The, "God of the Old Testament" is an atheist strawman fallacy

 Many atheists like to PLUCK God out of the old-testament. It's basically a large-scale quote-mine in a sense because we don't believe God is just the God of the old-testament.

If we were Jewish we would see God as solely the God of the old testament in which case if you isolate the old testament, then yes God would just be another god that seemingly fought Israel's wars then disappeared implying invention.

To atheists that aren't thoughtful they are just basically coming up with as many "bible nasties" as they can then arguing God can't exist because of them. 

It doesn't really work for reasons that don't occur to them. Those reasons are;

- Anthropomorphism/anthropopathism

- Strawman fallacy/cherry picking.

- Application/not contextual

- Motives are ignored, but C.S.Lewis deductively proved that motive is a key factor to morality.

- Scale.

I shall start with scale. The New Testament give reasons why the law was there. In terms of the scale of it and it's application, it was intended for probably less than 0.1% of humanity if we look at the total population over time whereas God's intention in the gospel was to bless billions of people. In summary if you want to look at it truncated, then it's as though God was saying, "Here is proof you can't live by my standards, so now let me myself satisfy my standard on your behalf by showing you for a short while just how ugly it has to be when trying to please a totally holy God without His righteousness being imparted to you, to prove humanity cannot be moral without God.".

When it comes to motives being ignored, God's motives in the old testament aren't always clear, yet it does state in the bible that God's nature is good. 1 John 1 says, "God is light, and in Him is no darkness whatsoever". In other places it implies or outright states that God cannot sin such as in Numbers 23 where it says, "God is not a man that He should lie". It also makes a distinction between human thinking and God's thinking in Isaiah by saying that as the stars are so much higher in the sky than the earth, so is the distance between our level of thinking and God's. In other words, because God is omniscient then God is saying there literally is no comparison, any moral motive we think is immoral according to huma reason, simply cannot be correct, but would only say something about the limits of human reason. We also cannot be trusted unless the person complaining about what God done in the O.T, is a morally perfect person that has no ill will towards God. This rules out any atheist commentary because they would have an anti-God motive even if the motive was hidden. Motives ARE hidden a lot of the time. Just going from outcome alone but not knowing why something was done, is by analogy like being shown someone being executed. If you only saw the execution and how terrible it was, you could easily infer the non-sequitur that the executioner was doing it for immoral or evil reasons. 

Mostly when atheists reason out the cherry-picked canard, "the God of the Old Testament is evil/sadistic", their motives are atheist-flavoured. They don't show any real desire or attempt to understand anything about what the bible says and have a very clear and obvious desire to just take the O.T on face value and ignore anything else the bible says. 

Bible scholars would tell you that the WORST way to understand the bible is by ignoring all of the other things the bible says pertaining to matters such as morality. 

When atheist argue-from-outrage (AFO- informal fallacy)they do so towards God in the O.T by committing anthropopathism where they believe God should be endowed with their relative atheist feelings about morality. It's the mistake of humanising God, as though God should only see things from a human perspective. Logically speaking, this is quite absurd if you stop and think about it for a moment. A human being is a persona with a mind riddled full of error and fallibility. We reason incorrectly, we discount counter-intuitive concepts by confusing them with contradictions, we are riddled with all sorts of biases and our personal moral values differ wildly being mixed up with all sorts of devious motivations therefore not necessarily even being, "moral". To suppose a human being could judge an all-knowing God's actions morally is perhaps one of the dumbest things I have ever witnessed in life. 

Nobody Calls Me A murdererphobic

 Nobody calls me a murdererphobic for not wanting to see formed or semi-formed embryos killed in the womb. You see as an epithet, such a label would not demonise me and would in fact work in my favour because the liberal would have to tactitly admit that it was murder. 

That is why such terms don't exist. 

You see far left nutjobs basically see things very self-righteously, to their mind it is; "you either agree with us or you are immoral and we will demonise you".

To do this they use all sorts of question-begged-epithets mostly of the form where they prefix, "phobic" with something or other such as, "trans" or, "homo". 

The reason they are successful at sidelining people by demonising is that most people aren't smart enough to see through it unfortunately. 

They've Found a Spiral Galaxy Too Early Which Confirms My Previous Blog

 I wrote a blog previously about how historical science fails logical rules because it is not really scientific. 

They have now found an 11 billion year old spiral galaxy, where they argued it was impossible to form after about 6 billion years.

