Home Page Image
 
Life Questions - Life Answers!
 
 


WHY  GOD ?

Why is it so easy to prove there is a God,  
and so impossible to prove there isn’t? 

Why do atheists behave as though there is a God?   

Why is it so easy to prove evolution is impossible?

Why don’t evolutionists believe in evolution?

Two short lists of principles or rules.  You check them out. 
That’s all it takes 

Hello, I am Raymond Broad.  My email address is -  raybroad@orcon.net.nz

This system for answering those questions is completely new and original, and it is also fool-proof because you provide the answers using the scientific method.  (explained later) 

The reasoning of choice is that if there is a God, then certain things must be true as you have proved them yourself. If there is no God then certain other principles must be true, by your own experience. This means that you yourself, from your own life practices, could prove there is no God if you could verify these no-god principles. It's up to you.

What has become alarmingly significant, is that, try as I might, I am unable to find anyone who will challenge this system.  Under the scientific method all new rules must be rigorously tested.  The very fact that no one chooses to challenge becomes, in itself, proof of its reliability.  So; it’s time for you to do your own testing.

Part I The Questions   
This paper is designed so that you only need to read as far as you want.

Part 1, Asks the questions 2 pages

Part 2, Explains the questions 7 pages

The Challenge

Part 3, Draws conclusions 6 pages

Part 4, Science and objections 6 pages      That's it.           Let's go.

Below, I have written the two lists of the several principles surrounding this question.
One list proves there is a God, the other proves there is not, read them.  Read them across, not down; and they must be read slowly and carefully to be understood.

THEORY   only

REALITY

Untried, unused, untested. Never ever been observed

Only method known to man. Consistently proven, tried and observed

What some humans think

What all humans do,
    no matter what they think

Life comes from non-life

1) Life only ever comes from life

The greater the technology, the less genius needed

2) The greater the technology, the more genius/intelligence behind it

Intelligent design made nothing – it is deluded thinking

3) ) Intelligent design develops every clever device ever made

Theorists start with a clever object and end up with intelligence

4) Reality starts with intelligence and ends up with a clever object

The simpler things work,   the less design effort required

5) The simpler things are to operate, the more intelligent design they have needed

Clever technology sometimes comes from the –CCC process

6) Clever technology always comes from the DDCCC process  (explained later)

Clever devices make themselves

7) Clever devices are always made by someone outside of and greater than themselves

If you can prove these things are true  you have proved there is no God

If you know these things are true you have proved there is a God

For the no God theory, atheism and evolution to be true, the first list must be true. In reality, no human being anywhere, has any experience that proves it to be true in any detail, for the simple reason that it is entirely false and unworkable
Atheists and "Rationalists" live in the reality list but believe in the theory list. This is a sad case of dishonest dissonance (divided against one's self)                                      
Truly rational people both live and believe in the reality list. This is honest integrity (being at one with one's self)

So there you have it. By using the scientific method we have written seven of the natural laws of construction  If all the experience you know of, proves the second list, without exception, then you have proved there is a God.  And, please, if you know of any clever device whose beginnings broke those rules please tell me about it.   
If any experiences you are aware of prove the first list, then you have proved there is no need for a God. What is more, you are not a consistent believer in those rules unless you live and practice them in your own life. The only people who persistently practice that list are in institutions and if they are not, then they are most certainly completely unemployable. .  This article is not pitting one system of thinking against another; it is contrasting one school of thought against the reality of what humans do everyday. That first list depends on blind faith in a theory, the second list relies on practical observation without any faith.  Now you see why I say that it is impossible to prove there is no God, because there is absolutely no proof of any item in that first list.  And I mean absolutely.  Nobody has sent me one example of an exception to any of those rules.  I have begged and begged.  All I get is a deafening silence.

I am writing this paper because so many people have asked me, “Is there a God?”  So I thought it was time for me to find an answer from a skeptic’s point of view. Why do they ask? Because we are here. It's that simple. If we weren't here the question would not arise. But we are here; and so is a very complex world, so people want to know why, they want to know where we have come from and where we are going.
That is, most people. There are others who don't want to know. Most Germans before the war were too busy enjoying the benefits of Nazism to even want to contemplate where it might all end.  Germany's punishment was the direct result of too few people asking the pertinent questions.  We owe it to ourselves to get answers.

Part II Explanations

The scientific method
It works like this:  Firstly we carefully observe nature, then we formulate laws from what we observe, then we rigorously test those laws to prove they are without exception and finally we use those laws in all further research unless someone later finds a flaw in them.  Now that is exactly what has been done in this case, in developing those rules which I have postulated we have discovered some of the laws of construction which apply in our universe; and having formulated those laws, I am calling on anyone to disprove them in order to test their accuracy.  You may ask why I am confining the questions to human experience with design and construction.  The truth is, that is all we have to go by.  We weren’t there when the world was made and no manual was written, so we must research the parameters of design and construction from our own experience with the subject.  And the truth is, we have oceans of experience, certainly more than enough to write the rule book on how it’s done.  What has happened is that some people have denied our long history of expertise, instead, inventing other alternatives for which we have no observations at all.
Finally, I should define what I mean by the term God.  The God of humans should be someone who possesses more intelligence, knowledge, power and abilities than we humans do.
Now, for those who need a hand up, let's go through those two lists and explain them a little.

Life comes from non-life   
OR   
Life only ever comes from life
The instances of evidence for the premise that life only comes from life occur billions of times a day. The evidences of proof for the non-life theory have never been observed, not once. What ratio of evidence do you really want? Believe it or not, the whole construct of evolution is based on that first theory which is completely unproven. Ask yourself which method you follow. I don't care what living item you require, plant, animal or human, which method do you use?  The second one always. You do that because there is no other method to use. Now trust your own wisdom. You are right. Your own life and behaviour, not my theories, proves the rule. Even if a scientist could produce life in a test tube it would still be a living person (the scientist) giving life to something else. A dead scientist couldn't do it. (Living scientists haven't even done it yet.) Until men discover one instance of life coming from non-life without the aid of intelligence, we can invent all the theories we like, but they will only ever remain theories.
If you know your history well you will remember that the time once was, during the dark ages, when we believed that life could originate itself.  Weevils and other organisms of decay were believed to self generate.  When science came of age, we discovered that if you destroyed all life and kept the material sterile, no life would arise.  So now we have immense industries like food preservation, medical sterilization and hygiene, all based on the scientific truth that life cannot come from non-life.  At the same time as science was becoming wise on that point, evolutionary theorists were conducting this lemming rush back into the superstitions of the dark ages, re-igniting the old wives tale that life can self generate.  So science was going in one direction, while evolutionary theory was going backwards in the opposite direction.  One hundred and fifty years on, this panic has left us stranded with this medieval anachronism for which there is not a scrap of scientific proof.  And those who dare to ask for proof are just as much vilified as people were once pilloried for believing the earth was round.
A problem
You must have seen this problem coming.  Everything has a beginning.  Since most scientists now agree that our universe is finite and had a beginning, there must have been a time when no life existed in the universe and then life arose.  Now it either arose spontaneously or it was seeded into the universe by a prior existing life force.  Since all our scientific observations find that life cannot arise of itself, but only ever be seeded from a prior life; that intelligent life can only ever be seeded by intelligent life and that all seed must carry the full genetic programme for all its following generations, then the first possibility, of life from non-life, is not a possibility, so an external God must be the only answer.
So, where did God start?  Well, he could only exist in two ways, either he did have some sort of beginning or he has always existed, there never being a time when he did not exist.  The first option, that he began somewhere, defies our rule that life never comes from non-life but only and always from life.  And , unfortunately, according to our experience, that rule is unbreakable, so that we can only be left with the other option.  Now we have no experience with that option either, but it is the option the Judean Christian God makes claim to, and it does fulfill our rule. He claims to be eternal, without beginning or end of days.  Now although that sounds ridiculous to our minds, it is still the only option which fulfils the rule.  If God has not always eternally existed then all that theory list of rules must be true.  Now just give me one instance – yes, only one instance of proof for any one of them.  Once again, both science and your own experience have proved that life only comes from life which means God never came from non-life and how can you question your own experience?.

