God Probably Doesn't Exist

Contention 1: God is Required There are many theories about the origin of the universe and all that is within it.[1] All theories fall into two categories: "Special Creation", (By a higher being) and "Natural Origins", (By series of events, such as molecules colliding, or atoms exploding). However, I will show that it is more logical to believe that God exists, (and therefore created the universe), than the belief that the universe came about by natural processes. The belief that the universe could come about naturally, without a higher being's (God) intervention is fatally flawed. Although scientists have multitudes of theories as to what occured to make the universe come about, they all have a basic presupposition: there was something. A dense mass was there, and exploded.[2] Two molecules collided, and exploded. A universe divided and made two. Regardless of how it is packaged, there was something to begin with. All natural laws are based on this one: matter cannot be created or destroyed within the natural realm.[3] A molecule cannot suddenly spring into existance. Therefore, it is impossible that, 1) Something sprang into existance, to become an ingredient in the big bang, and 2) Even if it had, an explosion could not have resulted in the creation of new materials. Scientists have no explanation. Here is Richard Dawkins explanation of what made the universe: "Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe."[4] Brilliant right? He just admitted that God could exist. Here is what the Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."[5] Now on to why this makes God probable. Because of the reasons listed above, something had to be eternally existant. This something had to be intelligent. Matter cannot be created naturally, therefore that something had to be outside of the natural realm. I propose that this is thorough evidence for God. He was the one who started the universe. Whether He created everything by His Word, or created a particle which exploded is not the point of this debate, the point is something greater than the natural has existed forever, therefore, God is probable; not only probable, but I suggest required. Contention 2: The Conscience Within every human being there lies a conscience. What is the conscience? In its basis, it is the sense of right and wrong.[6] At birth every human has it. Children know right and wrong.[7] Generally people know murder is wrong. Generally people know that stealing is wrong. There are universal laws, ingrained in every human being. Yes, the conscience can be seared or warped by multiple factors, such as culture, religion, sanity, and sin nature, but at the base, everyone can discern plain evil, from plain good. Where do these universal laws come from? How could such and abstract concept, yet concrete in nature, exist without an ultimate spiritual force? This force, I contend, is God. He has given each of us a knowledge of right and wrong, yet we choose whether to respond to it, or ignore it. Because the conscience exists, we can know God exists.[8] Contention 3: Laws of Nature/Science Similar to Contention 2, yet this one deals with nature. The fact that there are uniform scientific and natural laws which govern nature points to something greater than itself.[9] Gravity always works planet earth.[10] It does not matter how many times you jump off of an object, you will always go down, unless something else propels you up. An object will continue in a straight line, unless acted upon by a greater force.[11] Light travels at a constant speed, unless blocked by a certain opacity.[12] Many more examples could be used, yet it is safe to say that these are sufficient. Random natural events could not produce an order like this. When a tornado passes through a city, it does not become more uniformed and streamline. No natural event gives more order than there was in the first place. The order has to be made. There must be an intelligent being who created laws to govern the earth, this, I contend, is God. Thank you for reading, back to you Pro. [1] http://www.livescience.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.brainyquote.com... [5] http://www.biblegateway.com... [6] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [7] http://www.nytimes.com... [8] http://www.biblegateway.com... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion [12] http://en.wikipedia.org...