You are the accidental by-product of nature, a result of matter plus time plus chance. There is no reason for your existence. All that awaits you is death. Anything that exists does so merely by chance and exists purely without reason, meaning, or cause. This is based on the idea that a perfectly balanced universe has existed in perpetuity for all eternity without cause. This is not far from a religious belief that a perfectly balanced being (God) has existed in perpetuity for all eternity without cause.
As a Christian, I have seen quite a few strong reactions from my fellow brothers and sisters regarding evolution. There are many claims made regarding the evolutionary process that Christians could never accept, and rightly so. However, I think something that the Christian community may consider is whether or not all of the premises the atheist evolutionary community provides as evidence against God are at all required by actual scientific observations regarding evolution.
What was there before there was a universe? Before the Big Bang? From the moment we realized our universe had a beginning, we have been wondering what caused it. Could there have just been nothing? Can something come from nothing?
The watchmaker argument has been a pinnacle argument for Christian apologetics for a very long time. Evolution has been propped up as an appropriate piece of evidence serving to debunk the argument. Is this really the case?
Makugutu, a naturalist blogger over at this site, disagrees with some of my reasoning regarding evil in the world. The quote below is from my article here. I think it is interesting to note that when we began to elaborate on this topic, the conversation moved very quickly away from the nature of God and more towards human perspective.
If God knows everything that we will ever feel, think, say, or do, then do we have free will? It is certainly hard to imagine how we might be capable of freely deciding anything if all of our decisions are already known. But it may be possible to reconcile free will and "destiny" or "fate". Let's unpack the titular question and see where it leads.
The burden of proof is the idea that a person or party making any particular claim has to provide sufficient evidence that their claim is true. While this sounds a good idea conceptually, just how difficult is it to provide proof for simple, everyday actions. Lately, in an effort to find out, I have been disputing claims made by my friends in an effort to establish whether or not it is reasonable to put the burden of proof on the individual making the claim.