The No-God Delusion

...is widely known as the "Big Bang Theory". This theory suggests that all the elements necessary for life randomly came together in the exact order and precise quantities through some cosmic incident or accident. The possibility of such an event occurring without any outside interference is estimated to be comparable to the odds of 1 in a trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion. "The possibility of such an event occurring without any outside interference is estimated to be comparable to the odds of 1 in a trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion."The required atmospheric and environmental composition for sustaining life is very complex and very precise. If just one of the millions of different factors necessary for life to exist were off even by the slightest fraction, life could NOT exist. Then there's the actual cellular level makeup of life. It's estimated that AT LEAST 250 different proteins are crucial to sustain even the simplest form of life, and those 250 proteins have to be arranged in one exact, specific order, otherwise life cannot exist. The likelihood of life beginning through random circumstance is as close to zero as a number can get without being zero. It's comparable to hitting the jackpot on a set of 250 different slot machines all at the same time and in the right, sequential order. The odds are not quite zero, which means it's still possible, but the possibility is slim (much closer to zero than 0.0000000000000000001% with even more zeros before the one), and chances are there are other explanations for the origin of life that get much closer to the realm of probability. Even supporters of evolutionary theory don't claim this explanation to be scientifically sound, simply because the odds are so highly stacked against it. They don't factor it out as a possibility, but they also don't base their arguments on it either.

...for the origin of life assumes that evolution itself is actually responsible for creating life, not just progressing it. This assumption would suggest that the living, single-cell organism supposedly responsible for all other species known to man evolved from something non-living. The current theory of evolution only applies to living beings (plants included), but this assumption takes evolution a step further and proposes that even non-living objects are capable of evolution, even to the point of creating life. The basics of such an argument would suggest that non-living objects slowly evolved over time, obtaining the components necessary for life gradually and progressively, until all the elements were present and arranged correctly and in the right quantities. This hypothesis would then lift the process of evolution to the realm of deity, suggesting that the process itself is beyond itself and the laws of nature, and is capable of creating life when there is no life. Evolution would then become god in this scenario as the process would become the creator. This definition of God would not refer to a Person or Spirit, but rather a natural process-that process being evolution. Unfortunately, the likelihood of this hypothesis being able to adequately explain the origin of life is also very limited because there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that non-living objects evolve. It's also highly improbable that a natural process could reach the realm of the supernatural, creating life from nothing in a self-aware, strategic, step-by-step compilation of all the necessary components to sustain life, not only transcending the laws of nature, but also transcending the laws governing itself. It's still a possibility, no matter how far-fetched, but not quite a probability.

"This is the argument of "Intelligent Design", stating that some supernatural Being outside the laws of nature (and the processes that govern it) is responsible for creating life."

...proposes that some form of deity, commonly referred to as God, created life. This is the argument of "Intelligent Design", stating that some supernatural Being outside the laws of nature (and the processes that govern it) is responsible for creating life. What one's definition of God may be is irrelevant to the argument itself, because the argument does not seek to define "God", but rather suggests that someone or something beyond our understanding that would have to possess the characteristics of a god-like being strategically and intelligently designed life as we know it. Life would not have had to begin on Earth per see, but wherever life DID begin, an Intelligent Designer would have had to have been the Architect/Creator. This explanation, like the second, would assume that there are forces beyond our understanding responsible for the existence of life, and that these forces are not confined or restricted by the same sets of rules and laws that we are, if they're confined or restricted at all. These forces, at least at the origin of all origins, would have to exist without beginning or end, and would have to operate outside of (or beyond) time, space, and matter. Such a concept is hard to grasp under the limitation of human understanding, but given the odds, it's much more likely that there is in fact some type of supernatural force responsible for the origin of all life than that life came about by accident.

"There must have been a beginning, and there must have been a driving force to set the start in motion. That driving force would have to have been beyond the confines of the entire process to be able to start something out of nothing."

