What Kind of being is God?

[Otupia]

This is a paper that I wrote for my philosophy class. Its not horribly long, but my prof didnt require it to be. Read it let me know what you think, Im turning it in today so its not like i can edit it but i am curious to see how it is perceived, plus i think it can generate a decent discussion.

The Problem of Evil
by Andrew Thompson

The problem of evil states "If God exists, and if God is all-good, omniscient, and omnipotent, then innocent beings should not suffer from unnecessary evils(like land mines, diseases, or starvation). But they do suffer from these evils. So God's existence seems logically incompatible with the fact that innocent beings suffer unnecessary evil." (Nils Rauhut, P.206 Ultimate Questions Thinking about Philosophy 2nd Ed.) The problem of evil at a glance implies that the theistic God does not exist, because evil exists. If the all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God were to allow evil to occur it would seem that he or she would not be theistic. An argument against a theistic God can be made, as can an argument that favors a theistic God, while evil still exists in the world. Considering that the above claim is only a mere glance at the problem of evil, we should consider the reasons evil exists instead of the fact that evil does exist. Evil exists for one of two reasons, it either serves a higher purpose or there isn't a theistic God. Let us examine the possible reasons evil exists.
The Free-will defense argues that "even a theistic God cannot have complete control over his creation as long the creation contains genuinely free creatures"(Nils Rauhut, P.207 Ultimate Questions Thinking about Philosophy 2nd Ed.) If we are truly free, which I like to believe, then moral evil exists. This evil exists, because the theistic God gave us choices. Moral evil "includes all evil caused deliberately by humans doing what they ought not to do...and also the evil constituted by such deliberate actions or negligent failure" (Richard Swinburne, P. 460 Readings on the Ultimate Questions 2nd Ed.). Although moral evil is unpleasant it may serve a higher purpose. My sisters father died in a drunk driving accident, his brother made the decision to drive drunk, which can be considered a moral evil. Years later, in high school she became an advocate against drunk driving. Certainly doing so she saved many lives, so her tragic man made experience in the end saved more lives. God, in allowing evil, created more good. One could also argue evil regardless of what kind, is still evil, there for the free-will argument isn't sound. My sister felt pain for the death of her father regardless of the good that came of it, and there for what happened is still evil. Two wrongs didn't make a right, or did it? If the theistic God were not to allow evil, can that be considered evil in itself? Biblically God appears to be while His or Her counter part, Lucifer, is evil. If God is not Lucifer, then he is not evil, and therefore allows us to make decisions regardless of the outcomes.

Another form of evil is natural evil. Natural evil is "all evil which is not deliberately produced by human beings" (Richard Swinburne, P. 460 Readings on the Ultimate Questions 2nd Ed.). Why does natural evil occur then? Could it be that God creates natural evils to test Human beings? In tough circumstances we are faced with tough choices, we can either choose a virtuous(good) path or a not so virtuous(evil) path. Through natural evil, God gives man direction and choice, natural evil allows man to choose his or her life path. Good giving us choice a personal path is an act of good. Take into account the story of Luke Simmonds, he is a survivor of the tsunami 2004. He was at sea when it struck, after his miraculous survival he helped people search for loved ones and established a "hospital area" at the Cabana Hotel in Phuket, Thailand (http://phukettsunami.blogspot.com/2004/12/first-hand-story-luke-simmonds.html). The traditional theist could argue that this natural evil gave a man a choice to be either good or evil and that having that choice made available is an act of good from God. On the other hand an atheist could argue that if God existed he could have prevented the loss of life, and that God giving choices wasn't worth the deaths that the tsunami caused. Also the fact that God allowed suffering further proves (to the atheist) that God does not exist.
Another possible way to view why evil occurs is to view the universe as if it were on a scale. Without evil there would be no good, they balance each other. If there were no good guys to fight the bad guys, then the bad guys would always, and I emphasize always, be in control. This would be chaos, I believe that balance is necessary to maintain an ordered life, or in this case human existence. It is a basic yin and yang relationship. There are many examples that I can show to prove it, in the human body we call it homeostasis. With the help of consciousness we put things into our body to make it function, such as food, the food metabolizes so that organs can remain functioning. The body when healthy is balanced. Natural disasters such as forrest fires occur so that the land upon which they rest can be fertile again, we can view this as the world healing itself and balancing itself back into a natural state. If it didn't happen then the land would become a dustball and natural vegetation, or farming would not occur. All things swing to extremes, maternal societies to paternal societies, peace to war, love to hate. All we can do is have faith, a belief, that someday the world will find balance.