The greater the technology,  the less genius needed      
OR 
The greater the technology, the more genius/intelligence behind it
Evolution is a theory humans have devised in order to avoid believing in a God/creator.  In order to accept this theory we must believe that first rule to be true; that the technology of living organisms and matter which is superior to the technologies of mankind came about by chance, natural selection, survival of the fittest and copious amounts of time, all of which have no genius at all.  So let’s look at those two affirmations and test them.  Are the clever devices of the natural world greater technologies than ours and do those four pillars of evolution really possess less genius than we do.    
We are surrounded by the natural world we live in, whether it be organic life or the technology of matter. These two technologies, are superior to man's technologies. We know this because we came along after they were developed but still have difficulty understanding them. It takes much more intellectual acumen to design and build new technologies than to come along afterward and figure out how they work. Even so, we still don't know how everything works and even more, we are completely unable to build these same technologies, even with all those examples under our nose. We can manipulate what we find, and play around with it to limited degrees, but we cannot copy one single scrap of it. This proves that the world of plants, animals and man and the construct of the atom, sub-atomic particle and the molecule represents vast areas of technology which are superior to human technology. If it was equal or inferior to our technologies we could both understand and construct all these devices with the same ease we copy each other's inventions.
Human beings die in their thousands every year, of starvation, while surrounded by dirt. The food they need to survive is made of dirt.  The humiliating truth is that with all our technological advances, modern man can't even feed himself while surrounded by the raw materials to make his own food. We are entirely dependant on another technology for our food provision. (plants) We did not design or build this machinery, we just found it already waiting for us. It is a brilliant technology, but we can't copy it, nor can we even develop any parallel machinery to do the same thing. We are surrounded by a technology vastly superior to anything we might dream up.
So the natural world represents greater technologies than human technology. Has this superior technology come about from a greater intelligence than man's or by less intelligence.  Are chance, natural selection, the survival of the fittest and time less or more intelligent than we are?  Is time more intelligent than us or perhaps chance? Until we can prove they are more intelligent or the technology is inferior to our own, the theory of evolution is stuck with the principle that this greater technology, has much less intelligence behind it - like none at all.
This is believing in what we do not believe in. We humans would never dream of operating that way, yet we have a theory that it works. We should be more consistent and preach what we practice, instead of preaching unproven theories.
The theory principle actually demeans us, because it proposes that no brains at all can produce greater technology than we can with all our accumulated intelligence.  What madness causes us to disgrace our own brilliance by making it no brilliance at all compared to what mindlessness can produce.
The only thing we consistently practice and trust is the second principle. Every human who has ever wanted to create any technology has needed to throw more intelligence into his problem in order to improve his technology.  This is an ironclad rule we have never once been able to break. Until we can break that rule, we are compelled to accept that it holds for every clever device, natural or man-made.
This greater intelligence than man's which lies behind the greater technology of nature, we call God. Now you might say, why do we need to call it God. Well maybe we don't. Maybe we could think up another name, but as yet we haven't. And, a greater intelligence / genius than ourselves is still a god by any other name.
I had thought of another two rules which say the same thing –
Things too clever for us to make were made by something dumber than us
OR      Things too clever for us to make were made by someone more clever than us.

A word to the experts
Now please forgive me for a moment while I speak to the academics responsible for perpetrating the theory conclusion.  What we are talking about here is a linear continuum. “The greater the technology, the greater the genius behind it.”  It is a line of progression which broaches no exception.  To propose that we can break up this line and go into complete reverse with the alternative proposition, must surely qualify as the most irresponsible research behaviour on the planet. This is tantamount to slamming a speeding car into full reverse gear resulting in the exploding of the gearbox of our credulity.  Is it any sort of rational thinking to look at connected objects and assume that because they look progressive, they must have defied every rule of construction we have ever known?  Such blanket denial of the expertise of the most creative creature on earth must surely indicate that rationalism has become completely unhinged from reality.  We have made a total idiot of the collective constructive history of mankind; wiping it from the slate as though it counted for nothing.  We have become so tunnel visioned in the discipline of natural observation as to totally ignore the contributions of the disciplines of construction, which is exactly the discipline under consideration.  How can that qualify as true science?  In every lecture room in our universities the students are religiously taught to apply more and more intelligence to achieve greater outcomes; but between those rooms and the evolution section, the walls have been bricked up to avoid any cross contamination between reality and theory.
To carefully observe the state of an object and form conclusions as to the process of its origins is myopic research.  Looking at the wheel; how can we form a conclusion as to whether its development  process arose by modifying the roller, starting from a disc with a hole in it or putting a rim on spokes that ‘walked’.  Origin process cannot be concluded from state.  That is not science, that is storytelling.  Maturity demands that we compare process with process
It is alarming that in every public university in the western world all the items in both these lists are taught as though it were a homogenous whole.  Yet the graduates must operate in a world where only the reality set of rules apply, while they must go on believing, in blind faith, in another set of rules which cannot be tested by any observation or practice.  The concept of intelligent creation is not based on faith, it rests on the highly developed experience of humans, accumulated over many millenniums.  This amounts to millions of experiments which prove how clever devices are made.  
One would have thought that it would have made sense, when trying to understand the beginning of things, that those who begin clever devices should have been consulted about the process before constructing theories about beginnings.  The burden of this paper is that such consultation has never taken place.  So what emerged was a theory completely out of touch with the reality of how clever devices originate.  To dispense with God, fabricators must deny every principle of construction they know.

Which leads us to the third pair.
Intelligent design made nothing – it is deluded thinking
            OR
Intelligent design develops every clever device ever made
There has been a great deal of publicity about the question of teaching “Intelligent design” (ID) in schools, alongside evolution.  Over the years ID has become a forbidden subject and a hated concept.  Wake up!  We teach intelligent design all the time in all our classrooms except evolution classes (and modern art).  It’s the only method we know and society would never allow any other method for the construction of anything.  This situation of promoting ID in one part of an institution and forbidding it in another represents a very sad case of denial.  How can people be expected to cope with being told that natural technology is too complex for us to copy, while also being told that it is so simple it made itself?  This problem escalates even more severely when the student enters the real world to find that absolutely nothing can be developed without the application of ID.  It is also the harsh school of reality which compels the majority of our populations to believe there is a God in spite of one hundred years indoctrination to the contrary.  The fanciful, fairytale world where things make themselves is nowhere to be found.  Reality is a hard taskmaster who broaches no exceptions.
As mentioned before, scientific rules are established by observation and eroded by exceptions which are discovered later.  This paper has established the rule that Intelligent design develops every clever device ever made and there has never been one observed process which has broken that rule and that rule will stand until an exception can be found.
If I were to offer you the free loan of a beautiful motor home to tour the US for six months, all fuel and expenses paid, but you were forbidden to modify the vehicle, and then I told you that its brakes were built and installed by a mechanic who didn’t believe in ID (so it had no brakes) would you accept the offer - not even if I threw in ten thousand dollars – US dollars?  You see what I mean.  People who don’t believe in ID stake their life on ID.

