I will outline 3 major reasons why you should believe in the existence of God, and reject atheism.
1. Things cannot come out of nothing, for no reason.
There are a lot of retarded scientists that have recently come out of the woodwork, to put their ignorance on full display. I would list their names here, but won’t for fear of legal repercussions. But you know who they are, and they have all gained popularity by way of denying or discouraging belief in God. Many have fallen for their garbage dogma.
Science is the study of the material world. By way of the scientific method, we observe the physical world to discover trends, that become patterns, some of which we promote to laws. And mankind has been able to leverage this knowledge to build sophisticated devices.
But Science does not explain how material can just pop into existence, out of “nothing.” You are then making a claim about extra-scientific\meta-physical\immaterial causes. Because nothing has no characteristics, there isn’t anything that can come from nothing. It literally means no-thing. There is no potentiality, therefore no universe.
It is also apparent that the world didn’t always exist. The measurable expansion of the universe is proof that all matter came from a central point of minimal volume\maximum density; and before that, there was nothing. If you could even use a word such as “before,” seeing that time itself is part of the universe.
Bottom line, is that pop science has become a religion, with people putting their faith in how everything came out of nothing, for no reason.
And remember, just because someone is an expert in a particular field, does not necessarily mean that they have an informed opinion on other topics. Someone may be very good at microbiology, but that does not mean that he is an expert in physics, or philosophy, or politics, or religion. It only means that he is an expert in his field. In fact, the reason why science is able to make advances is due to the industrial revolution; which is really nothing more than specialization. Instead of being a jack-of-all trades, people have become increasingly narrow-focused in their given sphere of expertise. Therefore, we have better medicine, better technology, better services, and the list goes on. But your doctor doesn’t know how to change the oil in his car, nor does the average person know how to do agriculture. So, there is a trade-off made at the individual level. We forgo working knowledge in many areas, in exchange for expertise in few others. And we rely on other people to meet all other needs. And this reliance is made possible by economics and exchange.
What I am saying is that these scientists have no idea what they are talking about. Don’t think that because they are an expert on a fringe topic, that their opinion is any more valid than yours when it comes to common sense. Something cannot come out of nothing, for no reason.
What I find interesting, is how the Judeo-Christian concept of God (which is as ancient as any other tradition) is and always has been, accurate. By that I mean the Bible is perfect in describing what God would have to be, in order to have created the world; given our current findings in science. And as science progresses, it points more and more towards the Christian God of the Bible.
Assuming the big bang is true (and I am inclined to believe that it is) it then follows that the first cause of the universe is an uncaused, timeless, immaterial, “thing,” with immense power. Why? Because cosmology proves that the universe has a beginning. Cosmology states that the universe is in a state of expansion from a central point. This means that a finite time ago, the universe came from a singular point, and before that, there was nothing. Some atheists would like to squirm out of this by positing a multi-verse, or a never-ending cycle of: Big Bang, Crunch, Big Bang. Even if these wild, straw-grasping, attempts to hold to a past eternal universe were true, you are still left with the question: “why does anything exist, rather than nothing?” And this requires some kind of metaphysical explanation.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as an infinite number of discrete items. There are arbitrarily many things in the universe, but not a literal infinite number of things. Infinity is a concept that is used as a limit, and not an actual number. Which is why the language used in Mathematics denotes infinity as a limit. Therefore, there couldn’t be an infinite number of same length intervals going into the past, and the universe had a definite beginning.
The universe is described as a fabric of space-time, and everything that we are able to judge by scientific means is contained within the universe. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe has to be outside of time (timeless\eternal) outside of space (immaterial) unintelligibly powerful, and uncaused. Why did I include uncaused as an attribute? Because the buck has to stop somewhere. And it stops at God.
“who created God, then?” and that is exactly the point. God wouldn’t be God if he were a created being. God, by definition, is an uncreated, eternal being. Is that a satisfactory answer to you? No? Too bad, because that is the best explanation.
God is a much better explanation than an infinite regress of things that create other things. That kind of thinking is fallacious. There can’t be an infinite regress of causes ad infinitum. Because, once again, there isn’t a literal infinite number of discrete things\events that can exist. The buck stops at the first cause of all other events.
