God's existance.

Let me be fair because I do understand that there's a lot of agnostic atheists. So, I will try to explain things as best as I can. As for the agnostic theist, do you mean that I have doubts? Or that I believe in things that make more sense? You could look at it that way. I believe in Christianity because I think evidence for it is actually quite good. Sure I have doubts, but I realize those doubts are often emotional, not intellectual. C - Creation Hittfler, if you decide to believe that the Big Bang, and everything after it was complete chance, you can do so. However, it is not completely logical. When you look at a sand castle at the beach, you don't assume the shore did it, or that crabs came out of the water and made it. You know that's intelligent design. If you base things by how logical they are, then you understand what I'm trying to demonstrate. You assume that these essential conditions were met when the universe began. But, you can only put the question on step higher. Where did all these conditions come from? Some say it came from hot concentrated density. But where did this density come from? Whatever caused the Big Bang must be space less, timeless, and immaterial. In other words, the cause cannot be a natural force, because this started in the Big Bang. You admit that it is a mystery, however, when you take the Christian world-view, it isn't a mystery at all. It's completely logical. Only something outside of time and space can create the Big Bang. That is known as God. This is why God is needed for the Big Bang. We will never find a natural cause for the Big Bang. There was nothing before the Big Bang. Time, space, and matter started from it. You ask a good question. If God started the Big Bang, but the Big Bang started EVERYTHING, then where or from what did God come from? If you're timeless, do you have a beginning? No. There has to be a power that is beyond all these things if they had a beginning. The beginning must have a cause. This is what Aristotle meant by the "unmoved mover". An un-caused first cause. God is an infinite being, who has no determined space or size. Scientists agree that all things had a beginning, the question is, what started the reality that we live in if all this had a beginning. Time had a beginning because we are progressing through the time-line of reality. Matter had a beginning because it wears down. Hopefully that makes some sense. R - Reason If we are the product of evolution, then no matter can create something that is outside of matter. In other words, matter doesn't create mind because it matter merely reacts. "Non-living things create living." Well, I'm not sure what you mean by that, since us, humans, are made of living things. Our cells are alive, and make us everything in our bodies. Perhaps the organelles might not be alive themselves, but they wouldn't even have a purpose unless they were commanded by a living thing. Or, non living things would need a beginning anyways. There would be no chips to create a digital realm unless something made the chips. It is true that MINDS can make an immaterial realm out of material. Like, for example, a router to create WiFi. THE PROBLEM: These materials would need to be arranged specifically in order to work. So much so, that even if they were stuck together randomly, they wouldn't even work. You compared the chips in a computer with cells or living things. But chips are created by intelligent design, and you say living things weren't. It doesn't make sense to compare them both because you say chips have to be created by random forces like the brain; and even more than that, you say the digital realm is created by random forces like the mind. There needs to be an intelligent mind to put it together. They don't come up themselves. It's like saying a chip in a computer was created randomly in 1936, when the first computer was created. God explains mind because He is the creator that is outside of materials, therefor, only he can create beyond materials. Mind would merely be an illusion created by our brains. You assume that animals and people have desires and free will, but then I ask, where did those things come from in the first place? In evolution, we don't have free-will because we just dance to our own DNA, which controls us by random forces. Free will is only explained by God because we would need freedom to make choices to begin with. Another topic perhaps. I - Information When I say that we don't understand the DNA, I meant it as for it's origin and and it's specific order. Because the truth is that we DO know how DNA works, and how it looks like. We understand it. Today we know how DNA binds itself. But evolution cannot explain DNA because evolution doesn't care about precision or accuracy. Because when an acorn seed falls from a tree, does it sit there and think "Alright, what do I need to do in order to become a tree?" No, it grows itself because it has the message of DNA in it. DNA is not a language, from it is what decides how our bodies are built, that's why are bodies are so specific and well designed. You change one small part of the DNA and mutations occur. Evolution could never create a human by building him slowly from a lower being. The cereal message is used to demonstrate an intelligent design, or specific order only comes from minds (God in this case). Evolution is not a mind, it doesn't order materials. True, parents pass down genetic information to the offspring, but there would be no genetic information unless there was an information giver. You mention incest in the Bible and how we all look different. Adaption from specific environments happen all the time among living beings. More than that, even you explained that parents pass down information to offspring. DNA is passed down from TWO parents, so naturally it results in a different product from two sets of genetic codes combined into one. As for incest, you'd be asking a theology question, meaning this question can only be explained if the Bible is true. Let's assume it is real for a moment. When Adam died, he was 930 years old. What does this mean? The claws of death and disease took a while to affect the human body. Because Adam and Eve were the first humans, they were made perfect. No defects. It is true that incest must've happened, but it wasn't a defect because there were no errors to begin with, not until sin really began to make effect. M - Morality and Evil You mention that society judges people based in their morality. Where did the standard by which we judge actions come from? If you say it came from our opinions and put it into society, then it's all an opinion, like you said. But if that's the case, then Hitler wasn't wrong when he killed the Jews, gays, and gypsies. He was using his own morality. More importantly, why follow society and not break it? Why is killing people wrong if it's just an opinion. As for psychopaths and others, like pedophiles, they KNOW what they're doing is wrong, but they have no guilt at all. It is a mental illness caused by sin. You make an assumption that I think homosexuals should die. It's not true. As you can tell, Christians don't go around killing homosexuals. Most importantly. you should be asking yourself: If morality is relative (an opinion) why does it matter if someone kills gays?" It doesn't. So there has to be an objective truth that doesn't change and everyone has to follow. To understand this, let's talk about Baseball. Who makes the rules of Baseball? I think rules require a M.A.P. M - Moral (or fair) standard that transcends human opinion. Each player can't have their own rules. Only one everyone follows. A - Authoritative person who transcends the players to communicate & enforce the rules. If you break the rule, you're out. P - Purpose or objective of the game that transcends player opinion. If a player thinks hitting more foul balls is the objective of the game, that person is just objectively wrong, no matter what. Now, science can help you play better, but it doesn't make the laws. Only minds do. S - Science IF there's no God and everything is just materials, then the laws of gravity are not real, logic is not real, reason is not real free will is not real, and morality is not real. These things can only be explained by a God because these are unchangeable laws that surpass human opinion and matter. Data has to be interpreted because science doesn't tell you anything, only scientists do. You need a mind for that. You can't get minds from test tubes. Evolution and opinions can't tell you what to do. In fact, let me take you to the O.J. Simpson Trial: 1. 20 years ago, Simpson's blood was found in scene (The possibility it wasn't his was 1 in 170 million.) 2. Goldman's, Brown's, and Simpson's blood was found in Simpson's Bronco. Two victims and Simpson's blood where on Simpson's car when the persecution in L.A. happened. 3. The glove found in the scene had shriveled blood from all three and matched the other glove at Simpson's house. 4. The bloody footprints were from a rare brand of size 12 shoes that Simpson owned. Only a 199 were sold in the U.S., and Simpson had a pair. 5. Brown's blood was on Simpson's socks (1 in 21 million it's no her's) Does science show O.J. was guilty? No. Why? All science does is give data, you need to understand it to make a decision. Good data? Or flawed data? Does the 1 in 170 million probability point to innocent or guilty? 2004 NBC Survey of 1,186 people: - 77% believed O.J. was guilty But there was an ethnic divide. - 87% of whites believed he was guilty - 29% of blacks believed he was guilty Why the divide from the same evidence? Depends on the mindset of the person. Science doesn't say anything, scientists do. Blacks believed the case was racially motivated because they had experienced injustice before. Whites, not. So blacks thought it was rigged, and scientists were immoral. You need morality to comprehend data too.