First, thanks for reading. Next, let me say that given our very limited mental capacity, I do realize that all of mankind (pastor, physicist, etc) is limited in understanding...and therefore I realize no one will ever understand all the details of how God did it. To think we could understand all the details responsible for the creation/origin of the universe and life within it would be both extremely ignorant and extremely arrogant. That said, I do think we can understand enough to know it is more probable that God did it, as it is impossible for our universe and everything it in to have occurred on accident or happenstance.
Of course, I do realize we are certainly NOT all the same. I believe God reaches different people in different ways. I don't think there is ANYTHING wrong with someone accepting faith based upon their relationship with God, nor do I think there is anything wrong with someone accepting faith in God's existence as a result of it being the most probable outcome (scientifically investigation of how we could have gotten here)...as long as in the end both work on the relationship. I have sought answers to questions, but now that I have "settled" my questions, I need to focus on the relationship side more...and leave the remaining "details" for later as no one is capable of understanding all the depths of God's abilities...and honestly, we can't even begin to fathom His awesomeness regardless of what we think we can understand.
Honestly, I wish I didn't have to seek so much stuff...but at this stage I do think I have answered enough of my "how is that possible" questions that I can now focus on the MORE IMPORTANT PART of building a relationship with God rather than worrying so much about is He real. Although I was raised a believer, I had many worldly teachings that I had to personally battle and settle for my own peace of mind. I have met some that just "know" and I think some of them may not be so honest with themselves but I also believe there really are some that just "know"...and I would say I am probably jealous of those people as some of them may have a more personal connection with God than I myself have had...but I am working on that. This page on my website was created because I think some of the issues I battled (I teach science) are similar to some of the issues that many atheists battle. I began to realize atheism required a much greater faith than does creationism, as for me it seemed atheism (a universe without God) was far less probable than was a universe with God...and I finally began finding more peace on the issue.
People may gain a great deal of faith through personal experiences (logical or not as one cannot deny their personal experiences) while at other times we may gain faith based upon "what is most probable." I accept that God reaches each and every one of us that seeks Him in a way that fits whatever way each person needs. We are all different, so what works for one may not be what works for another. I just wrote this because I have noticed that many atheists claim "logic" which, in my opinion, atheism is not. But hey...it is ultimately faith. I must admit I do enjoy seeing an atheist realize that atheism is self-contradicting...as that often will make them think, "Is something else more possible?" And, if we can get them to question things, it opens the door for them to be saved.
What is the "Big Bang Theory" & is it self-contradicting?
Have you ever wondered how the "big bang" explosion could occur (theoretically) to create the universe since the origin of such is claimed to be a "singularity" (a black hole). According to this theory, not even light (which is the fastest and lightest thing in the universe) can escape the gravity of a black hole. If everything else is heavier and slower than light, then the "particles" that made up the black hole and universe wouldn't be able to explode, as that would mean slower and more massive things could fly away and escape when light itself can't even do so. That is why theoretical scientists, such as Steven Hawkins, came up with the concepts of virtual particles (imaginary particles) and anti-matter (which conveniently can't be directly measured since it instantly annihilates anything it comes into contact with). Hawkins mentions that to understand universe expansion and its origin, he had to create a way for things to escape a black hole and the only way they could do so was if he created a theory in which things could teleport out of its gravitational field (teleport meaning going from one location to another instantly, and therefore traveling faster than light). I believe Hawkins watched a little too much star trek growing up. Steven Hawkins himself (in his video "A Brief History of Time" even admits that he chose to study cosmology since it was entirely theoretical and couldn't be proven right or wrong). Sounds like a man made religion to me. I prefer a bit more foundation to my beliefs than an idea founded upon theoretical teleporting particles.
What about the theory of evolution?
First, let's separate the terms adaptation and evolution. Many times people use the proof of adaptation to suggest the proof of evolution and that simple is not the case. So, before continuing, I want to first differentiate between these two terms. Adaptation is change within the species. Evolution is change of the species. The slight word change from "within" to "of" produces an entirely different concept. Species can have variation and still be capable of reproducing. But, if the species truly changes, then it would be reproductively isolated from the parental population that produced it.
