The Uniform Logic Argument

When mankind designs anything there is a three step process that happens every time. The first step is the idea. We have a concept and a way to actualize the concept. We understood that we wanted to travel by chemical propulsion and it was possible using known forces. We see and measure how we could do this, what would be required, and how we would have to design the parameters and incorporate the laws to arrive at the desired result. The next step is to build the framework to house the functional part of the mechanism or device that does the work. When we build a car we do not start by building an engine, we build the frame and housing for the suspension first. Then we work toward the more detailed parts from the more general parts. When we build atom smashers or particle colliders we do not start by installing the super computers, we start with the brick and mortar. 

     When I first got into apologetics I came across the Teleological argument and the fine tuning argument very early. I had previously known of the prime mover argument from my reading of Aristotle. The Intelligent design argument was right behind these.  I understood these arguments and the counter arguments very well initially and loved this line of reasoning. The last argument I learned of was presuppositional. This one I did not like at first.  I quickly digested these then set them aside to study other more complex arguments. It was sometime later that I was reading Genesis 1 again when I suddenly realized these are all the same argument. These are arguments of a designed creation. The counter arguments are silliness and something I call "Rainbow Sparkle Unicorn Theory".

In the Beginning was God                                                  This is the first cause or Prime                                                                      mover argument.

God created the heavens and the earth.                           This is the fine tuning argument &                                                                              the presuppositional argument

God said let there be light                                                

God created the sky, oceans and land,                              This is intelligent design then sea creatures then mammals and man.
 

    The Prime mover argument is quite simple and the logic is perfectly sound.
The laws of this universe are such that

   1) We live in a cause and effect universe. For each cause there is an effect.
    2) Each thing in existence is an effect of a previous cause. (God is the existence and is not within any existence but is the thing from which existence has its state of being).
    3) Each cause is outside the effect (God is, by definition, not caused)
    4) The universe exists
   5) The universe had a cause.
    6) The cause had to be outside the universe

1) We live in a cause and effect universe. This works every time and everything that has been built has been built based on this premise.
                  The only example of retrocausality is in quantum mechanics which we do not understand, can not calculate outside of probability which by its nature is wrong many times, and we do not have the information required to make a sound judgement. The complexity of quantum phenomena are well beyond our capability to grasp as it is now. Thus the quantum argument against cause and effect is not sufficient to outweigh the fact that in every case we do fully understand there is no retrocausality. We can not base an argument against everything we are certain of on a thing we by all admissions are not even close to being able to understand.  
In 2013 Future Magazine had this to say.

"Yet the weird thing is that no one actually understands quantum theory. The quote popularly attributed to physicist Richard Feynman is probably apocryphal, but still true: if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t. That point was proven by a poll among 33 leading thinkers at a conference in Austria in 2011. This group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers was given 16 multiple-choice questions about the meaning of the theory, and their answers displayed little consensus." Future magazine "Will we ever understand quantum Theory"  Philip Ball 24th January 2013

Thus causality to effect is the established law of the universe. 

2) Each thing that exists is an effect of a previous cause within our universe.  This involves time and sequence of events. The thing does not predate its construction. The laws of this universe forbid this.
              Again the only objection to this would involve quantum mechanics and does not hold up to scrutiny. The idea involves virtual particles however the thinking on this is wrong. Particles do form and disperse but so do flocks of geese. In the same way Geese will form a flock and travel together then disperse, particles can form from the constituent parts then disperse back into the elementary constructs and rinse and repeat this process many times.   In order to violate this, time itself would have to move backward or move differently than it does in this universe we observe. Only Rainbow Sparkle Unicorns can do this.

One might argue then that God is required to follow these same laws. However this is a misunderstanding of the nature of God and the nature of existence itself. In biblical existentialism we  find that God is the only thing independant of anything else by nature. All things are dependent upon God and existence itself is only an outpouring or an extension of God's being. All the cosmos and the universe is dependent upon God; however God is infinite and therefore independent of anything. It very much appears that many athiest object to finite Gods and the logic involved in any finite god. I do as well, however these gods are not the God of creation and are not alive.

  3) Each cause is outside the effect. This involves Pauli's exclusion principle where two fermions can not occupy the same space. Basically to transmit energy the act of transmission itself requires two different points in spacetime and therefore can not be self actualizing. Thus a thing may not cause itself within this universe. "Causa sui" or "self causality" can not exist in physical reality. Spacetime duality does not allow for the same space to be occupied by different matters.  Pauli's exclusion principle forbids this.

4) The universe exists. Only those heavily invested in quantum theory or quasi scientific  philosophies would disagree with this statement. The disagreement with this statement alone shows the absurd requirements one must achieve to disavow the existence of God.

5) The universe had a cause, This is true because of premise 2 & 4.