If you think a man was born in 2001 but proof is found that in 1997 he was a three and a half foot boy you don’t say, “oh we thought that impossible, but boys must be able to grow in the womb for a number of years before they are born”.

In the same way when you find a spiralled bar galaxy billions of years before it should exist when your theory says it is impossible, you don’t reason that somehow it’s possible because you are supposed to infer the theory is wrong. (but this is what the scientists are doing, they're trying to somehow save their big bang theory when it is clearly false)

If it wasn’t bad enough finding galaxies in the dark ages we now find this galaxy!

Objection; “what are you saying, that science should be dogmatic and shouldn’t change when things are found to be wrong?”

No, I am saying that is fine when it comes to things that really should be explained scientifically. But when you look at things like that they seldom have to change because true science doesn't have a history of being constantly wrong like with historical science.

You see, with operational science, this is strong science because it refers to the universe’s operation. We don’t expect to find a mechanical engineer inside of an engine, we expect to explain the operation of the engine without the engineer. 

But when it comes to the creation of the engine, the origins of things, this reasoning no longer works because it isn’t now the operation of things we are dealing with but their creation of which we have no scientific access to.

The reason why “science” like the big bang, macro evolution and abiogenesis always turn up contradicting evidence rather than what was predicted, is because they are not dealing with the operation of the universe but the creation/beginning of the things in the universe.

THAT IS WHY HISTORICAL “science” APPEARS SO WEAK, BUT OPERATIONAL SCIENCE STRONG by stark contrast.

There is a logical lesson here; science doesn’t work when you employ this philosophy of methodological naturalism as extending beyond what is operationally deduced by going into areas of the unknown. (origins) 

Methodological naturalism works with operational science because we don’t expect anything other than a natural explanation whether God is there or is not there like we don't expect to find an engineer inside the engine. However when it comes to the creation of things technically you don’t have that same premise. The premise that only methodological naturalism is required is PROVABLE with operational science, but it isn’t provable with historical science and is it a coincidence that historical science doesn’t yield the same results?

It’s no coincidence! It is clear that real science should be operational science. Philosophical/historical science, is a logically WEAK and invalid endeavour. 

No Evidence Of God

 To say there is no evidence of God/a designer, I consider a false assertion.

It may be true that science rejects design BUT logical rules still allow people to ask what they would expect as evidence of a designer and if we then find that evidence then to say there is no evidence is a lie and is false even if science rejects that evidence because according to the law of the excluded middle we have either found what we expected to find or we haven't. 

What is intelligence and can it be found? Yes, in the form of the features you find in any sophisticated design were you find correct placement of parts, specified complexity, correct materials, contingency planning, solutions to innate problems etc, etc...

what does it mean that we only collectively find these features in intelligently designed things? That those features OBVIOUSLY represent the intelligence put into them.

So would we EXPECT those features to be found in things we argue had great intelligence put into them? (we argue life is designed)

Obviously. In fact we cannot even argue that we wouldn't expect it. 

And we do find it.

You may object, "evolution would say they are appearance of design".

Counter-objection; can you find one thing in existence that is not designed that had all of the features of intelligence put into it? No, because our induction is that according to statistical probability 1 out of 1 things with all of the usual features of ID in them were IDed.  (an overwhelmingly insuperable reason to believe it is NOT evolution)

However I ACKNOWLEDGE that it is a logical possibility that if evolution designed life the intelligence would have to be an appearance. However technical this objection, however weak, I accept you can desperately argue it.

Why weak? Because evolution would only be responsible for SOME of the design. You then have to argue the rest of the intelligence we find in the replicating DNA code and all of the cellular machinery and so forth, came from abiogenesis. 

BUT, it doesn't matter. The issue is whether there is evidence for God designing life in the matter of finding what we would usually find from an IDed thing. We still have found what we expected to even if you put it down to evolution. That is satisfying for theists because we simply have found what we expected to find even if every atheist wing-bag on earth continually repeats the false factoid that there is no evidence for God. 

Think about it, there are no logical rules that would allow you to argue that no matter what evidence you find it cannot be what you would expect to find if something is IDed. That's irrational, for we know certain things FOLLOW if something is IDed. Whether you like it or not we have found the expected evidence that God designed life and biomimetics is the cherry on the cake. (the engineering field of science that proves life's design is smarter than ours because we have to steal the ideas in nature because they're better than ours.)

