Hmmmmm, the guy that posted in here before me got banned and it seems to have quieted the thread, which is fine, because you all have a great deal of reading ahead. Unless you think my post isn't much, in which case, you don't have a great deal of reading ahead of you. But there is something to read.
Here we go, I'm Christian, flat-out. Now, I could open up on everyone with the standard "God is real, and without him there is nothing," speech, but, I'm a scientist, you see. And one of a different flavor. I'm going to explain to you my belief in ways that anyone can understand. And, being that my area of expertise is theoretical physics, and I'm willing to say there's few in here that could contest my knowledge in that area, I'll use science to appeal to anyone and everyone. That's right. God. And science.
Let's start off by looking at things from a logical point of view. All things aside, all things being equal, what happens if I die and there's no God? Well, it won't matter much to me or you, will it? Once again, all things aside, all things being equal, what if God is real, and you're wrong? Your end becomes much worse, and mine becomes much better. Let's make it mathematical, for even simpler terms, to get the TOTAL MOST LOGICAL CHOICE then, shall we?
Atheists are right:
Me=0 (we're both dead, all is equal)
Me= + (any number greater than zero)
Them= - (any number less than zero)
(I say any number, because we only need to know if there's a positive or negative value to assess this situation)
So, if we take that "any number", for simplicity sake, to be 1, then, with both cases assessed:
So, you see, the math favors me, but this was an EXTREMELY SIMPLE argument, and probably wouldn't take much to argue away. I'll get to the more complex stuff in a minute, but basically, atheists have much more at stake than I do, as I never "lose" anything. We all either die, making us all equal, or the atheists are wrong, and they lose everything. Now, based on LOGIC, which would be a logical choice?
Now, although this sounds impossible, something can come from nothing. Even something such as our universe. For those that don't believe me, I'd be happy to explain, but not in here, as it would greatly inflate what will already be a large post. What seems odd, is the way it turned out. First the order of things, but, more much more interestingly, the presence of life at all. I'll take this time to use a quote from another physicist: "Take apart a car engine, down to every last piece. Put all these pieces in a box, shake well for, oh, say 3 million years. If you don't have a working car engine when you open the box, accept that its assembly requires deliberate interaction."
OK, that was kinda paraphrased, but you get the point. And for those who would argue that 3 million years isn't enough, it's a car engine, and nowhere near the complexity of living, organic substances, much less organisms as a whole, so it should take much less time to achieve completion. 3 million years should be more than ample for something on a macroscopic scale, such as a car engine. Yet, on probability alone, I can tell you it shouldn't all come together. Now consider the world we live in. The odds of this occuring from coincidence are unacceptably astronomical. They're there, of course, but their not at all pleasant to look at.
Now, time for a lesson, I need everyone to understand this next part so that they don't make the mistake of assuming I'm making things up. You all are about to learn the Copernician Theorem. Don't worry, it's easy, I promise. Really easy. It's also great at parties. It simply states that you assume you, or more exactly, your point of reference, is not unique. And I don't mean point of reference in the einsteinian sense. You'll see, keep reading. Now, under this assumption, you can say alot of things about what you observe. By assuming you're not viewing an event at a "special" period in time (near it beginning or end), you can actually tell how long something will last, within a margin of error. You can even define the margin of error, which is great. Let's say I want to know how long something will last, with 50% accuracy. I assume that my point of view is not unique, that I'm not seeing it in the first 25% of its existence, nor the last 25%. That means, it has anywhere between 75% (I'm going to use integer values, to keep it simple) and 26% of it's total lifetime to go. So, if something has been around 100 years, I can say with 50% accurracy that it will last more that 25 more years, but less than 400. See, because 25% is a quarter or 100%, you divide or multiply its life up to this point by 4. Now, 50% isn't very good accurracy, so let's do something more practical with it. 95% accurracy. That leaves 2.5% for the beginning and end, or rather, 1/40 on each side of it's total lifetime. So, we can find the likely length of time it will last by multiplying or dividing the lifetime up to this point. If the object has existed 100 years, then it will last more than 2.5 (100/40) years, but less than 4000 (100 X 40) years. I'm using 100 in both cases, because it's really simple and won't be as confusing, but it works for any number at all, I assure you. If you'd like to know how long anything will last, PM me. I can tell you, based on our assumption on the age of the human race (about 200,000 years for our species) that we it will likely exist for more than 5,000 more years, but less than 8,000,000. We won't be around forever, guys. Besides, this theorem aside, our race couldn't survive forever in this universe, anyway. It's not entirely stable. Trillions upon trillions of years from now, protons will decay. Matter no longer will exist. Not in a state beyond subatomic particles, anyway. But all of this isn't my point, back to assuming you're not a unique observer. Now that you know the theorm basics, we'll get into the nitty gritty. Oh, btw, this theorem has NEVER been shown to be wrong within the chosen realm of accuracy. NEVER. I can grab some proof if anyone wants it later, but I'm really getting away from the point.
