A Dangerous Proposition

I asked myself recently: What is the greatest miracle in history?

After thinking it over for a while it became obvious that it was this:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1, ESV)

Yet, science disproves Intelligent Design, does it not? For 50 and more years now there has been no accepted ideology aside that of Evolution to explain the origins of the world we know.

Intelligent Design: religious hog-wash?
Intelligent Design: religious hog-wash?

Again I asked myself the question: What is the greatest miracle in history?

If the Bible is true, as it says it is, then the answer is quite simple: Biblical Creation.

But wait, Creation is a miracle? Then why are we trying to prove it?

For the entirety of world history, until the last century,  no one ever questioned that the world was created and that it was made by an intelligent designer–a god or a group of gods. The most widely accepted view was the historical account detailed in Genesis.

But if Creation really is a miracle, then we have a big problem–the world’s origins become untestable. No scientist wants to hear that!

What is a miracle?

An extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs (Webster’s Dictionary)

In simpler terms, it is a supernatural act that cannot be explained by human terms. Yet we still try to explain the miracles in the Bible, even if it is futile.

Jesus Walking on WaterWalking on Water

And if the miracles in the Bible cannot be explained away, we laugh them away:

Noah's Ark SinkingOkay God, remind me why we brought the worms and snakes and termites…?

Red Sea Crossing

Red Sea SuperstitousOh, oh…back to Egypt!

If it was up to science to prove or disprove miracles, then there would be no need for the supernatural.

The problem, when something gets categorized a miracle, a supernatural act, it becomes to easy to explain, ironically. It simply is too obvious that someone made the world, it is too simple to take something that was written 5,000 years ago and say “That’s good enough for me”. For many people it is insulting to get the answer before asking the question.

If the Bible is true and if the world was really miraculously created in six days by an all powerful God, then there is no room for debate.

Science cannot possibly attempt to prove something that was done supernaturally, outside of the realms of science. All science can do is point us in the right direction.

But sadly science is sorely lacking in self-criticism. Since Darwin set put out his book The Origin of Species we have been trying to figure out just that: from what did man originate? What was the starting point? Yet all we have is more questions and the Theory of Evolution has become the largest failure in scientific record:

There are no reliable missing links, not to mention the millions of them we actually need to test the hypothesis of positive mutations. As one scientist said, if Darwin thought the single cell was a dumpy-old car in reality the cell is more complex than a galaxy! The single cell is run better and more efficiently than any company in history–there is zero waste (now that is eco-friendly!). If there were millions and millions of years involved in the process of evolution, where did the plans/designs come from? A single strand of DNA holds more information than the most high-tech computer we have.


And you say it all happened by chance?!

Why? Because the theory is wrong. But unlike every other theory in science, it remains an untouchable. It is regarded as fact. Fact! Even Einstein’s law’s are not untouchables and they are currently being disputed. But science tells us that Evolution is an untouchable, unless you can find a better way to explain the origins of the world without stating the obvious–that there was a Creator.

Darwin at Museum

So am I saying that the miracle of Creation is not testable?

No. In observing and looking into the world we live in, the traces of a Creator are very much apparent. God can be found, his handiwork can be encountered–but we need to be looking.

Outer Space-Dust Clouds in Milky Way

Is Creation provable beyond a shadow of a doubt?

No. It cannot be proven, Creation cannot be proven. And God made it that way on purpose. You can do with the Bible, the best piece of historical writing known to man, what you like. You can believe other theories and deny there being a deity. But it doesn’t matter, God created the world and he put it in order–you either believe the truth or you ignore it and explain it or laugh it away.

But here must come faith. I am convinced of that God Created the world, but I cannot prove it to anyone, including myself. I must take the leap into the unknown and trust that I have found solid ground–truth.

Honestly I would much rather trust the historical record written 5,000 years ago, in a book that has never been found in error, than the thought process of our modern scientists.

Hands of God and Adam

If I am wrong, then I am to be pitied. But if I am right, than you are wrong. I cannot prove it, I simply believe the words of Christ, with faith:

Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it (Mark 10:15).


29 thoughts on “A Dangerous Proposition

Add yours

  1. hmm interesting. you should add to this post the name of the video that talks about intelligent design, because it talks about intelligent design from a non-christian asking other non christians, so you get the world’s perspective. that way people will konw that it’s not only christians that believe in intelligent design but also other people.

