Had you made that same argument about 50 years ago you might have had a point. Since then though, scientific theories have evolved significantly.

We assume that before the big bang, the universe had no volume. That means no depth, width or height. These are all dimensions. In case you were unaware, time itself is a dimension. That means that before the big bang, time itself didn't exist. Causation requires time, and therefore the non-existence of time means no cause is necessary. An understanding of quantum mechanics is what helped scientists come to this conclusion.

When you view time as a dimension, the problem works itself out! But don't take my word for it...read this article

Well argued.

But even if we accept that the universe had an initial cause, how do you know that cause was intelligent?

See the argument from poor design.

One example of poor design: In human females, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. If an infant's head is too big they will not fit and before c-sections death for the mother was the usual result.

There are many, many other examples of poor design.

The evidence points not to an all-powerful, benevolent designer, but rather a universe ruled by non-intelligent patterns emerging from chaos.

Everything we observe in nature does not have a beginning at all Cherie.

In fact very few things in the lifetime of a human do we observe both begin and end.

We assume they do, because we begin and end.

How many trees have you watched die? (naturally, not chopped down.)

How many stars born?

We assume, because of our egos, that all things must be like us with a beginning and end.

And anything that "always was" must in some way be similar to us. Or made by one similar to us.

You can just as easily say that the Universe is not a dependent entity, that it is self-sufficient, and self-existent - as any god.

The only difference is there's actually proof of the Universe.

Yes, Aristotle was very astute in his observation that something or as you and he believed some being must have always been.

But I would argue that not only did something always exist, but that everything always existed.

And some sentient all powerful being is completely unnecessary to the equation.

We, and everything, is just as likely a product of the random interaction of all the molecules, atoms, and chemicals of the Universe, mixing, combining, and separating -- as we are a product of one being that just always was and suddenly decided to start making stuff.

"Cosmological evidence now refers to the "Big bang" as the point in time that the universe came into being."

Wrong. The Big Bang refers to the rapid expansion of the universe from a hot and dense initial state. The state of the universe pre-big bang is unknown and therefore you can not say with any certainty that the Big Bang was the "beginning" of the universe.

"Since it did not always exist, but came into existence (had a singular beginning), then some other reality must have caused or created it."

Assumption. As I stated, the state of the universe pre-big bang is currently unknown. Not to mention the fact that you yourself say that time is a property of the universe, and therefore it is entirely incorrect to even talk about the universe not existing, as there was no time for it to not exist in. When talking about the universe, nothing can be taken for granted.

"Everything we observe in nature has a beginning."

Assumption. We can observe gravity, but does gravitational force have a beginning? Current scientific consensus is that the four natural forces (including gravity) were present pre-big bang, which is theorised due to the levels of each force and how they work together (we won't go into this now).

"God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created."

Can you provide me with a coherent reason why God doesn't require a beginning but the universe does? Until you can, this theory falls apart. And by coherent, I don't mean "our universe cannot be explained any other way," as this is simply confirmation bias, and I can use the exact same argument to explain why the universe must have always existed without postulating any additional entities as you have done.

"It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin."

You're digging yourself into a hole here and you don't even realise it. You've quite clearly stated the universe must have had a cause, because nothing can be uncaused. However, the moment we apply this logic to God, you suddenly have to change your stance to agree that, in actuality, there has to at some point be an uncaused causer (this is also an assumption, but we won't go into that now).

Now, obviously these two statements are in direct opposition to each other. Your reasoning for why God can be uncaused but the universe cannot is that "Our universe cannot be explained any other way," but rather than take the obvious answer that the universe itself is the uncaused causer, you've postulated additional entities (God) that are allowed certain properties that the universe apparently is not, yet failed to provide any reason why.

Your argument holds no water with me.

4. Vibrating 10 dimensional strings that have always existed regularly crash causing big bang like events to occur.

In case you didn't already guess, this is string theory (a very simplistic summery of string theory at least). Right now it is untestable, but this is where the math leads, and currently is the most promising scientific explanation. Most scientists don't believe in any of the three you gave. Although uninformed people think they believe in 3.