Inventing gods

A popular atheist argument online; "it's easy to invent god, as long as he's invisible, undetectable, etc..."

Correct. It is easy to create a false god.

Two points that are logically sound;

1. That doesn't mean this is how God originated.

2. If it's easy to invent false gods then why is that?

It's possible to make a false god up because invisibility yields the same appearance as non-existence.

If I create a false god right now called, "zug", I can do that because invisibility hides the fact he does not exist. We know that he is invisible because he doesn't exist. But the reason you can't say God is the same as zug is for the very same reason. (The invisibility problem)

Think about it, we still don't know if God's invisibility is because of His non-existence or because He can't be seen or detected in the natural. Therefore it's fallacious to presume God is unreal because zug is. Even if you think it's "probable", that doesn't prove equivalence. 

Also, "if" God did create life and the universe then GRANTING zug omnipotence can't mean zug has it. 

In other words the reason God may be there is because of the intelligibility and design we find in the universe rather than the mess you would expect from materialism (if anything at all)

In other words, WHAT DOES EXIST AND IS VISIBLE gives us a reason to believe God does exist and may be omnipotent whereas we simply imbued zug with omnipotence. If zug's omnipotence is fictional then he cannot be equivalent to God unless you assume atheism. (atheism is question-begged with this argument)

To prove this argument you have to show something invisible and unverifiable can only be fictional. If you can have such a thing be either factual or fictional then it could be either one so there is no reason to choose, "fictional" just because atheists say so. 

It is only ABUSING HINDSIGHT to PRETEND a prediction of atheism would be an intelligible universe with design. That is the prediction for a creation. The design of your eyeball is not a religious creed.

Why Science Fails Logical Rules Under Naturalism With Non-Provable Theories

 Ever seen a whodunnit movie where the culprit is someone you thought dead or it's a ridiculous red-herring? Let's assume it was the butler but because he was assumed dead all of the facts were interpreted in light of his absence.

This is a logical error where an argument contains premises based on the assumptions that something is false.

If you then PROCEED with examining the facts, what the facts really mean is banished from your investigation.

So if the butler left his fingerprints on one of the murder weapons, that will be dismissed as inconsequential because he was assumed dead at the time. "Perhaps he used that weapon when he was alive" might be the reasoning you would use. 

The problem with unprovable science is that it only accepts arguments or a hypothesis that is methodologically natural. But that is their ideology; to explain the whole world in purely natural terms. That is their motivation. And of course if you speak of design or creation we are told, "that's pseudo-science", or, "that's not science".

However is it true? "IF" design/creation is true, then it follows logically that the scientific mainstream have classed it as banished from science even though it is true. You may object; "but it isn't true!" But that objection IMPLIES you have applied science to it. But how could you have done that properly if mainstream science has not properly applied study to it? Therefore you make a philosophical statement based on personal feeling! (You can't have your cake as an ornament and also eat it)

The classic argument put forward by naturalists is this one; "but look at how many scientifically natural explanations superseded superstitious or supernatural ones".

But that is actually an expected tautology(1) when it comes to the natural operation of things. Operational science refers to the operation of the natural universe. We expect there to be no supernatural assumptions for this science because all operational science turns out to be provable.

I am not referring to operational science which is provable, I am talking about non-provable past events of the creation or beginnings of a thing rather than it's operation.

So by analogy we would not expect to find the creator of a vehicle inside of the car's engine for we would expect the engine's operation to not require the creator but we would expect there to be a creator/designer, at the time the car was created.

In the same way all provable science is provable and not dependent upon supernatural explanations because God created the universe to run on it's own. We expect certain forces to be there such as lift or downforce or linear momentum. The reason we can prove they are there is that we can always induce the same results. We can always show exotic air exists because a rat placed under a sealed dome will always become unconscious. You can perform the experiment once or one billion times and the result will be the same because we have provably deduced exotic air exists. It's the same with lift or downforce, we don't need to check if a plane's wings will produce lift every time we are at the airport, we already know they will. We don't need to see a formula one grandprix car corner fast in order to find out if the centripetal force and downforce will negate linear momentum (or centrifugal force).

But when it comes to the creation of the universe or life's creation, nobody can scientifically test. Nobody can scientifically test if a bat macro-evolved as we have never found any ancestors for a bat which were on an evolutionary path to bat-hood. 