Now for the next principle.
Theorists start with a clever object and end up with intelligence
            OR
Reality starts with intelligence and ends up with a clever object
Theorists propose that evolution's end result was the intelligence of man, arguably the greatest technology in nature. Such a theory is totally contrary to all our experience. Humans have never developed anything clever without applying intelligence at the beginning. Never. Yet we turn from our own practical experience and believe in a theory we would never dream of using. Mankind has discovered the incredible technologies of nature and then gone on to develop millions of technologies of his own from those of nature, but in all of these human developments we have never been able to escape from that ironclad rule, for the simple reason that nature itself is bound by the same law.

Now for the next pair.
The simpler things work, the less design effort required             
                        OR
The simpler things are to operate the more intelligent design they have needed
Consider the garage door opener. It is an electro, radio, mechanical device which a child of two could operate. Father could make and hang an old style garage door, but sometimes only father could work the thing; then a mechanical engineer could make a more modern door with springs or chains which mother could now operate; now call in an electrical engineer to provide an electric motor and any child who could reach the switch could operate it; finally, a radio engineer would build a remote radio device so that a small child could sit in the car and open it.  So many technologies and skills are involved which are exactly what makes it so simple to operate. This can only be for the same reason that a child can plant an acorn and grow an oak tree. Incredible intelligence made the operation very simple. The societies who applied their intelligence to the problem, developed the wheel. Societies who applied no intelligence to the problem never got the wheel even after thousands of years, and a million years would still not be enough.

Next. What's all this about DDCCC.
Clever technology sometimes comes from the CCC process            
OR
Clever technology always comes  from the DDCCC process.
Theorists and academics whose lives are largely separated from the hands-on processes of creating and inventing, may be able to convince themselves that the theory list might work. Those of us who have developed new devices know differently. Having endured the process of creating new contrivances, we have a healthy respect for the several parts involved. It has five major phases which are irreducible. The development of technology simply cannot take place without these five phases and no one has ever been able to avoid this programme. I call it DDCCC, Dream, Design, Collection, Construction, Commission. Every clever device on earth has evolved through this process, without exception. In an intelligent mind an idea is conceived, a dream is born. Then the mind begins to plan how to turn this concept into reality. This design process must take place or the dream remains a dream. The designing process may take place in the head, on paper or by experiment. Next follows the collection of the materials. Then the construction process begins and the conception and plans become reality following a process of manufacture and assembly. Finally commissioning ends the process. This involves starting the device, running it, keeping it running, fine tuning it and, certainly with human devices, problems must be sorted and improvements developed.
How is it that we humans who are chained to this process can think that clever devices which we were not involved with, came about by some magical process which is totally theoretical and impractical? Theorists have proposed that clever constructions may start at the point of collecting and constructing without the dream or design. They would love some proof, but there just isn't any. Unfortunately, not many humans have been through the DDCCC system. Inventors are quite thin on the ground while the rest of us have no idea how dreams begin or how much sweat and toil is involved in making them real.
If the atom did not come about by this process then it cannot exist. This process is ironclad, it cannot be broken. We cannot break it. If this process is not initiated, nothing happens, nothing new is developed, ever. If anyone knows of any exception to this rule, then please let me know. To bring matter/atoms into existence, the idea must have been conceived first, then plans contrived as to how it could be formed and the rules applied to it's structure, then incredible power sourced, (there's an awful lot of power in an atom) then the energy formed into tiny units, then they would be placed in their orbits, then spun up to full speed, then held to their orbits forever. Which part of that process could we omit and still get atoms. None of it. It's all necessary.
Some people hold the attitude that the incredible technologies of matter and organic life are not greater than humans clever devices, it's just taking a little while to unravel them. Get real. Such thinking is four levels below reality. First there is the problem of understanding natural devices, we are working on that problem, but every new discovery exposes even more which we still do not know. We actually don't know all there is to know about anything. The next reality, manufacturing it, is much more difficult, so much so that we are completely unable to make any of it from scratch, but there are still another two levels below that. What about designing? It's one thing to copy an existing object, which we can’t do, it's quite another to design it without our advantage of having all the examples in front of us, and finally, the greatest hurdle, dream this stuff up in the first place. The conceiving of an idea about a device that has never existed. That's where God is coming from. Everything began as a dream first, whether it was made by God or man. So impudent man begins to penetrate at the understanding level and pretends to think that he has mastered the whole four levels.
The final pair need a little more thought. I have included them so as to answer a common question. If there is a God, why can't we see or find him? Firstly, think through the two statements to check them for truthfulness.

Clever devices make themselves                              
                                    OR
 Clever devices are always made by someone outside of and above themselves

If any of you know of any device which designed and built itself, please let me know. What these alternatives are proving is that God cannot be made of matter because matter is a clever device. It could never appear without an intelligence first applying the DDCCC process. God could not invent matter and, at the same time, be made of matter himself. It would be much like wheels designing and building the first wheel. He has to exist as something outside of and above matter. The only term we have to describe such an entity is ‘spirit’. We use the term even though we don't understand what it means. Spirit technology is of another order, it exists in another warp. Human scientific research involves only the realm of matter, so this matter-science cannot reach into the spirit world and measure it.  So man, in his ignorance proposes that if our matter technology cannot measure spirit technology, it does not exist. In reality, the very existence of matter proves the existence of a superior, prior, non-matter designer. All this, unless we can prove that a God made of matter, made himself, which is nonsense.
God must belong to a higher order than ourselves and our world, in order to manufacture it. This being the case, we cannot communicate with him through any of our five senses which are matter senses. We must first find evidence of him by observing his constructions and then try to communicate with him some other way. Believers in God propose that the human power of thought (ideas are not matter) enables us to do this. Humans are not spirit and never have been, but we do have a spirit, a residual affinity or ability to fraternise with that other world. It is also quite logical to believe that the superior, prior warp of spirit realm, having invented matter could easily communicate with matter as it chooses, but the reverse is much more difficult. The process of utilising the other world is known as faith. It is the minds eye which sees that other world, the same imagination which all creative people use to visualise what they have not yet produced.

Finally, try this for an alternate view
Alright- a clever intelligent spirit did design and build everything including intelligence, but it has no intelligence itself. 

            Uuhh!! ??