6) The cause had to be outside the universe. This is because of premise 3.

The argument makes perfect logical sense and is testable, observable, repeatable and falsifiable. It works 100% of the time in every instance.

The objection given is that the universe does not require a cause.
This is false entirely.
The reason the universe requires a cause is the very premise that is used to say it does not. The Mutliverse theory.
The multiverse theory is based on the idea that before 1^-34 seconds of the big bang there was a quantum soup that had the ability to spawn a universe as we see it today by random chance. This is an infinitesimal piece of time and is defined as Plank time, the amount of time required for light to travel the smallest conceivable distance that has any meaning to it whatsoever. The laymen term would be "the very first moment".  Now this soup has the ability to not only spur our universe but an infinite number of universes where anything that can happen does happen. They like this theory a lot and retreat here often. This is the Rainbow Sparkle Unicorn Theory because in this situation Rainbow Sparkle Unicorns exist with all the magical powers in the Valley of the Unicorns full of trolls and fairies. In multiverse theory this exists somewhere in another universe and is a reality. They are literally pitching that star wars is real somewhere. They are telling us that "Planet of the Apes" happened somewhere.

" "although there are good reasons for supposing that what we see may not be all that exists, the hypothesis falls far short of being a complete theory of existence." A multiverse, Davies said, is often presented as solving the mysteries of existence by assuming that if there are an infinite number of universes, then "everything is out there somewhere, so that's the end of the story.That is simply not true," Davies said, because to get a multiverse, you need a universe-generating mechanism, "something that's going to make all those Big Bangs go bang. You're going to need some laws of physics. All theories of the multiverse assume quantum physics to provide the element of spontaneity, to make the bangs happen. They assume pre-existing space and time. They assume the normal notion of causality, a whole host of pre-existing conditions." Davies said there are about "10 different basic assumptions" of physical laws that are required "to get the multiverse theory to work."
Paul Davies https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html   Emphasis added.


"If by fairies we mean little, fabulous entities capable of flight and of magical deeds that defy what we consider reasonable in this world, then, yes, by all means, there could be fairies somewhere in the multiverse." -Marcelo Gleiser  https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/03/04/390672748/do-fairies-live-in-the-multiverse

This is the direct and inescapable conclusion to the multiverse theory.  This is the extent they go to to get rid of God. I say without so much as batting an eye that this is incredibly strong evidence for the existence of God. If you have to choose to believe in Fairies and Unicorns to remove the causality of God creating the universe then I choose God well over magical beings.

This is the only objection they have that has the potential, however small that potential is, to remove God from the equation. They cling to this as if it is their life's blood.

There is another problem here.

It doesn't work even by their own philosophy. You see at the time scale they are talking about time no longer exists. The physics of the universe do not function. Time has no meaning. Gravity, EM, Strong and weak forces do not operate as there is no matter and no bosons at all. There are  no fermions, no quarks or gluons, no neutrinos.  The idea is something akin to a Bose-Einstein condensate where matter is so tightly packed together it becomes a single matter not many individual atoms but very much like one single massive atom. The problem is that this does not work at all. You see in order for the quantum to happen there must be quantum particles and energy that can transfer energy and form and disperse. If time , space, and matter do not exists then there are no particles, not energy as we know it and certainly no time. The BEC is the effect of the big bang and not the initial cause. This points directly to a stability occuring after the bang which does not work with a quantum cause of the big bang.

"In the first moment after the origin of the universe, physicists think that it was full of an exotic form of matter Kaiser described as a smooth "goop." This goop was a strange quantum material called a Bose-Einstein condensate. This is a state of matter predicted by Einstein, and was created in the lab by physicists in experiments with super-cooled atoms in 1995." https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/nov-2-2019-roadway-pollution-fungus-promotes-pancreatic-cancer-the-bang-in-the-big-bang-and-more-1.5342916/the-universe-was-full-of-cold-goop-then-came-the-big-bang-1.5342925

In this matter-state the physics break down. They have to use probabilities. There are a lot of issues with probabilities but let me boil it down to its simplest form. Ask any mathematics professor if probabilities can be wrong. They will flatly tell you that yes, by their very nature probability equations are wrong sometimes, we do not try to be right every time, we just try to be right the majority of the time. What if you have probabilities built on other probabilities, well then your right less often and wrong more often than you were in the first probability set.. Then you do this again and again.  The more you do this the less likely it is to occur the way you predict each time.
I gave you an example of probability equations in the chapter on radiometric dating. Now compound this 100,000 times and you begin to have an idea of the level of guesswork involved in quantum behaviour. Don't use 100 M&Ms , use 100,000,000. Don't use 4 kids, use 400,000. In fact it becomes less and less likely the further you go into the equations sets. Now to overcome this the physicists employ expansive time, which does not exist until after the big bang, and tell us it does not matter how the probabilities work out, given enough time it is certain this would occur no matter the odds against this. They are using infinite time in equations that tell us that time has no meaning and did not exist when the equations for infinite time are being used. It is using a hammer to build the first hammer. They have to have an infinite amount of time in a place where time does not exist and movement can not occur. The entire idea of infinity itself within any construct is false. Infinity is a mathematical construct that has no basis in reality. The idea that literally anything that can exist & does exist in a universe somewhere should tell us that, however, we learn by contractions and paradox that infinity is not a reality anywhere within the cosmos or of the cosmos itself. They are trying to use math to tell us that Rainbow Sparkle Unicorn theory is real.