...have yet to be fully proven/disproven, as the only real way to prove or disprove either argument is by building a time machine and going back in time to the moment life first began and witnessing it first hand, and there is evidence that can be used to support any one of the three to certain extents, but a comprehensive look at all the evidence would support the notion of some form of "Designer" above the rest. Whether one chooses to refer to such a force as "God" is an individual decision one must make, but regardless of names or labels, some god-like Being must have been instrumental in the creation of all life at the origin of all origins. There must have been a beginning, and there must have been a driving force to set the start in motion. That driving force would have to have been beyond the confines of the entire process to be able to start something out of nothing. If there's a beginning, there has to be a cause, and that cause has to be without beginning or end to start the very FIRST beginning, otherwise there's an indefinite set of beginnings and ends without beginning or end, which is a self-contradiction. To believe that God (or at the very least, some form of god) is NOT in some way responsible for the creation of life is comparable to playing the 250-slot-machine lottery and still somehow hoping to win. The odds are as close to zero as they get without being zero, and although it's still a possibility (no matter how extremely unlikely), it's almost better to believe ANYTHING else, because anything has to have better odds than that. To rest one's answer to one of the most important questions facing mankind on odds that poor is borderline delusional.

...to ponder the possibility of removing God from society. What kind of consequences would follow such an ousting? Would society be better off without God or religion? This seems to be the emerging trend of attitudes regarding the subject of God and religion, and removing Him from government, schools, workplaces, businesses, etc. has become the number one priority of certain liberal extremists in this country and internationally. The argument appears to be that allowing God and religion in government and society in general is limiting people's rights and is hindering social and cultural progress. Is that really the case? Would our founding forefathers agree? Does separation of church and state really mean keeping the church (and all religious thought) out of the government? What better place to seek the answers to these questions than The Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution, both pillars of American freedom?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Now, if all men are not created, all men are NOT created equal. If there is no Creator, we are NOT endowed with unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where then do we stand? Well, according to the theory of evolution, we stand unequal and without any real rights to speak of. Evolution supports the idea of a progression of species, meaning some members of each species are superior and some are inferior. The superior members (or more highly evolved) are "entitled" by nature to survive, while the inferior are destined to die out. This is the law of natural selection. Only the "best fit" are afforded the right to life by Mother Nature, so either the "unfit" die by natural causes or are eliminated by the "advanced" members of their own species (also known as eugenics). Eugenics is the logical next step to Darwinism, as evidenced throughout history, because eliminating the less-than-perfect members of the human species is supposed to help in aiding the evolution and progression of mankind. No more "weak and crippled" people to "sabotage the gene pool". This was the case in the Holocaust and other racial genocides, this was the basis for Planned Parenthood ("to prevent the poor and uneducated from reproducing and creating more poor and uneducated people"), and this is already being adopted by our society in the form of abortion (which, in my opinion, is infanticide), euthanasia (killing the sick and/or the elderly), and it's only a small step away from moving towards killing the physically/mentally disabled/handicapped and who knows who else. It's a dangerous progression from one target to another, all based on the concept of survival of the fittest (a.k.a. inequality). There is no equality in Darwinism or the theory of evolution. Equality is a characteristic given by God. If there is no God, there is no equality.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This excerpt from the Constitution clearly suggests that the separation of church and state is intended to keep the government out of the church, and NOT the other way around. The First Amendment is based on freedom of religion, and freedom of religion is religion without government interference. The church, churchgoers, and religious thought were never meant to be removed from government. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Our founding forefathers specifically mentioned God and thanked Him in many of their speeches and writings, the phrases "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" are written on our currency and included in The Pledge of Allegiance respectively, our elected officials swear in on the Bible, and The Ten Commandments were once the cornerstone of our highest courts. This nation was built upon religious principles, and God WAS a part of government. To remove Him is to remove the foundation this great nation was built upon, and is to go against the very nature of this country. We have freedom of religion, so we have the freedom to choose God (or not), but we do NOT have the freedom to remove God. If we remove God, we remove all ideals of equality, morality, human rights, and freedom. Without God, we have none of these, so to think we'd be better off without God or religion is once again, borderline delusional.