Yes, some people believe that too.  They believe some clever spirit must have produced all this brilliance, but they dare not believe that this clever spirit can relate to mankind, because if they did they would then have obligations to it.  Like saying thank you or words to that effect.  Do we really have to screw ourselves into such pretzels in order to avoid recognizing anyone greater than ourselves?
I have often felt that mankind's difficulty in approaching and understanding God, roughly equates to the problem of a worm trying to understand man. The worm also could conclude that we don't exist because he cannot see or understand us. But his unbelief no more destroys us than our unbelief destroys God.

THE   CHALLENGE

Let several hundred scientists spend several hundred years constructing a perfect, fully functioning grain of wheat.  It must be made from the same basic minerals, be the same size, shape and looks; it must be capable of feeding humans and be capable of reproducing itself, just like an ordinary wheat grain.  This will include it’s own reproduceable genetic map for it’s next generation.  When they have succeeded, I want them to tell the world that there was no intelligence or design planning involved in the whole process.  Go, do it.
Only those who know all there is to know about such a grain, have the right to pontificate on how it was made.  But I am being too kind.  How about making the atoms for the wheat’s minerals as well?  Make them from nothing but energy, just as God did.

Part III Conclusions

Who then?
Humans, being the only intelligent animal, understand life and existence and also possess a deep desire for life to go on.  It seems a great waste to accumulate so much wisdom and property only to lose it all at the end.  So we possess this one supreme problem.  We must die and leave life behind.  The technology for living without dying is greater than any technology we have access to, which, by the rules we know, requires a greater genius to develop it.  Since we did not, and cannot, engineer this life, we need to return to that power which did, in the hope he might be able to engineer another life for us. And if anyone can offer a solution to that problem, then surely, it cannot be anyone else but him.

Mankind has developed thousands of life philosophies and life theories.. The problem of sorting the false from the true can only be solved by aligning them with the alternative questions I have proposed, making sure they comply with the principles of technology origins which are unchangeable. Such a search could be very long and arduous if we eliminated them one by one.
Most religions do not look to a superior intelligence, certainly not one capable of building our universe.  Of the few that do, such as Judaism, Islam and Christianity, only one proposes that that same creative genius actually came into his creation and visited us.  That model is Christianity.  Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the creator God who visited with mankind on earth.  The Christian God, Jesus, actually claimed to be the God who created the world.  No other religious world leader has ever made that claim and no other god has ever come down to live with us and asked us to check out his validity.  As you read his story in the Bible, you will find that he established his right to be the creator by performing countless miracles.  These are events where clever devices are made from nothing just as they were at creation.  Just as we would expect, the creator cherished his creation and took every opportunity to restore it.  That’s what miracles are all about.  Please notice also that whereas evolution breaks all the rules in the reality list, miracles do not.  They support the reality rules.
Jesus’ life was also a testimony  to the fact that he was a good God.  As a man he was a good man whom no one could fault, not even his enemies.  Finally, no other religious faith has for its leader a person who offers an absolutely assured passage from this life to another life afterwards, forever, because only the maker of life can offer to extend life.
 
Islam and Judaism both offer eternal life but they cannot offer you any assurance that you qualify.  These faiths predicate your next life on your performance in this life, and how God judges that performance, but they cannot assure you that God will judge you successfully.  Mohammed was not sure that he would make paradise.  Christianity, on the other hand, guarantees another life to anyone who accepts that Jesus was the creator God and that He came to pay our death penalty for us so that we, not needing to pay it, may live forever.  By coming to Jesus Christ you have come to the supreme creator and redeemer of the human race and he is the only one qualified to make such an offer to us, and he guarantees it.  He said, “Whoever comes to me, I will not throw out.”
 
It does not matter what we think, what we believe or what we hope for, there is only one truth about life, its past, present or future; and that truth can only come from the only person who designed and built everything.  We are the victims of life, its end result; it can never be up to us to decide the ultimate format of life, without consulting its author. 
The story of our beginnings and the God who orchestrated it all is contained in the Bible.  This book can be trusted because it completely supports the reality principles and never supports one of the theory principles. Sadly, all other life philosophies rely on at least some of those theory rules. The Bible also proposes a picture of our origins consistent with the sad side of our world situation. And although half the world's origin legends agree with its concept of a single intelligent creator, most of them either treat him as secondary to their other belief systems and objects of worship, or distort him away from the reality rules, or make him too impossible to reach or too difficult to please.

 How can we know?
This material was only intended to excite your research, not do it for you, so I will cover the major points only briefly. The Bible proposes an origin of matter and nature and the existence of a creator which fulfils all those criteria, without exception. It claims that a superior intelligence, God, designed and built all the technologies we find before us. It claims that God is a spirit. It claims that he has always existed and that he is the source of all life, so that life has always come from life. How God could always exist without a beginning is impossible for us to understand because our view is limited to matter functions and time as we know it is only a matter function. We do not belong to the spirit world, so our experience is no criteria for how it works. The Bible also claims that he made all matter from energy (he spoke everything into existence, speech is pure energy) and it also claims that the destruction of everything will result in the release of incredible energy. It was written thousands of years before we discovered the secrets of life and matter, proving that its authority came from the only being who could know all these things before man knew them.
Please mark this point with care. In my own journey of discovery, I did not set out to prove the Bible or its God. Instead, looking out at what I knew of the world and life, I searched through it to see if it yielded evidence of a God or of no God.
So can you see that the authority and reliability of the Bible are established as it agrees with the reality list of rules. That should make it very significant. Having established its reliability we can then use it to fill in the other facts of our origins along with our present and our future. More than this, we can also trust it's usefulness as it teaches us the programmes and procedures for communicating with our creator God and how to progress out of this world, into a higher design.
Traveling from that direction, I am now beginning to understand what Paul, a Bible writer, meant when he said, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20

The other side  
Many humans have a deeply ingrained belief that life goes on after this life, maybe in another form. Reincarnation, passing from life to life, is another form of this idea. Many also hold a belief in another spirit world, parallel to our own. What is repeatedly absent is any explanation of how these processes are to work or how they began. If these two functions exist, then a technology which enables them, must also exist. There must be mechanisms which function to make these things happen. If these phenomena exist without an intelligence to build them, then that second ridiculous, unproven rule must be true. I get the feeling that humans move from the first D to the last C in the DDCCC process. We have a dream these things are true, which makes them real in fact, never mind the design or manufacture. Even worse, many find proof of such functions and conclude that there is simply the last C without the rest. It simply got here, we don't want to think about the how.
Certainly, evolution is no explanation for the other side since there is no procreation to evolve anything between generations and not many evolutionists are so inconsistent as to believe both concepts in the same head anyhow. Most of them are rationalists, which belief forbids them to admit any other realm. Rationalists believe there is no spirit realm while others who do not believe in God think that the spirit realm is part of our material realm, proposing that our own minds can manipulate material objects using mystical powers.  If you are trying to believe that evolution, the other side and re-incarnation are all true, then you have not thought things out honestly.  These three beliefs simply cannot exist together and all be true at the same time.
I have proposed the following observation which should be self evident and which you should also be able to judge from your own experience. What you need to do is, apply these rules to every paranormal activity which you might believe in.

Behind every clever function in the universe lies a technology which enables it to happen,
and in turn
Behind every such technology lies an intelligence which designed and constructed it.