It would therefore be incapable of sexually reproducing unless all the new species found a mate with the same mutations (to be the same kind), in the same area (so they can find each other), and at the same time (so they can mate)...and this must happen for every sexually reproducing species on Earth. Despite the dog being one of the most diversified organisms in type on earth, it can still reproduce with the wolf and coyote. Their offspring can also reproduce back with wolves, coyotes, and dogs. This illustrates adaptation, a change within the species, but does not show evolution because the organisms are still capable of inter-breeding. Horses and donkeys can produce mules, but mules can not breed since they can not produce gametes, and therefore horses and donkeys are different species (even though similar in kind). In other words, the "evolution" of the mule is self-extinguishing as it is sterile. It is unable to reproduce; therefore, it certainly cannot find a mate. Now, if God wanted to use "evolution" as a tool, as He certainly has the power do so. My point is mathematically it is infinitely improbable that it could have happened by happenstance. Every sexually reproducing species that evolved would have had to find a mating partner of the same kind (with the same mutation) in the same area (so they could find one another), and at the same time (so they could breed/survive). This would have to happen for every species on the earth. It is more likely that a tornado could go through a lumber yard and accidentally build a log cabin (which would defy thermodynamics). Yes, in the end, it is certainly "saved by Faith," but if I myself saw a tornado build a log cabin, I would certainly have faith in God. But for the record, I don't think evolution is impossible, but just that if it did happen it wasn't by chance. After all, Genesis does say God commanded the earth to produce and the waters to bring forth many of the life forms we see in the water, land, and sky.
"If God exists, where did God come from?"
Well, to start off, the question operates under the assumption that "if God exists," so if God exists, then it is reasonable to pursue the concept that He created space and time. If He did so, then He must "preclude" (although "pre" isn't the right word as it would require time to be "pre") time and would be outside of time. After all, if God exists, we acknowledge He isn't confined by the 3 dimensions of space (length, width, and height) in a chemical body of matter, so why would He be bound by time (the 4th dimension according to science). After all, this is reasonable as science actually has confirmed there are 4 dimensions...aka "space-time since for something physical to exist and move it must take up space and take up time (time being the interval between two events or locations)." Have you ever had an aquarium? Did you not put in it what your fish need? Could you not reach into it without being contained by it yourself?
If God created the Universe and time, could He not put "physics" in the universe for us instead of for Him and be able to reach into such without being contained by such as He is not of this universe but from the Heavens? Ever notice that according to scripture that God isn't described to be bound by time because He invented it? "I am not the past. I am not the present. I am not the future. I am." Or, "A thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousand years." And, "I am the Alpha and the Omega" (the beginning and the end of our universe). To me, this suggests that His "eternal" being isn't one that endures time or lasts forever, but instead is one that exists without time...and therefore He would not have needed to "come from" something as He is timeless and not effected by such. The idea of needing a beginning or the question of "Where did God come from?" assumes God is bound by time...when in perhaps He is outside of time because like our aquarium...He invented it for us, which I believe the bible attempts to describe to our limited minds. I believe He didn't go into great detail as to the specifics simply because our limited minds are incapable of understanding his awesomeness or what "eternity" actually means.
Where did the first living things come from?
If we are only chemical matter, why do we have self preservation or wish "to be?" Chemicals do not have self-purpose or self-reason. Matter can not have self awareness or self-preservation. According to the laws of physics, natural matter MUST follow the Laws of Thermodynamics and therefore must breaks down to states of lower order and increase in entropy (disorder). Yet life does not follow such behavior. Life has an intrinsic nature “to be,” to preserve itself. Life preserves, builds, and adapts…meaning OUR EXISTENCE defies the law of going to disorder. According to evolution, traits do not exist for long if they don’t have purpose, as they cost valuable energy; yet self-preservation is the oldest of all traits. Temporary preservation would be futile and illogical, as everything we do would go extinct and extinguish…and ultimately be pointless...yet we do strive to preserve ourselves in order “to be,” to exist. If we are not eternal, we die...and if we die, we are "not to be," so how can an atheist justify an "illogical behavior" or deny our desire for self-preservation "to be" when this intrinsic nature that drives us to "to be" is so obviously within us? The only logical reason self preservation exists as a trait is we must have some “eternal” being; therefore, we must be more than just "natural." We must be "SUPER-natural.” We must be more than just chemical beings, as we do seek preservation. We are super-naturally created “to be” eternally; and therefore we are all "super-natural" ourselves.
