The SinUs Group is our name
SinUsTeam.org is our domain
teamTen counts four brave souls
who still believe in miracles
only one objective lights our way
we will not let it go astray
money and life lessons taught
vanity cannot be bought
do not fear thieves or dragons or vice
and never decline a teacher's advice
hope will light up our homes
when friends come calling to our doors
turn, transfer, twist the cogs
put on masks and thinking caps
make your brain work in agile ways
and love… till the end of days
>home & lemma:
SinUs Team does not store anyone's personal information.
There are five arguments for the existence of God, yet none are convincing
for an atheist. Why?
The reason is very simple.
If there was such proof we wouldn't have a choice: believe or not to
believe. Therefor we would not have free will which is the essence and
one of the greatest values of humanity. In result people would be slaves
as they would know that not everything is up to them. And God does not
want that! He wants everyone to decide for themselves how they feel about
He leaves that, like everything else, up to us. So there is no unequivocal
and tangible proof that God exists - as there cannot be. What is there
then? There are arguments which are so convincing that proof is not needed.
There are five such arguments. I will only mention two of greatest significance.
The remaining three, cardinal in their rank, are easy to guess.
First of all, the Moon. Not everyone realizes how unique it is. It is
always facing the Earth from the same side (which is the result of its
perfectly synchronized rotation around its own axis and its path around
the Earth); the side that faces away from us is always invisible. What's
more, for hundreds of years not even a small deviation from this principle
could be observed. We can thus say that it is an incredibly reliable clock.
Perhaps even more reliable than atomic clocks. The question that poses
itself is: could such an create itself? The answer: of course! But it
is damn unlikely.
How can we explain that million tons of space matter have such a gravitational
pull (or other type of energy - science has coined the term dark energy,
which sheds light on a few cosmological matters), that they finally formed
a unique satellite that exists in such a unique place in our solar system?
Wouldn't it be easier to assume that… an intelligent being, capable of
creating universes, formed this object? Yes… God. And we should keep in
mind that the Moon is responsible for a number of phenomena, such as:
the tide, solar eclipses, 24-hour days and… seasons of the year.
Is it not a wonderful coincidence of cosmological events?
But the moon is not everything, it is only the beginning. The second argument
will be much more convincing, although it is not irrefutable.
Life. I once read an interesting statement made by a creationist: that
life on Earth developing on its own is like finding a brand new Jumbo
Jet (Boeing 747) in a junkyard. The comparison is just an illustration;
there is something much more convincing. How does the scientific theory
of life on Earth explain the second law of thermodynamics? It simply doesn't.
Only one or the other can be true: there is no other way. Anyone with
doubts can search the net - you are sure to come to the same conclusion.
There is something very perplexing about the so-called scientific explanation
of life developing on Earth. Something that not many notice as I have
not heard anyone mention it. This is the ideal timing that all plants
and animals appeared on Earth. There is something called the food chain
and it applies to most species of fauna. How to explain that all the elements
of this chain, almost all plants and animals, came to be in ideally synchronized
moments - so that "everything", life on Earth - could live and
function? How could this have happened? A coincidence? It is possible,
but very unlikely. A lot more unlikely than the formation of our beloved
moon. The remaining three arguments are - for me - fully unexplainable
and each is undisputable. But I will not publish them here. Let their
discovery and analysis be a task and thought experiment for my more ambitious
The only real argument that atheists have is: if the universe was created
by God, then who created God? I see two possibilities. Either He always
existed, so nothing had to create Him, or… He created Himself. If we can
argue that something as complicated as a bat's echolocation system or
the human brain could have developed from primordial oceanic soup, without
anyone's help, then why can't we argue that a being such as God did not
develop in a similar way? In my opinion the theory has as much support
as the "scientific" theory of life evolving on Earth.
Am I right?