Bestselling Author Declares: Science Supports the Existence of a Creator

Eric MetaxasA well-known author and speaker has generated significant media attention after declaring that recent scientific discoveries have increasingly supported the existence of God.

Eric Metaxas is a #1 New York Times bestselling author, well-known speaker and commentator, and co-host of the BreakPoint Radio program. A Senior Fellow and Lecturer at Large for the King’s College in New York, Metaxas regularly speaks and writes on issues pertaining to faith and religious freedom. He was the keynote speaker at the 2012 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.

Late last month, Metaxas sparked a media firestorm by writing an article titled “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.” The piece was published on Christmas Day by The Wall Street Journal, and it has since garnered approximately 300,000 Facebook shares and generated thousands of comments.

In the article, Metaxas discusses the origin of life earth and questions the common secular belief that life arose from non-life through happenstance. The well-funded search for extraterrestrial life has not even come close to discovering life on other planets, he explains—instead, it has only confirmed the fact that life on earth is a miracle.

“As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going,” Metaxas wrote. “In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.”

“Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart,” he continued. “Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.”

Random forces and evolutionary processes are clearly not the answer for explaining life’s existence, Metaxas added.

  • Connect with Christian News

“At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces?” he asked. “Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?”

In the Wall Street Journal piece, Metaxas also explores the very existence of the universe, suggesting that the universe itself could never have come into being without an intelligent Creator. Several well-known scientists, including Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox, have arrived at similar conclusions.

“The more we get to know about our universe,” Lennox once said, “the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator… gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

All the indications suggest that a supernatural Being created the universe and the life therein, Metaxas concluded.

“The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe,” he wrote. “It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.”

Many well-known scientists have similarly supported the belief that God created life on earth or questioned the veracity of the secular origins model. As previously reported, Dr. James Tour, an influential chemist at Rice University, recently shed light on many of the devastating weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Similarly, secular scientists determined last year that the current Big Bang model cannot account for the existence of the universe.

Photo: TKC.edu


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • James Grimes

    Eric Metaxas is very respected in the Christian and journalism communities. Of course, The Useless will find problems with what he has to say.

    • Pirate

      Lawrence Krauss already debunked everything this dimwit had to say. with REAL science.

      • James Grimes

        Am I suppose to take your comment with some legitimacy? Your name-calling will prevent me from doing so. Is this the best you can do? You must be one of The Useless.

        • 0P-Tigrex

          The arrogant. ^^^^

      • bowie1

        You sound like a secular fundamentalist. If Krauss says it, it must be true.

      • Oboehner

        Real science, LOL ROFL!!!

        • 0P-Tigrex

          ‘God done it’, we don’t have no demonstrable proof that there is even a god out there’, but god done it. lol. Creation science.

          • James Grimes

            Please translate this rant. Your use of the double negative is impressive… LOL

          • 0P-Tigrex

            I know! Copying the hillbilly species is quite easy.

          • James Grimes

            I am sorry to hear of your deficiencies. BTW, your arrogance in telling a Christian to troll somewhere else is ludicrous. It makes for a good laugh though.

          • 0P-Tigrex

            Christians are trolls.

          • James Grimes

            Congratulations. You just confirmed how unintelligent you really are.

          • Oboehner

            Billions of years done it, we don’t have no demonstrable proof that there was even a million years out there’, but billions of years of random chance done it. lol. evolutionism “science”.

          • 0P-Tigrex

            You’re a clown. Not understand how the universe works isn’t an argument against it. Go troll somewhere else.

          • Oboehner

            You’re a clown. Not understanding how the universe works isn’t an argument against it. Go troll somewhere else.

          • 0P-Tigrex

            The speed of light will show you there are millions to billions of years out there. The time it takes for light to go across the Milky Way is 100,000 years. There are billions of galaxies in the known universe. Like i said, Go troll somewhere else stupid Christian.

          • Oboehner

            http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

            Go troll somewhere else religious evolutionism zealot, can you prove the speed of light is a constant? Can you, with pin point accuracy, prove the distance of any star or galaxy? I suppose I just have to take it on faith.

          • 0P-Tigrex

            You’re too hilarious, and notice how I never said the speed of light is constant.
            “Vacuums hundreds of trillions of times lower than the pressure of air at Earth’s surface, and temperatures almost a billion times colder than that in interstellar space, are needed to produce the condensate. Temperatures must be lowered to within a few billionths of a degree of absolute zero (minus 459.7 degrees F), where atoms have the least possible energy and all but cease to move around.”

