Hello again, and sorry it took so long to respond. I finally have a little bit of free time and would like to begin stating my case for you. I figured that a good place to start would be with the Intelligent Design vs. Naturalism debate. Please note though, that before I begin, I am not trying to say I can outrightly prove the existance of God, or completely disprove macro-evolution. If I could, I'd be famous. Realistically, in purely scientific forms (which is what the basis of this debate should be laid on) both Intelligent design and naturalism are theories. I've been irritated enough by people claiming that evolution is fact, and just as irritated by supposed theologists claiming that they have complete, 100% un-deniable proof of the existance of God. My goal here is to provide evidence based on fact, to present a logical case, then have you make the most rational decision based on it. Anyway, lets begin.

The Intelligent Design "philosophy" basically states that we (scientific community) has been able to trace the history of the universe back to the beginning of time to when it was made. Most people have a very generalized idea of this as the "Big Bang." In 1916, Albert Einstein first uncovered the concept of the expanding universe from calculations derived from his Theory of General Relativity. Actually, for him this was a big problem. The popular scientific viewpoint of the day was that the universe was eternal- had existed forever and will continue to exist forever. The problem Einstein had, was that if General Relativity was true and the universe was expanding, it implied that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, first of all, the "eternal universe" theory could not be correct, and second of all, it meant that it had to be made. Einstein disliked this concept so much, that he actually deliberately sabotaged his equation, adding what was known as a cosmological constant, which altered the outcome to what he wanted it to be, as opposed to what it was. In 1919, cosmologist Arthur Eddington (a theological skeptic himself) conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse, and reached the same conclusion Einstein had about General Relativity- The universe was indeed expanding. Like Einstein, Eddington wasn't happy with the implications of the expanding universe either, and was even quoted as saying, "I should like to find a genuine loophole [around General Relativity]." In 1922, Alexander Friedmann (a mathematician) had uncovered Einsteins deliberate error he had placed in his equions for GR (general relativity). And in 1927, Edwin Hubble actually first observed the universe expanding (via telescope of course). In 1929, Einstein (using Hubble's telescope) also witnessed the expansion of the universe, and admitted his error in deliberately and falsely changing the outcome of his Theory of General Relativity. Today, the Theory of GR has been proven accurate to 5 decimal places.

Now comes the fun part. Why does the expanding universe matter? Well, the scientific law of Causality states that everything that has a beginning (has come to be) has a cause (and in case you don't know, a scientific law is called a law b/c it is known to be true in all cases. Period. No exceptions). Thus, since the universe is expanding and therefore must have a beginning to it, we can deduct:

1- Everything that has a beginning (has come to be) must have a cause (Law of Causality)

2-The universe has a beginning

3- Therefore, the universe must have had a cause.

Now, some people may argue that the expanding universe doesn't mean it had a beginning, and up until the Theory of GR, atheists were perfectly comfortable with the "Eternal Universe" theory, as that would imply that the universe never needed to begin, and thus did not need anything to make it begin (to cause it). Unfortunately for atheists, scientists can now prove beyond reasonable doubt that the universe did have a beginning (A.k.a The Big Bang). There are 5 major supportive peices of scientific evidence for the big bang:

First, is the second law of thermodynamics (the study of matter and energy), which states that everything in the universe as we know it (including the universe itself) is running out of usable energy. Essentially that means that eventually the universe will run out of gas (like a car). So why does that mean the universe had a beginning? The answer is the first law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total amount of eneergy in the universe is constant. Now, if theres a constant amount of energy ( No matter how huge that constant amount might be) that can be used (usefully), that means that it would be impossible for the universe to be eternal- if there is a limited amount of fuel, it would be impossible for it to run forever, so to speak. Another hugely important thing the second law of thermodynamics (also known as the law of Entropy) brings to the table, is that over time, nature brings disorder. Everything wears down over time. Even our bodies, as we get older, lose more energy and become more disordered (thus, we cannot live forever). The fact that there is still usable energy in the universe, and that the universe still has order to it, tells us that the only way it could not violate the laws of thermodynamics, would be that it did indeed begin at some point, and is not eternal.