Maybe you consider those to be very bold and audacious statements to make, but I can make them without fear of contradiction until some evidence can be produced to the contrary. Every explanation which has been proposed to deny those statements applies only to functions outside our observation or before our time. Every construction of technology we have observed fulfils those rules. What we have dreamed up instead is a ridiculous rule which must read something like this,

Behind every technology whose origin we have observed, lies an intelligence.
` Behind every technology whose beginnings we did not see, lies nothing.

That something exists, is no proof of how it got here.
Once again, the Bible proposes an afterlife and another, parallel, spirit world. But a warning should be issued here. It does not propose that these realities are necessarily benign. It teaches, rather, that the future life and the other side can be good or evil, beneficial or harmful. It warns that these matters may not be taken for granted and that there are pitfalls which are extremely dangerous. There is a Heaven and a Hell and there is a God and a devil. Actually, the whole purpose of the Bible is to develop those themes, explaining the dark side and warning us how to avoid it and promoting the good side and how to benefit from it. Things do happen at the end of this life, but because this life was designed and manufactured, things will only happen as the manufacturer decides, no matter what we think.

Why no God?
Why is it that even though our whole life experience proves there is a God and disproves the no-god theory, people still persist in believing there is no God?
The first reason is like the worm.  If we with all our intelligence cannot make all this stuff, then we conclude that no one else could either.  The inference being that no one greater than us could possibly exist.  Since these productions which are superior to our productions exist, then a superior constructor to ourselves must also exist, because those laws of construction demand that it be so; and those rules do exist because there are no exceptions to them.
The second reason must be, that people do not want there to be a God. The concept that a superior being to ourselves actually exists, is an affront to our pride and arrogance. We must be top of the heap. For us to be the create-ures of someone greater than ourselves and owe that person allegiance and gratitude is not a welcome idea. We want to park on his real estate and use his facilities without giving him the time of day. We would rather turn ourselves into ungrateful users than acknowledge a superior being with authority over us. Our need for independence from control has made us into not very nice people. Nice people have a compelling need to thank someone for all that has been provided. Did you know there have been evolutionists who have possessed a sad frustration because there is no one to thank for the beauty and variety of life. Gratitude is the lubricant of all relationships. It may not drive them but they don't last long without it.
The only type of God we prefer is one who would be under our control, so we reject the authority of one who wants to guide us through to eventual success on his terms. What people really prefer is a Genie. If we could rub a lamp and produce someone who would solve our problems and then go back into his lamp, until further notice, that would be great. When people doubt God because he doesn't intervene to help them when a child is dying or he doesn't squash a dictator, it is because that's all they want him to do. They would not like him to sort out their own lives. The reason God has so little say in sorting out the evils of this world is because we don't want him. If he were to interfere in our realm, he would have to start with individuals, re-organising each life, including our own. "Oops. That's not what I had in mind, I wanted him to cure the rest of the world." Unless we can have a god of our own designing, we'll do without one, thankyou very much. Many, many people have given up on God because he hasn't sorted a problem which they have chosen for him to deal with. We are totally engrossed in our own agendas whereas he is only interested in the whole human race. We are too self centred to care about his problems and what he might want sorted, but even after he has disappointed our schemes and we have ditched him, we still return to making good use of all the facilities he provides.
Even if there is a God, why is it so necessary to spend time on him anyhow?
If there is a God who manufactured everything in the universe and who keeps it all running, then I suggest that we are ingrates of the most selfish order if we do not give him recognition, gratitude, loyalty, honour, yes even worship and obedience, in direct proportion to the level of his position above ours. In contrast, what we increasingly notice are ingratitude and a calculated intention to ignore our maker, of incredible proportions. We have deliberately designed a whole fantastic theoretical construct, which enables us to liberate our consciences from any need to be grateful to anyone. There is not one thread of observed evidence for the theory of evolution either in the past, or in our present time. Instead, man has preferred to worship anything of God's making, other humans, animals, plants, the land or objects in the universe, but never God himself, solely because he is above us and greater than us.
Humans have a long history of worshipping nature and believing that some animal or plant or geographical object made the world. Evolution is simply a modern sophisticated version of this ancient practice. That's why we have greenies and tree huggers. The strong persistency of this belief lies in the fact that we are at the top of the nature heap, the survivors of the fittest. Nature became our creator and we can control nature, our creator god, and that's the way we like it. This position brings us back to the original lie which sold us our rebellion. Mankind were promised that if they would rebel against God they would become gods themselves. We bought the lie and we remain hell bent on fulfilling its twisted destiny.

