: As promised to my good freind Viper, here is the basis for my beleif in God. Firstly, I will defend my stand as a born again Christian on the basis that I see no compelling reason to abandon it. Though this may sound simplistic, it is based on sound philosophical ground. There have been two events in the history of the universe, the mechanism of which, science is unable to elucidate. These are the creation of the universe and the creation of life. Suffice it to say, these would qualify as meta-physical events; that is, they are not amenable to any force or mechanism that could account (with any reasonable probability) for their existence. So where does that leave us? It seems that if one subscribes to the naturalist veiw, then the creation of the cosmos becomes problematic due to the inescapable, if not maddening, cause and effect question. I feel safe in saying that God is not subject to cause and effect. As for the origin of life on this planet, the more bio-molecular science reveals to us , the more mind-beggaringly improbable it is that life came about through a random process. Even some devote evolutionists will concede that abiogenesis represents the "soft under-belly" of the evolutionary paradigm. If there is no evidence of randomness in the origin of life why should we assume it was a factor in its development? You would agree that the opposite of random is un-random? Lastly, I would offer the Bible as a body of historical and phrophetical evidence.

Richard: String theory has solutions that account for the creation of the universe from something that existed before. However, it doesn't mean that god did not do it. Why does the proof of god's existence have to involve metaphysics. The difficulty of quantum gravity proves that god is at least a very good mathematical physicist. Perhaps he/she created scientists in his/her image along with the rest of us?

• Re: basis for my beleif in God - daViper - July 19, 1999 - 23:14 UTC