The second large peice of scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory, is the expansion of the universe. As mentioned earlier, Edwin Hubble was the first person to actually be able to watch the expansion of the universe via his telescope. The expansion if very important, as it provided scientists a way to calculate how fast it is expanding, and among many other things, matematically calculate where the expansion started, how long ago it happened, and the size of which everything exploded out of. Several different sources I've read from indicate that calculations determine that the initial point that the Big Bang occured from was nearly infinitely small. Also, it has been concluded (look it up if you don't believe me) that the Big Bang brought all matter, dimension and even time into existance. Before the big bang, there was literally nothing. Not even time existed. This brings up an interesting dilema for arguing atheists. If nothing had existed before the big bang, where did the big bang come from? As I mentioned before about the law of Causality, anything that happens needs a cause. So what caused the Big Bang? This is a huge problem for atheists, as they can find no rational explaination for it. Self-proclaimed atheist and scientist Peter Atkins once proposed during a scientific/theological debate that perhaps the big bang was caused by a swirling dust of mathematical points that recombined over and over again until finally, by trial and error (and pure luck of course) happened to create the outcome of the big bang. Unfortunately for him, before the big bang, matter, mathematics, time, and the laws of physics as we know them did not exist, thus it was impossible for that to happen. This is where theology, from a scientific standpoint, makes more sense. If the universe must have had a cause, and there was nothing at all the cause it, how did it come to be? The notion that an all-powerful, all-intelligent, eternal God that has existed before time itself (keeping in mind that time didnt exist until the big bang occured) actually created the universe out of nothing makes more sense than anything else. (Interestingly enough, the original Hebrew verb 'bara' used in Genesis 1:1 of the Bible literally translates "Created out of nothing" which matches exactly the theory of God causing the Big bang. This same verb was used 7 times throughout the Old Testament of the Bible to describe how God created the universe out of literally nothing. Also note that there are 11 verses by 5 different authors of the OT, that state God is literally stretching out the heavens, which is also consistent with the notion of the expanding universe). Some people may argue that even if God did cause the big bang, what caused (created) God. Unfortunately, the law of causality doesnt really apply to God, as the law states that all things that have a beginning (COME TO BE) need a cause. As stated by the Bible, God never came to be. God has always existed. He is eternal, the alpha and omega. If God never "came to be" (as the Bible states) the law of causality doesn't apply to him. No beginning = no cause. The eternal God, who created our laws of time and physics (and thus, is also not subject to them) is actually the most rational explaination for the cause of the Big Bang.

Our third major scientific peice of data supporting the Big Bang is what is called "Cosmic Background Radiation." Basically, knowing what scientists already did about the universe (its expansion, age, etc) they were able to determine that if everything in existance had essentially exploded out of a nearly inifitely small point, there would be signs of it via heat energy. Think of a bomb; When they detonate, they generate a huge amount of heat. Same concept here. Actually, Cosmic Background Radiation was first discovered by accident in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson (which ended up winning them Nobel Prizes). The CBR they detected was literally the afterglow of the initial heat from the Big Bang. (Due to the absolute immense size of the universe, everything, including light and heat, takes a great deal of time to travel from one place to another. Although this gets very complicated, its also very fascinating. Essentially, its actually possible to see into the past in the universe b/c of the amount of time it takes for light to reach us from another point in space). This was huge, b/c as early as 2 decades earlier, scientists had calculated that, if the big bang did occur, they would be able to detect such radiation. This basically laid to rest any still-existing theories on the universe being eternal, as and eternal universe would have no explaination for the heat (no cause), and b/c the heat detected had exactly the same wavelengths and pattern that scientists predicted they would based on the Big Bang theory.

The fourth peice of evidence rides on the third one. With the knowledge now of cosmic background radiation, astrophysicists theorized that in able to form galaxies, slight ripples and variations in CBR would be necessary (had to do with the gravitational attraction of matter). In 1989, NASA launched a $200 million dollar satellite called the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) to find signs of this CBR fluctuations. In 1992, the results were released and very good (even referred to as the Holy Grail of cosmology). The COBE not only detected the ripples in CBR, but scientists found that the measured CBR fluctuations were nearly identical to their predictions. The kind of accuracy that doesnt come from luck. Being able to calculate something that precisely is a very good indication that your theory is correct. The findings also dictated that the explosion and expansion of the universe is so finely tweaked, as to matter to congregate to form galaxies, but not so much that universe would collapse back on itself. One slight variation one way or another, and life as we know it would not exist. This finding was so important, Stephen Hawking called it "The most important discovery of the century, if not of all time," and George Smoot (leader of the COBE expedition) referred to the ripples as "Fingerprints of the maker."

Finally, the fifth supporting peice of evidence for the Big Bang is Einsteinds Theory of General Relativity. From this, it was found that time, space and matter are all interdependent- you cannot have one without the other. Because of the theory of GR, scientists were able to calculate the universe's expansion, the CBR, and even the very exact ripples in CBR necessary for galaxy formation.

With the overwhelming amount of data in support of the Big Bang theory, other theories for the universe (I.e the universe is eternal, and the rebounding universe, which i didnt talk about) were basically disregarded by nearly every credible scientist. That isnt to say that every scientist in the world believes the big bang, but some people will believe whatever they want, dispite evidence and support. As i discussed earlier, the Big Bang is hugely important to theology, as when it comes to how everything in existance as we know it was created out of nothing, aethiestic science has no answers. Even before we talk about Darwinsim and evolution, aethiests have no explaination for how everything came into existance in the first place. In this case, the idea of God is actually not so absurd. To be realistic, to this day, any type theory for how the universe came to be, outside the creator, takes more faith to believe in than the premise of a God that created it all. Basically the choices are random, naturalistic causes (despite the fact that before the big bang, laws of physics, nature, matter, and even time itself did not exist) or that a supremely intelligent being created everything we know today, from absolutely nothing whatsoever (confirming the Bible's claim. Also, on that note, according to several different sources I've read from, the Bible by far gives a more accurate account for the original creation than any other 'holy' scripture)

Anyway, I know that was a great deal to read, so despite having a lot more evidence to give you (over many other topics), I'll stop for now. I'm honestly not trying to bore you (obviously I love this kind of stuff, despite not being a scientist of any sort myself) but rather, want to provide you with information you probably haven't heard yet. Also, I just touched the tip of the iceberg. The majority of the info I gave you came from two great books, "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Dr. Hugh Ross, and "I dont' have enough faith to be an atheist" by Norman L Geisler and Frank Turek. Both of these books I feel provide a great deal of information on the subject matter, and several others. I need to go for now, but I hope I do hear back from you (even if it is with challenges or questions) and I definitely have more info to share with ya. Thanks for reading, talk to you soon. Take care.

To start, you mention being irritated by people who claim that evolution is a fact when it is a theory. I think you'll find that, although evolution must be called a theory for reasons of scientific vocabulary, most knowledgeable scientists consider it to be a fact. Intelligent design, on the other hand, does not appear to be falsifiable (at least not in any version of it I've encountered), and is therefore not even a scientific theory.

I believe you may be incorrect in your characterizations of Einstein's reasons for introducing a cosmological constant. As I understand it, he introduced it because gravity needed to be countered if the universe was to be in a steady state (as opposed to contracting), and gave up the constant when it was shown the universe was expanding. He was not worried that, if the universe had a beginning it would imply that the universe "had to be made." In fact, I can't think of anything in General Relativity that would lead to an expanding universe if there were no cosmological constant.

You might want to double check Eddington's quote about finding a loophole. I believe he was talking about the Big Bang, not General Relativity.

I also think Einstein's insertion of the constant shouldn't be characterized as a "deliberate error" or "falsely changing the outcome" of his theory. Rather, it was introduced to make his equations mesh with (what was then) observed fact, and when observations proved it unnecessary, Einstein admitted he made a "blunder." That's just the progress of science. (You also don't mention that some current theories of cosmology have reintroduced the constant.)

I am not familiar with a scientific law of causality as you describe it. I know that, in relativistic terms, any effect must be within the light cone of its cause. Is this what you are referring to? If not, then would you consider virtual particle pairs to have a cause? If you would, then I think we're good to go.

I think your discussion of thermodynamics has a few lumps in it as well. For example, the second law of thermodynamics does not imply that we lose energy as we get older. Our bodies are not closed systems so the second law does not apply. This is not a significant point, however.

You make a major mistake, I think, when you say, "Also, it has been concluded (look it up if you don't believe me) that the Big Bang brought all matter, dimension and even time into existence. Before the big bang, there was literally nothing. Not even time existed." I believe a more correct statement would be that "nothing in the observable universe existed before the Big Bang." I don't see how we can make any statements about what existed before the Big Bang since there is no way to get information from before the event. For all we know, the Big Bank took place in some unfortunate person's living room.

"What caused the Big Bang" isn't as big a problem for atheists as you might expect. Physics has a number of possible solutions. It is certainly a problem that is still being worked on, however.

Before we continue, let's step back a moment and look at how you are arguing. You keep repeating that scientists say nothing came before the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing that could have caused it. Even if your statement was correct (and I contend that it is not), why are you so sure that these scientists are right when they say there was nothing before the Big Bang? The simplest solution to the whole dilemma is that anyone who says nothing -- not time, not matter, not energy, but nothing -- existed before the Big Bang is just plain wrong. I'd say that the likelihood of this statement being incorrect is much higher than the likelihood of a universe-creating being existing, wouldn't you?

Back to your argument. I'm going to skip over the Bible citations, because they are really not relevant to the point (since we're not discussing the accuracy of scripture at the moment). You say that the law of causality does not apply to God because he never came to be. Well, there are at least two alternatives to God in this situation: 1) an uncaused universe -- for example, one in which there is an infinite series of Big Bang-type events, and 2) the Big Bang is an exception to the law of causality. Either of these, to me, is more likely than the existence of a universe-creating being. I also have to ask, if we can apply the concept of never having been created to something, isn't it simpler to apply it to reality (which we know exists) than to God (which we have not yet proven exists)?

You continue to spend a lot of time giving evidence that the Big Bang occurred. This gives me the impression that you think the Big Bang is some kind of problem for atheists. Actually, I can't think of a single atheist I've met or spoken to who does not believe that the Big Bang occurred. The only people I've met who disbelieve in the Big Bang were young-earth creationists, and they certainly don't need to be convinced that God exists. Just thought I'd mention it because you're expending quite a bit of energy on something that I'm not likely to disagree with.

You say that, "when it comes to how everything in existence as we know it was created out of nothing, atheistic science has no answers." This is just plain not true. Stephen Hawking has been quoted more than once saying that physics does not require God (although he also -- correctly -- points out that physics does not preclude God), and there are many theories of how the universe may have come to be that do not require God.

I appreciate your taking the time to write. The Cosmological argument isn't anything I haven't come across before, but it is entertaining to discuss and I liked hearing your version of it. I look forward to your next letter.