The statement “There is a God” ,and the statement “there is no God” ,have one thing in common. While alive on this earth we cannot positively prove either. Having come to the conclusion that we cannot prove God exists ,or God does not exist I began to look for evidence that he must exist. As mere humans we only have access to a finite amount of knowledge. I believe total proof that God exists is beyond human capabilities. However evidence that there must be a God is so plentiful that it compels me to believe.

Something from nothing

The something from nothing argument for God ,or nothing from something argument for God is the most compelling argument I have encountered. I will give an example of the argument. Take a look in the mirror. What do you see? Do you see something? If you see something when you look in the mirror you must conclude something exists. Now take a container with nothing in it, put a lid on it. how long will it take for something to appear inside . I feel quite certain that if you left the container closed nothing would continue to appear in the container . Now if one day you were to look inside the container and find something in it, would you conclude that something appeared from nothing, or would you conclude that someone put it in the container? . So each time you look in the mirror and see something, each time you pick up something ,any time you smell something or hear something remember Psalms I cry out day and night of my creation.

My second favorite argument is, the total lack of a competent competing arguments. There is a competing argument ,I believe it lacks in competence. The competing theory is Darwin's theory of evolution, actually the theory hardly resembles Darwin's any longer. The original theory was written around 1859. Originally Darwin was raised as an Orthodox Christian . He wrote in 1876 "Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite Orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves Orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. But I have gradually come to this time { 1836 to 1839} to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus. " Darwin himself claims to have once been Orthodox Christian having accepted the Bible as the word of God. As a side note, at one time in my walk I was coming close to a Darwinian moment having nearly reasoned all my faith away. I will explain this comment later. . He also wrote in1879 "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god I think it generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be more the correct description of my state of mind. " In the same year, he wrote, "For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities. " the point I'm trying to bring out is that Darwin never denied the existence of God.

THE LAW OF IMPROBABILITY

The first major shortcoming of the theory is simply the law of probability the likelihood of the formation life from nonliving matter is just too large. My understanding of the law of probability does not leave out the law of improbability. If a 50-50 chance exists the law of probability works. If there is a 75-25 chance the law of probability works beautifully. If one has a 1 in 10 chance the law probability continues to work. But when we reach the point with the probability is 1 in 1 with 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 zeros after it, we have arrived at the law of the improbability, or I would say impossibility. Many states have a lotto. Notice the odds of winning {1 in 2.5 billion}. The lotto seeks to be a game of chance. Its purpose is to have enough winners to keep you buying tickets. This is exactly why the odds are set the way they are set. The odds I’m talking about are totally different. First ,life does not set out to exist. Second the numbers are exponentially greater. Like winning the lotto many times in a row. To demonstrate this I have a home experiment for you to perform, even with your kids, especially with your kids, no, it is mandatory you do with your children so that they can know for themselves the law of probability. First ;acquire a watch. If you believe the probability, acquire an expensive watch, if you do not ,you better get a cheaper watch. Set the watch to the correct time and make sure it is running. Now totally disassembled watch and place the parts in a box. And to accurately reflect conditions fine some odd nuts, bolts, springs, pieces of leather, maybe a shoestring or 2, and place them in the box .Put a lid on the box and begin to shake. The experiment is complete when the watch has self assembled itself. But that is still not good enough it must also be running, but that is not good enough, it must also have the correct time, and it really needs a big battery because it may be awhile until another operating watch with the correct time comes by for it mate with. If you believe this experiment is absurd, I have news for you this experiment is more likely to be successful than life self generating itself from a primeval soup.

The next shortcoming of the theory is the lack of evidence of macro evolution. We see microevolution everywhere, natural, and man-made. Just look at a Rottweiler and Chihuahua .We have artificially made them as different as possible and yet they will still breed. No matter how much a Pekingese looks like a cat they are still a dog. I know a plant engineer who has been breeding tulips for 40 years, and a tulip is still a tulip. If macro evolution were a reality it should be strongly supported by the fossil record however it just isn't. Darwin new that his theory rested on the finding of intermediary fossil. It has now been 140 years and were still waiting. In fact the entire so-called "ape-man" fossil collection known today could fit on my dinner table. Proof that the fossil record is so sparse is in the fanfare and excitement that is given to each new find. While the old finds are disproved in silence. I have some questions I’d like to get answers too ,by those who hang on to Macro evolution. How come I can cut one feather out of my birds wing and he can't fly. At what point does a half developed eye become useful enough to survive the next mutation. Why do the majority of brilliant scientist hang on to this limp and lifeless theory. I believe it is because of the alternative; God.

The worst part is yet to come. The origin of life on earth is so improbable that today theorist and scientist are having to leave earth to find it. If you have not been watching closely you may have missed it. Now the earliest form of life arrived here on a comet or asteroid; probably from another planet ;maybe Mars. The comet or asteroid broke off from its home and flew through space in freezing temperatures. I suppose preserving the life form. It hits our planet and somehow lands in the fertile area and begins to thrive and spreads. While spreading it mutates ,and mutates, and mutates, and mutates billions of times. Until I am sitting behind a computer talking into a microphone and having it printed on the page. Now that is a long, long trip around my great big, all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, omnipresent, omniscient, bad to the bone God.

To quote myself "As mere humans we only have access to a finite amount of knowledge" understanding one's limitations is a key ingredient to sanity. As I mentioned earlier my brush with a Darwinian moment came after nearly 20 years of attempting to obtain absolute proof of my beliefs . It began to undermine my faith. Darwin's inability to obtain absolute proof pushed him to agnosticism. My inability to obtain absolute proof could have done the same for me but for the grace of God, I was driven to repentance.