Now, the actual theorem states that anything that makes you unique is unlikely. I know I'm alive, because I'm, well, me, but to assume that none of you all are a hallucination of my single conscience would make me unique, and that's not likely. There might be others out there hallucinating just like me to rebalance the effect, but this would mean you all are figments of my imagination, and would force a unique (the only) viewpoint on me. See, you might exist within a unique GROUP of observers, but you must be equal among them. If you were all halucinations, it would violate the rule. Don't take this to rule out God, though, as it can't be done. You see, this rule only applies to all things within this universe, which God transcends. One might argue that life could be a dream, and that should invalidate this theory, but your dreams are part of this universe, if only inside your head. God exists beyond this universe, and is not bound by its rules. Otherwise, the creation of the universe becomes unfeasible, much less the unique viewpoint problem. NOW, on to the whole point. Humans exist, but for us to be the only race on the only viable planet would make us unique, and that's not likely. So, other races must exist in theory, but they can't differ from us much in technology, otherwise that would make us (or them) unique, and that's not likely. Now, for us to be the only race that believes in a God would make us unique, and that's not likely. And for this last part, for everyone to have this belief seperately, across massive voids that cannot be transversed, and for it not to be correct, THAT would be unlikely. Cute, huh? You see, one could argue that there's a bandwagon effect of gods and religion going on here on earth, where popularity is a big deal, and ideas can move around, but we didn't broadcast the idea to all space. So, if an alien race shows up here some day speaking of a god, you'd better not offend them.
Of course, the above isn't without holes. I know where the imperfections are, but I'm not about to debunk my own post. You could of course ague differently, as always, and should, because if I were the only one to see the errors in my post, that would make me unique, and that's not likely. See, isn't that great? OK, let's move on, but in short, the universe agrees: God is real.
Now, theoretical physics is getting to a remarkable point. For the first time, physicist are suggesting that in the absence of observation, nothing has truly happened. The physicist saying this are some of the most intelligent people in the world. They say, quite correctly, that if observers were a required part of the universe for it to exist, the physics for such a thing don't exist yet, but that doesn't mean they go beyond us. We could easily just not have the physics to explain everything yet, but without the COMPLETE PICTURE, those atheists who cling to science as their mainstay must understand that we can't explain everything yet, and that it doesn't mean there isn't a supreme being, just that we don't have the science to explain it yet. You see, at any time, and all times, science is a superstition. We assume it to be true now, because it is the best thing we can use to explain the world around us. But it's really a belief, even a religion on it's own. I'm about to give you a hard question. We have PROVEN that in the absence of observation, in an unpolluted vacuum, something may exist in any number if states at the same time. It requires intervetion, either from pollution (something new moving into the unpolluted zone) or observation to collapse into a stable state. Ask me if you need more info on this to believe me, but I assure you I'm not making it up. So, at the beginning, in pure vacuum, in the absence of all things, when all creation is in a perfect uncollapsed state, does that not mean there had to have been an observer for the state to collapse? For the big bang to happen? For the existence of all things? This is not philosophy, this IS physics. We're trying to answer these questions now. Now, we might not be able to explain how things came into being, but either physics will one day have proof of a creator, or we still won't have a means to explain how it happened, or perhaps more importantly, why it happened.
I realize that I've probably started a few headaches, but seeing as how this is sloppily written, I need a few people to attempt to dissect my post so that I may dissect their and make sense of things. It's 3:25 AM, my time, so naturally, this post has become a little incoherent, but nothing I've said is untrue, nothing I've said has been PROVEN to be wrong. If I've done my job well (I won't know until I've had some sleep and read all this again), this will be a very nice post to start off my VT forum career. Like I said, you guys are either gone love me or hate me. Did I mention I'm great at parties?
Oh, and one last thing. Science cannot prove there is no God, but God certainly leaves room for all sorts of science. Science cannot rule God out, but God would rule science in. Once again, a case of -1 and +1.
Think about it my friends. God IS real.