Fatheism (Faith in nothing)

This writing is aimed at Atheists. It challenges Atheism and looks at the only possibilities on offer as to who or what caused the universe.

Questions

Are you an Atheist? Perhaps you are Agnostic? Or maybe you believe in God. These beliefs all tackle the same subject, namely, what or who caused everything. Did God create the universe. Is the universe eternal with no creator? Did the universe come from nothing? These are questions have been asked by many while some think it is impossible to find the answer. This writing sets out not only to challenge these questions but surprisingly, provides the only possible answer.

No matter what you believe, you are about to be challenged. If you are an Atheist, you will be left in a state of realising how little you have thought about this subject and why you have either little to say or little evidence to back up what you say.

Beliefs

Among many scientists and thinkers of our age today, there seems to be an ever-increasing challenge against the idea of God's existence. Some prominent scientists openly and confidently challenge the idea that God created everything. Some offer ideas or supposed evidence that the universe's existence can be explained without the need for a God. But is it really possibe to explain the universe without the need for a creator and if so, is it really science or just another belief or type of faith?

It is fair to say that nearly every person alive has a belief as to how everything got here, the key word here is 'belief'. One group I will call "Believers" believe in a God as the cause, creator, and originator of all things. This camp is generally divided not on the existence of God, but who that God is. Atheists on the other hand believe and agree among themselves that there is no God or is unlikely to exist. They reject the idea that an intelligence of some kind is the source or cause of all things. Atheists may vary on what caused the universe. Some think it all came from nothing, others think that something like gravity can explain everything. Then we have a third group called Agnostics who are undecided as to whether there is a God or not. They admit that God could exist and could be swayed either way according to evidence.

The Universe, Metaverse, Existence

Some scientists today hold to the view that our Big Bang could be one of many in a larger construct. This idea is certainly plausible because to think that we humans have seen or comprehend almost all the universe would be arrogant. People once believed that the Earth was the centre and that the sun went around the Earth and the stars were lights that hung from a huge dome. It can look that way from our Earthly perspective when we look up, however, later discoveries showed that the Earth revolved around the sun and that almost all stars in the heavens are also suns. We then understood that suns were grouped in their billions even hundreds of billions into star cities we call galaxies and that in the known universe there are hundreds of billions of galaxies. Imagine that. Hundreds of billion of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars each. This is the known universe. It could of course be much bigger than we know of so far and for this reason, I will use the word 'existence', to explain all things physical and beyond.

Some think that observations at quantum level, demonstrate that our universe is part of a bigger construct sometimes called the Metaverse. This could provide an explanation for some phenonema we see in Quantum Mechanics where the smallest things behave in ways that we cannot predict or understand. The suggestion is that that just as suns entangle, and galaxies collide and inflict their gravitational forces on each other, perhaps universes also collide. Strange behaviour at quantum level according to this view is merely the laws of our universe entangling with the laws of a different universe creating physical laws that upon observation are alien to the laws and physics of our universe.

There are of course many theories and it may or may not be difficult for you to understand them. However, understanding suggested ideas and models of the universe makes very little difference on understanding what caused everything. Science has no answer to what the cause is, yet with a little simple logical deduction we can know the answer even if you are ignorant of many of the theories, ideas, and discoveries in astrononomy, cosmology, and physics. The idea that we can be ignorant of science and still understand what caused the universe or existence will no doubt be offensive to many intellectuals, but whatever we may believe about the cause of the universe, there is only a few available options to choose from as to what the cause of everything is.

Nothing, Something, Someone

Science has made huge leaps in understanding our physical existence and shows us a universe that isso vast and amazing that it is mostly beyond comprehension. But understanding the cause of the universe still boils down to a few options that all of us can easily grasp. You don't need to be a brilliant scientist to know what caused the universe. In fact I would go as far to say that most people put too much faith in scientists when it comes to explaining how everything came to be. When some scientists say that God is not needed in explaining the existence of all things, many people concur because they think that the answer to such questions is the realm of the intellectual elite. In some ways, Atheistic scientists are the new prophets of our age who many blindly follow. When they utter their beliefs and conclusions about why there is no God, many take their word as gospel, because they think that by reason of their intellect and experience in science that they alone are the ones equipped to answer such a question.

