1: The Singularity
Many scientists today call use the term singularity to represent what they believe to be the big bang. Now before I go any further, I just want to point out that I do agree with science, and in fact it does prove gods' existence.
Ok back to the singularity.
We hear from scientists that the singularity, means something that popped into existence from nothing. If nothing existed at the start of time, then nothing would be here now. It is impossible for something to pop into existence from nothing. The only way for something to come into existence from nothing, is if something, or someone puts it there.
This assumes that the singularity came from nothing, do we have any evidence for this or is it just speculation? Or what the properties of nothing would be? Or for that matter how we can be certain that something can't come from nothing? It seems to me discussions in this area are highly speculative.
2: Design Has to Have a Designer
When you see the various aspects of nature, like birds, dogs, trees, and all of nature itself, and all of the specific roles they play you have to wonder how they got like that. We as humans try to copy nature sometimes with the way that we use technology, aerodynamics etc
We design from what we've seen in nature because we are intelligent and learn how nature works from watching nature. How does this suggest that nature is the product of an intellect?
We see parts of our body that are some of the most advanced things we know of like for instance, the brain. We try to copy and mimic those things by making fake arms and computers and things like that, but we never even get close to a direct copy.
Nature is complex, too complex for humanity to understand or emulate. My question is, why does complexity suggest design?
Now this all goes back to the question; well, where does design originate? We'll let me give you an example:
Unknown true, but an unknown isn't evidence for anything.
If you have all the parts of a watch in a box, and they aren't put together, you could shake that box forever, but you would never get a watch. Now the human brain for example is way more advanced than a watch, so do you really think that life was just created like that, all shaken up?
Above you said you agree with science, does that include evolution? If so then the brain developed through a process not randomness. If you don't accept evolution, then do you accept the idea that a living thing passes on characteristics from generation to generation?
3. What Created Life?
Scientists use the term Law of Biogenesis to explain how life works. The way it is explained, is like this:
Law of Biogenesis: "In this material, natural world, life comes from previously existing life of its own kind.
Now scientist nowadays say well, life actually comes from random chemicals and elements. Yet every biological experiment we have done with chemicals and elements, has not produced life or any actual signs of life at all.
So, if life didn't arise from non-living chemicals, then how did life arise? The only explanation is a supernatural being.
Biogenesis isn't a law at all. It has no underlying hypothesis as to why life can't form from non-life. Without an hypothesis or any way to test hypothesis there can be no scientific law. Scientists can show lipids that create microspheres that begin replicating through chemistry alone. They have found a couple of ways RNA can form and we have examples of amino acids.
That said, it is true that we haven't yet found examples of life arising from non-life, yet that we haven't seen a thing, isn't proof that a thing can't happen, as such there is no way for us to be certain that life can or cannot come from nothing, though the above seems to suggest that under the right circumstances all the necessary building blocks would be there. This line of reasoning again proves nothing.
4. Moral Law
If some things are objectively morally wrong, and some things are objectively morally right, then there must be a God.
We don't say that when a dog stole a bone from another dog, that dog broke a moral, law no we don't. But we do when it comes to humans. So, at what point did moral law become important.
Prove morality is objective. I certainly have my moral codes and they are important to me, they are not however objective.
The second part is interesting, but I would argue that is as much a matter of human social development as theology. In terms of objective morality, I find myself wondering why an objective moral law only applies to humans? I'd think a subjective moral law agreed upon by humans would be more likely to focus exclusively on morals. Again this seems inconclusive as evidence of a gods existence.
5. Human Reasoning
We humans have the nature to reason, and to wonder why things exist, why we exist, and that's why we have science. Why are we the only species that does this? Animals don't wonder why they exist, they just do? What gave us that need to find out? God did that's who.
This (like several of the above) is begging the question. I don't know as anyone has the answer to this question. However, even if there is no other correct hypothesis this doesn't support yours. Can you show any way in which human intelligence requires a creator to form?