  2. a clear cogent argument. I would question whether significant proportions of previous civilizations always believed in Creator God or gods. Check out Dr. Henry Morris’ “The Long War Against God”. He proposes that Satan was the first evolutionist: when he first heard God speak he thought, “if only I had spoken first.” He actually believes this foolishness and has successfully shared his doubt with all who would listen. Among the doubters were many of the Greek philosophers and of course many modern intelligent (?) people.
    Many modern people who deny God obviously deny the existence of the devil too. But, if they don’t accept a Creator – someone who wrote the program – then they must embrace some such phoney notion that everything including intelligence just sort of bubbled up by itself and they effectively say, “if only I had spoken first…”

  3. Hi Chris! This is such a great statement, I’m glad it’s on your site! I’ve been having the creation/ evolution debate with some of my friends and coworkers, and though when it comes right down to hit, their hardened hearts are what are keeping them from faith, yet at the same time they are armed with a million arguments against Christianity, which all come from the “science” they have been taught in schools. It makes me so saddened that they have been given such ammunition with intellectual appeal, so that they refuse to engage their intellect in searching out if what they have been taught is true anymore. I miss you, Chris, and I wish you would come back to Iowa!

  4. Good idea Moon, I should look something up, because there are people of all religions that hold to the fact that there was a Creator. The next step is believing that God did it.

    That is good insight dad, into the past thought processes of philosophers and thinkers of the past. It would interest me to see what ideologies people had before to rebut the idea of a Biblical Creation and a Creator himself. What ideas did the Greeks throw around? I know the Japanese believed themselves to be children of Gods, and the Greeks and Romans likely believed that many of their plethora of god’s worked together to form the planet. And you are extremely right on your point about Satan, he is happy to disappear, as long as God does as well. And there has been an age-long battle against God, even in this “Christian” America.

    Hey Mary, thanks for the response. I have come up against a brick wall against those who argue “science” instead of truth. Science was created to find truth, to discover the truths about the world we life in. Unfortunately that is no longer the case–there is a brick wall that opposes anything that has God in the picture. It is not science at all, and truth is becoming a myth and it is based on everyone’s “personal truth”. Baloney.
    I am afraid you cannot convince many to become Christians through rational arguments, because the Bible is “foolishness” in their eyes and God’s ways and thought-processes are higher than ours.
    And I’ll be back at Emmaus next year! So I’ll see you then!

  5. Hey,
    My name is Tom Walters and I was wondering if you ahd the copywright for the cartoon noahs ark picture sinking? if you do could you please email me if not could you let me know where you got it from. I’m holding a show up at the edinburgh fringe festival and would like to use it for a poster.

  6. Hello, I was also wondering if I could use one of your photos. Jesus in the storm. That is such an awesome picture. Please let me know either way.
    Thank You,

  7. (Note: upper-case is used for emphasis and not to imply shouting)

    You’re misrepresenting Science:

    – The Theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with Abiogenesis and it has NOTHING to do with the Theory of the Big Bang.

    – The very essence of science is doubt, self-scrutinity and self-correction. OTHERWISE, IT WOULDN’T BE SCIENCE.

    – Evolution is NOT a RANDOM process.

    Of course, I have, in no way, a problem with you or, for that matter, anyone believing in Creation, BUT I have a BIG problem with people misrepresenting well-established scienctific theories.

    Do you realize that the science that made computer-technology possible uses the very same scientific principles as the theory of evolution? Also, evolution is “untouchable” for a reason:
    the overwhelming evidence in Biology, Physiology, Genetics, Paleonthology, etc.

    If someone seriously wants to OBJECTIVELY REFUTE the theory of evolution, one needs these simple three things:

    1) A sufficent understanding of what the theory actually says

    2) The kind and amount of evidence that would refute it

    3) The production of that evidence

  8. Science is simply pointing to something to say I looked at this and saw that. That is what science is. Saying that Chris is misrepresenting science here is like saying you can’t have an interpretation of his words, which you clearly do have.

    I don’t think Chris is misrepresenting science. I do however, think MrEveryoneDude is misrepresenting the history of evolutionary thought.

    “The Theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with Abiogenesis and it has NOTHING to do with the Theory of the Big Bang.”

    Actually it does have something to do with abiogenisis (something had to come from nothing somewhere along the line), and it does consider itself in concert with the Big Bang Theory (though I do not feel Big Bang cosmology is necessarily antagoniostic to Biblical revelation — in fact, I suggest it actually supports the premise).

    “The very essence of science is doubt, self-scrutinity and self-correction. OTHERWISE, IT WOULDN’T BE SCIENCE.”

    Again, science is simply the process of observation and recording. None of these are inherrent to raw scientific inquiry. Science, of course, from the Latin “scientia” meaning “knowledge.” The scientific process being

    ask a question
    research the topic
    develop a hypothesis
    experiment to test
    analyze results, draw a conclusion
    report results

    If in that process you find previously held beliefs to be wrong, then certainly science can lead to doubt, self-scrutinity and self-correction. But it is not necessary that it do so.

