Evidence for God: A Christian Perspective (Part 1)

I have been debating with a  Christian lately regarding the existence of the biblical God.  According to him, he had been a non-believer most his life and is now a believer due to the presence of  “irrefutable” evidence and logic in support for the existence of the biblical god. He sent me a long list of what he claims to be evidence for god, so I thought why should I be the only luck soul(if I have one) to have seen this intellectual revelation. Without further ado, THE EVIDENCE FOR YAHWEH!!!! The only two things missing are; thunder and lightening.

Cosmological argument:
Very common, I’m sure you’ll have heard of it. It is a FACT that everything that had a beginning needed a cause. But if everything had a beginning, nothing would ever begin. Only something eternal, that is NOT limited to time and had NO beginning could have caused this universe to exist. The universe is finite, therefore it had a beginning. I shouldn’t need to back this up with evidence, but if you’re an eternal universe man I will gladly do so upon request. Moving on: The Bible tells us that God existed BEFORE TIME BEGAN. In other words, he’s not bound by time. If he can create the universe in 6 days, and snatch control back at any time, do you think he’s limited to science either? This alone doesn’t prove the Biblical God, but it proves a supernatural existence. If nature is all there is, nature itself wouldn’t exist.

The law of biogenesis:
It’s a well established scientific law. Without the supernatural, life can only come from life. Though we’ve tried many times the only way we’ve managed to successfully create life is by breeding an already existing life form, which came from an already existing life form, which came from an already existing life form. To add to that, each life form was the same kind as it’s offspring. Slight differences, yes. Major? Not likely. There’s always a stop limit preventing such different creatures breeding together. But that’s a topic for another discussion. Basically, the law of biogenesis means that either we would have to return to the eternal universe theory, which we should both know is a wash, or we would have to return to a supernatural power that/who can create life. Alternatively, scientists could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time. Even so, this alternative is the second least likely.

Teleological arguement:
So we’ve established that the law of biogenesis suggests a supernatural power, but so what if there is one of those? That doesn’t prove it’s a god. It could just be a force of some kind. So how do we prove the supernatural force is intelligent? We’re moving into the realms of Intelligent Design here. The best evidence for I.D. is irreducable complexity.

Design detection is a legitimate field of science, and is possibly one of the oldest. Basically, it’s easy to know when something is designed because it is both specified and complex. I may be able to convince you that a familiar shape in the clouds, such as a fish, sheep or love heart, as just chance. It’s specified, but it’s not complex. I may be able to convince you that a paint spillage is accidental. It’s complex, but it’s not specified. But would I be able to convince you that Mount Rushmore and the Mona Lisa are without designer? Of course I wouldn’t. Could I convince you that I don’t really know what I’m talking about, and that every mail you recieve from me is the result of me dropping marbles on my keyboard then pressing send blindly? I’d seriously hope I couldn’t.

Could I convince you that a mouse trap was not designed? Given how easily people assumed “tool shaped” stones were designed, I think I’d have some trouble producing a fully functional mouse trap and convincing you it just formed by accident. If one piece is absent, or not in it’s correct place, or defficient, it ain’t gonna trap Mickey. So why is Darwin able to convince you that something as complicated as a cell, nevermind everything else, is the result of chance? Like the mouse trap, if one piece is absent, not in it’s correct place or defficient, it doesn’t work. It would fall apart. It would not function. If I cannot convince you that a mouse trap formed after I dropped a piece of wood and some springs, why can I convince you that numerous componants that I can’t even be bothered naming could POSSIBLY form without a designer? Every machine mankind has EVER created is inferior to near enough EVERYTHING we find in nature.

Isaac Newton used this argument frequently. One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, a friend, who saw things differently than he did, stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognised at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits.

Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, “My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?” Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, “Nobody.”

Quickly turning to Newton, his friend said, “Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?” Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the apparatus had just happened to assume the form it was in.

The astonished man replied with some heat, “You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I’d like to know who he is!”

Laying his book aside, Newton arose and said, “This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system, whose laws you know, – and here I am not able to convince you that this mere toy before you is without a designer and maker! Yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken, with it’s much more massive and complicated orbital motions, has come into being without designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such a conclusion?” – The Minnesota Technolog, October 1957.

Can you answer Newton’s question? By what sort of reasoning do you come to the conclusion that even the simplest things, like a mouse trap, NEED a designer, yet infinitely more complex, specified things such as D.N.A., the universe, cells, solar systems etc. do not?

Moral argument:
Moving along, a moral code exists. How can this be without a higher authority? If there is no god, mankind is the highest authority. It’s a do what you feel world. God calls that kind of attitude “sin”. Rejectors of God call that nature. But in a do what you feel world, there are some obvious drawbacks. Firstly, is it wrong for me to destroy a majority of the human race? There’s 7billion people on this Earth now. That’s more than enough to run us out of non-renewable resources (which are actually creatable but the cost of such would aparently be astronomic) in less time than would be covenient. Why couldn’t some smart arse kill off 90% of humanity? Dr. Pianka was applauded for such an idea! Surely you see this as morally wrong? This is because there is a moral code. As long as you have any opinion on right and wrong, you believe in an objective morality, which CANNOT exist without an objective source. If morality is subjective, it lives and dies with the individual. Was it wrong for Pope Innocent the third to slaughter more Christians in an afternoon than any Roman Emporer in his entire reign? Yes, of course it was. But I live here, now. How can I judge that without a moral source? Because morality is objective, not subjective.

So I think we’ve established that an eternal, intelligent designer exists, but even then how do I know it’s Jesus? Hundreds of religions claim their god is the real creator. Let’s get into the specific evidence that the BIBLE, and not some “other” god, is true.