 
Thus we find that the creation event has only a single alternative, If the universe had a beginning then someone had to make that happen.  If it did not and is infinite then we are banking on Rainbow Sparkle Unicorn Theory.


 FINE TUNING
  So if there is a creator and this creator is the cause of the universe then we now have to show this is observable. We can and do and the real trick is that it is not the creationists that discovered this at all but the agnostics and the atheists.  

Fred Hoyal (Atheist) said "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as chemistry and biology and there are no blind forces in nature".

Paul Davies (agnostic) said " There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all, It seems to me that somebody has fine tuned nature's numbers to make the universe, the impression of design is overwhelming".

The Alternative is this "“Why does such fine-tuning occur? And the answer many physicists now believe: the multiverse. A vast number of universes may exist, with many different values of the amount of dark energy. Our particular hat containing zillions of universes, we happened to draw a universe that allowed life.” Alan Lightman

The observation is that we have very many very delicately balanced constants, initial conditions, and laws that make life possible so that if any one of these changes by the smallest fraction imaginable it would prevent life from existing.
Let me clarify this. We do not have a few very strict constraints on the universe that are within a certain boundary that permit life. If that was all it is then we would have a window of opportunity to play with the constraints and say it is plausible that this is by chance. Istead we have a very large number of perfectly balanced constants that if changed in the smallest way imaginibale there would be no life. The universe would be here as far as we can tell but life would not. Therefore because of this balance it bears strong evidence that this universe was designed for life. This is not only shown but I will show it is consistent with biblical creation, the fall of man, and again the only escape the atheist has is Rainbow Sparkle Unicorn Theory.
 
The constants are vast in number. And there are more than one kind. The first is the universe itself being balanced perfectly. The next is the constraints of our planet and solar system specifically. The Third is the Laws governing our universe.
A comprehensive list can be found here.
Physics > History and Philosophy of Physics  [Submitted on 20 Dec 2011 (v1), last revised 7 Jun 2012 (this version, v2)]  The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life  Luke A. Barnes


      The requirement for EM is 1 in 10^37.  
The electromagnetic force controls so much I can not go into the detail needed for the reader to fully appreciate the implications. However, just to name a few things, You are held together by the electromagnetic force, light is electromagnetism, molecules could not exist, and many many more. That is roughly The number of atoms on the surface of the earth.

Let's look at gravity. That measurement is 1 in 10^80.
That is the same as randomly choosing a single atom out of all the atoms in the universe. Then a person who has no idea which atom you chose, gets the same opportunity to select just one atom out of all the atoms in existance and just happens to choose the exact same atom as the first person did. If this was changed by 1 part in 10^80 then life is not possible.
Now couple this with the electromagnetic force tuning and we have 37 universes in which to pick the single atom from. or 1 in 10^117. These are not added together which would only indicate a more delicate balance but instead they are multiplied indicating the two separate balances happening at once.

Let's then look at the expansion rate of the universe.
That one is very small, only 1 in 10^240
1 / 10^117 ^(10^240) and we are just getting started.
Here is where the difficulty begins for me. I can continue adding universes and atoms but we are already so big and small at once the human mind has no concept of this. It is as if we are chimpanzees trying to grasp theoretical mathematics as it is presently. The numbers we have here are fantastic in scope, so much so that no human can comprehend these differences. To go on I need you to understand that we can not fathom these numbers. As far as humans are concerned the average concept of infinity starts here. In truth these numbers are as far away from infinity as the number 1 is, however the size of these numbers in human comprehension is as big as infinity is in most minds. (I still struggle with the number 1  and do not get me started on the number zero, if it exists at all).

The finest tuning we can measure is the entropy of the universe at the beginning. This is calculated to be tuned to one part in 10^ (10^123). The smallest deviation from this and life doesn't exist at present, certainly not as it exists now.

