via E-mail actually.
We are constrained because we are the creation. But lets look at this from a scientific perspective since that will appeal to you moreso and will disregard philosophical questions like "do we truly exist" or "is matter real"
There are really two ways to explain our existence: we were created(there was a beginning) or there was no beginning(matter has always existed). Science states the universe expands day by day - galaxies are moving relative to each other and the pattern is causing them the expand from one another daily. What does this mean? That there had to be a point of singularity - in 1999 it was discovered the expansion of the universe is speeding up, not slowing down. A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos - if you don't understand this point then research it (I'm trying to make this a quick response b/c I don't have much time).
Okay, from here the next question is was there or was there not a cause for our creation. If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem: In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding radios, televisions, etc. not to work.
The next step - what was the cause? Many assert we are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents. The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.
Actually, here is a link to explain a little of the rest - and no, the information you find on this link (2 minute read)is not indicative of the website title as I just found it - A HELP IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT GOD IS - Does God Exist? It simply looks at time from a scientific and mathmatical approach. I could explain it better but I've got to run.
-Chip
By the way logician, your sarcastic responses are appreciated. Since you are "logician" use your logic and reasoning to evaluate things. Have a good day