Look at the Larger Picture
If we can begin to trust the Bible as a true account of the origins of everything, because it agrees perfectly with the reality questions, then it pays to see what it has to say about the things we can't observe. The biblical construction of history and creation runs something like this.
God who is a spirit, decided to create a universe comprised of matter. So he harnessed incredible degrees of energy constructing it into atoms, sufficient in number to make a universe. On one planet in our solar system he formed those building blocks into a myriad of organic life forms. To one of these forms, man, he gave intelligence and the gift of curiosity so that forever we might search into the secrets of creation, gaining great pleasure from this puzzle game and from enjoying friendship with the creator.
Prior to this event God had trouble in his spirit realm, Heaven. One of his senior staff, known as angels, got it into his head that there could be another way of living, maybe on our own without God. He kept pushing his rebellion till he got thrown out, taking too many of his fellow staff with him. Since God can only enjoy spontaneous friendship from his subjects, he decided to let the rebellion mature, in order to reveal its true colours. For the purposes of complete and open freedom, he allowed man the choice to remain loyal or buy into this rebellion. Our first parents chose the latter. Even though they were warned that death would be the ultimate result, they still bought the lie. That is the reason why the wheels fell off. Man lost his perfect home, became subject to death, lost the opportunity to remain close friends with God, while nature fell apart around him and eventually even the geographic globe came apart in a disaster which nearly cost the human race completely.
Christianity's unique contribution proposes that God actually came to visit with us. God had fallen in love with his creation. As a great work of art, badly butchered, is still worth restoring, he chose to stay with it. Especially because of mankind. He loved his new children, an attitude we can understand, so he decided to work with the mess for their sake. As the supreme Spirit, God is a complex spirit comprised of three personalities. These three parts are spoken of as God the father, Jesus the son and the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the communicator between the spirit world and the world of matter. Jesus represents that part of God which could join the world of matter and associate with mankind. This would make it possible for man to get to know the true heart of God. So the Holy Spirit, using artificial insemination, birthed Jesus to a human mother. This Jesus then proceeded to earn the right to be a truly representative man, taking the place of our original father, Adam. From this position he, standing in for all of us, lived in total loyalty to God, our first problem, then died the requisite death for us all, in payment for our rebellion, our second problem. By virtue of Jesus actual position as a human, these provisions automatically became the right of all humans. Since that time any one of us may reverse our individually inherited curse by giving up our rebellion, believing and accepting this God as our true creator, and accepting the deal offered from what Jesus accomplished. Once we take up this new stance toward God, we immediately possess the right to live forever, our death sentence has been annulled. We also obtain many rights and privileges, the most important being access to the services of the Holy Spirit, the communicator. He is the link to God's world and, to the extent we cooperate with him, our lives become new and he begins to grow them.
So God supervised the writing of the Bible in order to get his real attitude across to us. If we will accept his deal our futures are assured. Not only that, but as we seek to align ourselves more effectively with God's realm and his rules, we are promised perks and privileges in the next life, in recognition of our efforts down here.
That is the picture of the Bible. It is the picture of a giver. He gave us incredible surroundings and a life. Then when we rebelled, he gave us his Son and another chance. Then he gave us the promise of a new changed life while on earth. Then he promises even further rewards after this life is over, but there is still choice. No one is compelled to believe in a God or that Jesus was his Son or that the Bible is his communication. If we prefer, we can believe in that list of alternative theories. Yes, even if we don't believe in them enough to use them ourselves. Sick distortions of religion all around us perpetuate a God we would rather avoid. The Bible tells of a God who built us to be his greatest fun and designed us to find our greatest fun in him. To too many of us that sounds like scratching our fingernails across the blackboard. Trying to make our worst enemy our best friend? Mark this with care, at the end, he will be our only friend.
There are rewards for good living, but only for believers. Passage into the eternal is not automatic for humans. Some of us think that if we live a good life, we will reap the eternal rewards of the next life.  Our problem is not how good or bad we are; our problem is about rebellion against God’s reality and authority.  This attitude must be reversed before He can take us back in.  We must believe in him and his son.  We must give up the rebellion and unbelief, and accept the deal on his terms. The essence of the rebellion was that we could choose our own format for life, even though we were not its designers. Such an approach is impossible. Coming back to our first point, we find that the whole shebang was designed, it didn't happen, and being designed, it was designed to function along a certain pattern. It cannot work any other way, in the long run. It is not up to us, the create-ures, to propose the format for life. If we are to pull through this lot successfully, we must return to the designer and follow through on his specifications. Funerals are not one way tunnels, they have two exits. To achieve success, their passage must be carefully selected. "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Jesus.
Finally, people are right to believe in the other side, but it must be approached with the knowledge of its good and evil intentions. If we don't, we will get burnt. Deceptively benign communications are very dangerous to us, unless we accept only those influences which God designates as beneficial. We do have a spirit, a part of our psyches which has an affinity for spirit things. In computer speak, we have a spirit modem fitted to a port or plug which should have been supplied with a cord, (a spirit gifting) but most people have lost theirs and even those who haven't, don't know where to plug it in. To assume that because we are gifted we are automatically equipped to sort through that other world, is a presumption which will bring its own reward. All communication with the paranormal is communication with intelligent beings and all the mystical manipulation of our world is their work. In their battle for our attention their whole programme is to lead us away from their rivals. Evil spirits disguised as friendly forces, have convinced millions of humans that they possess manipulative powers inside themselves, making God redundant. Earthlings possess only physical powers, we have no powers outside these. We are not spirit beings. The complete mess the world is in, is the direct result of waltzing into that world without first consulting the only reliable authority on such matters, the God who made it all. Once again, we confront our own rebellious streak. Earth comes with a manual, the wise read it, fools rush in. We are dealing with an alien realm which our sciences cannot research. In matters of the paranormal, we are like monkeys let loose in an electrical sub-station. The only monkey who is safe is the one who, in complete obedience to its human master, climbs only where he is told.
Because we originally derived from God, becoming by creation, his children, we have this strong, inbuilt hunger for our spirit father. (The Bible likens this unplugged state to a "death") The popular attempt to satisfy this hunger comes under the loose umbrella of what is known as "New Age." This belief system incorporates evolution and leaves us utterly vulnerable to the lies of so called UFO aliens.  Sadly, the whole thing is a cruel deception. It is designed to plunge us deeper into both rebellion and ignorance of God. Not only will it not satisfy our hunger, it will actually deepen it, while it will laugh at our discomfort and disappointments.
If an insurance salesman offered you a policy providing that if your house burnt down, the company would paint your neighbour’s roof, you would laugh him out the door.  Yet when God offers us a policy which gives us full replacement for our life if we lose it, we laugh him off and turn to the salesman who promises no replacement life insurance, only a promise to give our relatives a bit of money instead, and we get sucked into calling it life insurance.  So much for used car and life insurance salesmen.
Thankyou for reading. I have written a Post Script to this article on the seeming conflict between science and the idea of a creator God as well as looking into other popular objections to God. See below.  
To view other articles by this author and find a list of resources, click here www.lifewhy.org/page2.html
 
To contact the author, email raybroad@orcon.net.nz 

Part IV Science and God.

In my article which supplied the tools to answer the God question I did not deal with problems from the angle of science because I wished to assist lay people to form their own conclusions. However, I would not be fair if I did not at least consider the scientific aspect in passing. Science, the study of what exists, is not a problem, rather it is the interpretation of scientific discovery which causes the problem. People have dreamed up unrealistic theories which enable them to deny a God, then the interpretation of all discoveries is bent to agree with the theories. What is currently in vogue, in the popular media and educational facilities, is to treat the theories as fact to the point where anyone who disagrees is vilified, mocked and persecuted. This programme actually grows more intense as our discoveries increasingly deny evolution and the big bang.
So, to help you fill in the picture. I will list some of the problems evolutionists and big-bangers are having to contend with. It may also help if I deal briefly with other objections to the idea of God.

Missing links.
In the process of evolution, life progressed from the simple to the complex. This theory came to life by observing the progression of complexity in nature. This progression should be illustrated by stages of change between varieties of life, we call them missing links. Unfortunately, not one has been found. Many have been proposed and some are still taught, but all have been found to be either fraudulent or unable to qualify. Of the monkeys to man links, all have been found to be either monkeys or men or frauds.

Irreducible complexity.
In graduating from simple forms to more complex organisms, usually, several features are needed for the new form to survive. Some of these features would destroy the first form if they developed before the rest were ready. Also, the new form could not survive without all the features in place. So survival of the fittest would actually work against the progressive steps toward an advanced form. To illustrate, life was supposed to advance from water to dry land. Eggs laid on land have about thirteen features which water eggs do not posses. Many of these features would destroy the water egg and the land egg could not survive without every feature already in place. If the shell developed without a waste sac inside, the new life would poison itself. If these two features happened at once, highly unlikely, the new life could not escape from the egg without its little hammer to crack the shell and so on. No satisfactory answer has been offered for this problem.  More recent theories propose that land animals came first, followed by see creatures.  This still leaves us with the question of how an egg, beginning in a wet place, the womb, developed all the features, at the same time, necessary to it’s survival outside.

Genetic information.
Mammals like ourselves all have about the same volume of genetic information to guide their construction. Humans stand above all the other mammals by having somewhere between 2% and 5% more information than the rest. In actual fact, monkeys are more closely related to mice or cows than they are to humans, for that reason. The shallow conclusion prevails, that because they superficially resemble us in looks, we must have come from them, yet in other factors, they are actually more distant. An Australian crow has a much superior ability to manufacture, copy and modify tools than any monkey.
Bananas have about 50% of man's volume of genetic information. In order for life to progress from Bananas to mammals to man, there must be a mechanism for increasing genetic information. Not one single instance of the increase of genetic information has ever been observed, there is no known mechanism to bring it about, and no plausible theory for the phenomenon. The theory of choice is the process of genetic mutations which sometimes results in beneficial effects and kicks in the law of survival of the fittest. Problem is, mutations are either net losses of information, or the garbling of information, never gains. If you need to halt your professor in his parade of evolution, just ask him for one cited evidence for the increase of genetic information. This question must be dealt with, because the whole theory of evolution depends on it.
Yes, the increase of genetic information has taken place but only as the result of genetic engineering, which is strictly a function of intelligence, and that is exactly the point of this paper. We have proved ourselves, through GE, that only by the application of intelligence can genetic information be increased.

