Which Infers a Stable Universe, Atheism or Theism?

In my last article I discussed the “God of the gaps” accusation levied against creationists and IDists.  A “refutation” that is common all across the scope of Darwinian influenced minds.

I showed that, in fact, it is the Darwinists that use “gap” arguments, or arguments from ignorance and not the designists at all.

Now at the end of that article I quoted professor Richard Lewontin on his absolute adherence to materialism in all things “scientific”.

Here is the quote again, followed by my comments on the last sentence:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”  Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard University

Lewotin makes a perfectly foolish unthinking statement at the end when he says that appealing to an omnipotent deity allows that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured.  Really? Lewontin fails to see that this is perfectly true for atheism, not theism!

Under atheism there are no absolutes, there is no absolute truth, so one cannot even know anything for sure -including no scientists, such as Lewontin. The irony is striking. Now if there are no absolutes then it would be true that we allow that the regularities of nature may change any & every moment. The laws may dissolve, mathematics is no longer certain, nothing remains.  Science itself becomes relative, volatile and unreliable. Nothing is certain under atheism’s obligatory relativism. Nothing can be known as objectively true in atheism, including atheism itself. This is standard atheist dogma and if atheism were true, then they would be right in claiming this.


However, under theism, what is the reason that the regularities may be ruptured? The only possible reason would be the will of the deity.  But then why would an intelligent creator simply screw everything he made from one day to the next?  What reason would he have? None, assuming this God is wise and good.

Moreover, even if he did, would mankind ever know it? Highly unlikely, well at least not for more than a few seconds. We would almost certainly disappear in some sort of total cosmic implosion if only 1 of the “fine tuning” constants were to be altered by the deity. And who would be left to give a damn for humanity?

In theism, we infer, through multitudes of inferences and the very state of the cosmos,  that the intelligence of the creator is infinite (just look at what he made) and that his moral nature is the very foundation of all morality.

Worse, Lewontin’s statement is in fact simply wrong, since we already have ample testimony that in fact the laws of the nature are universal, stable and constant since the beginning of all human history. Simply because we have something we call “science” and it works.

Now to prove how asinine some atheists can get on this specific point, lets read the “expert” atheist version; one that, if true, literally turns Lewontin’s inane statement upside down:

“There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.” — Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind,1921, pp. 159- 60

Can you see that the truly unstable, unreliable, utterly mutable universe Lewontin imagines under a deity, is actually the highly probable state of nature if atheism were true and not at all if theism is true?

Thank God it isn’t!

Why else would Einstein consider that one of the most surprising attributes of nature to be that it is understandable?

“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility … The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle”
-Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, p. 462

Einstein was not an atheist by any means.

Thank God for that too.

Of Invisible Pink Unicorns

How many times have I encountered the atheist standard argument about not believing in invisible pink unicorns and thus not believing in God either?  Variations on the theme are leprechauns, Santa Claus, ice cream factories on some other planet and the truly inane flying spaghetti monster (FSM) and  such.  Have you met up with one of these arguments against theism or deism?  I see it all the time.

These are nothing more than popular variations of B. Russell’s famous “Tea Pot” argument. This argument is only famous because Russell was famous.  For, it has no real validity.  Russell argued that he could assert that there was a tea pot floating in space somewhere,  so small that no telescope could detect it.  And given this assertion, no one would be required to believe in the tea pot, because there is no real evidence, just assertion.  The tea pot cannot be proved not to exist.

Typical of the logical positivists.  Logical positivism – a kind of misnomer because there was never anything either logical or positive about it – a philosophical system now bankrupt, now defunct, yet still curiously used by atheists, because it was void of reason but full of bare assertions.  Sounds like the whole of atheism doesn’t it.

The argument is devised to show that if a thing can’t be proved or disproved to exist, then the burden of proof belongs to the one asserting its existence.  Therefore since – according to atheists – God can neither be proved nor disproved to exist, the theists, who assert his existence, must prove it.  Since the atheist assumes the existence of God cannot be proved he believes himself to be thinking logically and the theist to be unreasonable or even irrational.  We see this type of position posited everywhere across cyberspace as though it were some fatal blow to theism.  It isn’t.  Not even close.

