Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search

Average Rating

(1 votes)

RatingRated by

You must login to vote

It Clearly Makes a Case for a Creator

It has always mystified me how some people can fail to see that there had to be a Creator for our universe, an organized mind that has set forth laws that govern “being.” Everything around us has a law governing it, and laws do not form themselves. Furthermore, man is continually discovering laws, and to discover something, it must first be hidden.

When the Law of Gravity was discovered, it was not new. It had been in existence forever, as we know it. So was the Law of Thermonuclear Dynamics, first found recorded in Genesis 1:1-3 of the Bible, by which God created both the heavens and earth. But I can not prove that! Others will do that, in good time.

Mathematics is known in its various elements and accepted worldwide as a fact. We know it follows specific laws, but few of us realize, or take the time to think about the fact that it is a system that is technically non-existent and without proof, scientifically! If you don’t believe me… touch a number! You can not. You can produce a symbol of a number, and hypothesize a learned conclusion, but you can’t “prove” it! It must be accepted and used by faith.

One fascinating area in the study of mathematics is the calculation of the odds of particular things happening, especially within a specific set of parameters, like time or space. These calculations are used by most industries every day, and our entire social structure hinges on them. Buildings are erected or demolished, roads built, bridges raised, satellites launched, traffic lights installed by them.

This invisible system of mathematics which we rely on so much is what, I suspect, will eventually prove that the God who reveals Himself in the Bible, is, indeed, the universe’s Creator. And this will come about as thinking men and women postulate one simple, beloved, mathematical mystery: sex.

What do you suppose is the mathematical probability for the accidental occurrence of the following scenario? Suppose the eons of earth’s existence are 100 million years. What possibility is there that any single male animal (in its brief lifetime, given earth’s length and girth, it’s depths and heights) would be able locate, recognize, communicate with, or know what organs to use to couple with a female of his own species? Infinitesimally minimal, wouldn’t it be? Add to that the mathematical improbability that their “accidental” genetic makeup would be compatible to reproduce viable offspring.

Mathematically, it would have been impossible for any species to develop from a chance meeting of a sexual nature. But the amazing thing about our planet is that there are various and disassociated species of creatures, and that most are sexual and bear after their own species line on a regular basis at calculated intervals! There are no mathematical calculations currently known to men that can figure the actual possibilities of this happening by chance! It couldn’t. DNA studies prove it didn’t.

So, the next time you think about indulging in that most wonderful, procreative urge that we call sex, thank it’s Creator that He knew what He was doing so long ago when He made you such an intriguing possibility: a thinking person! And if that is not enough to convince you about the God of the Bible… think about this: my God is the one who saw the sexuality of humans and said, “It is very GOOD!”
Man, did He ever know what He was talking about!

© 7-17-1999

Thought for today:
“For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ has made me free from the law of Sin and Death.” Romans 8:2


Related Items


The following comments are for "SEX! It Clearly Makes a Case for a Creator"
by MaxiiJ

Although i think you could have explained it just a little more cleary, i completely share yourview. It seems rather unlikey to me that the absolute greatest physical pleasure also happens to be the one thing that is neccessary for our species to survive. To me, this sounds like much more than the work of "nature" or "evolution." (For the record, i strongly believe in both of those things, i just feel that there was also an outside influence.)

( Posted by: E.G. Evans [Member] On: April 28, 2004 )

Sex! et al
Those who don't "get it" are like the old PCs'. They’re functional as far as the capacities they now possess for understanding, but one good "upgrade" would get them "internet ready" and capable of so much more!

Life is (sort of) like an Easter Egg Hunt to me. Someone, more intelligent that the egg hunters, hid treats in logical but mysterious places to be discovered. Seldom does the one who hides these treasures fail to take pleasure in watching the joy of the hunters as they hunt! And they usually console the ones who can't find any eggs, or who have them stolen by other hunters, by giving them some eggs from a hidden stash!

( Posted by: MaxiiJ [Member] On: April 28, 2004 )

This article shows a clear lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. You are assuming that evolutionary theory supports the idea that a chimp just magically gives birth to a human one day. This is not the case. The process is slow and gradual taking *millions* of years. The line between the various stages is not the categories often depicted, rather it is a continuum with each flowing into the next. If you wish to make this a logical essay, I suggest reading heavy books on evolution, not something from a high school biology text book or popular media.
Secondly, even if you did establish a creator was neccessary, you didn't establish which creator this was. You immediately jump from requiring a divine to requiring Yahweh. Why does it have to be the god of the bible and not Shiva, Isis, or Zeus. And please don't use bible quotes to support it. Bible quotes make for dubious evidence and are more suited to a theological paper than a logical one.
Thirdly, probability proves nothing. You do not go to the winner of a lottery and say, but you didn't win because you only had a one in 4 million shot. Some people beat the odds. We might just have.
Fourthly, when you say math is not provable, you should little knowledge of the philosophy of math. I don't believe 2+2=4. By definition, it does. This does not mean 2 apples plus 2 apples equals four apples. It simply means 2+2 will always equal 4.
Lastly, you suffer from the "who created the Creator" argument.

( Posted by: cjcastor [Member] On: April 30, 2004 )

Answer to cicastor
Thank you for your response, but you are at least partially wrong. I did not "assume that evolutionary theory supports the idea that a chimp just magically gives birth to a human one day." I've studied both college evolution and archeology through the University of Florida. You wrongly assumed that one item from one short read, couldn't you be as wrong about everything else. Your logic is worse than you say mine is. I have both scientific data and mathematical probability studies on my side. But I don't expect closed-minded people to ever be persuaded on this subject. I wrote it for those who are surching to real, plausable answers. And when one trusts Yahweh to be who he says he is, you can see that the others are imposters, for Yahweh backs up his promises with power in those who really believe. Belief comes first, then the proofs. I used to be where you are now, so I understand your skepticism.

( Posted by: MaxiiJ [Member] On: April 30, 2004 )

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.