My name is Adam Charles Hovey, I am a Christian. Which means that not only do I believe God, but I believe this God to the exclusion of other gods. I am a Christian, which means that, just as Muslims and Jews, I am monotheistic, however, unlike those groups, I believe God became man, died on a cross, and rose from the dead, appeared to many people (including his followers) and ascended into heaven. Say Atheists are right, and Jesus, if he does exist, is just a great moral teacher. It would still not disprove the existence of God.
Before I explain the logical conclusions of God's existence, I would think by this time that most Americans have at least seem to have access to the Internet. Why is that when I type in "Jesus Christ" in a search engine, I get images that would offend the most "liberal" of Christians? I get sites claiming to "disprove it" (whatever "it" is) and that religion is Anti-Science (as of this writing, the current Pope is an expert in Chemistry). What is not helping is that many Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestants claiming that Christianity is not about "religion". (I suggest that they read James 1:27-28). If Christians claim that our religion is being unfairly targeted we have to admit that our faith is in fact a religious system. We must also understand that standing up to these militant and fad Atheists requires us to have at least some education in science.
Evolution, for instance, does not contradict the Genesis narrative. I have no problem believing that Adam and Eve existed, but I think interpreting the creation in a literal six-day period is detrimental to the Christian faith (some would say seven, and they would be wrong, God rested on the seventh day, according to the creation narrative).
Being a Christian does not mean being Anti-Science. There are craters on the moon named after Jesuits, the father of modern genetics was an an Austrian monk. Although Einstein was more of a Deist than a Jew or a Christian, he most certainly would not have agreed with the view that faith in God is Anti-Science. So that brings another problem. If creationism is not the origin of life, then what of intelligent design?
Some have proposed that intelligent design and creationism are the same thing, I propose this as a fallacy. I think theistic evolution is an appropriate solution to this query as it seems unlikely that life can exist with no purpose, while, likewise, I believe there is more than enough evidence to support the evolution hypothesis. Fossil remains seem to confirm this.
That said, if God does not exist, there is no reason for us to exist, if nothing is set in motion, nothing (including us) would be in motion). The Big Bang Theory was initially opposed by Atheists because if it was thought that if it were true, Theists would be right. Most scientists accept that whatever is in motion, has been set into motion. If the universe we lived in, was, in fact, created per the Big Bang theory, then without God, the existence of the universe should contradict scientific conventions.
Consider the following, if God doesn't exit, then neither should I. There is no way around this fact, Atheists will counter that infants are Atheists. There are several problems with this, the main one is that infants do have faith. An infant is capable of differentiating between a the voice of their mother and those of others, in other words, an infant has faith. Does this mean they know who God is? Probably not, but that does not mean they are Atheists either. Atheism is the decision of an individual to reject the existence of a deity. So infants are not Atheists either. So are they Agnostic? No, since an Agnostic must have information to say "I don't know" (Agnostic is a Greek word meaning "Without knowledge"). So what then? It seems unlikely that mankind has ever been Atheist or Agnostic as a whole. Perhaps, there may have been superstitious elements to their religion, but I would argue that they pleased their gods, though they could not see them. Of course, a Monotheist would argue, as we only believe in one God, but they were more logical in their beliefs than Atheists are in their disbelief. They looked around them and could not fathom random chance being responsible for the world that was created, in that sense, they are much more logical than the nonbeliever,who while arguing that religion is superstitious (ironically) are themselves, quite indeed superstitious.
Superstition is attributing divine powers to something other than what is God. An Atheist may argue that my Rosaries, Icons, Miraculous Medals, Bibles, and Statues may be the object of superstition, There are several problems with this, the first is that I understand completely these are not. I own these items as a sign of devotion. I read the Bible and carry it on me at times, because I believe reading it will help me learn more about God, likewise, I carry around my Rosary, because it reminds me that Mary was the first to say yes to Christ and that I should have her faith, and because I have to behave in a way that shows I am an ambassador for Christ. Science, cannot replace religion, no matter how hard Atheists try. Likewise, Religion must supplement science, never try to replace it, the argument should be faith and reason, not faith or reason.
-Adam Charles Hovey