What I have done is shown that there are two sides to every coin, and that how we go about everyday life, or in this case, what kind of God we want to worship, is a matter of which side of the coin we think is shinier. I don't really know wether or not I can believe in a theistic God,I have to many issues with institutions that adhere to the followings of a theistic God. More so, I have problems with institutions, they cannot know God better than I or anyone else. That being said doesn't mean that someday I wont believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being, people change. I find it rather ignorant to shut myself off from a form of thinking, considering that everything is just an idea, no more no less. Neither society or I will know what is until we experience what is, and we when do, we won't be around to tell anyone. I wish that my ideas could bring closure to the argument, but when dealing with the subject matter of God no one can be truly sure. People can claim to be absolutely certain, but it is not wise to do so, because "Your beliefs, they're just that. They're nothing, they're just how you were taught and raised. That doesn't make them real, thats why I always recommend a psychedelic experience. Cause it does make you realize that everything you learned is in fact just learned and not necessarily true." (Bill Hicks, audio CD Rant in E minor.)

[Chronopolice]

Ah you went for the duality of good vs. evil. ;D

Very good.

[TheSensitiveNewAge]

Neat paper. Lemme get back to you on it.

[Chronopolice]

I would recommend seeing Al Pacino in Devil's Advocate. ;D For some reason, YouTube isn't working well in my browser at the moment.

[theislesinthesun]

A very enlightening post !!!

[Otupia]

Thank you, im wondering what your thoughts are on the subject though.

[Otupia]

bump

[Enigmatic]

God is perfect. God is righteous. God is patient. God is loving. God is just. This is what I know of God.

Don't focus on the failings of His servants. They are human and no comparison to what He is. Their crimes are not excused. No evil is.

When considering evil, one must realize three things. Firstly, one must realize that God can use evil to work good. Our salvation was secured through an act of evil. Christ was innocent, completely innocent, yet died for crimes he did not commit. Secondly, one must realize that just because evil has not been destroyed it does not mean that it never will be destroyed. One day Christ will return. Thirdly, one must realize that evil comes from man not from God. It was man that brought evil into this world. When people see death, war, famine, disease, etc., some lose their faith in God. I lose my faith in mankind. We are given dominion over this world, the power to shape it, and yet we abuse that power. Instead of following God's teachings, we reject His Word and the world suffers for it. Not to say there aren't good people in this world. There are. I like to think I know a good many of them. I like to think many of them are right here on this forum. We are all sinners, however, and all guilty in some form or another. Remember, though, that we can receive forgiveness for our sins. All we need do is ask.

[Twobagger]

Be careful in your free-will defense when you mention Lucifer. Your logic there doesn't seem to make sense. You say "Lucifer is evil. God is not Lucifer. Therefore, God is not evil." You seem to be denying the antecedent here, which is a fallacy. Consider that there may be other ways for God to be evil without being Lucifer.
For instance, the fact that a "Lucifer" exists might imply that God is evil. You allude to this sort of argument earlier (and later) in your paper, but I'll spell it out again: assume God is all-powerful (because He is by definition). If Lucifer is causing evil to happen, surely God could prevent that if He wanted to. So, the mere existence of Lucifer (who is the embodiment of evil) seems to show that either God is not all-powerful or God does not want to prevent this evil. But God is all-powerful by definition. So why doesn't He want to prevent this evil?

[Otupia]

Thats a question i cant answer, i am not the complete embodiment of God.