There is nothing I can say to you now to describe these numbers or where we are at.  These numbers have no real meaning. We are simply dealing with numbers so vast they become meaningless and foolish. Mind you this is only the first four of many we know of.
Some can name more but several of those intersect or are the same thing phrased or looked at in a different way.
These four alone produce a perfect balance. However as stated there are many more constants.
Others are:
 the weak nuclear force
the strong nuclear force
The difference in mass of the  up quark and down quark. any deviation and matter doesn't exist.
the speed of light  
the size of neutrons versus protons
Density of the universe allows for star and planetary formation
  Cosmic Background Radiation, if more we all die from radiation exposure, if less the universe does not form properly and everything reduces to black holes.
  The dust density of the part of the galaxy we are in, the galactic cluster we are in, the spin of certain particles  being a + or -  fraction balanced precisely, and so much more.  
There are many many more of these, too many to list here.
 
The others are Jupiter and other gas giants being where they are,
the size and distance of our moon in relation to the size of the earth
the fact that water expands at a specific temperature and contracts at a certain temperature contrary to almost all other matter
The position of our system in relation to the galactic core
our goldilocks zone
polarity of H2O
size of the earth allowing an atmosphere
The proper amount of sulphur
the heliosphere
Our sun being a main sequence star instead of the myriad of other stars it could be as that most stars are binary or even trinary systems, 85% of single stars are brown dwarfs and the remaining stars are not main sequence stars but vary widely from supermassive to neutron stars to pulsars. only 0.002 percent of stars we can see are main sequence stars close to the same as our sun.
The temperature of the human body, a little less or little more and bacteria we all carry become deadly and all humans die.
the mantle of the earth versus the thickness of the crust
The rotation of the earth being a fraction less or more and humans can not live
on and on it goes. We can talk about oxygen levels, water vapor in the atmosphere, and the tilt of the earth.

The idea is this. How is it that so many variables can be so very accurately placed in just such a way that life is permitted?  The universe is so very fine tuned  that we humans can not fathom the extreme tolerances the universe gives us in the cosmos itself. Add to that the fine tuning of the solar system we live in and what has already dwarfed our comprehension becomes far more complex. Then we look at earth itself and again we are even more dumbfounded. This does not include the idea of the suppositional transcendent laws.

The laws considered are that of mathematics, the mind, and the rules that govern all things.  Why is it that mathematics works? Why should there be a template and legend by which we can grasp these concepts?
How is it that logic is useful?  Why does thought and reason allow us to see these things?  Why do we question everything? Why does gravity attract? Why does EM both attack and shield us?  Why are photons both electrical and light at once or can move back and forth? If these do not exist as they do then the universe becomes a blind game of chance.  Humans never reach the intellect we have and know nothing. Reason, logic, understandability, epistemology itself is a tuning that outweighs all other fine tunings.
In fact There are so many things we can point to and continue to discover that are infinitesimally balanced we can simply not dismiss this. Its as if every penny on earth was balanced on edge all on top of one another perfectly, then every dime, nickel, and quarter, then every paper money was balanced on edge again on top of one another.  Each in separate stacks, then each grain of sand on earth was flung into the atmosphere and landed in the perfect form to build every city on the planet all at once. and this is only two of the fine tuned constants being used. There are at least 37 and maybe as many as 90+.
The real understanding is not that a single constant or law is designed to permit life but that they all are. They act in tandem so that life is possible. It would be something if we found one or two that allowed this to occur but that everywhere we look we find this to be true and measurable is far beyond chance. The only option available to us without a designer is to increase the number of universes so far so that things like Chewbacca and fairies become reality. This insanity itself is evidence of GOd. If this is the extent that one must achieve to remove God from the equation then surely there is a God that designed this entire show.


I just want to partially reduce the argument to comprehensible levels. Before I do it is necessary to admit that what we are looking at here is incomprehensible. There's no way for us to understand the extreme balance the universe has. it was not fine tuned, as much as it was perfect. I use the word perfect for a reason. If we say that 90% of these arguments can be reduced to reasonable doubt or in some way overlap one another we still have a perfect universe at the beginning. The fraction of chance is still so very small as to be incomprehensible. Remember I only gave you the math on 4 of these.  Imagine the math on 37 or even 90 of these.

Lawrence Krauss tells us that the fine tuning argument doesn't work based on the early entropy issue. He tells us that if there was less entropy at the beginning of the universe that there would be more life by a huge margin. Thus the fine tuning does not work because it would have been designed better.  This is correct and supported biblically. You see at the fall we know that entropy entered creation and therefore  the universe did not hold the constant that it was built for thereby reducing the lifeforms in the universe. This is exactly what God told Adam, as "Dieing, you will die" implies and Romans chapter 1, chapter 8 and several other scriptures tell us. Sorry Professor Krauss, we already knew that from the bible, we did not need you to confirm that but we do appreciate the nod.
This is further confirmed by the breaking of symmetry in the early universe which caused fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation, again biblically supported.  In Cosmology according to biblical and ancient models  by Flavian Mwaka we find this. "The breaking of symmetry implies a sudden change in the laws; it is considered a transition period by physicists.. For science many other  properties of material, all in fact, are created within such transition periods that mark the creation of the universe. All of this means scientists are aware of the miraculous phenomena stentances "God said, God made, God created". when they notice some phenomena containing missing links in the universe. So they have replaced that by the qualification "symmetry breaking".  

