An argument must be judged by validity and soundness.  The discussion of
validity concerns itself with the premises of the argument, and the logic of the
conclusion.  For an argument to be valid, its premises must lead to a
conclusion.  Remember the analogy of validity.  A valid argument is like a
bridge that leads across a river.  If the argument is invalid, it is as if some part
of the bridge is missing, so that nobody can get across from one side of a
river to the other.  If you didn’t read the brief discussion of “Validity and
Soundness” previously, follow the link below so you understand what this
discussion will cover.
.
Validity and Soundness (Part One)
.
    To open the floor for discussion, imagine that you have just awakened, and
that you are locked inside a fifty-story building all alone.  You have no
contact with the outside world.  There is enough food to keep you alive for a
very long time, and there are many comfortable apartments inside the
building.  There is also a place where you can wash laundery, as well as a
library.  You have everything you could possibly want, in quantities large
enough to satisfy you.  The only thing that is withheld from you is contact. 
Not even the waste water or air of the building goes outside.  Everything is
perfectly self-contained.
    You find all kinds of things inside the building, none of which allows you
to escape.  You are confined inside this building.  The windows are
unbreakable--despite a variety of methods which are available for you to
try--and there are no obvious exits.  There is really no way out, unless you die
by accident, or by natural causes.
    Bored by the lack of activity, you examine the furniture in the building. 
Then you examine the paint, the wallpaper, then the carpeting and floor tiles. 
You look at the ceiling tiles, and count them.  You find many decorative
touches in the building, from lampshades, to reproductions of artworks you
recognize.
    Now, here comes the question:
    Think of everything you found in the building.  You found elevators,
stairwells, escalators, fans and ventilation ducts, air filters, water filters,
pipes, sinks, toilets, and electrical wiring.  You found pipes that carried
natural gas to run the central heating in the building and heat the water you
used.
    You even began to draw floor plans for each level of the building.  By the
time you were released, you had a diagram of every part of the building.  You
had mastered everything there was to know about the insides of that building,
and you knew it like you know your own house or apartment.
    Like I said, here comes the question:  Can you, in your right mind, deny
that somebody other than yourself, designed and built the building?  Okay, so
it was imaginary--meaning you imagined it all by yourself--but that’s not the
point.  Imagination aside, if you were inside a building that you did not
engineer and construct, could you deny that somebody designed and built that
building?  Take a look at the inside of any building you did not create.  Look
at every part you are allowed to look at.  Can you use any of what you find as
evidence to support your conclusion?
.
    If you choose to deny that the building was built or designed by another
person, no.  Absolutely nothing in that building, down to the tiniest bit of material
used to build the building, can be used as evidence to deny that somebody
built that building.  Not even if you find natural materials like wood, stone, or
sand which was used in the building.  These things were brought to the
building site and put together by a construction crew, or a single person, and
built into a building.
.
    If, on the other hand, you choose to confirm that the building was built or
designed by another person, all the things of the building can be used as
evidence to confirm that somebody built the building.  You may not know the
person who built the building, but you know that somebody built the building,
and somebody designed it.
.
    Why, then, do some scientists and some scientifically-minded people
choose not to believe in God?
.
.
    If we imagine the universe like a gigantic building--whether there are
alternate dimensions or realities makes no difference--people who do not
believe in God are like people who walk into buildings and then use the
evidence found inside those buildings to deny that any person constructed the
building.
    If the universe were created by a supernatural being, how could creation be
disproved?  There is absolutely no evidence in the realm of nature which can
disprove creation.  Not even the bones of fossilized or mummified animals
which could be millions of years old.
    Why not?
    Because, those bones were created.  So were the stars, the moon, the
Earth, and anything else in the universe.  It doesn’t matter if we find life on
other planets, because life on other planets is not evidence enough to confirm
that the universe was not created.  It doesn’t matter if humans eventually
succeed at creating living organisms with technology, because human life and
artificial life is not evidence enough to disprove God’s existence.  And whatever
humans do, we would be doing as a result of the creation, therefore, artificial life
forms could not be used to disprove that a supernatural being created the universe.
In the same line of thought, nothing artificial could be used to disprove that
God exists.
    What should be concluded then?  Suppose that one states that the Bible is
artificial, because it was written by humans.  Consider that several authors,
writing hundreds or even thousands of years apart, from various walks of life,
each with his own perspective, came to agree about God.  So, perhaps the
Bible isn’t that artificial after all.
    Such a question does open up another venue of thought:  that nothing in
this universe could be used to prove that God exists either.
.
    But this leads nowhere.  Inside a building, there is every bit of evidence
that implies that a builder constructed the building, and that somebody drew
out plans of how the building was to be constructed.
    Again, the conclusion that nothing in the universe can be used as evidence
to prove creation leads nowhere.  If one were to argue this point, one would
be at odds with the entire universe.  The fact that the universe exists is
enough proof to somebody who wants to believe.
    But this is the sticking point.
    Are you willing to believe?
.
    Herein lies the problem:  Neither believers nor unbelievers can produce a
valid argument for why they believe, or why they do not!  There is no such
argument because it is missing a premise--one that cannot be found because it
does not exist.  Belief is a choice, and the person who chooses to believe
does so not because of logic, but because of emotion.  And the person who
chooses not to believe does so not because of logic, but because of lack of
emotion.
.
    Why is the argument against creation invalid?  Because there is no
argument.  Consider the following:
.
    1.)  Assume a scientist finds a fossil.
    2.)  Assume that the scientist uses a proven method to estimate the age of the
fossil.  That method has been tried enough times to be considered one hundred
percent reliable.
    3.)  Assume that this fossil is just one of many fossils which show a line of
evolution between one kind of animal or plant, and another.
    4.)  Assume that the age estimation method used by the scientist provides a
result that fits within the correct time period--that is, the age of the fossil is
consistent with the age of similar fossils, so the fossilized organism that
became extinct a long time ago isn’t said to be only two years old, or said to
come from a time before its species even existed.
.
    These points can be put together by the scientific method, to produce this
argument:
.
    A fossil was found.
    A proven method was used to determine the age of the fossil.
    The fossil is from X years ago.
    The fossil shows a line of evolution between an ancient species and a species
that still exists today.
    ___________________________________
    Therefore, the fossil helps prove the theory of evolution because it shows a
line of evolution between an ancient species and a species that exists today.
.
.
    We find that no person, using the evidence above, could ever conclude that
God does not exist.  There would have to be a leap of some kind to jump to
that conclusion--and that isn’t logic anymore.
    What is not logic is, by the logical definition, invalid.  Logic, while
quite powerful, can only be used to evaluate things which exist in the realm of
logic.  Anything which is unexplainable falls outside that realm, and remains
unproven.  This also means that the unexplainable cannot be used as proof of
the validity of a logical argument.
    I cannot say, in valid logic, that God's existence can be used to solve every logic
problem.  God is unexplainable in human terms.  Our words only give us a limited
sense of who God really is.  If you do not already believe, I suggest that you look in
the Bible, and learn about God from his words.  You might find something that science
can’t give you.
    God bless you.