Existence of god

1. God is not bound by the laws of nature (e.g. gravity). If God chose to lift my chair under me into the air, he most definitely could. God, by definition, is a logical Creator. He is not a self-contradictory, illogical being. I believe we can put contradictions, for example, in the category 'illogically impossible' - that is, in any possible world, under any circumstances, they cannot happen (e.g. something cannot exist and not exist at the same time; contradictions are logically absurd and the only time they 'exist' is when we jumble words together that are a self-contradictory combination of words). God is and always has been logical, and so his logically working universe reflects his hand in making it (e.g. the laws of logic are universal, logical, and are regular). Now, the laws of nature are the same in this sense, as they continue in an orderly, logical way. However, God is not bound to these laws. For God has always been logical, but nature is not eternal. God created nature, and determined certain laws to exist (e.g. gravity is not eternal, on the contrary God created gravity). So the miracles of God, when God specially intervenes in our world, are not illogically impossible, so to speak, but are logically impossible. That is, rising from the dead is not possible ultimately because God has determined so; our bodies are bound to the laws of nature. If one jumps off a building, indeed he will fall. However, God is not a prisoner to the laws of nature. The Christ did not rise from the dead by natural processes, but by the power and will of God. 2. Also, let us remember that modern science was founded on many Christian thinkers; these scientists *expected* laws to exist in the universe, as they believed in a transcendent Lawgiver. Isaac Newton, for example, when he discovered gravity, did not proclaim 'Gravity exists, therefore God does not', on the contrary, he believed this was evidence of an immaterial Designer who determined the law of gravity to exist in his creation. Newton did not create gravity; he discovered it. Humans merely assign these laws with the label 'law', but these laws would have been in place regardless if we existed (if God determined to not create humans); the question of course is ultimately, why are they here in the first place? 3. Information 'embedded' does not explain why immaterial information exists. Yes, I suppose it is accurate to say DNA has immaterial genetic information 'embedded' in it, but this does not explain how the material can give rise to the immaterial. If we observe a Chinese writing (material), apart from an intelligence that 'input' the information 'within' the symbol, it is mere scribbles. But the symbols have meaning; they have information and actually mean something due to a prior intelligence. DNA has immaterial genetic information 'embedded' in it. This information is what ultimately gives us noses, and hair, and gives basset hounds long ears, or elephants trunks, and skunks the ability to produce odor when it feels threatened. DNA has the information able to gives us such things. The information itself cannot arise by natural, material processes. Like the laws of logic (and nature), the immaterial cannot possibly arise from the material. 4. The multiverse is beyond empirical science, observable science, and pure speculation (there is not a shred of evidence for the multiverse - this 'theory' with no evidence is also often used to explain the fine-tuning). However, even though it is merely an idea, the universe generator that its supporters propose (i.e. what is creating universe after universe) would require fine-tuning itself, and have to be logical and also seem to have some sort of intelligence to bring information that carries meaning into the universe. If one believes in such a generator (which I believe is nonsense, as we would also need to explain what made it so precisely fine-tuned, logical, orderly, and intelligent) it appears they simply have a problem with a Creator. Also, this would still non explain the existence of immaterial entities, as it is an explanation offered for the materialistic worldview. 5. Our universe is most definitely 'something'. To proclaim the universe is actually nothing, I believe, with respect, is nonsense. Many materialistic physicists try to explain a universe from nothing (e.g. Krauss), but have explained *nothing* (pun intended). The opposite of something is nothing; once we observe something, it is something - not nothing. The human mind cannot comprehend nothing because we always imagine something. If we assume something was prior to the universe (as Krauss does in his book - this is actually the title of his book [i.e., 'Universe from Nothing']), it is not nothing. Krauss in his book offers many explanations for what nothing actually is (e.g. I believe in one example, he mentions atoms existing in some way prior to the universe). The problem is he never answers the question 'How do we get the universe from nothing', as he always presupposes something's existence before the universe (and therefore, obviously tries to explain the cause, which is always something). Stephen Hawking said, 'Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing'. What in heaven's name is he talking about? A brilliant man indeed, but this is nonsense. Gravity is not nothing, and the law of gravity most definitely cannot give rise to something. This is a flat contradiction. And he does not say gravity exists; he says the law exists, and we know laws cannot create anything. Forgive me, but trying to redefine nothing is absolute nonsense. Krauss says, 'Because something is physical, nothing must also be physical, especially if you define it as the absence of something'. What an astonishing claim. Now in the Christian worldview, the problem is solved: there has never actually been nothing, as one who *is* existence necessarily (not contingently) exists: an immaterial Creator. 6. As stated in round one, the probability of the universe coming about in the way it does (i.e., fine-tuned and absolutely perfect for life, concerning the constants [e.g., gravity]) is downright impossible. And so, apart from a Creator, we must speculate apart from scientific evidence and come up with mere ideas of men - such as the multiverse. If we are to remain in the field of empirical science, the universe has to be designed; if one claims it is not designed, they must go beyond evidence and rely purely on speculation - this is not following the evidence where it leads; this is avoiding evidence to conform the evidence we have with a naturalistic philosophy. 7. The laws of logic are not mere ideas of humans. For example, if humans never came into existence, the sun could not exist and not exist at the same time, or Pluto could not be cubed and sphere at the same time because the law of non-contradiction would still have existed (it does not need a human to label it 'law' to exist). 8. I do not believe it is accurate to claim that logic is dependent on nature, on the contrary it is vice-versa. We cannot scientifically prove logic - we presume it. And we assume it exists to observe nature in a (presumably) logical way. God has always been logical, and contradictions, as stated, are not things (if they existed you could even go as far as to assert they existed and did not exist at the same time, or while they were contradictions, they also were not). They are illogically impossible, and are literally us jumbling self-contradictory words together to create nonsense ideas. Nature was created by God and therefore so were her laws. If an omnipotent God desires to bring his Son into the world by means of a Virgin, or split a sea, or raise people from the dead, he most definitely can - these things are logically impossible; they do not violate logic, but naturally they are impossible. But nature and therefore its laws, find their origin in God, and he most definitely is not bound to the space/time universe. 9. I believe if we are to accept the existence of the Christian God, we must be open to us not being able to understand certain of his qualities. His sovereignty is one of them. I do not believe humans have libertarian free will, but at the same time, I believe the Bible also teaches along with this, that humans are truly responsible for their actions. (E.g., God planned the death of his Son, and yet those who murdered him are responsible for their actions). God chooses what will bring his people good, and him the glory, as by his nature, this is his desire. God alone has ultimate determinism. 10. In the Christian worldview, (as you speak to a Christian) God sustains us. Therefore, if we assume his existence, we must also naturally assume we exist and live because of him, as we are utterly dependent on him. And again, I believe this problem of evil is not a problem if it is even possible that God will bring an infinitely good ends by through the pathway of suffering (which he chose). And since he is omniscient, he knows 'the best of possible worlds'; to claim an omniscient God did not know what he was doing is not rational. In the Christian worldview, suffering is not meaningless, but finds purpose in the perfect divine will of God. 11. I believe I addressed most of these final points, but concerning complexity and abiogenesis (and the complexity of DNA), this naturally points to a Creator. The other door is avoiding current evidence and asserting, as Darwin did, it *must* have a naturalistic explanation - which, of course, is not loyal to science, but loyalty to a preexisting philosophy - materialism. When we observe information we always assume intelligence, when we observe life we always assume life, when we observe order we always assume logic; and therefore, to assert that the idea of God is not possible whatsoever and no evidence points toward a Creator is na"ve. Brayden