Galactic arrangement.
The current, popular theory for the birth of the universe and the origin of matter, is the big bang theory. Matter was somehow born in this incredible explosion, (the greater the technology, the less intelligence behind it) and has been expanding outwards ever since. So all heavenly bodies, including our own planet are still travelling away from this original point where it all began. Problem is, cosmology has discovered a galactic arrangement which itself blows out all our theories. Man has developed very clever tools for measuring distances in space. According to these measurements, galaxies are arranged in spheres like the layers of an onion. If the universe onion was to be cut in half, the galaxies would appear in rings with nothing in between. A certain distance from the centre there would be galaxies, then nothing but empty space until the next ring and so on. (Is it any coincidence that atoms are built the same way? Around the nucleus of an atom, the electrons rotate in clusters of orbits with space between each layer.) But here comes the crunch. The exact centre of these radiating layers is not an empty hole from which everything has travelled away. The centre of all this is the centre of our own galaxy. The universe is arranged around our own galaxy. (Not our earth, mind you. We are off to one side of our galaxy.)
Now you will most surely ask how science has dealt with this information. You may think that scientists form theories from what they observe, in this case scientists have formed their theory first but because the observations don't fit their theory they still refuse to change the theory. Edwin Hubble in 1937, wrote, "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs ... is intolerable ... moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity" (pp50-59 The Observational Approach to Cosmology) Notice here that the theory is the measuring rod against which the observations are tested. That is not science, that is philosophy. Even recently these observations have been rechecked, only to find they are sound enough, so they have decided to cling to the big bang theory even though these observations may disagree. The explanation of choice is that there must be some other meaning, but they haven't figured out what that might be. Perhaps you will see how ingrained in human thinking is the need to dispense with a God. The plain, unarguable facts of science must be laid aside while our theories are used as proof. Man, without God, loses his rational power to reason from his research, replacing it with prejudicial belief structures.

Time and Space
The big bang is science’s answer to the riddle of how the universe came into being.  The concept of a universe of matter being created in six days, and only six thousand years ago, as the Bible proposes, is hard to believe because the light from distant stars has taken millions of years to get here.  In our human limited understanding we think six thousand years is not enough.  However, the big bang theory suffers from the same problem.  For the universe to expand out to its present size, then to settle into its present state in those outer regions, then to send its light back to us requires far more time than any theory of big bang time yet invented.  So that theory hasn’t got enough time either.
The answer to this conundrum is that besides matter and life, God also created time and space.  When he did this, he was at perfect liberty to put them exactly where he liked.  Who are we to tell him where he might install time and space when we cannot create a working grain of wheat?
Time is also invoked as the most important ingredient of evolution.  Given enough time anything clever could be produced.  Once again, human observation has not found this to be so.  In all of human history, time without intelligence has produced no clever device.  Instead, our history has repeatedly proven that time coupled with intelligence has produced every clever device known to mankind.

Objections
If you feel that the line of reasoning I have proposed is a bit overpowering and drags you to where you do not wish to be, you might be interested in some alternative reactions which some have followed. One objection is that when we talk about matter and organic technologies we are dealing with a different technology to that of humans, so how can we fairly compare them? Where have you been all the time? Human technology is entirely based on organic and matter technology, we don't know anything else.
Here's another problem. Some people curl up into a fetal ball and whimper "Why do we need to know anyhow?" I've already referred you to the German people under Hitler, but I must add, we are all going somewhere. In order to know where we are going, we need to know where we came from, because where we came from is where we are going. If we came from nowhere, then we are going nowhere, but if we came from somewhere, then we are going somewhere and we will all get there with our heads in the sand or out of it.
Try this one. "Maybe we didn't begin, maybe everything just is." Learn to face your adulthood. Don't push your powers of reason into your back pocket, they are what makes you human and not monkey. That is a direct vote for the unproven list of theory principles. All these brilliant technologies exist by less intelligence than ours.
Again, others, observing the brilliance in nature, suggest that it must have been built by some sort of incredibly intelligent spirit; so clever that it could design and build intelligences like us, but lacks the intelligence to relate to us.  Now, stand on your head and see if you can make sense of that one.  Anyone clever enough to make one atom must be clever enough to understand us who can’t make one.
Another one is that life on earth was seeded from somewhere else in the universe.  Now that certainly fulfils the rule that life always comes from life; but it is only passing the buck, because whatever planet that seed came from, still has the same questions of origins as we have.

Mistakes
The most recent attacks on the concept of an intelligent creator focus on the apparent "mistakes" in the creative design of nature. Arrogant humans discover a little more, think they know the total picture, criticize what appears to be flaws, then later on, as they learn even more, find it was their ignorance of the total scene which made the flaws appear. Once upon a time we believed there were about eleven useless items on the human body like the appendix. We labelled them "vestigial organs". A hundred years of research has reduced this useless list to only one. Again, we found something like half our DNA had no useful purpose and nicknamed it "Junk DNA". Now we are beginning to find that it does have a use. One would think humans might learn to keep their mouth shut until our knowledge becomes more complete. Sadly, we seem unable to accept that we are researching a mind vastly more intelligent than our own and until we do, we will go on making fools of ourselves.  

Still involved?
Some have suggested that God made such a perfect job of creation that he was able to walk away without any further involvement. Ultimately, the plausibility of God’s absence  is a science / discovery answer not so readily available to laypeople and to be honest I am only just beginning to work on this one myself; but one situation does spring to mind. Human satellites need constant course corrections to prevent them falling in or out of orbit. We, with all our intelligent input, can achieve a near perfect balance between centrifuge and gravity, but at some point they move fractionally off course which tilts them into a fall which accelerates ever more rapidly until they crash to earth or disappear into space.
Why is this not also the case with the larger heavenly bodies, Earth, moons and planets? Here we go again. Do we have to believe the same preposterous theories we have just banished? Can it really be true that the larger the space object the less intelligent control it needs?
Given the wandering and elliptical orbits involved, it seems rather naive to think they can be left to themselves. That is certainly not our experience anyhow. One thing I do know, the maintenance of life is an incredible miracle. To conclude that this miracle functions without intelligent input stretches my credulity a bit far. Try this. About four ton of fresh elephant meat lies about in the African sun for half a century and doesn't go off? Get real.
I once stated that "God is the glue which holds everything together and the fuel which keeps everything running." I have no doubt that science will soon find proof of this reality. The Bible firmly maintains that God is fully involved in keeping everything going. The natural clues seem to be coming from micro science and macro science. At some point we will find an unexplainable binding, driving force in the atom, in the cell and in the stars. Science may already be looking at it now but we have failed to recognise it. But it is also true that we have not yet fully penetrated the inmost secrets of these three basic realities.
The other great proof of God’s involvement is that God actually claimed to have visited us in the person of Jesus Christ.  Given the incredible input into all created things, it would be hard to believe that he should not pay attention to us.  However, that one historical figure should actually make such a claim sounds quite preposterous, so it needs to be checked out.  Below, under the next heading, I have suggested a simple system for you to check up on those claims.
This question is much more elusive than the question about God's existence, I believe for a very good reason. The ultimate proof of God's present involvement is an interactive experience with himself in our own individual lives. Millions of Christians have proved this experience by achieving the humility in God's presence to admit his superiority and then wait on him with a persistence that nothing will break until he comes through for them. Too many others give up because their waiting is only to test God. God is not up for test, he only responds to unquestioning, unfaltering faith.  The Bible says,   “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”  So, if we first believe, then seek Him, we will find Him; but seeking Him first to prove His existence, won’t work.