The tea pot in space argument is flawed.  Curiously, most atheists never figure this out and still flaunt it over and over again, ad nauseum.  I was once challenged to produce a refutation, and the challenge was stated in terms indicating that the challenger believed the argument irrefutable – even though its been refuted many times.

What they’re really doing is trying – as always – to squirm their way out of having any burden of proof of their own in asserting the non existence of God.  Whenever atheists do this, it’s mere escapism and denial.  For, to pretend they have no burden of proof is tantamount to saying they have no position, that – once again – atheism were a mere involuntary state of “lack of belief”.   This has been refuted here, here and here as well as many other places across the web.

Now for the IPU argument itself.

As Dinesh D’Souza has aptly pointed out, there are no books called “Unicorns Are Not Great”, or “The Unicorn Delusion”. Nor are there any books around called “The Flying Spaghetti Monster Delusion”, the FSM being yet another example of just how incompetent and foolish some atheists have become in their never ceasing efforts to show themselves lacking in reason and logic.

So how does one dismiss the invisible pink unicorn argument, specifically?  I respond with Rich Deem’s simple refutation:

Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term “invisible pink unicorn” is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don’t know who invented the term “invisible pink unicorns,” but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

You can read the whole argument here.

So as you see, the IPU “argument” is so ignorance-based that it doesn’t even qualify as an real argument.  Now, given just how easily the IPU argument is shown to be just plain dumb, unscientific and unthinking, you would think atheists would try to find something that could at least qualify as reasonable.  Do they? Well no, not really.

Russell’s tea pot argument is just as easily refuted.  Several refutations can be proposed and William L. Craig has given a few.

But just for fun consider:  tea pots are uniquely human artifacts.  Therefore, the only possible way there could be a tea pot floating around the moon, sun etc. would be that some humanly fabricated tea pot escaped from some also humanly fabricated space ship, or, that some crazy person on earth sent one into space on a launch platform capable of sending its payload right out of earth’s magnetic field.

Is that possible? Of course something like that could be done.  So, there may very well be a tea pot orbiting Earth for all we know.  But do we have any historical records from NASA, the Russians or whoever, of a tea pot having been lost from some space mission? Well gee, I don’t think so.  But this isn’t really the point.

The point being that such arguments generally commit two logical fallacies, i.e. a fallacy of equivocation and a category error.

Again, the same reasoning applies to FSM’s or anything else the atheist may dream up to escape the logical God-inference.

Now,  back to the more important reasons to dismiss all such “tea pot” arguments.  They are category errors. They are fallacies of equivocation when used as comparisons to the inference of the existence of a supreme being logic.  Comparing the belief  in a tea pot orbiting a planet, to the logical inference based belief in the existence of a first and sufficient cause for the existence of the universe, is sadly naive.  If only it weren’t so seriously posited by unthinking atheists – obviously trying to escape their own burden of proof.

Moreover, if they have no burden of proof it could only be if atheism were not a metaphysical position at all, but a mere involuntary state of mind.  But the fact that they are everywhere stating their position and fervently arguing for it shows that they do indeed hold the “no god” stance as a metaphysical position, a chosen belief – not a bare lack thereof.

Atheists prove their religious devotion to their world view, their metaphysics, by writing so many books, debating everywhere and by frequenting web forums ever trying to refute the existence of God – and never ever succeeding. Religious fervor is the only appropriate label to put on such behavior. All while they’ll still vehemently deny it.  Denial of reality is possibly atheism’s most glaring trait.

Atheists admit they cannot prove that there is no God.  So what does that imply? Just this, that atheism is a position that can only be held by blind faith.  Since no evidence, let alone proof, of their position exists, blind faith in that position is the only thing left.

Curiously the atheist always accuses the theist of this very thing. The theist however knows that all things can be used as a starting point towards the First Cause inference and yet nothing at all can be used to the contrary.

A supreme being’s existence is logically inferred by the very existence of the universe itself.  How so?  Well, we know the universe is not eternal – it has an age.  This is not hard.  We also know it doesn’t oscillate eternally – Fred Hoyle’s hopeful hypothesis – that he was forced to abandon due to the evidence against it, though today some atheist scientists are trying to resurrect the debunked hypothesis from the dead.

This of course implies that something made it, and that whatever made it necessarily exists apart from it.