Why isn’t the first cause some kind of impersonal, eternal force or other? Why isn’t that “God”? Because this deterministic chain of dominos is broken off at the first cause. Therefore, it remains that there has to be some kind of way that this first cause, decided to create the world. I use the word decided, because that’s exactly what happened. There is no mechanism or reason that would force this first cause to create the universe. It follows that the creation of the world is a function of the will: that the first cause (if it is an eternal force) has a will. It has an intelligence that can make decisions. It follows that this uncaused first cause bears all the hallmarks of God: an uncaused, immaterial, timeless, omnipotent, spirit\mind.
And the Bible has been utterly faithful in support of this notion of God. Especially in the face of pressures to conform to paganism. For instance, instead of believing in a past-eternal-pantheistic notion of a god-universe, the Bible describes the universe as being created by his will:
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
The Bible also describes God as immaterial, a Spirit\mind. The Bible refrains from giving God a literal 3-dimensional form, which was common practice among pagans throughout history. Instead of saying that God is super big, strong, equivalent to the strength of 10 men (like Hercules) the Bible says:
John 4
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
1 Timothy 1
17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
The only wise God indeed, because as soon as you give God a shape or form, in this universe, you have limited his power. Even if you imagine that God were a giant with 8 arms. Like a Hindu god, stronger than any other; as soon as you create an image of it, that god is no longer omnipotent. God is wholly omnipotent, outside of space and time, without form. The only image of God is that of The Lord Jesus Christ, when he came preaching peace in the body of a man.
Isaiah 26
4 Trust ye in the Lord for ever: for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength
John 5
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
And because the universe itself is created, the creator would have to be outside of time, timeless. Look at some of these descriptions of God and his relationship to time:
Isaiah 46
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.
Psalm 93
2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.
Psalm 41
13 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.
Revelation 21
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
For this accurate and coherent view of God to have stood the test of time is remarkable. Especially when you consider the account of Exodus. Where Israel not only believed in the correct God, but God wrought incredible events in their favor. Yet, Israel turned their back on this invisible God, and fashioned for themselves a golden calf idol to worship. This was only 40 days after God had split the red sea, as a means of their escape. They immediately reverted to idol worship, like all the other cultures that they were constantly immersed in. There was tremendous pressure throughout history for people to worship fake beings, and it didn’t take much time. It was nearly an overnight switch for Israel.
Exodus 32
1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.
4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
And the story goes that Moses destroyed the 10 commandments when he saw this. The point is, that the old testament is chalk full of stories of people leaving God, to believe in some other kind of pagan god. But God would, by some means, bring them back to the acknowledging of the true character and attributes of God.
And the Bible holds true to this view to this day. And the attributes of the Christian God easily fulfill all the requirements needed to create the universe: timelessness, immateriality, and omnipotence. These attributes have only been strengthened by our findings in cosmology and origins science. This is remarkable, and strong evidence for God.
2. Evolution is ridiculous.
We have all been indoctrinated into the cult of evolution by way of our educational system. Because of the separation of church and state, schools are discouraged and sometimes banned from presenting religious based messages in class.
And the only other religiously neutral explanation for the origin of life is the theory of evolution. This theory is peddled as though it were a legitimate explanation for the existence of life. Evolution, as it is commonly presented, should be rejected for the following reasons:
- Living things cannot come out of non-living things for no reason.
- There is no evidence or proof that macro evolution is true.
- The probability that evolution is true is so low, that it is miraculous if true.
I will explain these three points now, and I will conclude with a brief explanation as to why this ludicrous theory is so highly acclaimed, when it ought be dismissed by any reasonable person.
Living things cannot come out of nonliving things.
This point is obvious. Evolution does not even attempt to explain this. Therefore, although evolution is often presented as though it gives an explanation of the origin of life, it officially does not.
Formally, evolution only gives a potential explanation as to the diversity of life; but not the creation of it. What atheistic evolution purports is the spontaneous generation of living cells, out of inanimate matter. That living things can, somehow, assemble themselves out of non-living matter. It’s worse than that, because at the big-bang, the entire world is sterile. The heat, pressure, and expansion of the universe guarantees that the universe be utterly sterile.
What this means is that there cannot be any living organisms at all, anywhere in the universe. It doesn’t matter how accommodating any particular set of circumstances are, anywhere in the universe; the fact remains that there can be no life forms at all.
And so, what is suggested by atheistic evolution is that the origin of the first life form took place, by chance, in a “primordial soup.” The term “primordial soup” is used to describe a hypothetical, prebiotic oceanic soup, that made the spontaneous assemblage of the first living cells more likely. This is completely ad hoc and hypothetical. Proponents of this theory usually throw time into the mix, to do away with having to support this theory.