Atheists will often say "show me proof" when debating with someone who believes in God but when you ask them proof for there being no God, the typical answer is that they don't need to prove that in the same way you don't have to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. But this response is really an unfair diguise to shoulder all responsibility of proof to the those who believe in God. It should be that both the believer and the non-believer should shoulder equal responsibility for the burden of proof for what they teach or believe. Think of it this way. If I said that there was no life in the universe except on planet Eearth, would you not want some proof of this statement, or at least a logical argument? Of course you would because the difference between belief in the tooth fairy and the belief of the possibility of life on other planets is that one is an obvious myth and the other a real possibility. God is a real possibility too because not only God one of a few possible explanations for the universe and everything, but it is also believed by the majority of mankind.

The kind of proof Atheists ask Believers on the existence of God is unreasonable to believers because they contend that the universe itself is the proof. The fact that there is an ordered universe that contains life is enough proof for believers that God exists. Whereas Atheists deny that the existence of the universe and us, has absolutely no bearing on the existence of a God.

Who is right here? Does it not seem unreasonable to say that something only exists if you can show it to someone or take a photo of it? What about a crime scene where there are no witnesses to the crime. Can we not engage in some detective work to find out who committed the crime. Is it not normal to reveal theories that fit the crime and using a process of elimination, narrow down the search to the point where the evidence points to someone? Of course that is possible and many crimes are solved even without eye witnesses.

So thinkin about how the universe came to be, it is no different. It is not as daunting as you might imagine. Think of it in the same way you might attempt to spell a big word. It might seem hard to spell a long difficult word, so the usual way to do it is to break the word up into little words because it is usually easier to spell many small words than one big one. When it comes to how the universe came to be, in an investigative sense, you only need to break the answer down to these 3 possibilites, which anyone can understand:

1. Nothing
2. Something
3. Someone

I am sure you will agree that these options cover all possibilities. Even if you are not sure which answer is right, you have a whopping 33% chance of being right on the outset by taking a guess.

We will now take a closer look at each option to determine which is the most likely. To start with it should be said that the first and third options are only applicable if the universe had a beginning and the 2nd option is applicable only if the universe has always existed in some form whether physical or not such as the eternal presense of gravity. This is because the Something option is really the Nothing option if it is not eternal because something that is not eternal or infinite must have been preceded by nothing.

I will now attempt to explain some weaknesses and strengths with each option which will help determine the one that is correct or the most likely. If you think about it, all options are ludicrous to some. The idea of a God is the equivalent of a fairytale to Atheists. To Believers the idea that everything came from nothing is foolish. To an Agnostic, the idea that there is something eternal whether it be intelligent or not, is possible but not necessarily true.

It also needs to be said that whatever the cause of the everything is, it probably should come as no surprise that the answer would be ludicrous considering that our experience with existence is but a miniscule snapshot in time, and the reality and truth outside of our snapshot of time and even before time would probably be strange and hard to believe. Yet one of these three options has to be the right one because these options are all that is on the table. Feel free to suggest a fourth option and I am sure that you will not be able to think of one. Someone, Something, and Nothing covers all possibilites and all beliefs hinge on one of these options which means you can eliminate many beliefs by just destroying an option.

If you could prove that there was no God, then all religions that believe in a God would be wrong and that would eliminate multitudes of beliefs that grew from that understanding. If you could prove that nothing was not a viable option as the cause of everything and could eliminate the idea that anything was eternal, then Atheism would collapse.