The THEISTIC God, cannot be be evil. By definition the theistic God is All powerful all knowing and all loving. If a theistic god exists then evil cannot. For if god is all knowing, he knows of evil in advance, if he is all loving, then he would not wish evil upon us, if he is all powerful, he is able to prevent evil from happening. Evil exists there for our traditional view of God could very well be wrong, I dont argue the existence of a higher power I just wonder weather the western view is correct.

[Enigmatic]

I believe I can answer that question. I do not pretend to know everything, so my answer will perhaps be lacking for some. Some of this I covered in my last post, but I realize that I may not have articulated myself completely.

Just because there is evil does not mean that God is less than what He says He is.

There can be a purpose in evil and suffering. As I said in the "Intolerant" thread our salvation was accomplished through an act of evil and suffering. Evil can and has been used by God to accomplish good. It is possible that God continues to allow evil and suffering to exist as proof that sin and rebellion against Him leads to nothing but evil and suffering. It is equally possible that He has purposes we do not know.

God created the universe without sin and suffering. Because of rebellion against Him suffering entered the world. The rebellion of Lucifer. The Rebellion of Adam. Evil is a result of human action and suffering is punishment for that sin. Don't make the mistake, however, of saying that everything that happens is because you're guilty of sin. Remember the story found in the New Testament. The Apostles asked why a certain man was blind. They wanted to know if it was because of his sin or the sin of his parents. Christ answered that it was to fulfill righteousness and healed the man.

The key here is that evil is our fault. We have free will. We do not have to sin, but because we are imperfect creatures we will always sin. Think of us as drug addicts. Sin feels good. We don't have to do it, but we want to do it. God could eliminate sin and suffering it is true, but He would have to eliminate it all. People have no problem with God stopping a natural disaster or a murder or a rape, but what if someone thinks something evil? What about a simple lie? It's all sin in the eyes of God. The Bible says that when we lust in our hearts we are guilty of adultery. If God is to stop all evil then He must stop us from thinking. He would have to eliminate our free will. God has chosen not to do this.

Justice delayed is not justice denied. Because God has not eliminated evil and suffering does not mean that He will never do it. There is a coming day of judgment. God will ultimately judge us for all the evil and suffering we have caused. Were we totally alone, we would all be found guilty and cast into hell for all eternity for our rebellion against God. We are not alone, however. Christ came and paid the price for our sins. We're still guilty, but Christ took the punishment we deserve upon Himself. This is why we can say God is both loving and just. He still judges sin, but He provided the means to overcome sin.

I hope that was at least somewhat enlightening.

[rogernomics]

I will give a simple reply. I do not believe in god, there is no confirmed evidence. We have people who say they "heard god speak to them" but there is no evidence there is nothing but a delusion or self developed desire to have a higher power that exists to guide us. A mere delusion or desire does not imply existence.

Also saying this there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of god, what is god made up of? Where does god exist? How can you have heaven and hell? The other two dimensional planes in this universe are yet to be found. So how can we believe in heaven and hell? Science tells us there is one dimensional plane in this universe and no heaven and hell.

As for physical evidence, we have none. Has anyone touched a god? No. Has anyone ever seen a god in true form? No. Is Jesus in anyway to be proven as define apart from hearsay? No. There is no physical evidence so god does not exist.

However despite all of this I agree there is some possibility for god to exist on the basis this evidence still has a chance to be discovered. We believe in religion, in fact most of the planet does? This appears to be more than mere mass delusion or fantasy because so many do truly believe in gods. Then this could still just be a mass delusion or fantasy. Perhaps we will never know? I cannot believe in god, but I can hope for existence of some sort of god even though my mind tells me there is no god but a delusion or fantasy on existence of one.

[Otupia]

^ Drop Acid, I can prove God exists with an etch-e-sketch and 5 minutes

I understand your viewpoint better now Enig. And I agree for the most part, about evil serving a potentially higher purpose. I still find it slightly contradicting, considering evil is still evil, and a loving god would never wish evil upon us. I dont think that God is God in the theistic sense, meaning that He/She/It is not all three of pre-reqs to be the traditional idea of God. Personally i dont think god is all powerful. Powerful indeed, but not ALL powerful.

