1) The coming into existence of the universe. Things do not begin without a cause.
That, according to modern physics, is flat wrong. Quantum mechanics REQUIRES that that be wrong. One way of looking at this is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
en.wikipedia.org
says there can be no such thing as 'empty' space; particles come into and go to out out existence in it constantly. One result of it is that eliminated a problem that had bothered classical physicists since Newton:action at a distance. This was the ability of one macroscopic body to influence another with no intervening particles to do the "pushing" or "pulling"; the job was done by an abstraction called a "field". The Uncertainty Principle says these temporary particles do the work. It also allows the formation of black holes that can then explode, creating a universe.
space.com
More general coverage:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu
2) The universe that came into existence was against incredible odds fine-tuned in such a way that life can exist in it. The best cosmologists testify to the truth of this.
But you wouldn't know of any that were created without proper parameters for life, would you? There may have been a billion others created that were sterile and you would know of none of them.
3) The beginning of life by spontaneous generation is impossible, just as it impossible that the computer in front of you spontaneously generated.
That computer wasn't "spontaneously generated"; it was designed. And for economic reasons it was designed in a relatively short period of time by a small number of engineers with very limited random experimentation. How YOU can presume to speak of what can happen in billions of years with no basis but your "feeling" is totally beyond me. You state the result, then say it is true because you want it to be true.
Ever played with some graphic computerized chaos theory programs? The patterns that can be generated by enough randomness are rather amazing.
4) The biochemical process that is life has become couscious, self-aware, with a mind and a will of its own.
So?
Before you go further, you'd best define "conscious", "self-aware", "mind", and "will", then demonstrate that none of them exist in, say, a chimp. Or a dog.
These things are both evidence of a Creator and evidence the Creator is deeply interested in the beings he has created.
Suppose I granted all your argument but that. Why couldn't the creator just set it up as an entertainment device to see what happens?
Did you say he is omniscient and already knows? Then do you have free will? And what does that mean, anyway?
Your, problem, I think is you are attempting to argue for one side of a point that cannot be settled. You can no more prove there is a God than I can there isn't. |