    “Evolution is NOT a RANDOM process.”

    If evolution is not random, then it is guided, and intelligent design is implied. Even if God used evolution in the creation process (hypothetically speaking), it still follows that a creator was present.

    “Of course, I have, in no way, a problem with you or, for that matter, anyone believing in Creation, BUT I have a BIG problem with people misrepresenting well-established scienctific theories.”

    As do I :-)

    “Do you realize that the science that made computer-technology possible uses the very same scientific principles as the theory of evolution?”

    Interesting. Did you know that they also use the principles of intelligent design, as does practically every field in existence? (i.e. forensics, history, cosmology, etc).

    “Also, evolution is “untouchable” for a reason:
    the overwhelming evidence in Biology, Physiology, Genetics, Paleonthology, etc.”

    Actually evolution is very “touchable” for precisely these academic fields, and even non-theistic members of these communities are aware of these implications.

    “If someone seriously wants to OBJECTIVELY REFUTE the theory of evolution, one needs these simple three things:

    1) A sufficent understanding of what the theory actually says

    2) The kind and amount of evidence that would refute it

    3) The production of that evidence”

    One also needs a definition of “evolution” — that is “change over time,” which no thinking person, theistic or no, disagrees with. Darwinian evolution, however, has already been refuted. Volumes have been written on the subject, and it is not the juggernaut proponents would have us believe it is. To refute it here in the manner requisite to MrEveryoneDude’s requirements would go beyond the length of this arguably lengthy quote. Good books are available, and what we can do in this venue is to simply report summary findings as Chris has done here. I feel MrEveryoneDude has misrepresented science while communicating another’s misrepresentation of science. The reader has only now to make the final decision for himself.

    The problem I have found in my conversations with skeptics and unbelievers is not the abundance or lack of evidence, but rather a problem with the will. Abundant evidence exists to steer a person in whichever direction he would go. But it is the will more often than not that decides what will be believed in. One who wills not to believe in light of abundant evidence can not be made to believe. As a former religious skeptic, I am all to familiar with the concept. As a new creation in Christ, empowered by his Spirit, I find my faculties of reason and intelligence are far more intrigued by the truth of Christ than anything promoted by Darwinian evolution. But it goes far beyond just that.

  9. I am seeking permission to use the picture of Jesus walking through the waves for our church worship service on Sunday.
    It is the only picture that I have found that shows the wind and waves surrounding Jesus.
    Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter.

  10. I believe in God, just not a fundamental viewpoint. It seems to me that a God that would build a fossil/chemical record to trick us into thinking the world evolved over time so that our faith could be tested is a God with some sort of human type egomania or is downright mean. THats not my God. It seems like a God that did all the stuff the bible talks about is pretty neurotic, he isn’t.

    We were given brains to use in a logical manner, if we do not continue going forward with secular knowledge then we will once again burn witches at the stake for doing stuff we simply do not understand.

  11. Carpe Diem,
    I could not agree with you more.
    Man’s goal in life is to seek after and find truth–and if there is a God, as you and I claim and assert, then there is also absolute truth. God does not lie.
    So let us speak origens, why has Naturalism shed so many questions on the ancient story of origens in Genesis 1-2?
    I could answer this question in brevity, but I would ask you to take the time and read over a in-depth essay I wrote on this very topic recently.
    It is called “Darwin’s Legacy” (Part 1 through 3). It is a lot of reading and likely heavy reading, but in it I pit the two forces against each other Naturalism vs the Bible. The essay is full of arguments, quotes, evidence, and ultimately difficult yet necessary conclusions.
    I think it will answer all of these questions. I do not wish for witch hunts either! But I will not let the scientific community tell me they have found empirical “facts” about Evolution, when so little of it actually exists.
    My hope is that you will find the evidence very intrieguing, and it may surprise you!
    God bless.

  12. It seems to me there are a lot of people who refer to God’s acts in the Bible when they actually have not read the accounts of what actually happened in those pages or have given simply a cursory examination of the material and then made a sweeping judgement on it. Ironically, these people are often some of the first to cite “thou shalt not judge” with swiftness as well. With respect, it seems to me that you are making the same swift, sweeping judgments that you yourself are so passionately against. The same God who “did all the stuff in the Bible” also came to earth as a man and died for the sake all humanity, His own creation, who had first turned their backs on Him. If ever anyone had the prerogative to do anything with His own creation, it was God. He chose to redeem it. WE are the ones who choose self-destruction by our actions.