We know too that it cannot have created itself.  Something creating itself from nothing?  The very idea is preposterous – except to blind atheism.  You see – “nothing” doesn’t exist.  Nothing, as non-existence, cannot be said to have properties, energy, matter, law.  So the more recent nonsense arguments of “A Universe Fromo Nothing”, or “quantum fluctuations” in some speculative void, are still “fluctuations of nothing” – i.e.  more logical absurdity.

So where do all these glaring anomalies leave the atheist? In a logic void.  Atheism, as C.S Lewis so aptly states, “turns out to be too simple.  If the universe has no meaning we should never have discovered it has no meaning”.  Thus the arguments (tea pots, IPUs, FSMs etc.) that the new atheist is so proud of verbalizing turn out to be lame-brained nonsense as soon as the light of reason and logic is applied to them properly.

The atheist is thus left in a philosophical no mans land because taking his arguments to their logical conclusions always leads to absurdity, or else a kind of metaphysical free-for-all, in which nothing can be proved.  But if nothing can be proved, then we have no reason to believe in ourselves.

No invisible pink unicorns

Atheism is ‘lack of belief’? Sequel

I’ve been told over and over again, and in the most passionate if often vehement fashion, that atheism is not a religion but simply the absence of belief.   I wrote an article refuting this claim here.  In debates with atheists on the subject I am always being assured that newborns are essentially atheists because they are born without any beliefs.  I’m told that atheism, being lack of belief, means that newly born babes qualify as atheists.  Of course that is ridiculous and in fact rather anserine.

Today, I came across this article on the web entitled Children as young as four to be educated in atheism.

My, but my atheist antagonists ought to be embarrassed at this!

Surely even the most ignorant and incompetent atheist can see that there can be no need to educate young children into atheism if atheism is truly their inborn lack of belief! They are born atheists, according to them!

Isn’t it amazing how atheists contradict themselves at every turn? If newborns are already atheists why in the world would they need indoctrination in atheism? Surely just being left alone would suffice to leave them atheists. Ah, but the atheist will claim they will be inundated with theistic or deistic ideas during their lives so we must protect that innate atheism! Really? Why?

Atheism is an idea that doesn’t matter. It leads to no good, it helps no one and it tends to either universal anarchy and chaos or totalitarian despotism (remember the more than 170 million killings under officially atheist regimes in the 20th century alone).

If, by atheist reasoning, the universe really created itself out of nothing (the atheists only origins option), and if the universe consequently really has no meaning, no purpose, no good and no evil, why should anyone care what anyone else believes anyway? Why are atheists so adamantly evangelistic on making sure all remain, as they allege, “atheists from birth”.

Obviously they feel they need more.  Should theists now start using PANIC HEADLINES of the atheist genre?

Atheists, now they’re coming for  your children!

– to mimic the Times article on Dawkins’ latest drivel “Creationists – now they’re coming for your children” , on which I commented here.

Of course, this kind of headline would be entirely justified in this case, if only because they want to preach their inane religion in public schools (as though they don’t already under the guise of science and secular humanism which possesses the entire public ed system in the West). These people are fanatically against teaching any kind of religion in schools and even having any kind of religious symbol displayed in any public place, yet here they come! They now want to indoctrinate kids in schools into their religion, all while claiming kids are naturally atheistic!! Can you say HYPOCRITES!?

We now know that children are born as intuitive theists (Barrett, Bloom, Kelemen, …), not atheists at all.

“Intuitive Theists”?: Reasoning about Purpose and Design in Nature”
Children’s Attributions of Beliefs to Humans and God: Cross-Cultural Evidence
“Religion is Natural”

Now here I will quote Dr Michael V. Antony, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel. Dr. Antony addressed this “lack of belief” argument thus (my bold):

It is often said by atheists that atheism is not a positive position at all – a belief or worldview – but merely a disbelief in theism, a refusal to accept what the theist believes, and as such, there is no belief or position for there to be evidence for. Evidence is not needed for ‘non-positions’.

While the word ‘atheism’ has been used in something like this sense (see for example Antony Flew’s article ‘The Presumption of Atheism’), it is a highly non-standard use.  So understood, atheism would include agnosticism, since agnostics are also not theists. However, on the common understanding of atheism – no divine reality of any kind exists – atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Some insist that this non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ is the only possible sense, because a-theism means without theism. But if that were a good argument, the Space Shuttle would be an automobile, since it moves on its own (mobile=move, auto=by itself). Ditto for dogs and cats.