       In the older cartoons the road runner would be trapped by WIle E Coyote and then to escape he would pull out some paint and paint a hole in a rock and run through it. When the coyote tried the same thing he would smash against the rock. I am convinced at this point that the roadrunner was a materialistic atheist. They use the multiverse to escape from the logic of the argument by painting a picture of the impossible and then using this picture to escape. This is the stuff of Dr. Who and Marvel Comics. This is not science at all but imaginary unicorn theory.
The best argument against this is the sprocket in the clock philosophy. Imagine a great clock the size of the universe having billions of gears, springs, counterbalances, sprockets, and other specific mechanisms. Then we examine one of these gears and find it has exactly 2365974235683 teeth which is required to make the clock work. We then say that the clock has been balanced here. We then begin looking at the sprockets, counterbalances, and springs and find the same thing everywhere we look. The counter argument says "well of course you find these things, you are examining a massive clock, what else would you expect?" In other words, a thing being the thing it is must be the thing it is and can be nothing else, therefore to attribute special design to a thing you are denying the thing its own attributes. Men do not make bugs or trees or volcanoes,  and yet they all have systems that can be measured and even have a tuning property. Why should the universe be any different?  
The answer is obvious. Because it is a great clock, built upon billions and billions of smaller clocks, built upon billions and trillions of even smaller clocks from the expanse of the universe itself down to the plank constant. No matter the scale, no matter the object, no matter where we look we find more clocks being perfectly harmonized and tuned which are synched from the smallest scale to the greatest scale and at every point between. From quantum physics,  to the atom, to the molecular, to the macro, to the solar system, to the galactic, to the universe we find the same thing, more clocks all interdependent on one another's very near perfect tuning. This is not even looking at life which we can not account for and has exactly as much tuning in it as the universe does. To say there need be no account for this is a form of insanity in my opinion. It very much appears that any person claiming this has decided within themselves to deny God at any cost no matter the logic, reasoning, or facts offered. This is not philosophical or religious theology but measurable, testable, verifiable facts we know exist. The crown jewel of the material atheists points directly at God with a high intensity laser highlighting in the spectrum of colors His existence. It is unmistakable. To deny this is to deny existence itself.

It is quite something that the extent one has to go to in order to deny God's existence means believing in an imaginary multiverse or to deny the balancing of the universe as something of importance. I can gather that someone might have an issue with the idea of rising from the dead after 3 days or that a donkey could talk however to go to these lengths just to deny that a God of any kind exists is beyond extreme. It is willful ignorance and portrays the truth of the motive here. The one who continues to believe in a material universe arriving by chance at this point has little ground in which to establish a beachhead. They simply have to have faith that at some point in the future a rational and plausible explanation will arise disproving the mathematics that show these precise measurements are required for the universe and life to exist. Even if we are wrong by 90% of our figures we still find it impossible for this to occur. Why would anyone choose this belief willingly knowing the facts? how could they? They can and do. Of course they do, they know there is a God and chose to reject Him. This is evident and blatantly shown to be the case yet again. But there is hope. You see God HImself says that all men do this, in fact that all men hate Him and are at war with Him. But He knows this and understands why. This is the reason He balanced the universe, created life,and shows Himself to us.

Again I refer the reader to Stanford here for further reading.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/#CondRealFineTuneForLife  


INTELLIGENT DESIGN

     This appears to be the most complex but in fact is quite simple. There is a huge amount of information in DNA, a miraculous amount in fact.

There's about 2 meters of DNA per cell and about 37 trillion cells per human.
https://handling-solutions.eppendorf.com/cell-handling/about-cells-and-culture/detailview/news/how-many-cells-are-in-your-body-probably-more-than-you-think/

That is 74 trillion meters or 74 billion Km for each person. How far is that?
Pluto is 7.5 Billion Km. so ten times farther.
The Heliosphere is 18 Billion KM so it's 4 times farther than that.
The nearest star is 40 trillion KM away so there is enough DNA in 1000 people to get to the nearest star outside our solar system.
That is a lot of information.
How much information is in a single Human?
6 billion base pairs in a single human cell.
The DNA of a single cell contains so much information that if it were represented in printed words, simply listing the first letter of each base would require over 1.5 million pages of text!
https://www.ehd.org/movies/3/3-Billion-Base-Pairs-per-Cell#:~:text=7%20days&text=Script%3A%20Each%20human%20cell%20contains,1.5%20million%20pages%20of%20text!

