I, Alleywayzalwayz, would like to challenge the big question: Does God exist? I believe that I can lay down the strongest argument, philosophically and scientifically, for Intelligent Design of the Universe, or God if you will.
I know there are some really kick ass debaters here, my friends Scott Free, Dexter Sinister, and others. But I'm going to try to bring everybody a rational, logical argument in favour of the existence in God.
With all respect to the champion debaters,
Mr. Free and Dex, I hope you are willing to believe that an intelligent person can believe in God. I whole heartily respect you guys and wanna prove my debating abilities. At the end of the day I may not win you guys over, but I would really like to stand next to you guys as a champion debater.
I've pondered over a lot of evidence and it's like trying to solve a puzzle,
obviously, but even more, the
puzzle box top. Remember, putting puzzles together, and you gotta look at the box top? That's why answering the big question is so hard, cuz not everyone is looking at the right box top.
I'm going to start with science. Cuz science is cool.
1. The cosmological argument
1916: Albert Einstein didn't like where his calculations were leading him. If his theory of relativity was true, it meant that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning. Einstein's calculations indeed were revealing a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and all space. This flew in the face of
his belief that the universe was static and eternal. He called this discovery "irritating". He wanted the universe to be self-existent -- not reliant on any outside cause --
but the universe appeared to be one giant effect. Eistein so disliked the implications of general relativity -- a theory that's now proven accurate to five decimal places -- that he introduced a cosmological constant (called the fudge factor) into his equations in order to show that the universe is static and to avoid an absolute beginning.
1919: Comosologist Arthur Eddington disproves the fudge factor during an experiement during a solar eclipse. He confirmed that the theory of relativity was indeed true -- the universe was not static but had a beginning. Like Enstein, Eddington wasn't happy with the implications -- " Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me.....I should like to find a genuine loophole."
1922: Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann had officially exposed Enstein's fudge factor as an algebraic error. Incredibly, in his quest to avoid a beginning, Eistein had divided by zero -- something even school children know not to do! Meanwhile, same year, Dutch astronomer William de Sitter had found that general relativity required the universe to be expanding.
1927: The expanding of the universe is actually observed by astronomer Edwin Hubble. Hubble had discovered a "red shift" in the light from every observable galaxy, which meant that those galaxies were moving away from us. General relativiy was again confirmed -- the universe appears to be expanding from a single point in the distant past.
Now, this is the cosmological argument: If the universe had beginning, then the universe had a cause. In logical form, the argument goes like this --
1. Everthing that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
For an argument to be true it has to be logically valid, and its premise true. This a valid argument, but are the premise true? Let's look.
Premise 1) -- Everything that had a beginning had a cause --
is the Law of Causality, which is the fundemental principle of science.
Science is the search for causes. What causes what. If there's one thing we've observed about the universe, it's that things don't happen without a cause.
In fact, to deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality. The very process for rational thinking requires us to put together thoughts (the causes) that result in conclusions (the effects). To deny this law is absurd.
Since the law of causality is well established and undeniable, premise 1 is true.
Premise 2) -- Did the universe have a beginning? If not, then no cause was needed. If so, then the universe must have had a cause. Until the time of Einstein, atheists could comfort themselves with the belief that the universe is eternal, and thus did not need a cause. But since then, five lines of scientific evidence have been discovered that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did indeed have a beginning. And that beginning was what scientists now call
"The Big Bang"
Okay, the next point to my case will be my next thread. I'm going to attempt to show, with evidence, how the this one giant effect, is under other laws that show order and design. Gotta go, cheers. 