    If you believe in God, then that is fundamental for you. “Fundamental” has to do with necessity. That which is fundamental is non-negotiable. If God exists, it is not up for debate. He does or does not exist. So in that sense we are all “fundamentalists” at one point or another about one thing or another.

    Of course, if you refer to “fundamentalism” as the state of mind that ignorantly espouses a belief based on blind faith and will stubbornly not move from it, I would argue that many more people are “fundamentialists” than they would like to think.

    “Fundementalists” exist, but it is not necessary to be an ignorant “fundamentalist” in order to believe in the God of the Bible. In fact, the only way to truly know the God of the Bible is to NOT be ignorant, to be aware of what He has revealed to us — and what He has DONE for us. Nothing has charged my intellect and sense of reason and logic like God has through His revealed Word and also through His creation. God is the author of reason and intellect, is He not?

    And if I may… this is a bit tongue-in-cheek with a bit of fun, mind you :-)… but were the Bible not the revelation of God to mankind, what WOULD be? Where would your authority come from to know what was right and wrong? A hunch? An “inner prompting?” Conscience? Should we believe what you have to say about God over what anyone else has to say about Him? If we believe what you say here about God, we are, in a sense, turning you into our Bible and taking your word for what truth is over someone else’s. We have to take SOMEONE’S word for what truth is or forever remain a skeptic, comfortably numb.

    The best thing to do is to look at the evidence and make the best judgement according to the best evidence available. The Bible has been weighed through the centuries. No book has ever undergone more scrutiny, and yet it has always come out crystal clear. Look into it more. You’ll see that its record is impeccable.

  13. Penitendagon,

    You make some great points and I agree with most of it.
    As you say, the Bible is incomparable in his history, it has received more scritiny than any other book in the history of mankind.

    It is interesting that the Ko’ran is currently undergoing some of the criticism that the Bible went under in the 1900’s (the text critics) and it is failing miserably. They are testing it in ancient Arabic with highly trained professional and experts in the book.

    The Bible came out with 99 percent text accuracy. The 1 percent was accounted for by scribal errors post-autograph. And the Bible is over 3 times older than the Ko’ran!

    It goes without saying that the Bible is the most reliable document in the history of mankind–if God were ever to speak to man, it would be through the Bible. For how could he commit human mistakes and be held to such a low standard as the rest of our writing is?

    Currently I am a student at Emmaus Bible College and I am getting my degree in Bible Exposition and Theology–they have been the best spent years of my life and I look forward to investing my life into this book. And if that makes me a fundamentalist, that is OK, if when all is said and done I am right. For there can only be one answer to every question when it all comes down to the end.

    Obviously we have strayed from the main point of my essay, and it is difficult to debate with such little information.

    Maybe you would like to take the time Penitendagon to read over my “Darwin’s Legacy” as I give a subsistent critique of the Bible compared to Darwinian Evolution.

  14. Christopher,

    My apologies, I should have made my last post clearer… My comments were actually intended for Carpe Diem’s post instead of yours, which I am in agreement with. My original response above (from Aug 25) was of course directed to MrEveryoneDude’s comments that you were misrepresenting science, when you were, in fact, representing science quite well. While straying from your original article, I hope I have at least been relevant to the thoughts put forth by those posting here.

  15. Penitendagon,
    I realized the comment was to Carpe Diem, but I couldn’t help myself to respond anyways!
    I just took the opportunity to share some of the newest things I have learning.
    So no appology is necessary. And your post on August 25th was very good. I had kind of stopped working on my website for a couple months, so I realized I had never responded to him, but you did a fine job.
    I hope to keep seeing you around my site.
    God bless.

  16. Gotcha ;-) You have a great site here. It looks like you and I share a lot in our beliefs and in our growth in Christ. I’ve been in Christ now for 12 years and am a former skeptic who was actually brought to Christ through the work of apologetics ministries. It helped that I actually stopped to give the time of day to the material I’d formerly been skeptical about, hahaha.

    A pleasure to have run upon your site :-)

  17. Penitendagon,

    Through apologetics–glad to hear it. I am currently in a class to learn Apologetics here at school and while I have used some, I usually find it limited. It can lead to arguments.
    But people like you, and for example Lee Strobel and CS Lewis make me realize that apologetics is a good investment of time.

    I was born and raised in Bolivia to missionary parents, but it was not until the last few years that I dedicated my life to the study of the Bible in hopes of being a preacher and missionary myself back in my homeland.

    As for apologetics, what was it that opened your eyes? Evidence? Logic? Or what they call “Reformed Apologetics”? It is what Schaeffer uses mostly, to test people’s worldviews with reality, or to “take the roof off”.