On another note I think evil exists as a universal balance to good, what is one without the other? I think its improbable that God would have created an unbalanced universe.

[rogernomics]

Dec 9, 2008 22:58:54 GMT -5 Otupia said:

^ Drop Acid, I can prove God exists with an etch-e-sketch and 5 minutes

I understand your viewpoint better now Enig. And I agree for the most part, about evil serving a potentially higher purpose. I still find it slightly contradicting, considering evil is still evil, and a loving god would never wish evil upon us. I dont think that God is God in the theistic sense, meaning that He/She/It is not all three of pre-reqs to be the traditional idea of God. Personally i dont think god is all powerful. Powerful indeed, but not ALL powerful.

On another note I think evil exists as a universal balance to good, what is one without the other? I think its improbable that God would have created an unbalanced universe.

I very much doubt it, anything claimed by a religion can be discounted as having no plausible basis to it, just what people say. There is nothing physically there to prove he exists. Even the 10 commandments were written down by Moses (who was a man).

[Otupia]

your caught up in religious institutions, which i could honestly care less about.

[Enigmatic]

You have to realize that He isn't wishing it upon it just happens to be the way things are now. Eventually evil will be destroyed. You may be right about the balance. It could be that God allows evil to exist to show us that He is good and what life is like apart from Him (i.e pain and suffering). Some things we're not meant to know yet.

When I'm positive I have my points in order I'll post the three evidences toward God's existence. Logically, God must exist.

[Otupia]

I dont think that he necessarily wishes it upon us, but he does allow it to happen. Which one could conceive as being unloving, He could possibly not be all powerful instead.

You brought up determinism, Look into the theories of free will. theyre pretty interesting.
hard Determinism, soft determinism, Libertarianism...check out the free will defense as well

[rogernomics]

Dec 9, 2008 23:50:49 GMT -5 Otupia said:

your caught up in religious institutions, which i could honestly care less about.

Whether an institution believes god does not exist has no relevance to whether a god exists on not. Science is a method to find physical facts or mathematically sound theory, not an institution. That's a really strange defense to make.

[rogernomics]

Dec 10, 2008 0:00:15 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

You have to realize that He isn't wishing it upon it just happens to be the way things are now. Eventually evil will be destroyed. You may be right about the balance. It could be that God allows evil to exist to show us that He is good and what life is like apart from Him (i.e pain and suffering). Some things we're not meant to know yet.

When I'm positive I have my points in order I'll post the three evidences toward God's existence. Logically, God must exist.

Eh? God is incomprehensible. If we knew how god acted and functioned we could learn how to gods ourselves, and a god wouldn't want that now would he/she?

Logic. That word belongs to science and philosophy bounded on fact, not religion (which has no mathematical or physical basis to what is believed).

[Otupia]

So you base your belief on empirical evidence, or lack there of? Perception is deceiving and cannot solely be relied on to obtain knowledge, yet alone truth. Ill show this in an argument.

1. Stoves that are turned on are hot.
2. The Stove is turned on.
________________________________
3. The stove is hot

now consider this.

I may have just turned on the stove, does that mean that the stove is hot? Does it not take a little bit of time before a stove reaches a burning temperature? We see that the stove is turned on but it doesnt mean it is necessarily hot.

Same applies to God.

On another note, because you have not experienced God does not mean that others havnt....hence why i recomend you drop acid

[Enigmatic]

Rogernomics, we could never become a god ourselves so God doesn't have a problem with explaining a little bit about Himself. We're not going to get everything, but that doesn't mean He hasn't revealed Himself at least partially.

You make it sounds as if religion completely rejects rational thinking. This is not true. God has given us, among other things, a mind. He wants us to think. He wants us to learn and grow and reason. I believe in God because I have looked at the universe around me and concluded that there must be a higher power at work, not because I need an emotional crutch or because I need some simple convenient way to explain away what I do not understand. My whole life is dedicated to learning, to reason, to knowledge. What kind of teacher would I be if I rejected logic? Logic has a place in everything, including religion.

Yes, I know I cannot prove without doubt mathematically and scientifically that there is a God. This is why I said "evidences" and not "proofs." There is inevitably a leap from reason to faith, but reason can certainly help us on the way to faith.

Okay change of plans. I had intended to post my three logical arguments for the existence of a supreme being, but unfortunately I have to work now. Rest assured that when I am finished I shall return and tell them to you.

[rogernomics]

Dec 10, 2008 2:03:00 GMT -5 Otupia said:

So you base your belief on empirical evidence, or lack there of? Perception is deceiving and cannot solely be relied on to obtain knowledge, yet alone truth. Ill show this in an argument.

1. Stoves that are turned on are hot.
2. The Stove is turned on.
________________________________
3. The stove is hot

now consider this.

I may have just turned on the stove, does that mean that the stove is hot? Does it not take a little bit of time before a stove reaches a burning temperature? We see that the stove is turned on but it doesnt mean it is necessarily hot.

Same applies to God.

On another note, because you have not experienced God does not mean that others havnt....hence why i recomend you drop acid

It is not perception but fact.

I have one:

1.There is no concrete mathematical or scientific proof god exists
2. But people believe god exists
_______________________________________________
3. Therefore god can exist

However using your own analysis simply because people believe god exists does not mean god exists or can exist, simply that people believe god exists (regardless of whether that is true or not).

For the last point how do you know that you yourself have experienced god and not a self desire or allusion? This is something you cannot explain, thus I will not drop acid.

[rogernomics]

Dec 10, 2008 13:44:17 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

Rogernomics, we could never become a god ourselves so God doesn't have a problem with explaining a little bit about Himself. We're not going to get everything, but that doesn't mean He hasn't revealed Himself at least partially.

You make it sounds as if religion completely rejects rational thinking. This is not true. God has given us, among other things, a mind. He wants us to think. He wants us to learn and grow and reason. I believe in God because I have looked at the universe around me and concluded that there must be a higher power at work, not because I need an emotional crutch or because I need some simple convenient way to explain away what I do not understand. My whole life is dedicated to learning, to reason, to knowledge. What kind of teacher would I be if I rejected logic? Logic has a place in everything, including religion.

Yes, I know I cannot prove without doubt mathematically and scientifically that there is a God. This is why I said "evidences" and not "proofs." There is inevitably a leap from reason to faith, but reason can certainly help us on the way to faith.

Okay change of plans. I had intended to post my three logical arguments for the existence of a supreme being, but unfortunately I have to work now. Rest assured that when I am finished I shall return and tell them to you.

I question whether we could never become gods ourselves. Is it not plausible that the creator would want us to be like him or her not only in ethics, but also in spirit? Plus we do not know if he/she exists, or has revealed him/herself at all. If you believe in religion, then personally there is no way to tell whether or not Jesus is a son of god or just a kind hearted man, just people saying he was the son of god.

God (if he/she exists) I do not think would want to hide anything from us, in fact I believe that if he does exists his ideas are to be found in mathematics and science and not the 10 commandments or the bible. Einstein for example believed that mathematics was in fact the language of god. This goes against what I said earlier, but my belief system aka Agnostic Theism allows me to contradict as I believe in gods but do not know what they are, but my mind tells me religion is false.

Logic has place I agree in our minds. But we are not totally logical beings, we have irrationality. Furthermore religion is not founded totally on logic but a;so on irrationality, so you can't call religion logical. But religion is consistently used today to undermine scientific arguments and logic. For example our obsession with religion deliberately squashed intellectual thought and progress though the bible until the church's power was given limits. It persecuted Galileo, Copernicus, and numerous others. Today the Koran is used as an excuse to squash rights of woman to have an education. So really it depends what religion you follow, and what rights that religion gives you.

[Enigmatic]

I did not say religion was entirely logical. Obviously, when dealing with a being which transcends this existence some illogical things can happen. I did not deny that religion has been used against science either. I would like to point out, though, that the Bible matches up to much of science (Here is a chart. Please do look up the verses.); those in the church that were opposing Galileo were actually opposing their own sacred text. Furthermore, I did no say that all religions were logical. What I did say was that logic can help us on our way to faith. Ultimately, there will have to be a jump. Logic, science, and reason cannot get us all the way to faith, but it can lead us further along the path.

Setting aside the fact that the last two posts you addressed to me contradict one another, it is plausible that God would want us to be like Him in spirit and many religions argue this. However, my belief as to what God is precludes us ever being wholly like Him.

God does reveal Himself through the natural world, through science and mathematics. However, He has also provided us with His Word. He does reveal Himself through the Bible, which as I have stated previously matches up with much of what science tells us about the natural world. (I would also like to point out that what it says about the natural world was far ahead of the science of it's time.) He has revealed to us His standards for life. He has told us what He wants from us. He has told the path to salvation.

Now to the evidences. Please keep in mind that I am no expert apologist so I invite you to look into this on your own since I'm sure somewhere along the line I may misquote something. Furthermore, despite the length of this post, the arguments are far more long and involved than what I say here. Anyway, let's cut to the chase. Let's start with the most debatable and go from there.

There is a moral law. Everyone, with some exceptions, has a concept of right and wrong. Would you agree? This awareness of right and wrong binds us to given obligations. We say we "ought" to tell the truth, not that we would "like" to tell the truth. We make absolute moral statements all the time. "It is wrong to lie," is intended as a statement not a preference. Now, I labeled this the most debatable because it has been argued that morality is a product of society. However, if you accept that there are things that are wrong beyond society, slavery for example (once permitted now not), then you must accept that there is an authority prescribing this moral law. I submit that this moral law giver is a supreme being.

You would agree that effects have causes, yes? If a ball is rolling down a hill, something must have set it in motion. A person, an animal, the wind, gravity. If something begins something must have caused that beginning. Our universe began to exist. Astronomers and astrophysicists identify a first event to the formation of our universe. That being the Big Bang, the expansion of all known matter and energy from an infinitely dense singularity at some finite time in the past. This would be the effect. What is it's cause? Logically there must be one. I submit that this cause is a supreme being

Our universe shows evidence of design. Our planet supports our existence. One could argue that this happened by chance. Certainly a possibility, so let's go deeper. John Polkinghorne stated in 1985 that just one factor among many in the cosmos, the difference between expansive and contractive forces in the expanding cosmos, depends upon an extremely fine balance of the total energy involved to within one in 10⁶⁰. That's a sixty-one digit number. George Wald wrote that the atom depends on a balance of forces to within one in 10¹⁸. Again it is possible to say that all this occurred randomly, so let me submit for your consideration DNA. This will be a long one, but please bear with me.

DNA is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. It contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells. Patterns occur in nature all the time. Snow flakes, diamonds, and stalactites are all patterns found in nature. DNA however is not a pattern. It is often compared to a set of blueprints, a recipe, or a code. As stated previously, DNA stores information. All information is based on language. You need a language to convey information. Therefore, we can reasonably say that DNA is a language because it coveys information.

So what's a language? Any language symbolically represents something other than itself. What I am writing now is comprised of pixels arranged in a certain manner which appear on your screen, but my message has nothing to do with the medium in which it is communicated. I could write this in the sand with a stick and it would still be the same. Language has four characteristics. It has an alphabet, grammar, meaning, and intent. DNA has these things. Nucleotides make up it's alphabet. The order in which those nucleotides appear provides grammar and meaning. The way in which DNA is used provides intent. DNA is without a doubt a language. The men who discovered it referred to it as a code and a code is a type of language. Go to any science book and it will show DNA as a language.

So why did I go into all that stuff about language and information? I did because information needs intent. Information has to have three things matter, energy, and will. There are no examples of information without intent (will). Without will all you have is chaos. Will is the product of a conscious mind. So if DNA is a language, and I think we've proven that much, then it must have had a will to create it because all codes, all languages, all encoding, decoding systems come from a mind. A blueprint needs an architect. A recipe needs a cook. A code needs a code maker. I submit that the mind behind DNA is a supreme being. (REFERENCE. Do read the whole thing. There's an audio recording out there too if you prefer that.)

Now does this prove that a God exists. No, because there's no way to conclusively test it, but it does lend powerful credence to the argument that there is in fact a supreme being. Does this prove that the Christian God is this supreme being? No, but it does, in my opinion, make the Christian God seem the more plausible answer.

[rogernomics]

Dec 10, 2008 23:37:47 GMT -5 Enigmatic said:

I did not say religion was entirely logical. Obviously, when dealing with a being which transcends this existence some illogical things can happen. I did not deny that religion has been used against science either. I would like to point out, though, that the Bible matches up to much of science (Here is a chart. Please do look up the verses.); those in the church that were opposing Galileo were actually opposing their own sacred text. Furthermore, I did no say that all religions were logical. What I did say was that logic can help us on our way to faith. Ultimately, there will have to be a jump. Logic, science, and reason cannot get us all the way to faith, but it can lead us further along the path.

Setting aside the fact that the last two posts you addressed to me contradict one another, it is plausible that God would want us to be like Him in spirit and many religions argue this. However, my belief as to what God is precludes us ever being wholly like Him.

God does reveal Himself through the natural world, through science and mathematics. However, He has also provided us with His Word. He does reveal Himself through the Bible, which as I have stated previously matches up with much of what science tells us about the natural world. (I would also like to point out that what it says about the natural world was far ahead of the science of it's time.) He has revealed to us His standards for life. He has told us what He wants from us. He has told the path to salvation.

Now to the evidences. Please keep in mind that I am no expert apologist so I invite you to look into this on your own since I'm sure somewhere along the line I may misquote something. Furthermore, despite the length of this post, the arguments are far more long and involved than what I say here. Anyway, let's cut to the chase. Let's start with the most debatable and go from there.

There is a moral law. Everyone, with some exceptions, has a concept of right and wrong. Would you agree? This awareness of right and wrong binds us to given obligations. We say we "ought" to tell the truth, not that we would "like" to tell the truth. We make absolute moral statements all the time. "It is wrong to lie," is intended as a statement not a preference. Now, I labeled this the most debatable because it has been argued that morality is a product of society. However, if you accept that there are things that are wrong beyond society, slavery for example (once permitted now not), then you must accept that there is an authority prescribing this moral law. I submit that this moral law giver is a supreme being.

You would agree that effects have causes, yes? If a ball is rolling down a hill, something must have set it in motion. A person, an animal, the wind, gravity. If something begins something must have caused that beginning. Our universe began to exist. Astronomers and astrophysicists identify a first event to the formation of our universe. That being the Big Bang, the expansion of all known matter and energy from an infinitely dense singularity at some finite time in the past. This would be the effect. What is it's cause? Logically there must be one. I submit that this cause is a supreme being

Our universe shows evidence of design. Our planet supports our existence. One could argue that this happened by chance. Certainly a possibility, so let's go deeper. John Polkinghorne stated in 1985 that just one factor among many in the cosmos, the difference between expansive and contractive forces in the expanding cosmos, depends upon an extremely fine balance of the total energy involved to within one in 10⁶⁰. That's a sixty-one digit number. George Wald wrote that the atom depends on a balance of forces to within one in 10¹⁸. Again it is possible to say that all this occurred randomly, so let me submit for your consideration DNA. This will be a long one, but please bear with me.

DNA is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. It contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells. Patterns occur in nature all the time. Snow flakes, diamonds, and stalactites are all patterns found in nature. DNA however is not a pattern. It is often compared to a set of blueprints, a recipe, or a code. As stated previously, DNA stores information. All information is based on language. You need a language to convey information. Therefore, we can reasonably say that DNA is a language because it coveys information.

So what's a language? Any language symbolically represents something other than itself. What I am writing now is comprised of pixels arranged in a certain manner which appear on your screen, but my message has nothing to do with the medium in which it is communicated. I could write this in the sand with a stick and it would still be the same. Language has four characteristics. It has an alphabet, grammar, meaning, and intent. DNA has these things. Nucleotides make up it's alphabet. The order in which those nucleotides appear provides grammar and meaning. The way in which DNA is used provides intent. DNA is without a doubt a language. The men who discovered it referred to it as a code and a code is a type of language. Go to any science book and it will show DNA as a language.

So why did I go into all that stuff about language and information? I did because information needs intent. Information has to have three things matter, energy, and will. There are no examples of information without intent (will). Without will all you have is chaos. Will is the product of a conscious mind. So if DNA is a language, and I think we've proven that much, then it must have had a will to create it because all codes, all languages, all encoding, decoding systems come from a mind. A blueprint needs an architect. A recipe needs a cook. A code needs a code maker. I submit that the mind behind DNA is a supreme being. (REFERENCE. Do read the whole thing. There's an audio recording out there too if you prefer that.)

Now does this prove that a God exists. No, because there's no way to conclusively test it, but it does lend powerful credence to the argument that there is in fact a supreme being. Does this prove that the Christian God is this supreme being? No, but it does, in my opinion, make the Christian God seem the more plausible answer.

OOC: Considering that this is more based on what god is, I will change my stance.

I would agree with the point that DNA could be made by god, but if so he simply began life (I will not go too much into intervention into the evolutionary process).

This is off the point you are trying to make. But I reject the seven days story, as a few Christians I know do. I simply believe that if there was a creator, then that creator started life itself and let evolution take its course (perhaps during this process he decided to give man intelligent thought?).

Though I still disagree because I think that god favors all creation and does not pick and choose between different species, if god did I would view him as showing more respect to man than other life and personally I would consider it evil, as any other form of life has just as much right to exist as we do.

People often quote the bible but that is not the literal word of god, it is the words of his followers, which have been written using human understanding of god. We are not god himself, we cannot truly understand what he tells us, he can only attempt to show us the right way as after all we are not god himself.

The same with the ten commandments, you can interpret this in many ways. For example let us interpret Thou Shall Not Kill. Does this mean we should stop all killing in all forms and thus stop killing everything plant or animal, and therefore die of lack of food? We have interpreted this as not kill other humans. But this could mean so much more, perhaps this implies all killing is wrong and that we should work to developing to a point technologically to where we need not kill, and all life is sacred. A view which I take to the commandment Thou Shall Not Kill because god tells us all life is sacred, that nothing good should die and that all life should exist.

God gives us free will, but as a compatablist I believe that this is restricted to morality because morality is the only thing that is truly our decision. Some believe we are totally free.

But I reject that we have total free will. We can make choices, but we can't decide like we can with morality. As was put to me by a Philosopher of Indian Compatabilism, this example. You have an apple and a chocolate cake. If you choose either it will be your environment, the people you met, and your desires that make you choose, you don't have free will here. You choose chocolate cake? Then its because you like chocolate cake, and you have been brought up eating it. If you choose an apple then its because you assumingly like apples and were brought up eating them. On the alternative angle perhaps you like to be random in your choices. However this all points to one thing, this action is not totally free it is constrained.

In the end the only free action is morality. We can choose to hurt someone, we can choose to help them. This is not from our desires or our environment but from ourselves, our heart in a sense. Whether we have this from god or not it is still there. We can help someone such as give money to the poor, or we can hurt someone by stealing their money. These are moral decisions, not choices. Decision I use for morality because choice is weaker than decision.

However in the end I don't believe intelligent design, or at least mainstream intelligent design because it is wrong somehow, it implies that we are gods sole creation and that we deserve the greatest respect or that the whole world was not allowed to change of free will.

I reject this because god gave us and all creation free will and intelligence and I don't believe god favors a particular species or disfavors a species, he favors us all equally in his love for life, to think anything else is to imply that god has an evil deviance in him, which I think is wrong to believe because if god is truly good then he loves everything the same.