 So there's 6 billion letters  in a cell and 37 trillion cells. In one cell there's enough information to fill 3 million pages. That's 111 million pages of text in the human body.
Stacking these papers on top of one another would reach 11.1 Km into the sky.  It is the same volume of information as 3400 copies of the encyclopedia Britannica.
Let's look at this another way. Google has 2 billion lines of code. One Human cell has 300 million bits or 300 MegaBytes.  This means the human body has around 11 quadrillion megabytes of information in it. Google has about 2 trillion bytes in its entire system but handles 10^15 bytes of data each day. The human body has 11^18 bits or 11^17 bytes of information in it. Could Google process the amount of information in your body in a 24 hour period with all its server farms and supercomputers? Maybe, but it would be about 100 times more information that it does handle in an average day. A gram of your DNA could hold all the information Google handles in a day, in other words, all the server farms and supercomputers google has could be reduced to a 3 or 4 grams of DNA and accomplish the same job.

So the idea that 100X the amount of information google handles in a 24 hour period could evolve from chemicals on a crystal, which is the idea of abiogenesis, is what the scientists are pitching. Furthermore they are telling us that this much information is an act of  an initial random chance that some yet unknown mechanism sperned to replication and directed the random generation of this amount of information. See the chapter on Abiogenesis for more information.

Google was designed over a long period involving many scientists and mathematicians, programmers, and engineers. Presently they have about 120,000 employees that move that much information. Your body moves 18 trillion letters of information each day without an intelligence acting on it.

Forbes has this to say : "The vast majority of the world’s data has been created in the last few years and this astonishing growth of data shows no sign of slowing down. In fact, IDC predicts the world’s data will grow to 175 zettabytes in 2025."
How much is that? it is  1000000000000000000000 bytes or 10^21. That is the same amount of information as there is in 1750 people. There are 7+ Billion people on earth.  that's a difference of 4 million, or there will still be 4 million times the amount of information in humans as there will be in every computer on the planet combined in 2025.

  "researchers report that they’ve come up with a new way to encode digital data in DNA to create the highest-density large-scale data storage scheme ever invented. Capable of storing 215 petabytes (215 million gigabytes) in a single gram of DNA, the system could, in principle, store every bit of datum ever recorded by humans in a container about the size and weight of a couple of pickup trucks" https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/dna-could-store-all-worlds-data-one-room#:~:text=Capable%20of%20storing%20215%20petabytes,may%20depend%20on%20its%20cost.  

In philosophical terms that means that the entirety of human comprehension and everything stored on every computer on the planet does not contain anywhere near the amount of information stored in humans. It is not even close. The peak and crown jewel of human information achievement from creation to present has not even reached the point to compare with the amount of information just in humanity.

I am afraid this is very misleading. I have tricked you. You see the problem is not the amount of information in humanity at all. The problem is in the amount of information in every organism on earth. To truly compare this in terms of information and see how much information is in life we need to look at all life forms collectively. Looking at only one is akin to looking only at a single computer program and calculating the information in that. The only way I can fathom to do this is in terms of biomass on the planet.

Here is a very good representation of what we are discussing.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/all-life-on-earth-chart-weight-plants-animals-pnas

"There are an estimated 550 gigatons of carbon of life in the world."
A metric ton is a million grams. so 550 gigatonnes is 5.5 X10^17 grams of biomass.
a gram contains about 10^9 cells.
Each cell contains 300 Megabytes.  
The amount of information here is getting into some large numbers.

300,000,000,000 Bytes times 10,000,000,000 times 550,000,000,000,000,000 = 1.65 X(10^39) Bytes.
While of course this is an estimate it is an educated estimate and given the information available to us presently it is as accurate as we may get presently. It is close and when you are talking about numbers this large close is all we get.
We are talking very large numbers here like the number of millimeters from earth to another galaxy large.


Scientists created a computer program to simulate the simplest cell we know of.  The information can be found here.
 https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674%2812%2900776-3
 "It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/

 Now imagine trillions of these going on in a single animal or organism or human all the time except more complex.   This was done at Stanford and over 900 articles were reviewed for information before creating the program. This is just one cell and the very simplest cell we know of. 128 computers running a super powerful Linux interface took ten hours to crunch this data. Your cell can do it in 18-20 hours. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21685/
Mind you your cells are far more complex than this simple one meaning your cell by itself is faster and better than 128 computers acting as one with super powerful software designed  by Stanford to make a cell work, and all the scientists on the team combined.

We are told this happened by, you guessed it, chance and convergence.

