While discussing the difference between right and wrong is a very good topic, I feel like it is going nowhere. So since you basically asked me to show you proof that God exists, I will for the moment get off the topic of right and wrong to show you that God exists. Hopefully we shall get back to this topic soon.

I hope you know science because what I am about to say deals heavily in it. One of my aunts has a friend whose name is Micheal Hite. He has helped me get into proving that God exists through science. I give the credit to him and to God.

"Does God exist?" the question that most human beings ask in their lifetime. Either God exists or He doesn't. There is no room in between. What evidence, then proves which part correct?(Note: when I say prove, I do not mean by empirical evidence, a.k.a. the five senses. We cannot prove God the same way we prove a sack of tomatoes.) While empirical evidence is very useful in proving something, it is not the only way to prove that something is in being.

All legal authorities reconize the vality of the prima facie case. This is in effect when enough evidence is available to establish such a high probability of a fact being true that, unless taht particular fact somehow can be refuted, it is considered proven beyond reasonable doubt.The arguement of the thesist(me) is taht there is a huge amount of powerful evidence which forms an unshakable prima facie case for the existance of God, one that is unshakeable. I would like to show you a portion of that evidence for the evidence of God.

The Cosmological Argument- Cosmological of course meaning cause and effect- is the most used argument for the existance of God. It says that the Universe is here and therefore can and must be explained. The universe exists. Anyone who is sane understands that. So pops up the question "How did the Universe get here?" Basic science says that nothing can create itself, otherwise called contingent because it is dependant on something else outside of itself to create it or explain it's existance. The Universe has not as of yet explained to us how it got here or why its here, therefore it is labled as contingent. Here is where the law of cause and effect plays a big part in the cosmological argument. As far as scientific knowledge goes, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definatly true of the Law of Cause and Effect because it is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply, the Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have a cause that happens before the effect.

Unfortunately, I disagree with some of your statements already. I agree that it is logically impossible for something to create itself, however science does not say that everything must have a cause. In fact, particles come into (and go out of) existence all the time at a quantum level for no reason whatsoever. Cause and effect is only true at a non-quantum scale, and I would also quibble with your qualifying cause and effect by using the word "material" since I see no logical reason for it.

Material causes with no adequete causes do not exist. Also, effects never happen before the cause. In addition, the cause is always greater than the effect. This is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequete cause. For whatever effects that we see, we must suggust an adequete cause, which brings us back to the original question, How did the universe get here? there are only three possible answers to these questions: 1) The Universe is eternal it will always exist the way it has been doing for eternity. 2) The Universe is not eternal it was created out of nothing or 3) the Universe is not eternal and it did not create itself , rather something (Someone) created it who was superior to the Universe.

I do not understand the statement that a cause is always greater than the effect. In chemistry, for example, the results of a reaction must equal the cause of the reaction. In fact, conservation of energy would imply that causes and effects should be equal.

As for your possibilities of where the universe came from, there are at least two others: 4) The universe is part of a series of universes, and 5) the universe is not eternal and (avoiding the word "created") came into existence from an unknown previous state.

All three of these deserve careful consideration.

The Eternal Universe

The comfort zone for someone who does not believe in God is that the Universe is eternal. However, science today denies this fact, and says that the Universe had a beginning and an end.

Just a nitpick, but science does not "deny" that the universe is eternal (and a non-eternal universe is well within my comfort zone). Instead, science has evidence that the universe had a starting point. There is still debate about the end of the universe.

Amoung the most important and well established laws of science are the laws of thermodynamics. The first law, also commonly known as Law of Conservation of Energy and/or Matter states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. The second law also commonly known as the Law of Increasing Entropy states that everything is running down or wearing out. Energy is becoming less and less available to use. Entropy, a measure of randomness, disorderliness, or unstructureness, is increasing. That, of course, means that the Universe is going to wear itself out. This end is referred to by scientists as the heat death. In other words, the universe is like a giant clock that is winding down from the first time it has been wound up. The conclusion from science which is inescapable is that the Universe is not eternal. Eternal things have no beginning or end, nor do they run down. A famous scientist, who happens to not believe in God, Robert Jastrow of NASA wrote "Modern science denies an eternal existance to the universe." He is correct. We now know that scientifically the universe is not eternal.

Another nitpick: the heat death of the universe wouldn't be the end of the universe, it would just be the end of anything of note happening in the universe. Also, if the universe is closed it will eventually collapse in on itself, but that's a whole other discussion.

Created itself out of nothing

Not too long ago, it would have been almost impossible to find any reputable scientist who would be willing to suggest that the Universe created itself out of nothing. Every scientist as well as school children knew and understood that no material thing can create itself. The Universe is the created, not the creator. And until recently it seemed there could be no disagreement on this point. However, since the evidence is so strong that the Universe had a beginning some scientists stated that the Universe created itself. Normally, a statement like that would seem absurb because it denies the basic principles of physics. Yet those who do not believe in God have been willing to defend it. This suggestion is of course in clear violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. As astronamer Robert Jastrow put it, " The creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science- the principle of states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact." Also, science is based on observation, reproducibility, and empirical data. Yet when pressed for the data that document the claim that the Universe created itself from nothing,they were forced to admit that there is no such evidence to confirm it. The idea that the universe created itself is absurb, both philosophically and scientifically.

Unfortunately, I think you're way off base here for a few reasons. 1) The first law of thermodynamics doesn't apply until after the universe comes into existence, 2) it is impossible to get any evidence for what there was before our universe came into existence and the statement that scientists can't provide evidence that the universe came from nothing is just a disingenuous way of pointing this out, 3) scientists don't say that the universe necessarily came from nothing, they just say that it wasn't caused by a deity, 4) there are a number of plausible theories for what could have initiated the big bang, none of which violate the laws of physics.

The Created Universe

Either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. All available evidence states that the Universe did in fact have a beginning. Logically and scientifically we can safely say that the Universe had a cause since it is here. Cause and effect states that wherever there is a material effect, there must be an adequate antecedent cause. Also, the fact of the matter is that no cause is lesser than the effect.

Since it is obvious that the Universe is not eternal, and the universe could not have created itself, the only remaining possiblity is that the universe was created by something or Someone greater than itself.

Again, I disagree that a cause has to be greater than the effect. The collapsing and subsequent exploding of a previous universe could have resulted in our universe without any divine intervention or greater cause. There is also the possibility of the universe having come into existence because of a causeless, random quantum fluctuation. I would argue that both of these possibilities are more likely than the possibility of a deity.

Also, I would ask you whether a deity would be immune to the requirement of a cause. And if we were to agree that there was at least one thing that had no cause, why couldn't that thing be the universe instead of God? In fact, a universe is so much more simple than a deity that I think its causeless existence is more likely.

For now I must close. I will try and resume this later. I feel that at the moment your head must feel ready to bust, I know mine does with all this science.

I look forward to it!