Yet none of that really matters, for even the non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ does nothing to neutralize evidentialism’s demand for evidence. As we saw, evidentialism applies to all ‘doxastic’ attitudes toward a proposition P: believing P, believing not-P, suspending judgment about P, etc. Therefore evidentialism says, with respect to the proposition God exists, that any attitude toward it will be rational or justified if and only if it fits one’s evidence. Now it is true that if one had no position whatever regarding the proposition God exists (perhaps because one has never entertained the thought), no evidence would be required for that non-position. But the New Atheists all believe that (probably) no God or other divine reality exists. And that belief must be evidence-based if it is to be rationally held, according to evidentialism. So insisting that atheism isn’t a belief doesn’t help.

Mere absence of belief is not a position.  It’s a passive psychological state.  Atheism is position, it is a chosen position, not the natural one.  Atheism, as denial of reality, is a form of insanity, therefore it is doubtful we will ever cease having to deal with atheist nonsense.  Will we ever see the end of this blatant insanity?

Is Atheism Mere Lack of Belief?

I receive a common claim from atheists on debate forums.

When they are told that they are as religious as theists or when they are told that atheism is itself a king of religion, they inevitably respond with the canned answer, “No atheism is not a religion or philosophy. It is simply lack of belief. You obviously don’t understand atheism!”

This is of course a learned and automatic response as opposed to a critically thought out one. Atheists have learned this answer from other atheists who of course learned it from some others on and so on, off of web forums, youtube, younameit, etc.

The most astounding thing about this canned answer is that it isn’t even logically viable.
Babies have no logically definable belief in God, yet they are by no means atheists.
On the contrary, Dr Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind says that children have “a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.”
See here

Of course atheists now seek to discredit him – what else can they do? Nothing as usual.

Worse still is when the blind non-thinking atheist throws up this “You don’t understand atheism” folderol.
I mean please, seriously, what’s not to understand? It isn’t hard, it isn’t anywhere near scientific or complicated. So that part of the answer is purely rhetorical codswallop.

Is atheism mere lack of belief? Of course not. It is “lack of belief in god or gods” but it is more than that and the additional pieces are crucial.

Young children, for example, are not atheists.  My cat is not an atheist yet lacks belief. Rocks lack belief but are not atheists.
Of course then we’re talking about a personal mind and free will here – free will is something which the smarter atheists do not even believe in of course but I’ll pass on that for now.  So sure we can barely use cats or rocks to refute the argument by themselves.

Here is the problem with the lack of belief response:
It is not a mere lack of belief.  It is a positive choice not to believe.

The difference is enormous and fundamental.

A positive choice not to believe in a God is NOT a mere – as though passive – lack or absence of belief. It is indeed a choice to refuse to accept whatever evidence for the existence of a supreme being is presented and in most cases – at least 99% of the ones I encounter – to accept that there even is any such evidence! Pretty amazing when you then hear these same people claiming they are “open minded”, “logical”, “reasonable” etc.!

Atheism is indeed a metaphysical, philosophical vacuum.  It is a pretense to knowing there is no God. Merely saying, “I don’t know if there is a god or not but I don’t believe in any” is not really atheism.  Not knowing is agnosticism’s territory – smarter than atheism but little better.

Nevertheless, when an atheist claims he is being rational in claiming there is no God, or doesn’t believe in any god, he is following a self-imposed willful blindness to rationality itself, rather than the openness he claims.
There is nothing rational in atheism for rationality itself cannot be a logical conclusion of atheism.
As CS Lewis pointed out,

If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.
and “Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe.”

Under atheism, all life is a mere accident of a mindless, non rational, purposeless universe. How does any non rational process create mind and rationality?  To pre-empt the typical responses to this problem – such as that we have observations that confirm the reliability of our minds – I add, no you cannot test the reliability of the human mind by using the human mind. A fatal and salient contradiction occurs in the attempt!

Atheism’s pretended “lack of belief” is a mis-definition of itself. And why should that surprise anyone that see through such blatant nonsense? The atheist cannot see any evidence for a supreme being in the universe because no matter what evidence is produced it is a priori denied.