Therefore this logical problem of of the assumption of naturalism, greatly weakens unprovable science such as macro evolution and abiogenesis. (micro evolution is provable so the problem doesn't apply to it. Population genetics are factual, they simply don't extend to Darwin's stories). 

(1)Expected tautology; "the universe is operationally natural therefore you will find natural causes to it's operational elements" or intrepreted; "Duh!")

Believing The Bible Gives Proper Answers To Atheist Arguments

Believing the bible as it's plain and obvious meaning, and taking it as real historical events and actually listening to the things Jesus said or the New Testament says, actually gives answers and counter-arguments to popular atheist arguments that make sense. If the bible is just a book of poetry then why are these answers so solid?

For example a popular atheist argument is that, "generally prayers go unanswered". They then offer this up as a reason God doesn't exist. BUT, what did Jesus say about the world? what does the bible say about the world and it's state?

He said that Satan is in charge of this world and that, "wide is the path to destruction and many there be that find it". In other words, Jesus was saying that most people are lost to their sinful nature and that only few will believe because he said; "and difficult and narrow is the way to salvation and few there be that find it" (paraphrased as I can't remember word by word)

Conclusion; would it make sense if God was answering the world of the damned? Would it make sense if prayers were generally answered when according to Jesus Himself most people are apart from God taking the path of sin and not being born again like He said?

Clearly the New Testament says that only those with God's spirit have access to God.

See how easy it is to defeat atheist-reasoning if you take the bible to actually mean what it says rather than just seeing it as a jumbled bunch of made up stories?

Conclusion; see how the bible and Jesus's very words can always give answers that make sense? It gives other answers to. There is a big, big advantage against atheist-arguments when you actually believe what the bible says.

For example, if you believe the world flood did occur then when evolutionists ask for a dino in the Cambrian or a human fossil in the Cretaceous, if we look at the bible pertaining to the flood, then those layers would be contemporaneous anyway, so they would be regarded as all being laid down by the flood, so to find a dinosaur in the Cretaceous means it lived at the same time as the trilobyte found in the Cambrian!

Can you see how easy that is to answer! And there are even reasons to believe you would never find a human in the Cretaceous if we instead of accepting a prehistoric world instead accepted a pre-flood world. Because if you think about it properly, the assumptions you get from those two very different worlds, lead to wildly different conclusions.

For example a pre-flood world was predicated on the perfect world found in Genesis (Eden). This means all of the things we take for granted such as migration of animals and allopatric speciation and so forth, just didn't exist. The original pre-flood super continent was a large zoo with every animal to ever exist found in that zoo, and none of them were extinct, for they were all extant. That means if dinosaurs lived in an ecological zone that was ten thousand miles away from humans, then they would simply never have any reason to leave that zone to be found fossilised with humans. 

CONCLUSION: This is the tip of the iceburg, the things that make rational sense if you accept the bible as real, are basically endless. For example why did God create disease? Attenborough argues a parasite lives in the human eye, and asks why did God do that? But He didn't do it, because in that pre-flood world all such species would be symbiotic, and all live in their correct hosts. But when the flood came and many organisms went extinct at the time of the flood or after it, they lost their hosts. In fact diseases always arise in time, look at the last century and all of the new diseases!

See how easy it is to defeat atheism when you actually read the bible and find out what it really would mean for this world? 

NOW LET'S SEE IF A COMPROMISED THEISTIC EVOLUTION WORLDVIEW HAS THE ANSWERS; (to which I will "guess" the answers, highlighted in red)

What about disease? Answer; Well according to a natural worldview disease and death are just a part of God's creative world, why does God allow millions of years of misery and disease and even now allow it among humans rather than a paradise? I don't know, perhaps that is God's paradise and he is sadistic, or he doesn't have the power over disease because evolution is stronger than him, and every time a rabbit dies he weeps in heaven, regretting his inflated big bang. (under a view of the bible where you accept naturalism, evolution, and just see the bible as metaphor, please note that Jesus healing people would be an act AGAINST God the Father, because God the Father under this view of the world, uses disease and suffering and evolution, and it is part of His process of creation. So when Jesus healed a blind man that would be an act against God because God intended disease as part of His evolutionary process)

What about unanswered prayer according to a compromised bible and all are saved? ..Answer; well, I guess God is simply on vacation.