The Nothing option

Some people including some reputable scientists believe that everything came from nothing. The idea that nothing actually caused anything is actually impossible because nothing by definition is 'no thing'. If it turns out that 'no thing' can actually do something, then it can't be actually be defined as nothing, but must have been something all along. That alone makes this option a non-starter because nothing does nothing because it is nothing and the fact that there is something, proves that nothing is not the origin. If there was nothing, then would be nothing now.

However, given this obvious fact that practically anyone can understand, the idea that nothing begat everything is still argued as a possible candidate as to the origin of the universe. So let's dig a little deeper and see if this belief stacks up. Some scientists argue that there is science and maths behind the idea that everything came from nothing. It goes something like the this:

Inflationary Theory or Cosmic Inflation says that the universe is expanding and this expansion is exponential or going faster and faster. There is some very good science behind this which I am not going to delve into as I do not wish to diverge, but suffice to say that this theory suggests that positive energy is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero, so it really consists of essentially nothing. The meaning of "nothing" is somewhat ambiguous however. It turns out that nothing is really a vacuum or something else.

Putting this explanation to one side, it has to be said that there is no escaping the fact that if nothing does something, then it is something. A look at Quantum theory and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, (according to some), provides an explanation for how energy may have come out of nothing. It has to do with 'quantum fluctuations'. It assumes that particles and antiparticles form and quickly annihilate each other which is what is believed happened at one of the earliest stages of the universe. One idea is that one fluctuation lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation leading to our universe. Of course if you delve deeper into such speculation, you have to conclude that in order for this to happen, there has to exist laws such as gravity, and/or particle pairs etc. That my friend is not nothing, however it doesn't stop some from saying it is nothing. In truth, that is something and you don't need to have a brilliant scientific mind to see that Nothing is a non-starter.

Let's not throw this option out the door yet, but look at it mathematically. We know that infinity can produce finite and even a zero result. It is easily understood that in everyday things we see examples of finite and zero contained within a bigger realm that seems uncountable. Let's look at an example of zero and how it can be produced. If I multiply zero by zero or add zero to zero, then I end up with zero. For a more real application, let's take a situation where there is zero flammable gas in a room. You can say that there never existed flammable gas in this room or you can say that there was flammable gas, but all of it was burned up, leaving no flammable gas. Such a model is of course not adequate in explaining the science of one positive particle anihalating a negative one to bring about a zero, but for the sake of common sense, we can see that the state of no flammable gas is explained either by it never existing in the first place or by existing and being burned up, cancelled out, or tranformed into something else like heat.

The point with this is that just because we observe or work out zero, it is no proof that everything came from absolutely nothing. Saying that the universe came from nothing is either saying that it the universe and everything never existed in any form at the earliest stage, or that it came from something that we measure as zero. If it is the latter, then it is really like a swinging pendulum that is sitting dead on zero at the time of measurement or speculation, but is in reality is moving or fluctuating from side to side before and after that measurement or speculation.

Scientists who say that everything came from nothing are really saying that all existence that supposedly came from nothing is really just a balance of negative and positive which equals zero and it is a no brainer that something must exist in order for there to be positive and negative anything. The fact you can make flammable gas dissapear or reduce to zero is no indication that it can come from nothing, rather that it exists and you can produce a zero result. This is really just demonstrating that in a snapshot we can see zero within a realm of something. In other words if you see something from nothing, then if you go back further from nothing, you should see something. So, if a positive and negative particle anihilate each other, that actually suggests a construct of somekind that makes this possible. It suggests that something exists in order for this result to happen and that construct is something and not nothing. If you still believe it is possible that everything really did come from absolutely nothing (with nothing existing before that ever), then all you have is a belief, that requires faith, and no proof whatsoever.

To conclude, the Nothing option which had a 33% chance of being right on the outset has just sunk to 0% because it turns out that it is impossible for nothing to do anything. The chances of the Nothing option being right is zero. We know this because if there was nothing there would be nothing now. But as we are all aware, something does exist. In fact many things exist. You exist. I exist.

