An Argument for God's Existence?

Question

Atheists believe in the big bang theory right? That means they believe that there was a big explosion and all these tiny little atoms fit together in exactly such a way to create the world and the universe and the people and animals in it. Do you know how complex the human body is? If I had all the parts that make up a watch and I put them all in a box (all the little screws, the face of the clock, the hands of the clock, the wrist band, and all the little intricate pieces that make the clock tick on the inside) and i shook it up, no matter how long i shook the box for, even if i shook it for a million years, there is no way that all of those pieces would fall exactly where they needed to go to assemble a perfect watch. A human is far more complex than a watch, and the universe is countless times more intricate. Atheists are saying that there was no creator and so all of this just coincidentally fell into place. Sorry, thats not a very good argument to me. Feel free to comment back with your own thoughts.

Answer 1

You obviously haven't seen this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

P.S. To whoever thumbs this down: Did you watch the video? Please tell me how it failed to debunk the myth that evolution is analog to shaking the parts in a box and coming up with a fully functional clock without any transition - that's what the questioner claim.

Answer 2

My arguement is that the universe and the human body ( along with all other aminal nd plant bodies are so complicated and intricate that no "god" could possibly have devised them. The world, and all that's in it, forget the entire universe, could only be brought into being by nature over many millions of years.
No single being of any kind could possibly have made all of it. Atheists believe that nature brought about everything that we know of by trial and error over a period of time that goes beyond imagination.
Religious people think that some guy waved his magic wand and hokus-pokus dominokus - - there it all was.
Now that's believable - - -to the unbelievably superstitious imagination. Sorry, that's not a very good arguement to me.

Answer 3

As a Christian for 37 yrs. I have no trouble saying that this earth came from a big bang, & also I am not saying it did, But let the atheists that believes in the big bang ask themselves, who created all those masses of planets & stars to cause the big bang, Something had to create the elements that will make up the big bang, Come on now Atheists, Where did the elements come from to cause a big bang, Someone Had to create it.

Answer 4

Your argument is an old one, so scientists and logicians have refuted it many times. A watch is not the universe. It is clearly made by man. The universe is a product of natural laws. It only complicates matters to concoct some deity who is much more complex than the universe and say he created it. If the watch or the universe are unlikely, a god is infinitely more unlikely. Coincidence is not natural law, so here is a fallacy in your copied argument. Your argument that is borrowed from creationists (of doubtful intelligence and honesty) makes no sense to me or to most scientists. There is evidence for the Big Bang, but a better theory may arise eventually, so I only accept it tentatively. There is no evidence for existence of gods, so I reject it completely.

Answer 5

you're making use of two distinctive definition of certainty there, certainty as existence, and certainty because of the fact the way issues are. yet once you're taking that argument at face fee, the sole factor that it says is that there is often something genuine, yet only in view which you define the shortcoming of certainty as a type of certainty. even because it somewhat isn't incorrect, with the aid of making use of this definition of certainty, you have rendered it meaningless. in accordance on your now new definition of certainty, the shortcoming of existance of something is counted as a certainty of that factor. the 2d part of that reasoning takes the certainty of god in accordance to that definition of certainty, yet makes use of certainty with its greater known definition (something that exists). So this is somewhat a semantic misdirection. replace certainty with existance and additionally you will see greater for sure the fallacy in that argument. notice: all the a priori arguments from god's existance i've got ever heard of is only misdirecting wordplay.

Answer 6

Believing in the Big Bang and evolution does not mean you forfeit the idea of a creator. I happen to belive in both. It's silly to deny all the scientific evidence of evolution, but I still believe someone set our universe on its evolutionary path.

Answer 7

I agree that what you have described is not a very good argument. However, I think that Christianity is even less believable. I am a Deist. I believe that there is a Creator, but that he/she/it does not intervene in human affairs. He/she/it is responsible for creation only. There is no evidence of any God aside from creation.

Answer 8

But you still hold on to the faith that some mysterious being just appeared one day and then just decided oh I will make a plya toy (human life) and they SPOKE WORDS and life formed?

Do you have any idea how ridiculious that sounds? Seriously???

Answer 9

while the human may be that complex, the single celled organism isn't. that's what we evolved from, we didn't start out as humans. and as for your watch theory, in 5 or so billion years, you just might get lucky.

Answer 10

something created all this--im just saying WE DONT KNOW WHAT!!! and all these people trying to come up with answers look stupid.........the world is way to complex to have been made by just ONE creator--and thats simple logic..........but with everyone blinded by faith--no one cares to look for the truth..........