What about the design-standard in nature leading to biomimetics? Is that cleverness that exceeds human thought power coming from God? No, evolution, meaning God didn't have the brains to overcome evolution, and I guess He just has to go along with what evolution decides even if it decides to create monsters that eat humans for breakfast, and in that case those monsters would be made in His image. Or some such thing as an answer, for your guess is as good as mine given this strange deistic concept of God where no result was ever influenced by Him and He never did anything meaning it makes no difference if you believe in Him or not. 

Atheists Label Themselves Rational But Don't Reason Very Well.

 There are so many examples of why atheists aren't really people of reason. They claim rationalism and science but don't hold their beliefs up to the scrutiny of science and logical reasoning. (of course I mostly refer to the modern, aggressive new athiest)

For example a lot of the things they put forward they don't seem to know are just beliefs they have which aren't critically examined but instead are question-begged.

Krauss, (IIRC) said we are stardust, and your left hand's atoms came from a different star to your right hand. 

Such "scientists" don't know reason well. This is question-begging because there is nothing in atoms or heavy elements that would show any star-origin. But on top of that what makes this reasoning worse is that according to the reason atheists don't actually study, it is modo-hoc reductionism. Which is the fallacy of putting too much emphasis upon what something is made out of, or only looking at it's make-up rather than weighing it's full nature.

Example; "This car chassis is no different to any other metal from naturally occurring rocks."

But that is wrong because the car chassis is designed unlike the natural metal, and it has specified complexity. It's the same with human beings, to say we are just what we are made of ignores the specified complexity with which our skeletons are put together along with our organs. It ignores all of the correct materials we are made from and the contingency planning, etc...

Another argument atheists accept uncritically, is abiogenesis. They don't need to directly prove this fantastic claim it would seem (phantasticus axioma)instead they just believe they need two gormless cliches from popular culture;

1. There's so much space out there with habitable zones that there just has to be other life.

2. If there's water there will be life. 

In fact according to reason these are examples of reverse conditional implications. The correct ones are; "if there's water depending life there will be water", and, "if there is life then there is a habitable place for it."

Do atheists notice these errors? No, because they are too busy desperately swallowing any sophistry that can fool both them and the gullible people that believe they're talking science. 

In fact since Urey/Miller all they have shown scientifically is how abiogenesis is simply science-fiction. But they don't care about that, they simply ASSUME this giant claim is true and pretend it is scientific. In fact it is the science-fiction of natural magic at best. The same evidence exists for phlogiston spaghetti monsters spewing out primordial forms in the remote past. 

Then there is the willful ignorance of design by the stupid fallacy of irrelevance that argues that, "the only way you can know something is designed is if you see the process." What a fine example of mendax flagrante. (flagrant lies)

Are atheists saying they are so silly that they think that if we got a message signal in mathematics from SETI that they wouldn't conclude it was designed by an intelligent alien? Are they really saying that if we went to the moon and found an alien craft that it wasn't designed because we didn't see it designed?

According to statistical probability, if you have an old F1 race car stored with al the same working parts as a real one, what foolish reasoning would it be to say, "the downforce on the wings will only count if we see it corner fast, otherwise the downforce doesn't exist."

Of course it still exists. And according to statistical probability, if you find an object with all of the usual features of intelligence design it stands a 100% chance of being designed. (the operative word being, "statistical")

Then there is the bad design argument.

Again it's fallacious reasoning called, slothful induction, to ignore the vast evidence of design in life and just focus on one or two designs they deem less than optimal. Imagine a supermodel without blemish was deemed the most beautiful woman in the world but you said she was ugly as a whole because she had a small skin tag on her neck.

If atheists are so well reasoned, why can't they figure out the obvious error.

It is a great example of nitpicking because for every design they argue is bad you can find 100 in that system that are excellent design.

All of their examples have been debunked. The complaint about the blind spot in our eye actually has been shown to only count as 0.2% of the visual field. (negligible). The wiring of the retina is not incorrect because of the excellence of the designed Mueller-cell system that circumvents the nerve net. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is just the remnants of the problematics of embryological growth and it doesn't show any poor design just because it takes a winding route so the complaint doesn't count, and recently the panda's thumb has been shown by scientists to actually be well designed. (critical analysis also asks the question, "how well designed was the rest of the panda, since determining if it was designed shouldn't be judged by 0.3% of it's anatomy" (slothful induction)

In other words, atheists don't actually listen to science on this stuff, they just parrot Dawkins ad infinitum.