No, it’s all a farce. Imagine that this were true for a moment. What would have to happen is that, by chance, a unicellular organism is assembled out of raw matter. What this means is that a cell membrane lipid bilayer is composed by chance, for no reason. Then it will somehow contain organelles (little organs\machinery inside of cells) that themselves are made, by chance, out of raw elements and chemicals. And then a nucleus has to form, by chance as well, with DNA strands twisting themselves and arranging themselves perfectly. Then the cell needs to have cytoplasm injected into it, because it is required as a medium of signaling, to facilitate operations between organelles. And you could also ask where the cytoplasm came from, and list goes on.
All these things must take place, unmediated. And that’s not the end of it, there is still the matter of survival to contend with! Meaning that this first cell must live long enough to reproduce somehow. Which means that the cell needs to come out-of-box with the ability to accrue energy by some mechanism. I would think that either photosynthesis or hydrogen are the only means available to support this first life form; because there are no other lifeforms for this first cell to cannibalize. Then, this first cell has to live long enough to reproduce and then evolve into the massive diversity we see before us today. I will stop here, but you can see the massive unlikelihood of it all. And that is why Evolution does not do anything to explain the origin of life. It only tries to explain the diversity of life, and it fails miserably even at that!
Macro evolution is unsupported.
Macro evolution proposes that natural variation could account for the vast diversity of life that we see today. Natural variation is usually re-labeled as micro evolution. This is an intentional attempt to appropriate the observable phenomenon of natural variation under the greater umbrella of evolution. This is to subtly suggest the legitimacy of macro evolution with other, unrelated, but real phenomena.
Natural variation can be summarized as the naturally occurring differences of genetic traits within a species. When an outside force causes all unfit individuals to die off, those individuals that are naturally gifted with favorable traits will survive long enough to reproduce; effectively altering the properties of proceeding generations. This is also called natural selection: those that are unfit to survive are killed off, and those that do survive, reproduce.
What this suggests is that the properties of an individual in a species is a reflection of the outside forces that have culled off the unfit. The population is composed of those individuals that have inherited favorable traits. These favorable traits are neither “positive” nor “negative,” but are a function of the outside force that threatens the rest of the species. For example, cockroaches that have a genetic mutation that allows them to survive a particular pesticide will survive at the exposure of these pesticides. Those that have not developed this mutation will die off. The few that are left will multiply, handing down the genetic trait of pesticide resistance to their young. Over time, the population of cockroaches will be primarily composed of descendants that have inherited pesticide resistance, making that pesticide ineffective. The same kind of thing is happening with diseases and antibiotics today. This is the result of natural variation and natural selection.
Darwin wrote a book on how this natural selection could account for macro evolution… if we were to throw millions of years at it. Darwin drew a couple of beaks on a notepad, while chilling on a beach, to prove his theory…
My point is that to extrapolate natural variation as the underlying mechanism for macro evolution is completely unscientific, and requires an immense level of faith that not even the most devoted jihadist could rival.
The probability that macro evolution is true is so low, that it is miraculous if true.
Natural variation can only be shown to account for the minor differences we see within a species. Macro inter-species changes are not observable. Not only that, but the idea of macroevolution is completely unfathomable: that a fruit fly, grass, a blue whale, and dinosaurs are all inter-related.
If evolution were true, we should expect to see a vast array of inter-species fossils and animals in the world. We should see exactly how the diversity has come about. There should be many inter-locking genetic paths between species, and there aren’t any. In fact, there are geneticists that have calculated the probability that natural variation could result in diversity, and it is near impossible. Because every time a population is culled, it results in a dramatically homogenized pool of traits. This effect is implicit in the name “natural selection”: you are selecting a particular set of traits, throwing out the rest. Natural variation could never overcome this process, to produce greater diversity. On the whole, you should expect less diversity, through this mechanism. Therefore, if macro evolution were true, it must have been carefully orchestrated to have wrought any diversity at all.
As a Christian, you are free to interpret Genesis in a metaphorical or literal sense. You can believe that evolution is true, and that God used evolution as the means to create life. But my problem with evolution has nothing to do with theology, it’s just that evolution is a lousy theory. It does nothing to explain the origin of species or life. People cling to evolution because it is the only non-religious explanation available. It doesn’t matter how stupid the theory is, people that refuse to believe in God will hold to it, because it’s all they have. I am convinced that it is a complete fabrication. Useful fiction for doing away with real problems. It’s a cop out for having to wrestle with any real questions about the purpose and meaning of life.