One must choose to be an atheist in spite of all evidence for the existence of God and not at all because of the imagined absence of any evidence. And of course, anyone who pretends to know there is no God is either a certifiable fool or incredibly doltish for if we hear anything from atheists it is that we asked for the evidence or foundations of atheism they themselves tell us there is no possibility of proving the non existence of God! So here they admit to believing there is no God by faith!! Amazing.

Atheism is far more than mere lack of belief.  Indeed, it is a chosen adherence to a specific metaphysical position, a conscious decision, in favor of a refusal to accept any and all evidence whatsoever that there indeed could be a supreme mind underlying all creation.
That is simply logically unsupportable – even by the atheist’s own pretended criterion of reason.

They themselves know that they cannot know there is no God and can never bring anything even close to proof, but are still so sure of it that they call themselves atheists! Then they go all around the web and the world screaming out insults, complaints, obscenities and boorish but gratuitous affirmations that there is no God and no evidence exists!

Like putting on an opaque blindfold and and saying, “I see no evidence for any God”.
If they would only remove their own fabricated-for-the purpose blindfolds they would at last how ridiculous they look to everyone else that is looking in wonder at the obvious design in all creation. Design that must,a priori, be denied and explained away through volumes of scientific sounding sophism.

Worse still is the fact that refuting certain evidence for God’s existence doesn’t bring any evidence that there really is no God!
The atheist’s position is thus illogical and vain and requires far more blind faith than any deist or theist position ever has, does or ever will require!

Atheism is inviable and is clearly more than a mere absence of belief. It must be chosen in spite of all evidence for God and thus for teleology.

It is a humongous web of interwoven self-deceptions based in denial of realities and positions that are testable under logic and/or observation. One such observation is the origin of the prescribed, specified, programmed for a purpose, information dwelling in every living cell – DNA/RNA.

Atheism: Nothing producing everything, for no reason with no purpose is a nonsensical piece of fairy-tale-like tripe.
No wonder atheists have always been the minority in the world and thankfully still are.

*Note: I just now (14-08-2010) found an article on this same subject by noted Christian philosopher and apologist Dr. William Lane Craig here which I encourage you read.  In this response Dr. Craig states,

For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.”  Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does.

This is precisely what I am saying here.
Check out the sequel to this article here.

The Existence of God

Dark Matter?

“What do scientists look for when they search for dark matter? We cannot see or touch it: its existence is implied.”

Yeah, this is a cool subject. What I wish to point out here is that scientists can, at this time, merely imply or infer the existence of this so-called dark matter. It simply has to be there even though it can’t be seen.

But while this inference is perfectly acceptable to them on the subject of universal existence it is acceptable to very few (believers excepted) on the “existence of God” subject.

Yet this is possibly the best, and perhaps the only, way to demonstrate the existence of God through logic and reason and inference. You cannot prove the existence of the meta-physical by laboratory methods.

Whether the dark matter is MACHO (massive astrophysical compact halo object) or WIMP (weakly interacting massive particles) is irrelevant to this subject.

If the existence of something can at all be implied then it can be implied for anything for which, without it, there is insufficient ability to explain precisely observable phenomena.

In other words, if without God it is impossible to explain the existence of the universe (or universes) then His existence must be inferred.

So, how do we infer that the Supreme Intelligent Being – God – exists?

One simple way is through logical absolutes. They do exist.

For example : 1+1=2 is true and it is always true and under no circumstances can it not be true.

Numbers, as you see them here above, are mere visible lines of black pixels on a pixeled computer screen background.

Numbers do not exist as physical entities – they are conceptual. Logic is conceptual. It does not exist as matter. It is not an inherent property of matter. Information is not a property of sugars or enzymes. Information is something other than the matter or energy that carries it. For examlpe, the information contained in DNA is not itself DNA.

Therefore the conceptual must imply the meta-physical since it is not physical.

Unless of course you try to prove that thought itself is merely electro-chemical movement in the grey matter. But that position no one seriously believes; as it relegates all reason and human experience to involuntary actions and reactions within the brain to internal and external stimuli.

That, in turn, would mean that there really is no such thing as reason, heart, soul, spirit and that you actually have no free will and you cannot possibly be a moral agent. It would mean that what you perceive as choosing and willing is really no such thing at all, but mere irresistable reactions of your bio-chemical or genetic makeup.