The Jesus thing
People who grapple with the problem of the existence of God, inevitably need to confront the problem of Jesus Christ. This historical figure stands unique from all other great religious leaders because he claimed to be God.  Too many resolve this question by looking on him as a great historical figure with good ideas and teachings. Muslims believe he was a great prophet. This is a totally ignorant position. It is an idea of him by people who have never read him. If you read his claims and believe him to be simply a great man, you will have turned him into the biggest hoax, charlatan, impostor, rogue, nutter or schizophrenic the world has ever seen. He said the most arrogant, outrageous things about himself, so much so that he made it completely impossible for the honest person to think he was just a great man.  What is more, he was very persistent about these claims, knowing that they would lead to his execution, which they did.
Here are some of the claims he made. He claimed to be God, to be God's son, to have lived thousands of years before, to have come from God, to be controlled by God every day and to be going back to God. He claimed to be able to raise himself from the dead and to raise other people from the dead, then he claimed to give them everlasting life, to be able to forgive all their sins and to be the only person who could do such things. He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and he claimed the Jewish title for Almighty God, "I AM", for himself.
Some have concluded that he was just a deluded dreamer with a brilliant mind, fantasising about himself. Once again, if you read him, he does not come across as sick. Sick minds give themselves away. They may have some brilliant ideas, but sprinkled among them are the indicators of an unhinged intellect. If you think that is the explanation, you are in the fantasy world of Forrest Gump. If you are honest, you will either reject Jesus for the confused idiot he appeared to be or accept him for the God he claimed to be; but he could never be just a great man.  Great men do not tell repeated lies about themselves.
Others reject the story of Jesus’ virgin birth because it couldn’t happen.  My country has a large dairy industry populated by cows who’ve had many calves without ever meeting a bull, and we didn’t even make cows and bulls.  Still others can’t believe Jesus’ resurrection from the dead ever took place.  Of Jesus’ twelve disciples, only one died a natural death.  All the others were publicly killed because of their belief in the resurrection.  Would men permit themselves to be killed for protesting a story they had made up?  You will notice Muslim teachers and leaders don’t make suicide bombers of themselves, precisely because they don’t believe the stories of going to heaven with 72 virgins.  If they practiced what they preached, they might give credibility to their teachings and convince unbelievers at the same time.

God botherers
One of the major problems which lead to unbelief in a God is the discordant state of the believers in God. Christians and Muslims and Jews fight about their differences. Christians can be divided into tens of thousands of denominations many of whom are quite hostile to each other. I don't know what this has to do with proof of the existence of God. These are problems associated with crooked man. Mankind still tries to possess a God of his own construction and to view God through his own individual glasses. The stupid infighting of mankind is simply a reflection of the human condition and God is not answerable for that.

The existence of evil.
People find it hard to accept that a God who created incredibly beautiful structures could, at the same time, allow such discordant notes in the creation symphony. Something has gone terribly wrong in the natural world, in the geological world, and in the spirit of man. The decay, death, damage and hostility which exist around us cause us to exclaim, "How could a God of love be responsible for all this?" Why is death? Scientifically, there is no reason why life should not go on indefinitely. Why do animals kill each other and roses have thorns? Why are there viruses and diseases? Why is mankind so hostile to his fellow humans? Where did war and racial hatred originate? Even our planet shows signs of terrible damage, whole continents have been under the sea and risen again, the globe has been distorted and twisted leaving wounds which won't heal, causing earthquakes and volcanoes. The grinding plates of the broken earth have raised incredible mountain chains. This planet has been badly injured and we must live on its scars. Why?
These questions do have Bible explanations which add up, and which geological research vindicates. That is, if you believe the Bible. If you don't, then other explanations become increasingly implausible as research progresses.

Noah’s flood
Many people question the Bible story of the universal flooding of the earth and the saving of humans in Noah’s ark or boat.  They find it difficult to believe that water covered everything in a giant catastrophe.  Firstly, if the crust of the earth were flat, there is enough water to cover it to a depth of three kilometers.  But what about the Everests of this world?  All the high mountains are upthrusts caused by the grinding together of the tectonic plates.  We know that, so what’s the problem? 
There is almost no place on earth which does not show some evidence of being under water.  Even more so, this water must have been of an incredibly large volume and fast moving as we can see from the incredible layers of material laid down.  Just look inside the Grand Canyon or the Great artesian basin in Australia.  This is one of several very obvious features which anyone can see.  There are no normally explainable events which could have created the formations we can all see on our coastal cliffs and road cuttings.  The only explanation can be that something broke up our continental plates, plunging them under the sea.  Only this volume of inrushing water could create such vast areas of silt deposit which we are all familiar with, in the patterns of the rocks.  Then, as the plates emerged again, the water rushing off the continents created enormous cutting features, such as the Grand Canyon and the Blue Mountains near Sydney.  At the same time, the grinding of the plates caused the up thrusts of mountains, twisting and tilting of the laid down strata and endless volcanoes.  What lesser forces could have left behind such enormous results?
The same inrushing waters stripped the forests from the land creating great floating mats of vegetation, as happened on Spirit Lake after Mt St Helens.  These mats were then buried by more fast moving deposits and were converted into our coal deposits.  These deposits were not laid down over millions of years.  I have seen sixty foot coal faces composed of undecomposed , black, coalified, twisted branches in the same fresh form from top to bottom, just as if a giant bulldozer had pushed them into a heap all at once.
Then again we have seen vast ocean shell deposits a hundred miles from the ocean and a thousand feet up.  Whatever messed with our globe was way too big to be some local river or slow swamp.  This was catastrophe, unmatched by anything we see today.

The end
My discussion on some problems and scientific matters has been extremely brief. There are mountains of books and papers in the market place on these subjects and you may follow up on all the research you wish, but in the end, the truth is difficult to find by such research. The great questions of life should be simple to follow or life would be unfair. That is why I have set out to simplify the problem for the layman and bring it down to our own level. Do not allow your research to drag you away from the simplicities of life's realities. Stick to those basic principles and no one will be able to confuse you.

To read the next article in this series about how to get to live forever, click here.  www.lifewhy.org/page2.html

The information about the galactic rings comes from The Technical "Journal", Volume 16(2) page 95. Article on Quantised Red Shifts, published by Answers in Genesis. 
Should you wish to make a deeper study of these subjects, I strongly recommend you contact Answers in Genesis at their website.   www.answersingenesis.org