            So you’re saying the universe isn’t billions of years old.. but 6000 years old because the speed of light CAN change under the extremely rare/ right circumstances? lol. The coldest known place in the universe is the Boomerang Nebula at 1 kelvin( roughly -458 degrees F). Tell me, how dense is the vacuum pressure? lol. Hell, the ‘nothingness’ in interstellar space is at 2.8 K while light travels at a constant (5.88 trillion miles per light year). The facts are there. The width of the Milky Way is roughly 100,000 light years across, hell, the distance of the Andromeda galaxy in relation to the earth is millions of light years away and there are galaxies that reach beyond that. I know your tiny christian brain can’t comprehend something like that, but you obviously don’t know how light works.

            guess what knuckle dragger. The method astronomers use to measure stars that are close to us is called Parallax, and to measure stars that are further away, the brightness of stars is used to determine their distance. There’s no ‘pin-pointing’ here.. but it’s all fact that the universe is billions of years old. I bet you believe the dinosaurs went inside Noah’s Ark as well.

          • Oboehner

            Nice little cut and paste job.
            If the speed of light is not a constant, the this statement is a fallacy: “The speed of light will show you there are millions to billions of years out there.”

            “The coldest known place in the universe is the Boomerang Nebula at 1 kelvin( roughly -458 degrees F).” So you’ve been there? Did you get actual temperature readings, or is that something “scientists” believe (you know, faith)? The size of the galaxies have been measure precicely or is it a “best guess”? Does any of that prove the age of the earth or are you assuming? How about that exploding dot thing, have recorded proof of that, or is it just more religious belief?

            “The main limitation with the use of trigonometric parallax is that the angles measured are always extremely small. Traditional ground-based optical observations also face the problems presented by observing through a turbulent atmosphere. These two factors combine so that the uncertainties in the measured values are very high for most stars.”
            So let’s see, we start with the assumption that there is some kind of consistency in the elements, size and thus brightness of various stars (without any sort of visual interference or distortion), then we estimate the distance based on an angle too acute to accurately determine distance… but hey, we just have to have faith in those numbers. It’s hardly a fact that the universe is even millions of years old let alone billions – you have to have faith to believe that.
            BTW, name calling and attacking other beliefs don’t prove yours, sorry.

          • 0P-Tigrex

            I think you’re using the word ‘faith’and ‘believe too loosely and interchangeably. I can guarantee they don’t just pick a really big number out of a hat and call it a day. There are systematic methods in place that determine an estimation of how far away a star or planet is. Your argument is the Universe isn’t Million, or Billions of years old… Yet Can you prove that? The current vastness of the Universe suggests otherwise. I’d also hope you’d know there are ways to measure temperature in space (crazy I know). So Astronomers calculating how cold the Boomerang Nebula isn’t some farce or fake data. Did you know you’re really bad at trolling?

            I’m a name caller?? lol. You’re one to talk you little hypocrite.. Tell me. I want a straight answer. What do you ‘believe’ to be is the current age of the universe and earth and how did you come to the conclusion. I’ll wait.

          • Oboehner

            “I think you’re using the word ‘faith’and ‘believe too loosely and interchangeably.” Only when it fits.

            “Your argument is the Universe isn’t Million, or Billions of years old… Yet Can you prove that?” Can you prove that God doesn’t exist or that He didn’t create?

            “The current vastness of the Universe SUGGESTS otherwise.” Faith again.

            “I’d also hope you’d know there are ways to measure temperature in space (crazy I know).” Based on assumptions I’ll bet, like just about everything else.

            “So Astronomers calculating how cold the Boomerang Nebula isn’t some farce or fake data.” Did you know you’re really bad at trying to present proof of anything?

            “What do you ‘believe’ to be is the current age of the universe and earth and how did you come to the conclusion.” What I “believe” or don’t believe about the age of anything is irrelevant, what is relevant is someone trying to tell me their religion is science.

    • 0P-Tigrex

      It doesn’t matter if he’s a well respected in those communities. If he can’t demonstrably prove a “creator’ is the cause, then his opinion is hogwash. Improbability doesn’t prove a creator. Ignorance doesn’t prove a creator. Try again.

      • jmichael39

        Oh wonderful, another new troll.
        Let’s see, where to begin.
        How about you tell what “demonstratively prove” means to you.
        Then, tell us what YOU believe.
        Let’s start there.

        • 0P-Tigrex

          Demonstrable proof means it can be tested and it can be falsified. If all you have is, ‘wow..this huge improbability must mean a god exists’ for an argument..that’s a terrible argument. I’m not a theoretical physicist or cosmologist, and neither are you. I stand neutral on the matter. I reject the stories in the bible because from what we currently know about the universe, it doesn’t match.

          • jmichael39

            tested by what means? Are you suggesting that science is the only means by which we can know truth? That unless we can comprehend it with our minds, that it can’t be true? Or if our five senses cannot perceive it, it must not exist?

          • jmichael39

            Seems you don’t like to answer questions. Should we just assume you’re another troll and move on as though your contribution to this site is little more than bat guano?

          • 0P-Tigrex

            lol! What are you talking about? I am answering your silly questions.

          • jmichael39

            jmichael39 0P-Tigrex • 6 days ago

            The only thing I assumed there is that you’ve no ability to have been everywhere at all times, so you have ability to suggest that because you have no person evidence of something that it never happened or never existed or even still doesn’t exist. You seem to be the one making the assumptions. YOU keep trying. I know the basis for what I believe. Your entire belief system is based upon your lack of knowing something. see more

            jmichael39 0P-Tigrex • 7 hours ago

            So let me make sure I understand you correctly. You don’t see any semblance of design or order in our universe?