If atheists represented reason they would know that biomimetics through reductio ad absurdum proves that the design-standard in life is far more intelligent than human intelligence.

Finally, many irrational atheists compare God to Santa, IPU or fairies.

This is a fallacy of false equivalence because it doesn't matter if God is similar to other posited undetectable things or invisible things if it can be shown there can be things which are true even though they are undetectable directly. Other possible dimensions, higgs bosons or things like it, or undiscovered science which isn't able to be discovered yet, or other aspects to reality beyond human knowledge.

It's question-begged that God is false like Santa or an invisible unicorn. It's also an important logical difference that no rational adults believe in Santa or fairies. You really would only get a few flaky people believe in such superficial concepts meaning there must be rational reasons to believe in God or adults wouldn't believe in God. 

CONCLUSION; This is just a taste of some atheist arguments that are devoid of any sound reason or any science to back them even though they spread the false propaganda that atheists represent science and reason and Christians only represent religion and wishful thinking. (which again, is a stereotype from their propaganda which yet again fails reason given such binary thinking only represents a false dichotomy, once again proving they proclaim reason but fail to observe reason in all these errors they make which makes their patronising superiority-complex incredibly ironic.) Advice; if you're going to be supercilious and insult and talk down to Christians, at least do your homework first so you can avoid looking an absolute PLANK.

Why Anything Exists

 There are always reasons why things happen. You will not be able to think of one thing that ever happened without a reason. Think about it. Try and think of something that happened for no reason. Even if someone is killed on the road accidentally, there will be a reason why. The reason might be that they didn't look and stepped into the road. The reason may be they miscalculated while J-walking. The reason may be it was dark and they were drunk.

But if there was no reason, then it wouldn't have happened because nothing can happen without a reason. Therefore there always must be valid reasons for something to happen. (important to remember)

WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST?

There are three possibilities we can round it down to.

1. There was nothing at all. Then something popped out of nothingness. (magic)

2. Nature is eternal, it was forever cause and effect, turtles all the way down.

3. There is something inherently eternal that exists, that created nature. (technically you cannot prove this is God, but there has to be something that has a reason to be eternal that is beyond nature and our understanding)

Those are basically the three logical possibilities. I am arguing that because number 3 makes the most sense that God is there and always existed. I am arguing that God (or something like God technically) makes the most sense, I am not arguing that I can prove it is the Lord like I believe it is, I am just saying that of those three possibilities it seems 1 and 2 can be ruled out.

So the explanation which is true has to be predicated on a good reason because everything has a reason to happen. Because we do exist, and life and the universe does exist then there MUST be a reason why.

Number 1 doesn't provide a real reason; no matter what they tell you about a big bang or whatever gibberish they believe, the fact is if nothing at all exists there would be no reason for something to pop up out of it. Saying, "it just did" counts as, "no reason". This means number 1 MUST be false. Something would not come from nothing for no reason and this explanation can be regarded as belief in magic. Magic is reasonably false. There must be a reason and this offers no reason. There can also be no reason offered that would make sense because if nothing exists at all why would anything then come from it? It only makes sense that nothing would breed nothing. There is nothing for something to come from with number 1. It is the dumbest belief of the three and you can't put scientific varnish over it because there must be genuine reasons for something to happen and in this instance there can't be a reason for a false thing called magic, to occur.

Number 2 is a bit of a better explanation than number one because the nothing-problem is dispatched, however is the problem really gone pertaining to there being a reason for an eternal universe? Why would it be there anyway? Why would it exist? There seems to be a play on magic again because if there is no reason for it to exist in the first place then it can't be true. "It was just always there" is a non-answer and provides no real reason. Why would matter, or anything else, be there to begin with? There really isn't a good answer that is possible, therefore it cannot be true because things only happen for a reason. In fact there would just be nothing, just like if there was no reason for a car accident then it wouldn't have happened. 

This is why materialism, naturalism, atheism, is a generally poor answer,(not that the pride-filled liars of new atheism would ever be honest enough to admit to it) because it cannot give us proper reasons why things happen. It is the same with life's design and the intelligibility of the universe, you have to believe it is incidental but there is just no valid reason why designed parts of a cell would collect together over time and lead to a living, functional cell. What is the reason that would happen with natural chance? There really isn't a good reason, and a lifeform wouldn't "desire" to exist until it existed. Even if you propose something like a meteor delivering the correct concentration of left handed aminos to create a homochiral protein why would nature stop the protein from breaking down long before there was a functional cell? It's pretty much a totally FOOLISH belief to just go with credulity in this science-fiction offering because there are always reasons for why things happen and this provides none. You may counter, "an extraordinary series of events were the reason", but rationally there is no reason to believe in the invokation of super-improbable scenarios that only depict a fantasy world where the improbable events are so fantastical that they are no different from a miracle in their scope. And if they are equal to a miracle then why object to an actual miracle?

Number 3 seems to make the most sense. (Admittedly we can never fully make sense of these things because of the limits of our intellect). But it makes for the most consistent answer that God is the answer, because God is eternal. Even in Genesis God says of Himself, "I am that I am", which implies that God is saying, "I exist" or, "I am existence itself". This is consistent if there is a perfection to God where an eternal nature is unavoidable. Why does anything exist? Because I AM (existence itself) creates other things that exist. It also solves the nothing problem. There could never have been nothing because of the aforementioned reasonings. Therefore the reason why God is always there is because of His character/nature. God is inherently eternal being existences it's very self. God always was existing, and other things that exist only exist because God does.

This seems more satisfying than the other two answers. And the mark of a good answer is that it also gives answers to other problems that tie up the loose ends.....it answers for why the universe has intelligibility and life has design. The first two answers cannot give good reasons.

Given Enough Time 'The Improbable Becomes Probable' Addressed

 Not only do some things not become probable, they're reasonably always going to remain unreal even if not technically impossible. 

The atheist evolutionist uses this reasoning, with an implicit argument so that people are forced to think the following; "if it's not impossible then it's only a matter of probability, and therefore no matter how improbable given enough time or numbers it becomes probable."

However, I question the premise that, "if it's not impossible it's therefore a matter of probability."

That reasoning is wrong if we can show there is an example of something that is not impossible, but that is still not a matter of probability and therefore will not become more probable no matter how much time passes. 

I have an example. 

You will never get all of the leaders of the world come together in one room and decide to blow up the world predicated on the fact that they don't like that Michael Jackson exists and that they have no feet. 

Is it impossible? No. Is it improbable? No, but despite that it will never happen because that will never be a reason to blow up the world because they would know that Jackson is dead and they do have feet.

It's absurd to object; "given enough haters of Jacko and enough people exist it may happen". But it wouldn't because Jackson is dead so why would the world's existence still be a problem? It would be a matter of probability only if Jackson existed. 

You may object; "you could get a line up where all leaders believed he still existed", but by the time that happened Jackson would be a zillion years old so again, it's not improbable. You may further object; "there would eventually be people that believed they didn't have feet and that Jackson lived forever".

But it's silly talk. People just don't believe certain things. Add enough silliness up and eventually you get something that requires personalities that don't exist and never will. You may object; "AHAH! Then it's impossible!" But no, it isn't because it is possible to reason those things, nothing stops someone from reasoning that the world should end for those reasons. It's not intrinsically impossible unless it can't actually happen no matter what, but it could happen hypothetically.

It can happen hypothetically, but a square circle can't. 

You may object, "such personalities are square circles because nobody would ever do such actions". Yes but they have freewill, they could decide to do it just as I decided to reason it out as an argument. It can actually physically happen, it is possible. Think about it, would you have ever bet on anyone creating the argument I have just made? Nobody has ever argued it yet I did, but the only reason I did was to point out why it won't happen anyway. It is neither impossible nor improbable nor probable, yet would never happen because even arguing it could happen is so rare that it's the first time anyone has ever argued it when I argued it just now.

Conclusion; nature just doesn't have certain paths cross so those things remain separate and therefore unreal. They run metaphorically parallel meaning they can only exist separately not because they are impossible but because they have no reason to occur therefore it's also not a matter of probability.

We INNATELY know it would never happen. Not because it is improbable nor impossible but simply because it will always be fiction. 

There just needs to be a reason for some things to occur and with some things they can only occur with teleology as the cause. (done on purpose). That is the only reason why this Jackson-argument happened, was because someone done it on purpose. Would anyone ever argue that in the future bananas with moustaches will be the rulers of the world but only on Wednesdays? (think about it, nobody ever has until now)

In the same way that is why a protein would never assemble itself, UNLESS someone designed it to. That is why God created life and not abiogenevolution.