    It is encouraging that you have found the faith and I am also glad you have found my site and looked over my work.

    God bless you brother,

  18. Actually it was a bit of all of it that opened my eyes, along with some faithful thinkers who let themselves be used by Christ to reach a sinner like me. It helped that I also had a few classes at the university that made attempts to prove the “new truths” of postmodernism, and had done a horrible job of convincing me of their truth. As I began to actually research issues of faith, reason, and science, I began to find things that made it all fit together like one giant puzzle.

    When I say “apologetics,” I’m really just focusing on the precept described in 1 Pet 3:15 — always being prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that we have, with gentleness and respect. Apologetics the way I see it is simply sharing Christ and answering the questions that are prompted when we do that.

    You’re right to say that apologetics can lead to arguments. Knowledge combined with logic can be a very powerful and intimidating tool as well. But espousing and sharing any truth can lead to arguments in general, and one need not be intimidating in order to use knowledge and logic.

    There’s a fine line between discussion and argument. But it’s better to walk the line and risk argument than not to share at all, as I think you’ve exemplified with your site. If we follow the precept of 1 Pet 3:15, then we abandon the possibility of argument before it even begins. Having the mind and heart of Christ disarms the potential for argument while allowing objective discussion of the issues, which in turn has the potential to lead someone to salvation through Christ.

  19. I enjoyed your response Penitendagon, and it is always interesting to hear of how different people come to faith.
    Today a man spoke at our school on how he was saved out of being the head of a very dangerous mafia group in India. He worked as a head politician and as a murderous mafia man in India for over 14 years until he finally gave up. He was on the verge of suicide on many, many occasions, and his wife, who prayed for him for 14 years, finally convinced him to get some help. It was the peace of Christianity that finally brought him to his knees and it was the love of Christ that offered him the only way out–with his life.
    He didn’t think God could forgive him–a murderer, criminal, wife-beater, etc. But how he is traveling around sharing God with other people and the transformation Christ made in his life. There is hope for all people!
    Truly the most powerful thing one has as a Christian is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ! I am thankful to say that he has also changed my life.
    Even though I grew up in a Christian home, I too had to make a conscious decision to follow Christ with everything.
    God bless you brother,

  20. Well, i agree. God is the supreme creator of everything. God is supernatural, therefore, we can call His works a miracle. A miracle may not be explained by science itself but our instincts, idea, faith, analogy, and our deduction could.

    Creation is a big topic. People wanted explanations in every theories. And without faith, it is impossible to explain creation. Understanding bible is a very important factor in knowing who really God and in understanding His works.

    Same to the theory of evolution and bigbang, these are topics with non-ending controversies. First of all, since the bible said that God is true, then it is true because what the bible has said is true(esp. in reading the book of revelations and other prophetic messages). Then it means that what has God said is also true. Meaning, the theory of evolution is unacceptable. Actually, Charles Darwin, the one who stated the theory of evolution, confessed his mistake of stating His theory because he knew that many was troubled. The theory of bigbang may be true in a sense that thy found out and evidence of light. But we must remember that what God created first is light.

    Well, explanations would be non-sense only. What we must have now is faith. God is the most important thing we must believe. Cause without God, we are nothing.

  21. Well, as a respinse to MyEveryoneDude, the very essence of science is NOT doubt, self-scrutinity and self-correction…for as you can see, science means knowledge…meaning it’s main objective is to give explanations and answers(meaning not to doubt) of humans.

    Everything is science..even God is science…actually, He is an all-knowing God which means that He is the overall science. Seeking knowledge and wisdom is through seeking God. Everything is from God. And everything is for God. Therefore, science is from God and is for God. Not believing God is the same as not believing science. Therefore, not believing God is the same of being a fool.

    In summary, believing God’s existence is the way to seek wisdom and knowledge; seeking science. And if we sought science, we must sought God too.

  22. It is my opinion that god is very smart. So who is to say he is not a scientist himself. I do believe that god used science to create the universe we just don’t know how yet. So to say the BIG BANG didn’t happen is a untrue statement but how the BIG BANG was trigger only god(s) knows.

  23. Only God knows. But let us remember we were also given a brain and tools in nature to find out what really happened. Darwinian Evolution, including the “Big Bang Theory”, is being found out to be a fraud by many of the top scientists in the world. The authority structure is being undermined and alternatives are being sought out. How ironic, if when all is said and done, the “story” from 5,000 years ago proves to be true? I believe it will be, and it will be a testament to the Scripture’s authority, and to God’s awesome power to create all things from nothing by speaking words and order being created and established. That is a mighty God!