The Something option

Looking at the idea that something was the cause of the universe seems more feasible now especially now that it is obvious that the Nothing option is a non-starter. Whatever we observe, we never really think it was nothing that caused it. If there is a fire, I would never conclude that it came from nothing, but that the fire was caused by something. Similarly the universe is no different. It must have had a cause. Something gave it a push. Something influenced something or something made something from itself or even nothing to make something.

The universe itself is something and not nothing by any definition. It seems feasible that something could have produced or caused this universe, metaverse, or existence. I do however need to point out that this option can by its raw definition include the Someone option or God option, but for practical reasons, I will put the Someone option into its own category and say that the Something option means something that is non-intelligent, non-aware, and non-living. Otherwise we are talking about the Someone option. The Something option must also cater for the belief that something is eternal, otherwise we are back to the Nothing option if something was preceded by nothing. Remember I am talking about the source or cause of all things. So we need to go back to the earliest thing or cause.

The Something option could perhaps be a force, a law, a particle, energy, or even something we have no understanding of. It could be a law or force like gravity. It might be energy like light. Or it could be something completely unknown to us.

The thing with the Something option is that because this something has to be non-intelligent, unaware, and having no consciousness, it is reasonable to assume that whatever this something is, it must possesses the IQ of zero. Because it lacks awareness and cannot make intelligent conscious decisions, some questions need to be asked. How does something dead give birth to consciousness? How does one know that this something that caused the universe doesn't itself possess life the very attribute it has produced? Why is it that something which by reason of not being aware or alive come up with better inventions and designs than humans who can think and are aware. I mean a dead something with no intelligence would mean that a person with the IQ of 1, would have an advantage over whatever caused the universe, yet even if Albert Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton lived for billions of years, could they make a universe? I would hazard a guess and say that they wouldn't even understand all that the universe had to offer if they could observe the present universe from beginning to end. And considering that the whole universe was determined at the first moments of the Big Bang, then that gives this something with no intelligence less than a second to determine everything that the universe was, is now, and will be in the future. This also includes you.

When you see it this way, the universe as a collection of billions of galaxies it seems ludicrous that something with no intelligence came up with much more clever inventions and design than the combined intelligence of the human race who at best only copy that which we find in nature and the universe. Is it really possible that something with the IQ of zero and no consciousness can come up with better technology than us? And how does a non-conscious anything assemble the micro and the macro into one huge system that is complex beyind belief?

You could counter this argument by saying that a computer has no consciousness or awareness, and yet it harbours cyberspace which contains digital worlds, places, and what appears to be intelligent services. But that argument is mute when you consider that every part of a computer and cyberspace and its contained digital worlds are all created by the intelligence and consciousness of man.

The other major thing that doesn't bode well for the Something option is that this option also assumes that the universe or existence didn't have a beginning. You might argue strongly against that, but here is why it has to be eternal. If the something that caused the universe was not eternal, infinite, existing forever, then it must have come from something which in turn came from something forever and infinity. If not, then it came from nothing at its earliest point. So again we are back to the ludicrous Nothing option which has already been refuted. In addition to this, scientists today believe the universe had a beginning and many think that the universe is all there is.

So, the something option must assume that something has existed for all eternity and this original and eternal cause of the universe has always existed in some form or another. The weakness with this option is that design, complexity, logic, patterns, and the code of the universe suggests very strongly that there is a designer, logical mind, or programmer of some kind. It is far more likely that the universe is a product rather than the universe being the maker or cause itself. It is like believing that a garage, car, or computer had always existed or that they can exist without a maker.

In addition to these complcations, if the universe existed without an intelligent mind or awareness, then how did awareness or consciousness come about? You are the biggest proof of awareness if you think about it. I think, therefore I am. If existence started with no life or intelligence, then would life and intelligence exist today? Do you have to be aware for anything to exist? Think of a universe and everthing without life. How does it come up with consciousness and awareness? Surely only awareness and life can understand existence and only an awareness can produce an awareness.