This is not an accident or a convergence. This is designed and spurred by a superintelect. This amount of information can not be caused by anything other than God.

Now all together we have an initial cause that acted outside our universe from the prime mover argument, this cause then built the universe to sustain and foster life per the fine tuning argument. Then the Prime mover built lifeforms in the most complex and vast array of design ever observed by mankind. This level of information dwarfs everything else we understand combined. There is no comprehensible argument against this. Even common origin evolution theory and abiogenesis can not account for this. There is simply too much encoding to account for anything other than an intelligent designer.

The chances of a multiverse happening require a massive amount of chance to occur and can only occur in an amount of time where time itself becomes irrelevant. Even in an environment where the speed of light travels less distance than a proton's breadth, the time required to arrange the conditions for multiverse are simply staggering.

Then the fine tuning of the universe requires at least an equal amount of chance to occur. The numbers involved in this being coincidence or chance are well beyond infinitesimal.
Then to get the amount of information in life from mere chance is the easiest to achieve how even this requires that 3400 encyclopedia Brittanicas are generated by some unknown mechanism. THis is a fairy tale and can not happen.

The Christian says "God did it, we know God did it because we have a huge amount of Evidence and substance telling us He did".

The Atheist says " God did not do it, it is a product of infinite time and random atoms clumping together, the same thing that creates fairies in other universes and balances everything in our universe so very perfectly so that the arrangement can be demonstrated in the vast and absolute complexity of life"

They require a series of 4 nearly infinitely small occurrences to happen in a specific succession. One of these tells us fairies exist, This is the multiverse theory. The next one tells us that time existed before time existed and distance, energy, and matter all existed before any of these existed. This is the requirement for multiverse theory to actuate. , then they use our misunderstanding of quantum phenomena to explain the infinitesimal chance to occur before anything could have occurred by their own admission; this is even in the best circumstances the infinite amount of time required to produce multiverses. . Then they tell us that there is a mysterious mechanism that reduces the need for the infinitesimal chance and convergence for life to begin and ignore the requirements of the chances of that mechanism to originate from chance This is Abiogenesis.

At this point it's turtles on top of turtles and turtles all the way down for the atheist. They have abandoned all logic, reason, and what appears plainly before their own eyes in order to deny the acts God has given us showing in every aspect He is revealing Himself to us in absolute and definitively miraculous ways.

When mankind designs anything there is a three step process that happens every time. The first step is the idea. We have a concept and a way to actualize the concept. We understood that we wanted to travel by chemical propulsion and it was possible using known forces. We see and measure how we could do this, what would be required, and how we would have to design the parameters, incorporate the laws to arrive at the desired result. The next step is to build the framework to house the functional part of the mechanism or device that does the work. When we build a car we do not start by building an engine, we build the frame and housing for the suspension first. Then we work toward the more detailed parts from the more general parts. When we build atom smashers or super colliders we do not start by installing the supercomputers, we begin with the concrete and steel framework that everything goes inside, we build the housing. This is the universe. The more complex the device the more exact the housing has to be. This is known as tolerance. A Model T vehicle has a very rough frame by today's standards while a Tesla or Lamborghini has a much more strict tolerance and more exact frome work.  The satellites we put into space have extreme tolerances and are intricately fine tuned. The final thing we do is instal the actual mechanisms that do the work and all of the fluff or extras. This is how mankind has been building things from the beginning of time until present. 

In fact it gets better. You see, I like building bookshelves as I confessed earlier. The thing is though that I like unique bookshelves. I recently built a "steampunk" bookshelf.  The part I built first was not the shelving but the trinkets and the focus of the shelf. I built these first because that is where my heart was. I wanted the shelf to be full of gizmos and gadgets and sprockets and such. This was in my heart so this came first. First I layed out the physics of it, the weight and size and forces involved in carrying a hundred pounds of books. Then I designed the shelf around the gadgets. Then I designed the asymmetry and on I went. 

Whadya know? The Earth was here first. 

Genesis 1:1 says "IN the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth".  This predates the creation week and even the sun and moon. Why? Because humanity is the thing God had in His heart to create and so our planet came first, just like the gadgets on my bookshelf were in my heart and were built first. 

