Best Answer:
We don't need to be a genius to work out that there is a God. Here is a little something I paraphrased from something else, have a read.

I will prove that God exists by showing that the other alternative (big bang, evolution, etc…) does not have credence.

Since the argument against creation comes from the possibility or chance, of things just coming into being through the chance of things happening through large amounts of time passed, let us examine that concept.

The probability that an event will occur is usually denoted as “p”, and the value of p can range from zero (meaning that it won’t happen) to one (meaning that it is certain to happen). Theoretically cosmologists might pursue smaller values of p because it costs them nothing to write down numbers of paper, but in the real world, cost is usually a controlling factor.

So a cosmologist can come up with a totally ridiculous figure of probability, assuming that an event can occur. For instance; “there exists … a probability of a little less than 1 chance in 10 to the power of 80 that the hot air arising from the flames on a gas stove, instead of dissipating throughout the room, could bunch together inside a small volume element, move toward you, and burn a hole through your chest and into your heart”. The problem with this logic is that gas molecules move at random and do not stick together. So although as much as you like to think it might happen, it never will. This means that we could come up with a perceived figure of probability such as 1 chance in 10 to the power of 80 for something that will never happen.

It is said that there is a 1 in one million chance of someone winning the lottery every week. That means that the chance of 1 person winning the lottery is p=1. But if one was to take a ticket every week of their life, their chance of winning it would be p=0.000001. Since the chances of winning it are so low, why do they keep taking that ticket? It is simply because there is that chance there. BTW do not gamble!

By using the illustration of the lottery, it shows how chance is relative to reality, the possibility that it could happen. We know that the chance of one person winning it is a certainty.

Should an assumption of chance be related to cause for existence as some cosmologists have agreed upon?

Of course they say time is what makes existence possible by chance but the arguments are weak that this is so. Take for instance that all interactions in the real world use up energy, so as time goes by useable energy is continually depleted. As a result, long periods of time do not necessarily lead to increased likelihood; they will, on average, lead to “decreased” likelihood that anything at all will happen.

In cosmological terms, the parallel situation is that in any particular part of the universe there will only ever be a finite amount of energy and a finite number of particles available for interaction. Any accomplishments of chance will have to come early in the process, while there is still enough useable energy available and the particles are still in a position to interact.

Chance can only be applied to events that can happen – chance cannot magically make things happen that are physically impossible.

Source(s):

Asker's rating