I see the Something option as a non-starter too. An intelligence with the IQ of 1 couldn't make a universe and probably couldn't even tie up a pair of shoe laces. Surely believing that something with the IQ of zero was able to do produce a universe has to fall in the ludicrous or fairytale category just as the Nothing option does.

The Someone option

The idea that a god created the universe or everything is of course not new. In fact it is the most believed of all the options and was even the standard premise in early science. Early scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton and Michael Faraday staunchly believed in God. Science to such people was about proving how God did things, not about disproving or proving God.

However, the idea that a god of some kind created the universe is ludicrous to many today. It is considered ludicrous by Atheists otherwise they would be Agnostic. Questions that naturally arise from a belief in a god is "who made God", "Does God have a God?", "what was before God?. Such questions show one thing, that the person asking these questions does not understand infinity. Some Atheists ask "what is the difference in saying that God is eternal as opposed to Something else being eternal"? I will get into that later.

To the Atheist, the idea of a creator can even cause offense because they feel offended in the same way that the existence of the Tooth Fairy would offend your intellect. However, as much as your intellect may or may not be offended, it has to be said that the Someone/God option it is one of three possible options and surely it is shabby science or detective work to write off any one of the three options when you have no evidence, logic, or argument to the contrary. Yet isn't that what Atheists actually do? They discard one of the 3 options by bias alone. After all, there is not one Atheist who has proof that there is no God, just as there is no one who has proof that there is no intelligent life outside of Earth.

Some Atheists believe that there isn't a God because they think religion causes war and unnecessary violence, thus they conclude that belief in God must be wrong because the effect is bad. This conclusion forms their belief that there is no God. But is this summation fair? After all, Atheists also cause wars and what effect does religious wars have on the existence of God anyway? Absolutely no effect at all. Surely, what men do in God's name has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of God.

The real reason many choose to be Atheist is because they actually don't like the idea of an all powerful God which normally goes hand in hand with the idea that we are accountable for how we live our lives. Due to the dislike of this possibility, rejecting the idea that there is a God might make you feel better, but it really just proves that you haven't thought through your belief. Many Atheists write the God option due to bias because the lack any evidence whatsoever.

You might be thinking how can I make such assumptions. Well ask an Atheist why he is an Atheist. I bet you the reason has more to do with their dislike for religion which as we all know has no effect on the existence of God. Because of different religions and their conflicts, they often hate the idea that people can be so stupid as to kill, engage in war, and divide in the name of religion. Atheists also hate the idea that people can't see that the religion they belong to is probably wrong from the standpoint that their religion is one of many thousands. For this and other reasons, they deny God, and think no good can come of it. But is this fair? If I denied the existence of guns because guns kill people, would that be fair or reasonable? No it would not.

Some think that people believe in God because God placed that truth or idea inside us to begin with. This view fits as a possible answer as to why humans have a fundamental belief in God. This is the biblical view of God and man's sinful condition which has separated him from knowing God means that men as a result would naturally argue about this God they know exists.

Investigatevely speaking, this can explain why most believe in God but do not agree on who or what that God is. You might ask, how did God give us this knowledge? Well you could ask, how do we know how to breathe when we are born? How do we know how to blink? Where does this information reside? Some say in our conscience. Conscience is an interesting word. It is made up of 'con' which is Latin (and Spanish) for 'with' and 'science' which means knowledge. In other words we are born with knowledge and not as a blank hard drive as some think.

Given this, I think it is fair to say that yes, a God is also ludicrous to some as the idea of God is so far removed from many people's everyday and lifetime experience, that they simply do not believe that he could exist because he seems to be at least seperate to their experience of life. But how many people do you know that have not experienced a black hole or seen one, and yet that doesn't stop many from believing that they actually exist. It helps in the case of black holes that we now have good science backing their existence and even a visual reference of objects spinning around a black area of space at incredible speed. Before science could back up their likely existence, did they cease to exist until we beleived that they existed? I would say that our beliefs do not change reality and truth, the only difference is how we perceive truth. It would have been ludicrous to say with absolute certainty that black holes don't exist and in the same breath I also say that it is ludicrous to say that there is no God.