            You see the human brain as purely the effect of randomness?

            You see the immensely complex human cell as pure randomness?

            You see the functional order of the entire universe…balanced to such an minute degree of perfection as purely random?

            How is it possible for a purely random universe to even be understandable through mathematic and scientific formulas? In other words, how can the universe be so structurally predictable that we can create equations and formulas that assist us in understanding its structure and order and design and any confidence that those equations and formulas will work?

            Here’s the most critical of conundrums for you. The human brain is the most complex piece of design in the known universe. In many ways it is like a computer. Now just suppose there were a computer that was programmed only by chance. For instance, suppose you were in a plane and the public-address system announced that there was no pilot, but the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a random fall of hailstones on its keyboard or by a baseball player in spiked shoes dancing on computer cards. How much confidence would you have in that plane? But if our brain computer has no cosmic intelligence behind the heredity and environment that program it, why should we trust it when it tells us about anything, even about the brain?

            In other words, if an unprogrammed computer could never be trusted to do anything…and you think there is no ‘programmer’ behind our own personal computers (our brains), how can you ever confidently suggest that your brain is capable of doing anything? Yet, clearly, your brain is capable of millions of things and you still think that came without a ‘programmer’?

            Shall I repost more or would like to start with these?

        • James Grimes

          He began to troll here this morning. He doesn’t have much in the way of answers.

          • jmichael39

            They never do. I’m still waiting for one to try something they’ve actually done the research on instead of merely spewing their atheist’s talking points.

  • Andrew Cutler

    It must be true, this nutcase decrees it.

  • Neiman

    “. . .,’creation’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . . in consequence of the volition of some Pre-Existing Being.” Sir Thomas Henry Huxley, who was said to be Darwin’s bulldog, being an evangelist of sorts for evolution

    Eminent British Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle reminds us of the well known mathematical fact that “even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup” the chances of producing the basic enzymes of life by random proceses without Intelligent Design would be approximately one in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. In other words, it couldn’t happen ever. Hoyle was no creationist.

    Many of history’s greatest scientists, a great many today, most not being Christians, not being creationists,have opposed the idea that the universe came into existence out of nothing and that cosmic accidents or random mutations over time can explain life. But, it does not matter – evolution is rigid liberal dogma, they punish any scientist that dares oppose their secularist, humanist doctrines, deny their work peer review, or publication and ruining their careers. To the Left it is either submit or die, they have declared evolution to be the only explanation for life and the question is why. The answer is clear, belief in God and their dreams of a socialist utopia in earth cannot co-exist, it is that simple.

    • John_33

      I agree with the statement, but the real statistical chance of randomly creating life without Intelligent Design is 0. There is no scientific working model that can explain how life is created; we can’t create life in a laboratory (the introduction of one secular, scientific book even admits they will never create life in the laboratory); and we can’t use statistics to infer how often life starts on other planets because we have only one example – Earth. 150 years of Evolutionary theory and what do the proponents have to prove that life can come from nonliving materials? Nothing. More and more people are waking up to the fact that life cannot be created from nonliving materials – it was and always will be an act of God.

      • 0P-Tigrex

        “living” materials are nothing but complex chemical reactions taking place. If ‘god’ did create us, it wasn’t the way depicted in the bible.

        • Neiman

          You cannot have design without a preexistent designer greater than the thing designed -m period.

          • 0P-Tigrex

            Who said the universe is ‘designed’? lol!!!!! Furthermore.. then what created the designer?? It’s a hold of infinite regress. Fallible argument.

          • James Grimes

            The transcendence of God explains this very clearly. Go look it up. Next time you want to play with nonsense, have some of the answers.

          • jmichael39

            So let me make sure I understand you correctly. You don’t see any semblance of design or order in our universe?

            You see the human brain as purely the effect of randomness?

            You see the immensely complex human cell as pure randomness?

            You see the functional order of the entire universe…balanced to such an minute degree of perfection as purely random?

            How is it possible for a purely random universe to even be understandable through mathematic and scientific formulas? In other words, how can the universe be so structurally predictable that we can create equations and formulas that assist us in understanding its structure and order and design and any confidence that those equations and formulas will work?

            Here’s the most critical of conundrums for you. The human brain is the most complex piece of design in the known universe. In many ways it is like a computer. Now just suppose there were a computer that was programmed only by chance. For instance, suppose you were in a plane and the public-address system announced that there was no pilot, but the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a random fall of hailstones on its keyboard or by a baseball player in spiked shoes dancing on computer cards. How much confidence would you have in that plane? But if our brain computer has no cosmic intelligence behind the heredity and environment that program it, why should we trust it when it tells us about anything, even about the brain?

            In other words, if an unprogrammed computer could never be trusted to do anything…and you think there is no ