Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 2: Does God Exist? The Cosmological Argument

The word cosmos is a Greek word that refers to everything that exists. Not just the universe, but all its constituents. This argument for God says that because everything exists, there must be a God who brought it into existence. The proposition of this argument is that nothing could or would exist without God. God's existence is possible without the universe, but the reverse is not true. God is a necessary being. The universe cannot exist without God, for the universe in not a necessary being and therefore cannot account for its own existence.

There are 3 different philosophical arguments and a scientific example that are used to support the cosmological argument. We will first look at the philosophical arguments; Kalam, Thomist and Leibnizian.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam argument attempts to show that the universe had to have a beginning and is therefore not eternal. In order to comprehend this argument we must first understand the two types of infinities, which are concrete (actual) infinities and abstract (potential) infinities.

Potential infinites are numbers that increase by adding another number, such as seconds on a stopwatch. Once the time starts, it will add numbers until it is stopped. If never stopped, it could potentially go forever. That said, it can't be infinite. A potential infinite is always a finite set to which another increment can be added. Therefore, it is not infinite.

Actual infinites are sets of numbers to which nothing can be added because by their very nature they are infinite. They already contain all numbers do nothing can be added. If that is difficult to grasp it is for a good reason. Actual infinites do not and cannot exist in a physical world. If they did it would create absurdities.

So we know that time cannot be infinite. If time were infinite than now would not exist. Imagine now is a destination and you are at that destination. If you are awaiting a train at your destination and the train tracks are infinitely long, how long would it take for the train to get to you. Obviously, never since the train cannot reach the end of its track. Infinite time/numbers can never become finite and finite numbers/time can never be infinite.

So if time is finite it had to have a beginning. If it had a beginning than something had to initiate it. An effect MUST have a cause. The Kalam argument lets us know that the universe had a beginning and the beginning was caused by an uncaused cause. The question is, "Is the cause personal or impersonal?" The cause must be able to create. It cannot rely on anything for its own existence. It must be transcendent, or exist apart from creation. It also requires an intention or will to create. Could an impersonal being have these attributes? Of course not, and if that is the case then the universe was caused by a powerful, transcendent and personal being. That being is God.

The Thomist Cosmological Argument

Thomas Aquinas utilized 3 forms to prove his cosmological argument in Summa Theologica. The first way was from motion. He noted that since motion is an effect and needs a cause, than you could not have a infinite chain of one thing moving another. Without an agent to open the music box, although it the box may be wound it would remain closed, silent and motionless. Further, to say it needs no one to open the box would in turn lead us to believe the music box used wood and metal to create itself. Because a builder is needed, the builder would be God. 

The second form was called "efficient cause." Nothing in existence does not owe its existence to nothing. Everything owes its existence to something. Nothing creates or causes itself. Existence is then an effect of some cause that was an effect of a cause, etc. But that cannot be an infinite loop. There must be a first cause that was self-existent (not relying on anything for existence) to explain any cause existing. That first cause is God. 

Third was the possibility of existence. Nothing we see has to exist. All we know could have just as well not existed. That leads all we see to be possible but not necessary. But for everything to exist, there must be one thing that is necessary. A necessary being must exist to account for all the possible beings in existence. That necessary being is called God. 

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

The famous philosopher G.W.F. von Leibniz asked, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" His answer was found a bit differently than the others we have talked about. Cause was not the basis of his argument. Instead he argued that there must be a sufficient reason for the universe or it would not exist. Caused things only happen with a reason. He said that all caused things, before they existed and outside of their existence, had a prior reason. As his contemporaries saw that there could be no infinite chain of causes, he said that there could no infinite chain of reasons. The universe couldn't explain its existence. Instead, the reason must be found in a being outside of the universe who is both logically necessary and self-explanatory. That being is God.

Science: The Big Bang

Edwin Hubble discovered light from galaxies distant from ours appeared differently than expected. He found the light was shifted to the red side of the spectrum. The Doppler effect was then applied, which explained the red shift in the light spectrum occurring because the stars are all moving away from each other. If the wavelengths are shorter, which would represent an object moving towards you, there is a blue shift in light. If they are moving away from you, this causes the wavelengths to lengthen which causes the red shift.

So if the universe is expanding as the red shift represents, then surely it has a point of origin. And other discoveries were made that pointed to the expansion occurring slower now than it did at its inception which could have happened due to an explosion. That explosion is how the universe was began, and it all started with a  big bang according to this theory. There are a couple of challenges to this theory.

Steady state theory says that the universe will and has always existed. This runs into several problems. For starters the observations supporting the big bang theory argue against steady state. Secondly, this would require actual infinites. is the fact there is a now, which makes an infinite number of preceding moments an impossibility as described earlier. 

The oscillating theory supposes the universe will stop expanding and recede back to a singularity which will explode and begin the cycle again. It says that the cycle has and will repeat forever. This theory also requires a series that has always been and always will be, or actual infinites. It is also limited by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that a closed system always decrease in energy and be less than it was at its beginning. So, the universe must have had a beginning and the energy it began with cannot be recreated unless acted upon by an outside force.

So the big bang appears to be the best theory we have. But if it was an explosion (or expansion), what caused it to explode? What exploded and where did that come from? An explosion is an effect and effects need a cause. They cannot cause themselves. So the matter that exploded needs a creator and the bang needs a banger. The cause must be found outside of the universe because the universe didn't cause itself. What does the cause need?

It needs to be transcendent in order to be outside of the universe. It must be powerful to cause all that exists to come into being out of nothing. The cause has to be uncaused, for if it is an effect we then have a chain of infinite regress which is nonsensical. Finally, it must be non-contingent, or relying on nothing for its existence.

Even if we have an entity that has all of the above requirements, we are still missing one ingredient. Just because it exists doesn't mean the universe has to exist. It still has to have a will to make the universe happen, an intentionality. A car that is in perfect  operating order, good battery, working engine, full of gas and properly connected electrical system has all of the conditions to run but yet will sit silent forever. It has one more need, a driver.

A driver is not part of the car, does not rely on the car to exist, has the will to start and direct the car, power to start the car and may have even create the car. But the driver is separate. So too does our universe need a driver, an agent who was capable of either creating or not creating our universe. That is what we call God. The Cosmological Theory does not identify what or who God is, only that He exists. In the Cosmological Theory we see that God is necessary!

Join me next time as we look at the Design Argument from the Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Aplogetics.

Occam's Razor and My Faith

So, there was a guy named William of Ockham that was a philosopher about 800 years ago. He posited that the easiest explanation was the correct one. This became known as Occam's Razor. That is the term that now describes Occam's philosphy.  So, what does Occam's Razor have to do with my faith? Everything!

First, let us look at creation of human life. I believe that there is an eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful God who created the entire universe and saw it fit to take the time to create humans. That only requires one leap of faith, one supposition and humans are explained.

1. GOD

If I believe in evolution, I probably also believe in the Big Bang. So, I first have to believe that an uncaused cause was behind the big bang (I think that some of us know who banged it, we know the cause). Then I have to believe that all I see, the billions upon billions of planets and stars all came from an immensely dense and hot singularity that just happened to exist for the Big Bang (or expansion) to occur from. Next I have to believe that the sun was just perfect: the right temperature and distance from Earth. Then the moon was put perfectly in orbit around the Earth and the Earth had just the right atmosphere to support the transformation of non-living matter into living matter, which has never been observed. Then another never observed process called macro-evolution occurred. Not just once, but millions of times in order to create humans.

1. Densely hot singularity
2. Uncaused Cause
3. Big Bang
4. Order and Structure from chaos
5. Sun perfect temperature and distance from Earth to support life
6. Moon perfect distance from Earth to support life
7. Atmosphere on Earth perfect to support life
8. Non-living matter somehow evolved in to living matter
9. Millions of instances of macro-evolution

That list above is a really short list, too. There are actually so many more things we could talk about, such as the complexity of the human genome with it's 3-6 billion pairs of DNA and how they all have to be perfectly placed in sequence. Then there are 35 parameters that make life possible as well as the 66 parameters that influence the sun-planet-moon system that cannot fluctuate an nth of a degree without causing the entire system to collapse. We have barely dipped into those above. But, we will not go any more indepth. Instead I will tell you that Occam's Razor has been able to help strengthen my faith, because in the end God is the easiest explanation there is and therefore the correct one. Now here's some Dilbert:

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 4 - Columbo Step 2: The Burden of Proof

Christians should be able to give reasons for what we believe to be true. For some reason, others feel that Christians have the corner on that market and forget a truth. They need to be able to back up their beliefs, too. In Chapter 4 Greg look at the second step Columbo used, which he calls "reversing the burden of proof." Whoever makes the claim has the responsibility to prove their view. They don't have to prove me wrong, instead they have to prove their point of view to be right.

To illustrate what he is talking about, Greg looks at a caller who disagreed with his "a big bang needs a big banger" line. The caller felt that if you have "a base of nothing and you could say that there was nothing but an infinite, continuous moment, until one tiny, little insignificant thing happened: a point happened in the nothingness. This requires no intelligence, so no intelligent God had to intervene. All we need is a tiny imperfection in the perfect nothingness that expanded and became increasingly complex, and soon you have galaxies and planets."

From here Greg threw down the gauntlet, telling the caller that "It's not my job to disprove your something from nothing fairy tale. It's your job to prove it. You haven't done that, you haven't even tried." Generally when people throw out "stories" to disprove your beliefs, they expect the discussion to end there. That should never be the case. If they have a theory, they need to give an argument.

The first Columbo question that we looked at was, "What do you mean by that?" That question let's you know what a person thinks. The question you will learn today is, "Now, how did you come to that conclusion?" This question allows you to know why a person thinks as they do. They are made to give reasons for their beliefs, and many are not prepared to do this. They may even say, "I don't know why I believe it, I just do." Which allows you to ask, "Why would you believe something when you have no reasons to believe it's true?"

You need to remember that you do not have to counter everything that someone says. What you need to do is steer the burden of proof back onto the shoulders of the person you are having the discussion with. You do not have to defeat their statements, they have to defend them. Further remember that "an alternate explanation is not a refutation." That means just because someone may be able to spin a story to support their view, that is not the same as them explaining why what they believe is true.

Many of the explanations by people like Richard Dawkins that pop up in Darwinian circles are "just so stories" after the Rudyard Kipling's book entitled "Just So Stories." It had chapters called "How the Leopard Got His Spots" and "How the Came Got His Hump." Don't allow people to pass of stories as fact. Instead, ask yourself three questions.

1. Is it possible - some stories will seem completely impossible given closer scrutiny
2. Is it plausible - given the evidence, it is reasonable to think this is the most likely option
3. Is it probable -considering the other options, is this the best one

The question, "How did you come to this conclusion?" allows you to ask yourself these three questions and insures that the burden of proof is on the person making the statement. You are able to see if the argument was valid or if it was just an opinion they had. If it is an opinion, then that leads you to more questions. "Very interesting opinion you have there. How did you come to it? Can you give me a couple of reasons I should take it that conclusion seriously?" When someone gives their opinions, they must further support their opinion.

Next you have the "professor's ploy." This is a common move used by people to escape the burden of proof. It happens when someone makes an attempt to poke holes in someone else's beliefs. When this is done, ask them why they feel as they do. "What do you mean by that?" and "So what is your opinion, then?" Make them explain how the evidence convinced them to believe how they do. They may try to return the burden to you, "Why don't you try to prove me wrong." In reply, you can say, "I haven't even said anything about my view. I might even believe as you do. It is irrelevant what I believe. You ideas are relevant and I am just wanting clarification and good reasons for the view that you have." Remember to show others grace and respect.

The minute that you feel outmatched you can switch to fact-finding mode instead of persuasion mode. Just say something like this:

       "It appears that you know a lot more about this than me, and you have some interesting ideas that I have not heard before. I wonder, to help me understand you ideas better could you please take a minute to explain them to me as well as why you believe it to be true so that I can have a better understanding of it/"

You have now bought yourself extra time and have also let the other person know that you care about their point of view. You can then end the conversation for the time being with, "Very interesting. Let me think about what you've said and we can talk more about it later." You are off the hook. You have already pleaded ignorance of the subject. You have not resisted, but instead let them have make their case.

Now you can research what they have stated and create a response. You got off of the hot seat and allowed yourself valuable time to gain more knowledge. Once you understand their point of view, it is easier to respond. We have now learned how to get others to tell us what they believe and why they believe it as well as creating a buffer when we are overpowered by a subject we do not know enough about. Join me next week when we look at how to use leading questions in our discussions with others.

Things I Do Not Understand About the Big Bang

To be fair, I am not a scientist. I am instead attempting to be a student and come to an understanding on the science behind the Big Bang. These are the questions that I am at the moment working to decipher. I have questions that I cannot answer without bringing in God to be a guiding hand. Personally, I do believe that God created everything. I once heard a Christian scientist say, "I believe in the Big Bang. I just know who banged it." If there is a bang, there has to be a banger. I am not saying I believe in the Big Bang, but I don't see creation of nature without a supernatural being. If there is proof otherwise, I would enjoy hearing what that proof is in the form of a comment. Either way, I need people to explain these questions to me with answers that make sense. That said, please keep the comments kind and void of offensive language or derogatory name calling. Those comments will be removed regardless of the side they support!

1. What happened before the Big Bang? Did time and space exist?
2. How did everything that exists at one time fit into one tiny spot? When I see millions of stars and billions of planets, I cannot believe that they all came from one infinitely dense area. Where did the matter come from?
3. I do not as yet understand how it occurred at all. This would be the Cosmological Theory or the uncaused cause. I will talk about this at some point when I write a blog on the the Cosmological Theory. There had to be a reason that the Big Bang occurred to begin with. What caused that natural event to occur? The only thing that I know would be a supernatural being. All things natural have a cause.
4. How do we explain the disappearance of the law (not theory but law) of conservation of energy?  I thought that energy could neither be created or destroyed based on the first law of thermodynamics. Where did the energy necessary to cause the Big Bang come from?
5. How did the stars form to begin with. I have heard that gas clouds had to collapse under gravity in order to create stars. Yet physicists report that the clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. In order for that not to happen, they would have to cool down. But the Big Bang created hydrogen and a little helium, with the other elements forming inside the stars themselves. The only thing to cool the hydrogen would be helium, which would instead increase the temperature, making the clouds too hot to collapse.
6. If a tornado were to rip through a forest, I would not find a two story log cabin standing in the aftermath and imagine that the tornado constructed it. Yet in the Big Bang theory, we are basically believing that could happen. The universe is infinitely more complex than the log cabin, yet this destructive expulsion and expansion is said to have created the order that we see. That is what a galaxy is from where I stand, a complex unit of order. So, how did galaxies come into existence from the Big Bang? Since when does a chaotic occurrence bring about order and structure in nature?
7. If it was not so much a Big Bang as an expansion, there should be an even distribution of matter that exists. What we see is random clumping of galaxies and planets here and there. Why are there clusters then vast expanses of empty space then more clusters?
8. How are there galaxy walls, voids and globular clusters in space that appear older than the age of the universe itself? I guess another way to look at this question would be to ask, "How can I be older than my father?"
9. How do we now know that dark matter exists, when the collision witnessed in space contained team members who said that "We've closed this loophole about gravity, and we've come closer than ever to seeing this invisible matter." If it is invisible and you have not seen it, that is pretty hard to imagine it exists. I know we have wind, but I can feel it and see its affects. The collision did not truly display dark matter and it was not felt, but only a reaction was seen that could make it a possibility. I even looked at pictures that were supposed to represent "invisible" dark matter, and I could see nothing. Am I missing something?
10. How is the volume of space larger than the Big Bang? Is space infinite or finite?
11. How do galaxies collide when they should be flying away from each other, with those furthest away from the epicenter (the first galaxies formed) accelerating faster than those which are closer to the epicenter (the last galaxies formed)?
12. Why do all planets not spin the same way if we were created by expansion, there should be uniformity but there isn't. Why is this?
13. How did globular clusters form at the beginning of the Big Bang? Could there be clusters of  100,000 stars that were able to bind together in the turbulence that occurred at the inception of the Big Bang?
14. What is Hawking's principle of ignorance? How is saying that singularities are chaotic and unpredictable a valid argument for the uncaused cause to have occurred?
15. Why is it that any time that I see an equation explaining the Big Bang do I see i, which is an imaginary number. If this is considered to be fact, it should not require an imaginary number to explain it. The scientific method is made up of multiple steps. You ask a question, then research the existing information. Next you form a hypothesis, conduct research and you either validate or invalidate your hypothesis. If you are wrong you then reconstruct your hypothesis and conduct new research, not invent fake numbers to validate it.
16. If the open universe we see today is estimated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 10⁵⁹. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated. How can that and all of the other anomalies that had to occur for the Big Bang to have created what we see have happened without the guidance of a Higher Power?
17. As I understand it, some of my questions above may be invalid since I have learned that Big Bang Theory is not about the creation of the universe, but the origin of the universe over time. That means that not only can we not agree on how the universe developed over time, we have no idea how the universe began at all. Is that me correctly identifying the Big Bang Theory, no idea about origin but instead attempting to explain development? If so, than what was before the Big Bang, because it obviously was not the birth of space and time?
18. What are imaginary numbers and imaginary time? It does not seem scientific to invent things that do not exist to explain things that are not understood. How is that part of the scientific method.

How come we invent imaginary things in science (which is supposed to be based on fact) but as Christians are ridiculed by many in the scientific community for having faith in something. I propose a theory of God, just like you propose a theory that involves imaginary numbers, imaginary time, singularities, principles of ignorance, black matter and black energy. I operate, just like a scientist, as though my theory is fact.

I Have an Enquiring Mind, I Want to Know

I recently had a conversation that was very short with an atheist. He asked why I was a theist, and I told him that after several decades of being agnostic I had realized that it would take me too much faith to be an atheist. I only had enough faith to be a Christian.

He said, "Nobody knows enough to be a theist. Atheism is default. It makes no claim to knowledge, only disbelief."

I could concede that point. If it makes no claim, that is one thing. But that was simply not enough for me. I had a thirst that had to be quenched. I had a lifestyle that I wanted to find a way out of and could not. What was the answer?

I told him that as an agnostic (and here is why the National Enquirer slogan kicked into my head) I wanted to know. I actually felt compelled to know, and that was where we were different. He said that he did not need to know how we got here to be happy. Fair enough, but I did. I needed to know how we got here. Due to that, I had to have an answer to that question, "How are we here!"

When I looked at science, there were multiple leaps of faith. For one, we had to have a Big Bang. We had to have an explosion that created structure and order? That has never been done. I have never seen an explosion build a perfectly functioning house. Therefore I could not believe in an explosion that created a much more complex universe.

Now we have to believe that something caused the Big Bang. What created the mechanism that created the Big Bang?  I think they call it the uncaused cause? Even that name was just confusing, uncaused cause. Here we have another unknown. It too calls for a lot of faith in something never observed.

The Big Bang also goes against the first law of thermodynamics, which states that you cannot create or destroy matter. Yet to have occurred, the Big Bang created something (the universe) from nothing.
Then I had to believe that non-living matter created living matter. That has never been recreated in controlled environments, let alone on it's own. So now we also have to add the spontaneous generation of living matter from nonliving matter. To believe this takes faith.

Next we have macroevolution. That is the changing of one species to another. Think two cats mate and produce a dog. That has also never been done. We have microevolution which happens all of the time. That is adaptation, and it is seen. Micro I could believe, macro took faith.

I will end this with irreducible complexity. We have discovered "micromachines" in the human body that are irreducibly complex. This means that they need all of their parts to function, and if even one part is taken from them then they no longer work. We have to believe either that they spontaneously generated or that they where kept by a species when it had no function. Once again, I need faith in order to believe this.

I could go on and on about the things I need to have faith in, but I will not. There is the complexity of a cell, the coding of DNA much more complex than the best man made computer, the law of entrophy, etc. I will suffice in saying that I did not have enough faith to believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

For me to have faith in Christianity all that I had to believe in was an eternal God. That is all! I only need have faith in one thing and all other things are possible based on my belief in Him. If He is eternal, all powerful and all knowing than that answers every question. How are we here, why are we are, what happens after we die? Those are all answered through belief in Him.

Combine that with what I do know. I know that I spent 23 years in addiction, trying everything: rehabs, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, 12 step programs, medication, probation, house arrest, prison, overdosing and being brought back to life and even suicide to try to quit. Nothing worked. I tried prayer one night and I have not used since. It has been almost 3 years now, and I have not had a relapse. That is all of the proof that I need!!

Another Discussion with an Evolutionist pt. 2

ME: The humane genome consists of a code that is 3 billion letters long. If it were to be read one later per second it would take 93 years to read. That seems a little too complex to have evolved. You take DNA, with a phosphate-sugar backbone and complexly arranged organic bases, stacked orderly on top of each other and paired together at each rung of the twisted double helix....it makes my head explode when I hear of people believing this could happen without the guidance of a master's hand. 

Hawking says, "The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications. 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."

My bottom line is this. When I was Agnostic (which I was for 25 years of my life) I said that I had trouble with God because I could not empirically prove that He did or did not exist. I used that thought to look down on others and I lived a life of debauchery and alcoholism. It was great for me, I had no hope and lived a very self-centered life. There are those who would say that I was a good friend and a good person, but I knew better then just like I know better now.

 I eventually realized that although I personally could not prove there was a God, as a supposed empiricist I could also not personally prove that evolution happened, that life sprang from nonliving matter. I could not personally do that. I prayed and I gave God a chance to prove himself to me personally.

There are many out there who would tell me that my experience with the Holy Spirit was only imagined. There are atheists and agnostics that would tell me I have lost my mind. There would be psychiatrists and psychologists who in the past would have told them that they were right, I was clinically crazy.....in the past. To them I have a reply. If you have ever been in the depths of addiction, you would not say that. I have been in the depths of my addiction. Everyone has a different rock bottom, here is mine:

1. I have shot up ice water, because the batch of meth was not ready or I was waiting on the person to get back from filling their morphine prescription.
2. I have woken up at 4 AM in a urine soaked mattress to get up and drink a couple of shots to put me back to sleep and stop the shakes.
3. I started smoking cigarettes in 6th grade and had never been able to quit.
4. I had been to county jail often enough that I would stay in for several weeks to catch up on sleep when I had the cash in my wallet to bond out.
5. I had slept with enough women that I was in the mid-triple digits. I would go to parties and sleep with 2 or 3 girls when I was a drug dealer.
6. I was drunk 30 minutes after I got out of prison, and spun out on methamphetamine that night.
7. I dealt drugs and was involved with the manufacturing of methamphetamine for over a decade.
8. I had been to rehab, but the longest stretch of sobriety I had since I was in the 7th grade was 3 months.
9. I had been diagnosed with Bi-Polar, borderline personality, antisocial personality, masochistic, generalized anxiety and major depressive disorders.
10. I used the "F" word and cussed every other word even when I was happy and in normal conversation.
11. I have been found passed out in my own blood after slashing my wrists and rushed to the ER.
12. I have totalled 5 cars drinking and driving yet continued to drink and drive every night.
13. I have overdosed on several occasions and yet used within 24 hours every time.

I had tried counselors, psychiatrists, drug rehabs, interventions and Narcotics/Alcoholics Anonymous, with no success. I had worked the 12 steps, but it was never quite enough. I had used my intellect in attempting to overcome my addiction and failed repeatedly. I have killed a lot of brain cells through my addiction, but I have had 2 psychiatrists and a psychologist score my IQ between 129-135 at different times in my life. I am by no means ignorant. I came to Him in prayer, and He gave me a second chance. That was all that I needed to do, truly turn my will and my life over to God. I had tried using a random higher power, such as the community in 12 step groups, and it was not effective. God was!

Since the night I prayed to God and asked Him to take all of this from me, I have had a complete life change. I have not used drugs or drank, I have not smoked a cigarette, I have not had premarital sex, I have not been to jail and I am on no medication for any mental illnesses. I have not cussed since I do not know when. If all of that is not proof of God, than I ask you what is?

Now I tithe 10% to my church (which supports the digging of wells for water in Africa, Convoy of Hope, and giving school supplies to children who do not have them locally) and give more money on top of that to other charities. I volunteer between 5-10 hours a week to work with helping others through various charities and resources. I now give back to others, and I am teaching my son to think of more than just himself. When I volunteered to do psychological first aid and trauma counseling in Joplin, I was Convoy of Hope and multiple churches there helping those in need. It reaffirmed my belief in Christians and the good that we do.

I have no idea what you do to improve the world around you, and I hope that it is a lot because you seem to be very bright and should therefore be able to think globally and altruistically. I hope that you give 10 % of your income to others because it is the right thing to do. In fact, I hope that you give 15%. I hope that you volunteer several hundred hours a year to help those less fortunate than you. I know that what I do for a living changes lives, gives children back their parents and parents back their children. What I do in my spare time (while raising a family of my own and caring for their needs while working a full time job) feeds the hungry and helps people heal from their addictions and past hurts. I know that my son benefits as much as my wife. I love my wife and treat her with respect and I teach my son to help those less fortunate, to give of himself and not be judgmental of others.

If that is done out of ignorance, than I would rather be ignorant, filled with hope and able to give others hope while making the world a better place than trying to educate people with other people's research while having done none of my own. I know that God exists, I see Him in the beauty around me, in my changed life and in the lives of those around me. I see evil too, as well as those who would try to usurp other's work and claim wisdom from it. You can use intelligence to read other's research, I use wisdom to live my life. My life screams that God exists based on my experiences.

The scientific method is done by asking a question, gathering information, forming a hypothesis, then performing an experiment that tests your hypothesis. From that test you then interpret the data and draw conclusions that help you to form a new hypothesis. You then publish that research. I could not tell you how many people I have seen that have been to 10, 15 rehabs for addiction using psychiatrists and the most advanced techniques available return to addiction over and over again. I should know, I was one of them. I tried the established methods as an agnostic and my results were the same. I and so many others that I have worked with quit for good after they found Christ! That is the evidence that I base my theory on, and it has been tested with several hundred participants and each one only makes my faith stronger.

I am in the middle of writing the book that will allow me to share with others the final hypothesis I have come to after 10 years of research. It is based on the observations I have had while testing my theory with hundreds of test subjects. I started out biased against God and came to believe in Him through my studies and experimentation. I would love to read your article when it gets published. I am certain that it will give validation to your theory, based on your data interpretation after you tested your theory with an unbiased mind. You definitely write well enough to hold my interest. Let me know when it comes out and I will read it.

Youtube Atheist.........Why So Serious?

I watched a video on youtube that stated it had questions for Christians. I figured that I would watch the video. The video ended by saying that God is 100% imaginary and stated that people who believe in imaginary people are delusional. It stated that we live with fantasies and that relying on faith was a childish thing to do. People of faith needed to grow up and think rationally. After it was over I left a comment.

The comment was as follows, "I would say that due to the breaking of laws of physics and thermodynamics as well as the statistical "miracles" that had to occur in order for the Big Bang to be successful that this route is also delusional. So how are we here? That is the question that you have to answer? I would argue that both Christians and scientific answers rely on faith. The only difference is that the Christian will truthfully tell you that faith is part of their answer. There are proofs, but faith is needed."

I immediately got a reply, "You would say that, you expletive expletive." I asked why the profanity, and the reply was, "It's how I talk to retards, morons, cretins, idiots, imbeciles, deluded losers and mental spastics."

By this time, I was of course impressed by the intellect of my speaker, so I replied in kind, "Oh, so it was self-directed. At first I thought that it was directed at me, but I am the one talking intelligently. Or is vulgarity what passes for intelligence with you?"

To which he retorted, " It's obviously directed at you, you lying expletive expletive expletive."

I replied, "Wow, I have to stop replying. I refuse to stoop to your intellectual level. Food for thought: Why is it when someone disagrees with the view point of the unschooled/unintelligent, they automatically resort to profanities and insults? Is it the lack of vocabulary that stops you from being able to elucidate your view without them?"

His reply was, " I have a 2:1 honours degree in English Literature, but I found that theists are too stupid to understand complex arguments so I have to gear down to your level just to be understood, and even then you won't get it, as you have sold out to a superstition/delusion that is inherently irrational. I could tell you are an idiot by your assumption that science requires 'faith' which is trying to pretend that everyone is really just as deluded as you are, which is wrong and offensive."

My reply was, "So there is proof of evolution.........let me have it. Show where we have ever seen a species evolve into another species. We can adapt to enviroment, but never change into another species. Nonliving matter has never created living matter. The universe creating itself refutes the first two laws of thermodynamics. And if believing in God makes me stupid, than I will proudly sit in the company of Einstein, Hawking and Schrodinger who believe that there is a God and are "stupid."

He says,  Christians love "authority" figures within Christianity so you should really check out the work of FRANCIS COLLINS, Director of the National Center for Human Genome Research. He is openly Christian and his work in the field of Human Genomes has led him to conclusively accept that evolution is real."

My turn, "And Francis believes in God. If you want to use him as an example, he is a Christian. I have read his book. So are you arguing that he is right because he is a Christian, or because he believes in evolution? He says that statistically it is impossible for evolution to occur without the hand of God to stir the pot. I disagree with what he says. My point was that if I am stupid for my beliefs, then I share that title with some people that changed the face of science."

His reply, " "So are you arguing that he is right because he's a Christian or because he believes in evolution?"

"No, I am just suggesting him because Christians pander to other Christians as authority figures.
Personally, I couldn't care less what he "BELIEVES IN". Evolution is a fact. It doesn't require belief."

I replied, "If evolution is a fact, then you are right. It does not require belief. A fact is verified through observation or experience. When has nonliving matter been observed turning into living matter? Where is the link between bird and reptile? What did the platypus evolve from? When have we observed something, especially infinite something (galaxies and planets), created from nothing?"

His reply, "You know what, I can't even expletive talk to you. Evolution is a fact and I am done here."

Why so serious? I only figured that since evolution was a fact that he would have a lot of evidence to back it up. I have factual basis for my beliefs. They are backed up by extreme faith, but I have facts to back it up. I know that I am right, but I can also have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes otherwise. I just find it sad that there are those out there that cannot have a discussion that goes against their beliefs without anger and expletives.

What is an atheist? I had one tell me that an atheist was the default position for rational thinkers not to believe the unbelievable.Yet he believed evolution and did not feel that evolution was unbelievable. How is that rational? I do not know what to think about other people sometimes. I just wish that they would rely on reasoning and honesty instead of their emotions.

I do know that I have faith that God is real. I have this faith based on rational thoughts, factual evidence and being intellectually honest with myself. If my beliefs were based on blind, emotional faith than I would get angry, cuss and shout names at the people who disagreed with me. But I do not.

Why so serious? I am not serious, I am simply right!