This video might explain the concept a little better (also it might blow your mind):

Why do you assume that we need to wait 3 billion years? We can see evolution happening all around us as we speak. In fact hundreds of cases of speciation have been observed by scientists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Have you ever heard of fossils? How about DNA? Scientists have used both of these to show that evolution is true.

Transitional Fossils

DNA Evidence of Evolution

Have you ever gotten a flu vaccine, or know someone who has? Because every year the flu vaccine is different..."why?" you ask. Because of evolution. Every year the flu virus evolves, and therefore new vaccines must be developed. So guess what that means? Our knowledge of evolution saves people's lives! But I guess this isn't important to you. Better to cover your ears and close your eyes to the evidence.

Finally allow me to give you a metaphor that will help you to understand the ridiculousness of your denial. Let's say that you walk into a room and see a man holding a gun. On the ground is a dead body with a gunshot wound in the chest. On the wall behind the dead man, at chest height is a bullet hole. The man holding the gun has blood splatter on him. There is no one else in the house or near the house except for you and the man with the gun.

Now, technically you didn't see the crime happen so we can't meet the burden of proof that you gave for evolution in your argument. Saying the man with the gun is innocent though would be...well for lack of a better term, fucking stupid.

First thank you for your reply Messenger, I appreciate that you put some thought into your arguements, and do not simply post "God did it," then down vote heathens like myself.

I assure you I have carefully considered many definitions of god, including that he is not man.

I'm not simply holding my hands to my ears and yelling "blah, blah, blah"

Not that it matters much to my arguement, but so that maybe you will not hold your hands to your ears and yell "blah, blah, blah" to any of my responses -- I was born and raised Catholic, until 5th grade went to church 5 days a week. I went to Catholic gradeschool, where we studied the Bible more than current events, science, reading, and math combined. I read the Bible from cover to cover and studied it more before I was ten than most people do their entire lives...

Then in High School I became a born again Christian, because I simply could not fathom the ideas of confessions, confirmations, last rites, and all of the rest of the ceremony and pomp necessary to be "saved" and I "knew, just knew in my heart there must be a god, there just has to be right..." because that's how I was raised.

Then I started thinking, saved from what and why? Natural. But I went to a Catholic college, where I took 6 classes over 2 years taught by Jesuits with doctorates. It was like a 2 year long midlife crises, as my upbringing, education, and family all sturgled against my growing doubt, knowledge, and common sense.

At some point, around the age of 20, I finally shed myself of all superstition, but not without great great strugle, thought, self-doubt, and endless justifications for all of the holes inherent in religion.

I'm not being flippant at all when I say that I really do not believe there is any such thing as god.

I'm not speaking out of hand, when I insist all the things attributed to a god, can and are explained just as easily, and often easier, without any god in the equation at all.

You say "No one knows and no one will ever know whether that code is God's DNA." But the truth is we will. Just as we eventually knew the earth was round, that we evolve, that we rotate around the sun.

And when we do know that the DNA is not god's doing at all, which we doubtless will, then god will be there to take the credit for whatever other small gap is left in the equation, until that too is disproved. And on down the line.

"Despite the fact that their theories can't be tested, because for a scientific theory to be proven fact, it must be able to be tested, which means they all will need to live at least 3 billion and 1 years to see if any of their 3 billion year theories were actually correct. Hmmm?..."

This shows that you don't understand what is meant by a scientific fact and a scientific theory.

The put it simply a scientific fact is an observation, and a scientific theory is a body of evidence to explain how or why the observation occured. The theory explains the fact. Gravity is a fact in that bodies of a certain mass produce an observable force on other bodies of mass, and this is explained by the special and general theories of relativity. In the same way, evolution is a fact which is explained by the theory of natural selection.

"And David, how do you know that the world has been evolving for billions and billions of years? Because some scientists said so, right?"

Actually, no. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people on this site (David included, from what I've seen) actually have a good working understanding of how evolution and natural selection work. Natural selection is actually an extremely intuitive and accessible theory and can be understood, observered and tested by anyone over a short period of time, unlike some of the theories (such as special relativity) that I assume you don't dismiss as they don't specifically interfere with your religious beliefs. We take certain theories for granted, such as relativity, as the maths involved are at a level where comprehension by those untrained in the field of physics and mathematics is near impossible. Natural selection, however, is not one of those theories, and I would suggest that you don't immediately dismiss it due to your beliefs and actually spend some time trying to understand it. I see no reason why you can't hold your religious beliefs whilst still accepting what is to date one of the most complete and backed-up theories in the history of science.

God just "IS"? What does that mean? He's just there? If we can't explain Him or His existence, or how He exists/came into being, what's the point in speculating?

It's not faith if it has evidence backing it up, please, please, please get that through your head. We don't trust scientists because they say they're right, we trust scientists because TONS of other scientists have done the same tests and gotten the same results. That's not called faith, that's called belief in something because it has evidence backing it up.

I could go through every one of your examples and give you the scientific explanations for each. For example I could tell you that tectonic plate activity created Mount Everest, that ocean currents created the gulf stream and that evolution over billions of years led to each of the living organisms you mentioned. Now you claim God created these. One simple fact remains though:

I have evidence to back up my claims, and you don't.

Now to someone who puts faith ahead of all else this might not mean much...but let's look at what science has done for us. Shall we?

-Extended our lives and eased suffering through the development of modern medicine (helped by our knowledge of evolution)

-Allowed us to better understand the world we live in

-Created ways of communicating with people from around the world and share ideas with those people (this site for example)

-Allowed us to be able to travel to anywhere in the world by plane in a matter of two days

-Allowed more people to live by increasing food production

I could go on but I think you get my point. So when you belittle science (on a computer, no less!) understand that the quality of life that you are enjoying right now is a direct result of scientific advancement.

In contrast let's look at religion. I guess you could say that it has brought happiness and hope to people, and you might be right to some extent. Do not discount the fact that religion has also brought about the deaths of millions and millions of people. It divides groups, and justifies murder of those of different faith. "No it doesn't!" you say. Well how about some examples?

-The burning of thousands of "witches" in Europe and North America

-The killing of Jews in Europe by Christians since the middle ages

-the crusades

-the religion wars of Europe between the Catholic and protestant Churches

And that's just Christians! I could go on to talk about the conflict in Gaza, or even 9/11. Trust me there is no lack of examples. If god does exist I'm guessing he's probably not a fan of organized religion.

So now, we arrive back to your original point...that somehow the existence of natural laws means a god must exist. First let me say that is the biggest jump in logic I have ever heard. Second, scientists do have explanations for nearly all of the phenomenon that you described. It's called chemistry, physics, and quantum mechanics. I once again must encourage you to pick up literature on these subjects since clearly your knowledge is lacking.

Remember that the debate is "Signs of God in DNA." We never claimed that God didn't exist, you claimed that God did. If you want to believe in a personal god, then fine, go right ahead. When you begin slapping denying the validity of science, though, you are asking to be rebuked. Belief in God can only be through faith alone...there is no scientific evidence of his existence. Do I care that you believe in him? No. Just don't deny facts...facts that save, and improve people's lives.

Yes, but scientific theory has proof. The theory you're giving doesn't.

Have you ever heard of the scientific method? Well in order for something to become accepted by the scientific community a scientist has to:

1. Observe

2. Predict

3. Test

4. See if results match prediction. If not then he goes back to step 1.

5. If his predictions were correct then he submits his findings for peer review.

6. Other scientists read his findings, repeat his tests and in general try to falsify the findings to determine if the claims are valid.

7. Assuming a hypothesis withstands all this criteria, then it becomes an accepted theory.

What is the process for your theory?

1. It says so in the Bible

2. ?

I'm pretty sure that's about it. So which do you think is more reliable: the theory of God's creation, or the theory of evolution?

I got it from watching too much porn without protection