Reason and logic must necessairly be meta-physical. Therefore the meta-physical exists.

Logic and reason are elements or properties of intelligence.

So based upon these simple, and certainly non-exhaustive comments, we can infer the existence of an original Intelligence from which all others were conceived, since we did not create ourselves.

So the possibilty of the existence of God is 100% and the probabilty of His existence, considering the vast amounts of intelligence and evidence for design in the universe is equal to 1 or 100%.

No amount of calculation or logic can infer or imply the non-existence of God.

Therefore God exists.

The existence of the Supreme Mind can be inferred by any number of similar arguments. Like the existence of good and evil as something more than mere human fancy.

Since both good and evil are necessarily both conceptual, but real and related to intentions, motives and free will, there must be an ultimate good and an ultimate evil in the universe. Back to absolutes. If there were no absolute goodness there would be no way possible to measure any goodness or any evil at all.

All definitions of good and evil would not only become purely subjective and without foundation but would also be the concoctions of bio-electrical output within the brain. This would reduce all crime, all rape, murder, incest, deceit, robbery etc. to nothing.

Think it over.

Existence of God

Existence of God

Dark Matter?

“What do scientists look for when they search for dark matter? We cannot see or touch it: its existence is implied.”

Yeah, this is a cool subject. What I wish to point out here is that scientists can, at this time, merely imply or infer the existence of this so-called dark matter. It simply has to be there even though it can’t be seen.

But while this inference is perfectly acceptable to them on the subject of universal existence it is acceptable to very few (believers excepted) on the “existence of God” subject.

Yet this is possibly the best, and perhaps the only, way to demonstrate the existence of God through logic and reason and inference. You cannot prove the existence of the meta-physical by laboratory methods.

Whether the dark matter is MACHO (massive astrophysical compact halo object) or WIMP (weakly interacting massive particles) is irrelevant to this subject.

If the existence of something can at all be implied then it can be implied for anything for which, without it, there is insufficient ability to explain precisely observable phenomena.

In other words, if without God it is impossible to explain the existence of the universe (or universes) then His existence must be inferred.

So, how do we infer that the Supreme Intelligent Being – God – exists?

One simple way is through logical absolutes. They do exist.

For example : 1+1=2 is true and it is always true and under no circumstances can it not be true.

Numbers, as you see them here above, are mere visible lines of black pixels on a pixeled computer screen background.

Numbers do not exist as physical entities – they are conceptual. Logic is conceptual. It does not exist as matter. It is not an inherent property of matter. Information is not a property of sugars or enzymes. Information is something other than the matter or energy that carries it. For examlpe, the information contained in DNA is not itself DNA.

Therefore the conceptual must imply the meta-physical since it is not physical.

Unless of course you try to prove that thought itself is merely electro-chemical movement in the grey matter. But that position no one seriously believes; as it relegates all reason and human experience to involuntary actions and reactions within the brain to internal and external stimuli.

That, in turn, would mean that there really is no such thing as reason, heart, soul, spirit and that you actually have no free will and you cannot possibly be a moral agent. It would mean that what you perceive as choosing and willing is really no such thing at all, but mere irresistable reactions of your bio-chemical or genetic makeup.

Reason and logic must necessairly be meta-physical. Therefore the meta-physical exists.

Logic and reason are elements or properties of intelligence.

So based upon these simple, and certainly non-exhaustive comments, we can infer the existence of an original Intelligence from which all others were conceived, since we did not create ourselves.

So the possibilty of the existence of God is 100% and the probabilty of His existence, considering the vast amounts of intelligence and evidence for design in the universe is equal to 1 or 100%.

No amount of calculation or logic can infer or imply the non-existence of God.

Therefore God exists.

The existence of the Supreme Mind can be inferred by any number of similar arguments. Like the existence of good and evil as something more than mere human fancy.

Since both good and evil are necessarily both conceptual, but real and related to intentions, motives and free will, there must be an ultimate good and an ultimate evil in the universe. Back to absolutes. If there were no absolute goodness there would be no way possible to measure any goodness or any evil at all.

All definitions of good and evil would not only become purely subjective and without foundation but would also be the concoctions of bio-electrical output within the brain. This would reduce all crime, all rape, murder, incest, deceit, robbery etc. to nothing.

Think it over.