Taking this uniform approach to how everything that has been built was carried from concept to function we apply this same method. Now we look at the universe and find exactly the same method being used. Now we have millions of examples saying this is how design leads to function and concept leads to actualization and no other way. This same pattern being found in the universe proves that there was a designer. We have zero evidence of anything else that can do this. We do not have random cities popping into existence nor do we have lifeforms just appearing out of thin air. Accidental space shuttles do not fall together just perfectly nor do asteroids land on top of trees and produce orchids in thousands of perfect rows.  
This is known as entropy.
Therefore because entropy exists the universe was designed. Let me be clear. If entropy exists then random order can not happen. The universe is ordered to an extreme level of precision in many many ways on every level multiple times at each level totaling in thousands of very balanced and a very near perfect exactitude in order that life may occur. The atheist says this occurs by chance. Entropy itself destroys this option. Entropy says chance destroys order. Entropy says time destroys the chances option for an accidental or serendipitous order to arise. However the atheists reverse entropy and say time and chance created a very near perfect order at least 4 times in specific succession and therefore we exist. We know this is impossible however this is exactly what the atheist requires.



AXIS OF EVIL
Now we have the nail in the coffin of atheists who believe it is a random convergence. We have an axis of the universe.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-spin-directions-of-spiral-galaxies-suggest-the-axis-of-evil-is-real

http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isn-39t-zero

Lawrence Krauss avowed atheist said "This is not intelligent design; it's the opposite of intelligent design. It's a kind of cosmic natural selection. The qualities we have exist because we can survive in this environment. That's natural selection, right? If we couldn't survive we wouldn't be around. Well, it's the same with the universe. We live in a universe — in this universe — we've evolved in this universe, because this universe is conducive to life. There may be other universes that aren't conducive to life, and lo and behold there isn't life in them. That's the kind of cosmic natural selection."

He said this just before he said the following " But when you look at [the cosmic microwave background map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."

The last thing he said in this conversation was "The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I'm certainly hoping it's the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us."

CONVERSATION : UNIVERSE
THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO
A Talk With Lawrence M. Krauss [7.5.06]
http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isn-39t-zero

Can this indeed be misinterpreted data then?
It started with WMAP, This said that the universe was aligned with the plane of our solar system and gave us a very distinct impression that we are the center of the universe. This idea was so outlandish that the vast majority of scientists dismissed it as data fluk and misinterpretation. Somewent so far as to say that "“I do think there is a bit of a psychological effect,” says WMAP’s chief scientist Charles Bennett. “People want to find unusual things.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18489-found-hawkings-initials-written-into-the-universe/
So they sent a better yardstock into space to find out. The Planck satellite could measure this anomaly with much better precision and the findings shocked the physics world.
Planck’s detectors are over 10 times more sensitive and have about 2.5 times the angular resolution of WMAP’s, giving cosmologists a much better look at this alignment. “We can be extremely confident that these anomalies are not caused by galactic emissions and not caused by instrumental effects, because our two instruments see very similar features,” said Efstathiou.
New Scientist  Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil   Jacob Aron  21 March 2013
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos-plus-axis-of-evil/#ixzz6X4bgolNo

This has shaken the physics world. Every time they look deeper they find more evidence of this. In their attempts to refute this they find more factual and congruent data supporting this map showing earth is very important and centered in a very special place in the universe.
They will say this is coincidence, they will say it will look like this no matter where in the universe you are, they will say that these are randomly generated and meaningless. They will say anything to do away with this data. The fact that the Chief Scientist of WMAP said this had to do with psychology is evidence of how far they will go to deny this data.

There are dozens of papers written about this, many of them are trying desperately to remove this axis that places earth at the center of the universe, along this axis and aligned harmoniously.
Here we have this:  "In this paper, by considering the preferred axis in the CMB parity violation, we find that it coincides with the preferred axes in CMB quadrupole and CMB octopole, and they all align with the direction of the CMB kinematic dipole. In addition, the preferred directions in the velocity flows, quasar alignment, anisotropy of the cosmic acceleration, the handedness of spiral galaxies, and the angular distribution of the fine-structure constant are also claimed to be aligned with the CMB kinematic dipole."
Preferred axis in cosmology
Wen Zhao, Larissa Santos
astrophysics > Cosmology and Non Galactic Astrophysics
Cornell UNiversity
https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.05484
This lists 7 separate measurements all pointing at exactly the same result.

Here is another:
Anisotropy of Cosmic Acceleration
Wen Zhao1
, Puxun Wu2 and Yang Zhang1
1Key Laboratory for Researches in Galaxies and Cosmology, Department of Astronomy,
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230026, China
2Center for Nonlinear Science and Department of Physics,
Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang, 315211, China
(Dated: June 8, 2018)

And another: "We report the presence of large anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended
quasars as well as some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR survey, the most reliable and most intensively studied complete sample of strong steep-spectrum radio sources. The
anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the equinoxes and the north celestial pole."
A large anisotropy in the sky distribution of 3CRR quasars and
other radio galaxies
Ashok K. Singal
Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Physical Research Laboratory,
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380 009, India

And another


Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos-plus-axis-of-evil/#ixzz6X4eQ1plm

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18489-found-hawkings-initials-written-into-the-universe/#ixzz6X4dikk7p