"Dr. Frankenstein" types can't understand what it is that causes life. What is it about us that causes us to live...which means to respond...to adapt...to maintain order...to defy the laws of physics? Super-man (a fictional character) defied the law of gravity and was described to be "super." We (true existing characters) defy the law of thermodynamics. We are all truly super-natural and awesome. The desire to preserve (to be) could not evolve via mutation, as mutation requires a prerequisite of life, and life requires the prerequisite of self preservation. In other words, self-preservation (the obtainment of order) would have to come first in evolution...and this defies natural law. Therefore, evolution (natural) was not the source of “our being,” meaning creation (supernatural) must be the source of such desire. "I think, therefore I am." Is this the way we are made in God's image? Notice, biblically God also states, "I am not the past. I am not the present. I am not the future. I am." Could eternal (no beginning, no end) being actually be a timelessness existence? (More on this later).
My point is... like it or not, we all have an INTERNAL and UN-NATURAL desire "to be" which defies the laws that drive pure chemical matter. We can not deny our natural intrinsic desire "to be." This is something we all desire...and we all feel this instinct "to be." For like God, I too "am." Yet, this isn’t the only reason I believe. My belief in creation is a synergistic effect. It isn't because of one fact here or one fact there. It is an assembly of many facts & many personal observations plus personal investigations that I have had which caused me to come up with my belief. Also, I sought out consistency to what would hold up to the tests of logic and observation. I have found Christianity does this best, but that is not the purpose of this essay. The purpose of this essay is to address atheism as illogical. Yes, I have noticed that one can not believe all translations or all pastors, but if one truly seeks the truth I believe one will find it...but ONLY if they are open to such. Some believe like sheep and simply follow others, but that isn't me. That just doesn't work for me. I had to see more and had to look within myself, at nature, at science, religion, and theology. Then I filtered out the stuff that could not be verified or that was inconsistent. Fortunately, there is some good factually based science out there as well as some good consistent religion out there worthy of investigation that is capable of producing logical, yet faith based, conclusions.
In conclusion and as previously mentioned, behaviors and traits are not maintained in populations over long periods of time unless the behavior or trait has a purpose. Obviously, the purpose of our intrinsic nature of self-preservation must be eternal for if it isn’t eternal then self preservation does not exist and the attempt for such would be without merit...yet we know it does as we all certainly feel the drive “to be.” Fun, money, power, etc type answers are all atheistic cop outs to the question on why does self preservation exist since they are all only temporary as well if life isn’t eternal…and therefore lack merit and are illogical. The decision to believe or not is of course one based upon both faith and logic and perhaps not one with absolute “proof," but this is something God has already told us. We are saved by our faith. There certainly is evidence for creation as well as good sciences that can be seen and tested, and yes much “science” and religion is also based upon theory. Ironically though, theoretical “sciences” seem to require even greater faith, as such “sciences’ often invent non-provable theoretically based unverifiable concepts (assumptions) such as “virtual particles” and “anti-matter,” which conveniently can’t be contained or measured as these “things annihilate anything they come in contact with and therefore can’t be directly observed” so to speak. These theoretical concepts are created to “explain” how “non-matter” forms of “matter” could escape a black hole when light itself can’t do so in order for the “Big-Bang” to work. Such is not true science, as it lacks true concrete evidence. Logic dictates we must be eternal as atheistic/temporary self preservation defies logic, defies physics, and lacks real non-theoretical evidence of any alternate possible production.