Why it is unreasonable to say there is no God

Let's take a subject that is less emotional for most. The existence of extra-terrestial life. This will aid in us seeing our motives and bias more clearly. I would like to start with the following statements. In your mind, take note of the following 4 statements that you agree with.

• It is unreasonable to deny the possibility that there is life on other planets.
• It is unreasonable to assume that there definitely is life on other planets.
• It is reasonable to assume that there is life on other planets, if you have come into contact with extra-terrestrial life or seen evidence of life through a telescope.
• It is reasonable to assume that there could be life on other planets if circumstances that we see on Earth (that are evidence of life) exist elsewhere in the universe.

Remember which ones you agree with and now take the same test with a different subject.

• It is unreasonable to deny that there is a God.
• It is unreasonable to assume that there is a God (if you have nothing to back it up).
• It is reasonable to assume that there is a God, if you have come into contact with God.
• It is reasonable to assume that there is a God if we see what appears to be intelligent design in the physical universe.

Now be honest with yourself. Did you agree and disagree with the same statements for each question? If you were not consistent, then that demonstrates your judgement contains bias. The only other possible explanation is that you have in fact experienced extra-terrestrial life in some way such as an abduction or a UFO sighting, and/or you have experienced God in some way. Otherwise, if you have not experienced or seen extra-terrestrial life or God, then your agreed statements should be the same in both examples. If they are not, then you are biased and this bias is affecting your thinking. It is actually shabby science and detective work to say that there is no God.

Can you prove that there is no God?

People often say, can you prove that there is a God. Some say yes I can, others say I cannot. Let me ask you a question. Can you prove that there is no God? Can you prove that there is no extra-terrestrial life? In order to say without any doubt that there is no extra-terrestrial life, one needs to explore every galaxy, sun, planet, moon, comet, asteroid, and the space in between to say that there is absolutely no life outside of life on Earth. In other words an impossible task. Even if you did that and found nothing, you would have to additionally search all of time too, or at least evidence that life (outside of Earth) once existed.

To say that there is absolutely no God is even harder to prove because if he exists, it would be likely be that he exists outside his own creation like a programmer exists outside his own computer. So even if you searched the whole universe, metaverse, everything, and including all time, realms, and dimensions, you still would need to look outside of all that. So it is obvious that no one can say that there is no God, given that you understand or know less than 0.0000000001% of all the information in the universe and existence.

Awareness and consciousness

Why are we aware? Why are we conscious? Both the nothing or something options cannot explain it. Only the God/creator option has an explanation.

We know that life comes from life and trying to explain life from something dead is about as ludicrous as saying that something came from nothing. If the eternal universe had no awareness, then there should still be no awareness and conscience now. Yet we are aware and conscious. This begs the question, where did awareness or conscience come from? What caused it? The biggest clue that we have, that the first cause was aware is that we are aware. It is after all said that what happened in the first moment of the Big Bang determined everything in the universe and if life is a product of the universe, then it was determined and caused at the very beginning and this is easy to accept if the cause itself was alive/aware/intelligent.

Something or someone has to be eternal

Something has to be eternal, otherwise we can say that there was nothing and something just appeared at some point. We already know that this is unacceptable logic, so the only option left for us to believe is that something has to be eternal. Let's assume for a moment, (regardless of your belief), that indeed, something is eternal and from that something came everything. Does this idea fit what we see or is it so absurd that it doesn't fit what we see. The answer is that the existence of and eternal someone can explain everything.

