Put your mental seat belts on, folks!

Irrespective of whether there is evolution, abiogenesis, or not...

...the universe obviously could not have created ITSELF.

It came from somewhere, right? Christians (and Jews, for we all agree on this matter) say that it came into being as a result of a Creator, who exists outside of the universe, and is eternal.

Even scientists agree that the universe is not, and cannot be, eternal.

Oh, they've tried--Oh! How they've tried!-- to make it an eternal universe!

An eternal universe, you see, would have no need of a Creator. That's what they want: They don't want to answer, to be accountable, to anyone. It comes down to personal hubris. It comes down emotion--they're own emotion--not fact. But I digress.

When I was a kid, they tried to foist the Steady State Universe theory on us. (A cyclic universe, one that wouldn't "need" to have ever been created. What a dodge, eh?)

It didn't work--results from Hubble and other observations with regard to cosmic microwave background radiation have now completely discredited that line of thinking.

What is not commonly known is that the chief proponent of that (now thoroughly discredited) theory, Sir Fred Hoyle, Director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge, once made a comment to the effect that he favored such theories because he feared the implication of a Creator. I don't have it handy, but those of you who are more studied certainly know of it, and any of us could produce it if necessary. (Anyone want to challenge it? Gotta eat your flames if I prove ya wrong, buckos!)

Ok, so we've established that our Universe ain't steady state, ain't eternal, and had an origin in time.

Now, understand, that until about 1927 (or so), scientists since Aristotle had been claiming the universe was eternal.

Christians had argued for two millennia that, no, you're wrong, the universe was created at a definite point in time, and is finite in age.

Scientists argued for 2,000 years that it was eternal.

Guess who was right?

Comes along Georges LeMaitre and Edwin Hubble, upsetting the scientific apple cart. (Mind you, I support science, generally over my brother Christians, but in this case, I have to call the scientists to account and spank 'em.) LeMaitre proposes a Big Bang, scientists mock him, claiming that his stupid Big Bang proposal (he didn't call it that, btw) was merely a transparent ploy to put Genesis on a scientific footing.

In other words...scientists FOUGHT AGAINST THE BIG BANG THEORY! They did so...because they didn't want to support any theory that implied the existence of a Creator.

Today, no one seems to remember this.

Today, it's fashionable in science to postulate, without any evidence whatsoever, entire alternate universes, entire "other realities," other dimensions (they're up to 11, now!), String Theory and Brane Theory--another parallel universe smashing into our own, spawning all matter and energy into our own.

What the public doesn't realize is that there is NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE "PET" THEORIES, AND THAT ONLY A MINORITY OF SCIENTISTS EVEN SUBSCRIBE TO THEM.

Stupid, eh? I mean, it really sounds...well, stupid.

They're begging the question, and they expect to get away with it!

"Begging the question" is one of the many logical fallacies. They're beggin' it because, when you ask them--and it's legitimate to ask them--don't let them browbeat you!--"From where did our own universe come from?" they will beg the question by saying, "oh, it came from...this other universe, over here" but they can't (1) show where it is, as it only exists in their minds, and (2) if, indeed, our universe did come from there (and I'm actually not opposed to that idea, mind you!) they can't account for where that universe came from.

They're essentially appealing to something they feel they don't have to explain to us.

They accuse Christians (and Jews) of appealing to a Creator to explain those things they can't explain, and are QUICK to point out that we're committing a logical fallacy by appealing to an unknown authority.

...and I say: They're doing the same! Committing the same logical fallacy. Appealing to what they don't know, and have as little evidence for--even less evidence for, as it's only on a chalkboard, to be replaced by the theory du jour of next month.

At least our faith allows us to infer DESIGN from the abundant and rather obvious evidence for it!

So...if our universe were created by Brane Theory (an alternate universe "bumping" into ours), then what created that other universe? And what created the one after that, and the one after that?

One has to argue for the existence of a First Cause. That's what Christian theologians have argued for. Like Georges LeMaitre. There had to have been an "Uncaused Cause."

Since:

(1) I have never known a "thing" to have created another "thing," but only have seen living things create new things, and

(2) since only living things possess "intent" (and therefore able to impart designer's intent),

I would argue for the existence of a Creator. I think it's rational to believe in one.

Further support of this belief as a rational one is found in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I restate as follows:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Ontological Arguments for the Existence of God • Thomas Aquinas: Arguments for the Existence of God. • Proof of God by Kurt Gödel

From: W. L. Craig: “Professor Mackie and the Kalam Cosmological Argument,” in: Religious Studies, No. 20 (1985), p. 367.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, as opposed to the Thomistic and Leibnizian, is one of the better-respected arguments for the existence of God. Because its validity is not controversial, because it aligns with the most prominent scientific theories of the universe, and because it agrees with general philosophical insight concerning properties of infinities, it is one of the more interesting pieces of religious philosophy. It can be stated as follows:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(2.1) Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
(2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist.
(2.12) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.13) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.2) Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
(2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
(2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
(2.23) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

In my opinion, anyone who is not at least a deist, is a coward, and will never admit to the existence of a Creator.

Anyone who can't understand the Kalam Cosmological Argument--well, read it once, twice more. It's implications are that the universe MUST have had a beginning, and on top of that, it was a CAUSED beginning. The implications for some kind of Creator are very powerful.

That said, I think the existence of God is inherently not scientifically provable, though if one uses a courtroom standard of evidence, there is far more than enough circumstantial evidence to ascertain His existence.

My $0.02. YMMV (your mileage may vary).

I have been watching Dawkins and his ilk, and they're so full of fear of the implications that would follow the existence of a Creator that they're never going to acknowledge Him.

We could expand the argument, if you'd like:

BIOLOGY: Can't prove God, but there sure is an overwhelming mass of evidence supporting conscious design.
ASTRONOMY: Can't prove God, but we now know that the Christian thinkers of the last two millennia were right, the universe did have an origin.
CHEMISTRY: Can't prove God, but we are amazed at the remarkable characteristics of many molecules, and how if any characteristic were different...we couldn't exist. (Anthropic Principle, anyone? But it cuts for and against Christians, and doesn't prove a thing.)
PHYSICS: Can't prove God, but we are amazed at how "serendipitous" the universe is--stable, permits life--there are well over two hundred "coincidences" that have been cataloged, from the weak force to gravitational force, etc., any one of which would have precluded the development of Life.

Some mental food to think on: The Universe needs an "Uncaused Cause" in order to ever have existed. It's that simple.

Sauron

(A good link follows)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/hoyle.asp