Existence of God

Most of the people believe that the universe came into existence purely out of nothing but coincidence. They have some very "compelling" arguments against God. The Big Bang theory and the Evolution theory being two of the trendy theories that are used by these "science oriented" people. And I and others too, would call them atheist. And yeah, agnostics and atheist, there is not much of a difference between the two. I believe it is just politically correct to call an atheist an agnostic. Little do they know, they are lot of people that believe in both science and God, and they have some good reasons and basis to do that.

Recently, I came across a video on YouTube. It was by a convinced atheist. And he points out that, religions like Christianity believe, God answers a prayer in YES, NO and WAIT. And he claims, it’s merely an illusion. If say, you pray to a Milk-can, for 1000 dollars. And within a couple of days you get a $1000 check from a distant relative or as a tax reimbursement, it would be like the Milk-can had answered your prayer in a YES. And if you don't get the money in the immediate future, but you get it later, it would be that the prayer was answered by "WAIT". And if you never get anything, it would be like the prayer's answer was a "NO". So he adds, if you don't believe that the Milk-can is God, then how can you believe in something else as a God. It is a very convincing argument, if, that is, you do not possess the barest of wisdom.

But, say for example, my friend comes to me with a request to have a piece of the cake I have on my table. I give it to him, which amounts to a "YES". Then he asks me for another, and I say “WAIT" and give it to him only about half an hour from now. And then when he asks for a third one, I would say "NO". Will my friend, then deny my existence? Will he say I am not part of the real world. Because, as the milk-can, I had also answered in YES, NO and WAIT? So there lies the fallacy in that "convincing" argument!

And to my first point, of people claiming that the universe came into existence all on its own, and there is no Maker .Would they also use the same line of thinking, when they see a new car on the road? They never saw the maker, will they leap to the conclusion that the car just came into existence all on its own? If they cannot agree to this a mere un-complex creation of man, then how can they believe something as complex as nature, which from all probabilistic modals is impossible to recreate, with all the resources in the world, came into being just on a mere twist of fate. It’s like.....if I drop my keyboard on the floor, and let it lie there for millions of years, will it morph into something living? Even one living cell would be out of question and even a die hard evolution fan would agree that it’s not possible.

Isaac Asimov once commented that: “There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.” This "coincidence" means that the moon is just the right size and distance, to completely block the sun during an eclipse. Eclipses are infrequent events but are often linked to quite serious earthquakes. Was the moon placed in a very specific orbit by a higher intelligence from another world who wanted to either monitor us as a species or exert an element of control over our planet?


Now, let’s get into the evolutionary theory. When a living coelacanth fish was found in 1938 it was hailed as the scientific sensation of the century. Until then, the coelacanth (pronounced SEE'-luh-canth) was known to science only from fossils. Scientists generally believed coelacanths had become extinct 60 or 70 million years ago. Since 1938 many more living coelacanths have been caught. Evolutionary scientists used to think that amphibians evolved from a group of fishes that included the coelacanth, which was known only from fossils. The Coelacanths were their safest bet to support the evolution theory. But they dropped this idea when living coelacanths were found from 1938 showing no evidence of evolution from the oldest fossil coelacanths to the living examples. The evidence from the coelacanth is good evidence for creation, for it shows that DNA, the genetic code, has remained stable throughout time. 70 million years, and the Coelacanth never evolved. And just because God knows what we plan to do, he keeps this fish alive for all those millions of years, knowing before hand we would use it to discredit His existence by using the theory of evolution as our bludgeon.

Experts thought that once the Homo lineage debuted about 2.5 million years ago in East Africa with Homo habilis, things settled down, with habilis evolving into Homo erectus who evolved into Homo sapiens—us—like biblical begats .Two fossils discovered in Kenya suggest that evolution was a lot messier than that. One of the specimens, found just east of Kenya's Lake Turkana, is the upper jaw bone of a habilis from 1.44 million years ago; habilis was thought to have become extinct about 1.6 million years ago. The other is an erectus, say their discoverers, a well-preserved skull from 1.55 million years ago and the smallest ever found for this species. The more recent date for habilis shows that it and erectus were contemporaries for half a million years, from 1.9 million to 1.44 million years ago. The evidence that Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived at the same time in the Turkana basin makes it "unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis," says Meave Leakey, a lead author of the paper announcing the discovery in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature. (A research associate at the National Museums of Kenya and research professor at Stony Brook University in New York, she is the wife of anthropologist and naturalist Richard Leakey; their daughter Louise, the third generation of her family to go into the fossil-hunting business, is a co-discoverer of the new specimens.


The discoverers are sticking by their guns, and even Tattersall agrees that their conclusion—that erectus and habilis overlapped in time and that habilis was not the direct ancestor of erectus—is probably right. Which leads to perhaps the greatest puzzle of all. Throughout human evolution, several species of ancestors lived at the same time. The most recent, of course, were Neanderthals, which made their last stand in the Iberian peninsula about 35,000 years ago. Then why is Homo sapiens the one and only species of human on the planet today?

One of the most brilliant lines of questioning employed by atheist is regarding God’s abilities. Here is one such question, and did befuddle me for a moment, because I really couldn’t answer it, until somebody told me, how tricky the question itself was. So coming to the question, it goes like this….Can God create something that he cannot destroy? Well, I am dead if I say yes, and I am history if I say no. A “yes” would mean, God can create something but he cannot destroy it, then how is he God? A “no” would mean, God cannot create such a thing, and it’s back to square one, then why can’t God create something like that. But a careful look at the question exposes the trick part of the question, which common sense ignores. The question contradicts itself. To understand how, I can ask you another question on the same lines, and you will understand the deception behind it. Can God create a tall short person? Or, can God create a tall person who is short? See, how the question is entirely unanswerable, but at the same time a huge rip off?


And then there are some unanswered questions I have before I end this discussion. If everything is science and natural laws, why do we have so many anomalies? Like for example, why doesn't light have a relative speed, everything else in the universe has? Why do superconductors exists, why can they pull and push magnetically the same time? If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and if energy is consumed when work is done, what about all the work the earth does with gravity, where does the energy come from? What is an absolute zero? Is there no energy below it? Then if you read the equinox theory, you will find that there a machines on earth, that have efficiency over unity, do you have an explanation for that?