3. Jesus Christ’s historicity is undeniable.
This is the last argument that I will present in favor of theism. Remember, this book is not even about apologetics, it is about the doctrine of Jesus Christ. There are much better books out there that present highly credible and full-fledged arguments in favor of God. There are debates on the internet that you can watch, where world renown philosophers present coherent and fully vetted arguments in favor of God. Their arguments are presented in peer-reviewed philosophical papers that call upon multiple lines of evidence to support premises in arguments for the existence of God. You can search them out on the internet for yourself. The purpose of my arguments in this book is to just present a few reasonable arguments, that appeal to your common sense.
With that said, this last point is just here to dispel popular sayings that I’ve heard people use to dismiss the Christian religion. A lot of lay people talk as though Christianity were a completely made up tale. That it is as mythological as the Egyptian mystery religions and have very little, or no basis in reality, whatsoever. There are popular documentaries such as the neo-socialist “Zeitgeist” movie that tries to associate Jesus Christ of Nazareth with Osiris and other equally made-up characters from ancient myths. The presenter of that film draws lines of similarities between the story of Christ and the story of these mythological deities. And claims that over time, different peoples have appropriated different versions of that myth. That they are all the same myths, but with thousands of years, the myths have broken apart into different accounts. For example, the guy in that movie said that Egypt worships the “sun God” and that Christians worship the “son of God.” And he draws lines of similarities on the basis of English phonetics! That sun sounds like son, and so we must have gotten our stories mixed up. Retarded. Especially since this homophony does not exist in the original languages. No, all of the above is completely false.
We have multiple lines of historical accounts and evidence that prove Jesus Christ lived. That he was a man that walked the Earth 2,000 years ago. Jesus of Nazareth lived in Judea, while it was under control of Rome, under the headship of Julius Caesar. Pontus Pilate managed that region at the time, and he was the one that was forced to have Christ crucified. I say forced, because it was the Jewish Pharisees in Jerusalem that demanded Christ be crucified. Why? Because Jesus claimed to be God, and the Pharisees saw that as blasphemy and idol worship. Remember what happened in Exodus, with the golden calf? The Israelites went from one extreme of heathenism to (at the time of Christ) the other extreme of nationalistic superiority and bigotry. They would not, by any means, accept that God could manifest bodily as a person. That would violate God’s eternality, immateriality, and omnipotence, as they understood it. They would not allow themselves to fall for (what they thought was) heathen paganism, and so they could not accept Christ. Therefore, the Bible says Christ “came unto his own, and his own received him not” (John 1:11). And the Pharisees demanded to have Christ crucified.
Pontus Pilate looked for any means to allow Christ free, but the Pharisees urged Pilate to have him crucified. Pilate then showed the crowd that he was not guilty of Christ’s blood, by figuratively washing his hands of this decision. It was squarely on the shoulders of the Jewish Sanhedrin that were against Jesus and all that he represented. Crucifixion was a common way for Rome to execute capital punishment, normally used to set an example for any future perpetrators. And so, Pilate was made to have Christ crucified, to placate the crowd.
John 19
19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
There was clearly heavy opposition coming from the establishment to do away with Jesus. If they could, they would have erased him from history. But they could not. Josephus, an ancient Jewish historian wrote plainly on these things, though he probably did not accept the religious claims of Christ.
The point is that there are many lines of evidence for Christ. No serious academic or historian denies the historicity of Jesus Christ. Any google search would confirm this. Even to this day, the Jewish Talmud which teaches against Christ, acknowledges his existence in history. If there was ever a time and place to deny the historicity of a foe, it’s in your own religious writings. And they could not have done it there either, because it’s common knowledge that Jesus Christ was a real historical character. Just as real as Julius Caesar, Pontus Pilate, Augustus, or any other ancient historical person. To deny Jesus’ historicity would undo the Talmud’s credibility, so it’s smart not to shoot yourself in the foot and deny that he existed.
The only reasonable objection that atheists may have to Christianity is to the claim of Christ’s deity. You may believe that he existed, but may not admit to the fact that he is God. So, to support Christ’s claim of deity, I would appeal to the miraculous conversion of his disciples, including Saul of Tarsus. Jesus Christ allegedly rose from the grave after his execution. If this statement from history is false, why then, would his contemporaries be willing to die for him? Why would his disciples suffer persecution, stoning, and death, for an event that they knew was false? Peter, being one of the twelve disciples, denied Christ with curse words when the Pharisees came to have Christ apprehended and crucified. They questioned Peter three times, to see if he was associated with Jesus, and he emphatically denied Christ. Peter was never a devoted follower of Christ, none of them were. The account in Matthew said, “But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled” (Matthew 26:56).
They were not even willing stay by Jesus while he was crucified. Why would they later be willing to die for him, after the supposed resurrection? Why would they devote the rest of their lives to him, if they completely made up the resurrection? They wouldn’t. They believed that Christ is God because they witnessed the resurrection with their own eyes, and were saved by the gospel.
Furthermore, Saul of Tarsus was a hardcore Pharisee. The kind that would have had Christ crucified. He searched out Christians that he referred to as “those of that way,” clearly a derogatory and hate-filled disposition towards believers. He would capture them and stone many of the early Christians: chasing them down and bringing them to judgement. That was, until, he was converted on the road to Damascus. Where God spoke to him directly, convincing him that Jesus Christ is God. Nothing short of the miraculous would convert a man like that. Clearly something unprecedented happened in the life of Jesus Christ, for his religion to be promoted as it is this day. I, myself, had a similar road to Damascus experience.
All of the written accounts aside, there are also historical artifacts in the middle East that prove many of the events that the Bible had recorded. This may be less compelling, as I can only describe what has been found with my words. But I adjure you to research Ron Wyatt, who was a man that spent his life doing archaeological research in Jerusalem and in the middle-east. He discovered many artifacts and ruins that support even the most unbelievable stories from the Bible.
For example, he found the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were cities destroyed by a hail of fire and brimstone. Ron Wyatt, and a lot of the locals in that area of the middle east, were right to notice the angular structures of white ash that stood out from the backdrop of the surrounding area. It is the remnants of those ancient cities, with buildings and towers turned into white ash, distinct from all other structures and natural formations in the area. The Bible said that the cities were turned into ash by burning sulfur, and that is exactly what you find in those ruins. In fact, the sulfur found there is so unique in their chemical purity, that their origin is best explained as coming from space. And they would have had to come from space, if God made it rain burning sulfur, as the Bible says. Not only that, but bones were also recovered from the ash, which further demonstrates the fate that the people of that town had met.
With that said, you do not have to hold to any of these old testament stories or artifacts to believe in God. It could be that some of these are coincidences, or have some other explanation. For example, if you choose to believe that God created the world through evolution, and that Noah’s ark is just a metaphor to you, that’s fine. You are not saved by believing everything that the Bible says, you are saved by believing John 3:16. You are saved by believing that Jesus Christ paid for the sins of the whole world. I don’t want you to abandon the faith, because you cannot reconcile these fantastical stories. I myself did not believe in anything the Bible said except for John 3:16, when I first got saved. I figured that if God were real, he would not need anything from me. And so, I believed the gospel, because it made sense. But Noah’s Ark? No thanks. Point is that this is not a divisive issue, only the gospel is.
That is enough about the historicity of Jesus Christ. The historicity of Jesus Christ is not at all contested by any serious academic. It’s up to you to do your own research, if you would like to further scrutinize the literary and physical evidence of these historical events.
Conclusion
As discussed, atheistic evolution is completely untrue. There are scientists and philosophers that have attempted to calculate the probability that evolution is true. And all the numbers they present are all so staggeringly improbable, that they serve as evidence against atheism.
And I would like to point out another facet of this whole debate that I have noticed. It seems to me that the real reason why people embrace the ludicrous notion of evolution is not because they are convinced by the weight of the evidence. Rather, it is because of the weightiness of the implications that follow if creationism were true. People bring in a lot of baggage when they ty to wrestle with these problems, and from personal experience, I know that it is the doctrine of religion that makes people take cover under the banner of atheistic evolution.
The problem that a lot of people have with the notion of God creating the universe isn’t intellectual, but emotional. It’s the character of God, and our responsibility to God that people are unwilling to accept. People will inevitably have false notions of God (baggage from their personal experience) that they have as stumbling blocks to their Christian faith. So, it’s better to expound upon the actual nature of God, and the gospel. And that is what I will discuss next.