  24. Hmmm.. At every point in time, there has been an attempt to classify the unexplainable as Divine. e.g. The ancients thought the eclipse was a message from God. We know today that it is merely a unique arrangement of the Moon and the Sun.

    Hence, when you claim the existence of God, based on the fact that we cannot explain Biblical miracles (if they ever happened) now, you are once again committing the same mistake. We just do not know enough science to make a claim one way or another. Some years down the line, computers may indeed put DNA to shame. We will, most likely, have robots which think and have emotions etc, among many other technological marvels. Would you, at that point, conclude that man has rivaled God? If not, then why compare them now?

    And in all your faith and belief you make grandiose statements. “In observing and looking into the world we live in, the traces of a Creator are very much apparent”. Would you care to name a few?

    “You can do with the Bible, the best piece of historical writing known to man”. I understand that you’re Christian and hence follow the Bible, but are you claiming that the other religious books aren’t up to the mark? So, 75% of the world follow sub-standard divine books and all the ‘all religions are essentially the same’ stuff is BS? And have you read the other religious books around before stating that Bible is the best thing to happen to ‘man’?

    And if you do agree that a man could have cured blindness, walked on water and converted water into wine among the many other things in his repertoire, what would your argument be against, say, a religion like Scientology, which says an alien warlord killed people with hydrogen bombs 75 million years ago and released their spirits which help you today?? Slightly unbelievable or downright ridiculous, a miracle is a miracle, right?

  25. Kumar,
    Classic arguments.
    I would gladly respond to all of these arguments, one by one. But I already answered it in a few other posts. I did an in-depth research study on Scripture vs. Darwinian Evolution. I split it up into three sections, and I encourage you to read it, if you have the time:

    Part 1: https://christophermattix.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/darwins-legacy-part-1/

    Part 2: https://christophermattix.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/darwins-legacy-authority-of-scripture-part-2/

    Part 3: https://christophermattix.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/darwins-legacy-a-look-at-the-evidence-and-the-conclusion-part-3/

    Kumar, I can see you are very optimistic about the world, about the future. But what about the here and now? Why is the world in such disrepair? Why so much hate? Why so much crime? Why are the hearts of people on earth dissatisfied and discontented? It is because there is something innately wrong with us, humans.
    As for a proof of God, he cannot be proven. Read my essay on “Can I ‘Know’ Anything?” to see my argument on this. But he is more provable than almost anything else, for example the fact that it is me that is writing this and not someone else.
    One proof, that I see as striking, are the clouds. I find it incredible how they sit in the sky, huge mammoths containing millions of gallons of water and dust. They never crash down to earth, or fly into outer space, but instead they patiently move across the sky. Science can tell how they are formed, but not why they exist. That is a different question. Why are they so beautiful and enormous? They are like cathedrals in the open sky. To be true, no scientist can even explain how it is that 100,000 million gallons of water can sit in the sky, when it is clearly heavier than the atmosphere. I do not say it is a miracle, because God uses the natural laws of the world to do all things (miracles included). Simply that it is majestic, and awe inspiring.
    I hope you can read those articles and I’d be happy to continue a conversation.

  26. You seem to have done a lot of research on Evolution, and I, not having done as much research there, will not argue its technicalities. But I still have many doubts.

    And btw, in an argument for or against evolution or atheism, you can’t use Biblical references as proof, the veracity of the Bible is what is in question here!!

    “Fifty more scientists go even further in Ashton’s book and state clearly and evidentially why Darwin’s theory should be displaced and replaced with the historical record of God’s six-day creation”.
    I would really like to see the evidence being spoken of here. If a Christian scientist is claiming that the world was made in 6 days, a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or other religion scientist may similarly claim that the world was made in how many ever days his religion specifies. None of these claims can be proven as more right than any other, and, since all are different, they can’t all be true. Ergo, they must all be wrong. Unless, of course, you claim that all the other religions are wrong, at which point, of course, this becomes a whole different debate.

    “Not only is theistic evolution a contradiction in terms, but as we have seen, it is also the cruelest most inefficient system for creation imaginable […] Rather he can create humans in a microsecond”
    Come on, that way God can also create fully grown human beings in an instant, why have the slow process of conception, pregnancy, birth, infancy, childhood, teenage etc? If God exists, and he doesn’t see fit to use his powers to disrupt the natural growth cycle as illustrated above, there’s no reason to believe he’d interfere with the system of evolution once he set that up. If God exists, there must be some meaning to evolution just as there must be some meaning in having the process of growth. I feel theistic evolution is more probable than no evolution.

    And, as you yourself mention, the world isn’t perfect. There are thousands of deaths/rapes/etc each day. If God is all-powerful, why doesn’t he just put an end to the bad stuff? Why didn’t God help the six million Jews during the Holocaust, or the million Tutsis in Rwanda in 94, or the hundred thousand people in Darfur etc etc??
    If man is violent and greedy and selfish by nature and God created man, surely it is God’s fault for making man thus? If you claim that God made Man perfect, but man ruined himself by sinning, I beg to differ. How could man go astray without that capacity being in him from the beginning? So God made man with the capacity to sin, and gave him the choice. Why not simply make him perfect? Its still indirectly his fault. Also, surely God is supposed to love all his children equally and all that? Why do CEOs in multinationals earn obscene amounts of money each minute, while more than half the world lives on less than a dollar a day? If you respond with “they will get justice in heaven”, that seems to suggest that all the ‘balancing out’ happens only within the confines of Pearly Gates because God can’t really do anything outside its realms. And that kind of defeats the purpose of having an All-powerful, omnipresent being, doesnt it? If your reply here is the ‘sin’ argument, you really think all the aforementioned millions of people committed some sin that no one else did? Also, please refer to the next paragraph.

    “just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”
    if a 7-year old child in africa gets raped, has her whole family killed, is forced to join a violent rebel alliance, and is killed in battle, is all of that really punishment for some heinous sin the child has committed? Lots of child molesters and murderers are never caught and they walk free. Surely you agree that they’ve committed sins. Where’s the retribution?
    I strongly disagree that ‘heresy’ can be a reason to dismiss any argument. The Church did say the same about Galileo as you yourself pointed out. If a man did indeed bring about the first sin, which then spread to the rest of humanity, why did the opportunity to commit the sin have to be there in the first place? Surely that was God’s prerogative? If He hadn’t made the damn apple tree in the first place, the question of eating the apple would never have arisen. He could’ve just as well made a world without any opportunity to sin or he could’ve made man pure and oblivious to sinning opportunities, but didn’t. Hence, the creator of all sin must be God.
    And please note here that I do not consider John’s word as adequate proof in the matter (biblical reference thing). And after a man sins, who is the one to give the punishment? It is God, is it not? Does he just love sticking to the rulebook or has forgiveness never been his thing?

    I also fail to understand why entropy and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. One set of genes combines with another set of genes in an unpredictable manner, and then random mutations
    take place. I should think the entropy must be more in the offsprings’ generation, shouldn’t it?
    “A rule that evolution must constantly follow if it is to survive is that the earth is progressively getting better”.
    You assume after this that entropy is BAD, hence the earth can’t be getting better. I say entropy is GOOD. As you yourself state, evolution is NOT this intelligent, planned out thing, its just random. Hence the existence of either entropy or evolution does not preclude the existence of the other, rather it would seem to necessitate it.

    About the starting force, I have no answer now. Scientists are trying to figure that out. Maybe
    they’ll succeed, maybe they won’t. I’d like to give them a little time to try for now.

    “If the Gospel is true, then man has to be fallen, and when an old-Earth Creationist agrees with this he is being inconsistent with his own view”.
    I say the Gospel is a work of fiction. Am I still contradicting myself?

    “It can be attested that the evidence behind a six-day creation is strong”. What evidence??

    “God knew what he said and did not need science to interpret it”. Rather convenient, isn’t it? When there’s no scientific evidence, you just say it isn’t required. If God did indeed create the world and the world follows the laws of science, God must’ve created those too, don’t you think? The existence of God need NOT exempt things around you from following the laws of science. Man needs science to satiate his curiosity, to find out why evrything is how it is. An abstract reference in a two thousand year old book isn’t enough for some people.

    And no, these articles haven’t answered all my questions. My questions about Scientology and other religions remains.

    And Chris, I’m not being optimistic about technological advancement, merely realistic. e.g. Not too long ago, Bill Gates famously commented, “512 kb ought to be enough for anyone”. Today we use multi terabyte disks. Despite all his character flaws and misgivings, man has made enormous advances in technology in the recent past and it is based on this that I draw my conclusions. We do things today with technology man could not have even imagined even half a century ago. There is ample reason to believe that the technology of, say, twenty years hence will be revolutionary with the advent of quantum computing, nanotechnology, among many, many, many other things. Hence my argument about technology still remains.

  27. Kumar,
    Thank you for your comments, you have some good points. I see you got to look at my essay at length, I hope it was of some help.

    I realize as well that my essay was written with the basic assumption that Scripture is what it says it is–God’s Word to mankind, superseding any other ideology, etc. So in my paper, I did not go to any lengths to prove this assumption. The audience for my essay was for those who believe in Old Earth Creation, or Theistic Evolution, not those who don’t believe in Scripture.

    I like your questions, and I would like to answer them each individually because they are questions I have personally wrestled with. I am a skeptic, and I believe it is healthy to be so. But I have one assumption, that truth exists and can be found. In my essay “Can You ‘Know’ Anything?” I explain my reasoning.

    As a human being, I only live once, and I only have a limited amount of information available to me, I don’t own even one percent of all the knowledge in our libraries alone! So it is up to the human mind to look for truth and find it with what little information we have. I have questioned in many of the ways you have, and the questions are valid. But I can honestly say that I have found answers that put those questions to “sleep” as it were.

    One can believe anything he wants to, really, and in our mind “truth is relative”, simply because we are so limited. But an honest person can only hold a view as long as “defeaters” don’t disprove his idea. The questions on suffering, if proved right, would make me question God. But I have come to realize that the problem of pain and suffering actually PROVE God!

    And that brings me to this conclusion. Let me be honest with you, I am not looking for a debate, I wish to find truth, above all else. Because time is running out as a human and we must get rid of stupid and idiotic philosophies and hold on to only what is truth. Your problem is not with Creation, or even with Scripture. It is with God.

    99% of the people who have ever lived have assumed God existed. The problem is that they don’t like the God that does exist. Even Richard Dawkins, gives a definition of who God is, the one he claims doesn’t exist. Yet by describing him he is actually claiming his existence (quite ironic!). You see, God is. The problem is that we don’t know who God is or what he is like.

    Our minds need to be informed of who God really is, and there is no way to understand God unless he reveals himself to us. Just like you wouldn’t know what my favorite color was unless I told you.

    Thankfully God has revealed himself fully, in the historical man, Jesus Christ. You can rag on Christians, you can rag on Catholics and the Papacy, you can rag on the Crusades, and on and on. But you cannot put a single spot on Christ. I speak out of personal experience. Christ is God, and he reveals that God is good and that God is love, yet he is Holy. These define the God of this universe, it is up to us to recognize his place of authority and “humble ourselves beneath the mighty hand of God”. And that is the trouble, humans are the most proud group imaginable! We are so proud we won’t even let another go ahead of us in line. We take extra minutes on the work shift because “we deserve it”. Baloney! We are so caught up with ourselves it is unreal.

    Galileo, as you mentioned, was condemned by the Catholic Church (whom I don’t agree with at all) for believing the sun was the center of the galaxy. But he was right. I condemn mankind for thinking they are the center of intelligence. God is the center of all things, because he created all things, and gave us the ability to think and reason (even to use it against him!). This is the truth, but pride holds man back from admitting they have a nose on their face.

    Look, I see your questions, I’m not ignoring them, but I think they are completely secondary to your true need–understanding the true God. May I recommend a book to you?

    It is a phenomenal book, in my mind, by Timothy Keller called “The Reason for God”. It was a NYTimes best seller a few years ago and is a piece of writing that puts Dawkins, Hitchens, and all popular skeptic writers to shame. It is because this man lives in down-town New York, and has a huge church there of people that have literally had their lives transformed. They have purpose, they have meaning, they are loved, they have hope, and a secure future. That is something atheism and skepticism will NEVER give you, why? Because it is hollow and deceiving. If Dawkins is right, who cares, I will just die. But if he is wrong, he will, by Scripture’s confession, go to hell. If God exists, and Scripture is his way of declaring himself and his decrees, then I would be scared. That is for you to find out. I encourage you to pick up “The Reason for God”.

    I’m sorry if I did not answer many of your questions, I’d be happy to answer any specific one’s, but I believe this will help you more than anything else. I have very limited knowledge and must admit I cannot give you all the answers, but I can point you to where I have truly found answers and found “rest for my restless soul” as Augustine said (400’s).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Joel C. Rosenberg's Blog

Tracking events and trends in Israel, the U.S., Russia and throughout the Epicenter (the Middle East & North Africa)

Mattix Media

The Mattix Family. Jesse Janel Fionna and Isaac serving the Lord in Tarapoto, Peru

Facultad Bíblica Camiri

Discipulado de un año para jóvenes cristianos comprometidos con Dios.

The Roundhill Life

Bits and pieces of a round hill life

Christopher R. Mattix

Bestselling Author. Missionary. Preacher. #SoliDeoGloria.


Called to belong to the Community of the Triune God

Andres SGV17's Weblog

"that you also may know my affairs and how I am doing..." Eph. 6:21a

%d bloggers like this: