WWG - Is there a God?

Ok.  I won't pretend I have this all worked out. In fact, as time goes on, I'll likely change my beliefs along the way. That's growth. If I do, I'll revisit and link to the thread along this path. And maybe make a note of an updated thought. 

So, let's start. Humour me for a bit - come with me on this mental journey. Not complete, but definitely, these were some of the stepping stones along the way:

Let's start here: Is there something we call 'God'? Well, I do believe that from a purely rational perspective, the world around us cannot be some 'lucky mud'. It can't be by random chance that this world was created and we have arrived where we are. I once remember going to listen to a message once given by Pastor Tom Morris and some guests. (To note, this was given in the early 2000s; I suspect more has been learned since. How much of the detailed knowledge on this has changed since then?) In this message, the following was said: 

Back in 1905, Ernest Hawkle described living cells as merely being “homogenous globules of plasma”.  Well, since then technology has advanced, and what we know today is that the simplest living system, a single-celled living organism, is more complicated than anything we’ve been able to create through supercomputers.  A single celled organism has been accurately described as a high-tech factory complete with artificial languages and decoding systems, central memory banks that store and retrieve impressive amounts of information, precision control systems that regulate the automatic assembly of components, proofreading and quality control mechanisms that safeguard against errors, assembly systems that use principles of prefabrication and modular construction, and a complete replication system that allows the organism to duplicate itself at a bewildering speed.  Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that the information content of the simplest living cell is equivalent to 100 million pages of that encyclopedia. ... What we know today is that a living system must be able to do three things – it must be able to process energy, store information, and replicate.  Living systems do these things, non-living systems don’t.  In order to accomplish these tasks, living systems use three components – they use protein, DNA, and RNA.  Protein – these are long, chain-like molecules composed of amino acids linked together end to end, which fold up into very complicated shapes.  The specific sequence of the amino acids is what determines the protein’s three-dimensional shape and function.   DNA – the double helical molecule of heredity is like a long ladder twisted into a spiral.  The rungs of the ladder are composed of the bases: adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thiamine. The information in DNA is determined by the exact order or sequence of these bases, which act as letters or symbols recording information.  So, in a living system, proteins serve to help process energy. They act as catalysts to speed reactions that would otherwise be very slow and inefficient.  DNA is the information center.  It is like a microcomputer storing information, which in turn is used to direct and guide different processes.  And RNA is an intermediate.  So what happens is that DNA works to make RNA, which in turn is used as a template to make protein.  Now, each one of these components is extremely difficult to make – it’s never been done in the laboratory, even under perfect, prebiotic conditions.  Now, having to bring all three of these components together, which are required for life, only compounds the problem of trying to create life.  What we find is that DNA and RNA are absolutely essential for life, but they can only be produced by life.  How, when no life existed, did DNA and RNA come into existence?  The origin is such a sophisticated system that is both rich in information and capable or reproducing itself has absolutely stymied the origin of life scientists.  The probability of the simplest living cell assembling under ideal conditions by chance or by accident has been calculated by molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz.  And he calculated that that was one chance in ten to the one hundred billion power.  So that is one, followed by one hundred billion zeros. ... Sir. Frederick Hoyle, one of the leading astronomers and mathematicians in the world, and author of the book The Intelligent Universe, he puts a little different spin on things – he said, “The probability of life arising by chance is the same probability as tossing a 6 on a die five million consecutive times.  So, to picture that, can you imagine tossing a die day and night for a year and every single time coming up with a six? ... He went on to say that the probability of life increasing in complexity and organization by chance is the same probability of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and forming a Boeing 747 out the other end.  What he’s trying to tell us is that random, impersonal chance does not produce complexity and organization. .... Biochemist Michael Beyhe in his book Darwin’s Black Box said, "The conclusion of intelligent design flows from the data itself and not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs and the reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design has no justifiable foundation.” 

Or, from a source perhaps a bit more relatable and a bit less scientific, but coming to the same conclusion: there's a quirky TV show around right now called Young Sheldon. In an episode from Season 2, the little atheist scientist has a discussion with his struggling Evangelical mother. She says to him, "Faith is believing in something that you can't know for sure is real. And right now, I'm struggling with that." He responds, "So you don't believe in God anymore? Can I help? Maybe I can provide a fresh perspective." He sits and thinks a bit, looking into the cosmos. And then he says, "Did you know that if gravity were slightly more powerful, the universe would collapse into a ball? Also, if gravity were slightly less powerful, the universe would fly apart and there would be no stars or planets. ... Gravity is precisely as strong as it needs to be. And if the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the strong force wasn't one percent, life wouldn't exist. What are the odds that would happen all by itself? ... I don't believe in God, but the precision of the universe makes it logical to conclude there's a creator." Hmm. Out of the mouths of babes.

Ok ... so, it seems to me that based on this scientific description and Young Sheldon's words, one is definitely more scientifically knowledgeable than I, and the other holds elements of fact as well. At the very least, there is a good logical reason that there is at least something behind creation. This all cannot have happened from random chance, a gazillion million years ago. I mean, even if that were the case, from completely personal observation, I can't see how we are progressing as a species. We might, in a way, have 'discovered' things along the way, but as a species, I see little to no progress. Not like other species have progressed. Oh ... wait ... we did produce lighter skin colour if we lived further away from the direct rays of the sun, or darker skin pigment if we lived more in the direct line of the sun ... but even that now has little to no biological advancement on our species, as far as I can tell. Hell, we're still dividing people into groups based on that for all sorts of discriminatory reasons based on constructs we create! And I don't see that as 'progress as a species'. 

So, faced with the two thoughts - "God exists" vs "God does not exist - this is all lucky mud", at the very least, it would seem most logical to conclude that something must be behind the creation of all. And, as various cultures and groups of people throughout time have given this something various names. I think even some of our day's great atheists agree that something is behind this. And, due to my background, the easiest name to give This-This is God. So, for the sake of this, let's give this God a useful, rather generic definition: A supreme or ultimate Reality, a Being perfect in power, wisdom, goodness, creator of the Universe. (Even that seems to give God traits that are more 'religious' than generic.) A friend once referred to God as "The All that Is". I kind of like how the Indigenous people refer to God as Creator. I guess, when faced with those two thoughts above, in the end, I would say that there IS a God. I would just have to explain away too much to random chance if there wasn't. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, most likely it is a duck. Please also note, I am going to do my best to refrain from giving this God, this Creator, a gender. I actually believe that God has no gender, is neither male nor female, not a 'he' or a 'she,' yet embodies both simultaneously. Now, in today's zeitgeist, there is some discussion that says this would make God 'non-binary' ... and I do not agree with that either. That highlights a massive ignorance (or stupidity?) but I digress ... again!

So, many years ago, I read many opinions on why some think there is and some think there isn't ... and in the end, I concluded there is a God. I, personally can't suspend my logical thought long enough to agree with the "Lucky Mud Theory." But that was just the beginning of the struggle. 

Ok. We've established that given the two options, there is more likelihood that there IS a "God" than not. 

Where to from here? ... now what? 

(Oh, and if there is anything I have written that you, dear Reader, still have questions about, please ask them! I love to be challenged and have to think through an answer for questions posed to me!)