Let's also say that eternity is represented by "infinity". Is it possible to produce 1000 from Infinity? Of course. In fact you can produce any finite number from infinity. Now let's imagine that everything came from absolutely nothing. There is however a huge problem with this and I am sure you can see it already. You cannot get any number from zero unless you apply a number that is not zero to it. So all numbers can be explained in an infinite number set. No number can be explained if you start with zero and apply no other number or value.

Lets look at this in a real life sense. Can a human come from another human? Absolutely. Can a human come from nothing? No, absolutely not. Can a ten dollar bill come from a tree? Yes the paper can at least. Can a ten dollar bill come from nothing? Absolutely not. So something has to be eternal, otherwise we are forced to conclude that everything came from something finite and then that finite thing came from nothing (zero) which we know is not possible.

Which option fits the facts?

Once an Atheist said to me that he gave the existence of God about a 0.0000005% chance of being true. I replied that this statement showed one thing only, his bias. I needed to remind him that an Atheist is an Atheist not because he has proof that there is no God, but that he chooses to believe that there is no God. So believing that God's existence is extremely unlikely based on a belief alone is really the estimation of a clueless person giving an opinion.

You could make this same arguments about the existence of God of course, but the difference is that many claim to have personal evidence of God's existence as well as the fact that the existence of God is the only logical option that explains how all things came to be. But because it is impossible to prove that there is no God, just as you cannot prove that there is no life outside of Earth, an honest answer from a person who has no proof that there is no God would be that there was a 33.333% chance of there being a God given the 3 possible options. Out of the 3 options, it is clear that only one explains everything and the other 2 do not make sense and worse than that, they are impossible.

Concluding statements

• Atheists pose no intellectual threat to believing in God.
• Saying that there is no God, leaves only 2 unreasonable options. That everything came from nothing or everything came from something dead. Both these alternate answers have no proof, are unreasonable, and impossible.
• Infinity or eternity exists and is not just a concept. If it didn't, then everything must have proceeded from nothing at the earliest point, and if nothing was the earliest state or thing, then there would be nothing now. Thus, infinity/eternity is proven by the very fact that there is something.
• All non-intelligence has the IQ of zero. Anything with the IQ of zero cannot tie up a pair of shoe laces, never mind creating/producing a universe.
• Mankind copies nature's designs therefore the cause of the universe is much more able and smarter than us.
• Life produces life. Consciousness comes from consciousness. Dead objects cannot produce consciousness.
• There is no scientific or investigative data that proves that there is no God, just as there is no scientific data that says there is no life beyond Earth.
• Concluding that religion is bad has no bearing on the existence of God.
• Arguing over who God is, doesn't disprove God existence. It only proves that men by default believe in God but at the same time do not know this God personally.
• Believing in God is the only belief that fits all the evidence. God is said to be living, intelligent, and exists outside of and before the universe. All these qualities explain well, the existence of the universe and all the contained qualities such as logic and life.
• It can only be described as foolishness to say there is no God.

Think of it like this. If the universe is first, then it had no cause because if it did, then it came from something and that something obviously precedes the universe and therefore the universe cannot be first. Whatever is first had to have no cause because that is the definition of first in this context. Once we understand that, then there are some interesting requirements that the original or first thing must have, such as it must be eternal or infinite. Otherwise again, it is not the first. The more you look into it, the more you can see the parallels with this and God.

If the universe has life, then life is part of the source of the universe. If the universe has order, then order is part of the source of the universe. If the universe has design, then the source of the universe has the ability to design. The ingredients and products of the universe must also be present in the source of the universe, otherwise they come from nothing which is impossible. Let's see. The source produced intelligence, design. life, and laws. Is that not a description of God? Is he not living, a designer, an intelligence, and the law giver? You can deny God, but you cannot deny the need that the source of the universe possesses the qualities that it produced. So you may not like the idea that there is a God, but logic dictates to your own mind that there is a God if you are open enough to weigh up the logical facts.

To send feedback or debate any of the information in this writing, please visit this topic in the forum.