with life are coincidences.  But the world and universe is so finely tuned and delicately balanced and so sensitive to minor alterations that it's 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 and fear punishment. It's the clearest and simplest expression of the exalted character and dignity of human life. It touches on what makes man above the animals.  According to a Christian worldview, virtue-properties exist, and can be seen in people. And 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 wrong.

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%, 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 no God, there can be no injustice in this world, only indifferent evolutionary processes. No need to bring criminals to justice for crime, responsibility, morality or punishment. That does not make any sense if we are merely physical animals. And with DNA just "98% similar to chips" and just a few mutations away from the lower animals how can 'human rights' be natural, God given or absolute in any sense, if there's no God? It's absurd to even talk of 'human rights' if there's no God. Such superstitious talk must stop.

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 is true and there's 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 (not yet discovered, only disputable claims exist). 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.

 Its been said, "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 cells are amazingly complex.  Chance needs a simple arrangement not a mind-boggling complexity.  There is an analogy between man-made machines and various aspects of the natural world. Since the former are designed, why not the later. Or 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 even a single enzyme from amino acids anywhere on earth by chance is so outrageously impossible, it should not be considered possible. All that we know about chemicals is that they do not self-assemble to form living cells. Chemistry laws indicate the biopolymers necessary for life would break down, not build themselves up.  Even if assembled, it’s impossible an undirected process would have the correct form. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would cause a break down long before this.

 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 to be 'a simple cell' is now regarded as highly complex as a city. Its not a random collection of chemicals but a super complex living machine which carries an information code. It's constructed and functions by a set of rules. All of which prove intelligence, as none forms randomly by chance. So function and purpose existed before the machine.  That's why scientists find it difficult to understand and explain parts of the cell because they are so incredibly difficult to design, build or reproduce.   

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. That's why when 'scientists' discover primitive stone tools in caves they recognize intelligent input and conclude an intelligent creature was responsible. So why treat life forms differently?

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, Assyrian, Roman. The Bible, God's existence, and history must stand side be side.  So the bible accurately describes historical events eg., the rise and fall of great empires like Greece and Rome (Dan.2:39-40). The destruction of cities (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 failed for 13 years to capture the seacoast city and completely destroy its inhabitants. There's plenty of historical observable evidence for bible accuracy:-

•  Consider Hezekiah's Tunnel. (2 Chr.32:10. 2 Kg.20:20) This 533m tunnel under Jerusalem still exists, one can walk through. Hezekiah's inscription of construction was found in the tunnel wall (Istanbul Museum).

•  Consider Solomon's Wall. A 70 meter wall constructed during King Solomon's day. Opened to the public (outside the Old City Jerusalem). The Ophel Wall offers archeologists relics dating back 1000BC during Solomon's expansion work. Visitors can walk through and touch these walls.

• Consider Jacobs Well. Only 76 meters from Tell Balata, still there today Jn.4:6.

• Consider the Stela of Shalmaneser III. This mentions 'Ahab the Israelite' 1 Kg.22:1. Those of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles were real historic people. (British Museum London, Room 6).

• Consider the Black Obelisk. (841BC) Pictures Jehu bowing before Shalmaneser. 2 Kg.9-10 (British Museum London).

• Consider the Relief from the Palace at Nimrod of Tigath-pileser III. Depicts Tiglath taking captive Israelites. 2 Kg.15:29 & 1 Chr.5:2526.  (British Museum London).

• Consider the Astartu Relief. Depicts Tiglath-pilsesr III 2nd invasion of Israel (732BC). 2 Kg.15:19-20. He's mentioned 9 times in the bible. (British Museum London)

• Consider Tiglath-pileser's Annals. Confirms 2 Kg.15:30. He tells how Ahaz of Judah paid him treasures and Hoshea was made king 2 Kg.17:1-6. (British Museum).

• Consider the Sargon Inscriptions. 2 Kg.17:6,24. He took credit for the fall of Samaria (In the Louvre Paris). A comprehensive record is on a prism in the Baghdad Museum.

• Consider the Moabite Stone. (853.BC)('Masha's Stele') Discovered in 1868. Confirms 2 Kg.3:4-5 . (In the Louvre Paris).

• Consider the burnt Lachish and Khorsabad Reliefs. Regarding Hezekiah's tribute to Assyria, confirming 2 Kg.18:1-8, 13-15. 2 Chr.32 & Isa.36-37. Inscriptions are burnt because 100 years later Nineveh was destroyed by fire as Nahum prophesied  (British Museum Room 10).

• Consider the prism of Esarhaddon. Describes the invasion in the land of king Manasseh 2 Chr.33:9,11. (Univ. Pennsylvania Museum).

• Consider the numerous Hittite artifacts. Remains of the Hittite empire. Critics of the bible once considered Hittites a figment of imagination, a mythical people. 2 Sam.11 Gen.15. (British, Istanbul Museums)

• Consider the Tiled Archer. (536-400BC) From the Palace of Susa or Shushan, built by Darius. Queen Esther would have seen this, Ne.11 Es.1:2 Dan.8:2 2 Chr.36:22-23. (British Museum Room 52)

• Consider the Ram of Tirhakah. (690-640BC) Depicts the Ethiopian king-regent who distracted Sennacherib while he besieged Lachish 2 Kg.19:9 Isa.37:9. (British Museum London, Room 4).

• Consider the Lachish Letters. (586BC) In Hebrew, on pottery. Confirms the historic reality of the bible in  Jer.34:6-7 38:4, 42:1. (British Museum, Room 57)

• Consider "Ahab's Ivories". (874-853BC) Found in Samaria. Confirms 1 Kg.22:39 Amos 3:15. 6:4. (British Museum, Room 57)

• Consider the Stela of Merneptah. (1231BC) Confirms settlement of Israelites in Canaan (Exodus, Joshua, Judges) (Cairo Museum)

• Consider the Inscriptions over Shebna's Tomb. (715BC) Shabanyahu or Shebna is mentioned in Isa.22:15-17 (British Museum Room 57)

• Consider the Taylor Prism. (691BC) Sennacherib's annals record deportation of 200,150 Judeans. His claimed siege of Jerusalem, tribute to Hezekiah 2 Chr. 33:10-13. (British Museum, case 11, Room 55)

• Consider the city of "Ur". Discovered in 1854. Its existence was denied by critics of the bible prior to discovery (Gen.11:33).

• Consider the Stamped Bricks of Nebuchadnezzar. (605-522BC) Confirms Dan.4:30 (British Museum, case 12, 14 Room 55)

• Consider the Cylinder Inscription of Nabonidus. (555-540BC) Dan.5:5, 30 is not fiction, Belshazzar existed. (British Museum, Room 55)

• Consider the Babylonian Chronicles for 615-609BC. Confirms the predicted fall of Nineveh in Nahum and Zephaniah. And Egyptian troops in the Euphrates region (609BC) 2 Kg.23:29  2 Chr.35:20-24.  (British Museum, Room 55)

• Consider the Babylonian Chronicles for 605-597BC. Confirms the bible record - battle of Carchemish and siege of Jerusalem Dan.1:1-5. 2 Chr.36:6 9-10. 2 Kg.24:1 8-17. Jer.52:27 (British Museum)

• Consider the Nabonidus Chronicle. (556-539BC) Daniel's record vindicated as historical, Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. (British Museum case 15 Room 55)

• Consider the Cyrus Cylinder. (536BC) Silenced the critics of Ez.1:1-3. Also confirms Daniel's record (again) of the fall of Babylon. (British Museum case 6 Room 52)

• Consider the Silver Bowl of Artaxerxes I. Regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem Ezra 4:7-23. Inscribed 'son of Xerxes, son of Darius' Kings mentioned in Ezra 4. (British Museum Room 52)

• Consider the Epic of Gilgamesh. Although with some fanciful details, similarities confirm Gen.6-9. (British Museum, case 10 Room 55)

• Consider the mud brick of Ramesses II. (1279-1213 BC). With straw showing, similar to those of Israelite slaves Ex.5:7-19. (British Museum case 35 Room 61)

• Consider the  burned mud bricks from ancient Sumeria. They confirm Gen.11:3,4 (Australian Institute of Archaeology)

• Consider the Statue of Nimrod. Confirming Gen.10:8-11. (Nemrut Dagi Turkey)

• Consider the Sculpture of Augustus. (27 BC - 14 AD) Roman emperor. Caesar at Christ's birth Mt.2:1. (British Museum Room 70)

• Consider the Sculpture of Tiberius. (AD 14-37) Caesar during Christ's life, Lk.3:1. (British Museum Room 70)

• Consider the Denarius of Tiberius. (AD 14-37) Known as the 'Tribute Penny'. The type of coin featured in Mt.22:18-21 (British Museum case 3 Room 68)

• Consider the remains of the Temple of Artemis (Diana) in Ephesus. The goddess and temple mentioned in Acts 19.

• Consider the Elgin Marbles from Parthenon in Athens.  Sculpture Luke mentioned in Acts 17. (British Museum)

• Consider the Politarch Inscription. Luke was correct after all in his use of words Acts 17:6,8. (British Museum Room 78)

• Consider the Temple Warning Notice (AD31). An inscription confirms Luke's record in Acts 21:28-29. (Istanbul Museum)

• Consider the Stela of Shoshenk I. 'Shishak's' city list on Temple Wall in Karnak. This Egyptian Pharaoh invaded Israel taking cities, plundering the temple. His inscription at Megiddo provides double evidence for 1 Kg.14:25-28. 2 Chr.12:2-12. (Temple Wall Egypt)

• Consider the city of Tyre. Its ancient ruins verify Jos.19:29. 2 Sam.5:11, 24:7. 1 Kg.5:1, 7:13-14 9:11. 1 Chr.14:1, 22:4. 2 Chr.2:3, 11-14. Ezra 3:7 Neh.13:16 Ps.45:12, 83:7 87:4. Isa.23:1-5. Mt.11:21. (Tyre Lebanon) Dozens of other cities and verses can be verified.

• Consider the Ancient Lyre's from Ur. It was once claimed the bible was wrong. No Harps existed in the time of Genesis or even in King David' day. These Harps date 1000 years before David, confirming Gen.4:21-22. (Museums London, Baghdad, Pennsylvania)

• Consider the Elephantine Papyri (404 BC).  Letters and contracts. The Book of Ezra (once denied) is verified. Delaiah, Shelemiah, sons of Sanballat, High Priest Johanan (in Nehemiah) are mentioned. (Brooklyn Museum)

• Consider Queen Pu-Abi's Rein Post. Silver Donkey on Chariot rings. This Sumerian decorative harness has iron rings. 1000yrs before the so-called iron age confirming Gen.4:22.

• Consider the vast Coal Deposits, billions of Fossils and Flood Legends (worldwide) verify Noah's Flood in Genesis.   

• Consider Herod's Temple.  Its ruins still survive. Dozens of other places and verses can be verified. (Jerusalem)

• Consider the Dead Sea Scrolls. Confirming accuracy and preservation of thousands of verses.

The Bible has 100% accurate prophecy regarding history and nations. The rebirth of Israel today is an Old Testament fulfillment.  Verses which foretold a return to the land after captivity in Babylon/Assyria have come alive since 1948 when Israel was reborn and Jew's returned to their ancient land. Biblical scholar J.N. Darby in 1829 could foretell this rebirth over 100 years before hand, just by expounding the bible (pgs. 141-160. Prophetic No.1 Vol.2. Stow Hill Bible & Tract Depot. Kingston-On-Thames 1829). The Jewish people were the ones to whom the Old Testament was given.

The bible connects to this argument for its 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.

 This is true, yet the knowledge of a great Almighty God has flourished for centuries without any assistance of a bible or Christianity. Its incorrect to assume man became aware of the God of Genesis only after 'Christian evangelism' or a bible translated into their hands. Its incorrect to assume ancient pagans had no concept of a higher divinity than idols. As Chinese, Roman and Greek records testify - Cicero, (44BC) Lao-tzu, (6th century BC) Hesiod, Plato, Chrysippus and Xenophanes (8th century BC).

   Historically many testify God's existence is proven by obeying 'the gospel'. When one truly repents and trusts in Jesus Christ they come to know the God that created all things. This conversion experience is more real than any argument for God’s existence that can be made. God gives a new life and heart with new desires and opens the eyes of the understanding. Like one born-blind suddenly seeing colour for the first time. As "new creatures" God’s existence becomes so real to them they are astounded any would deny it.

And so historically the lives of people point to God’s existence. What a person believes impacts on what they do. There should be certain patterns of life change that occur in people.  When they do they serve as evidence of the hypothesis which predicts them. God is real because He produces real effects. Multitudes testify to answered prayer and demonstrate 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 one needs God that also provides some evidence for His existence.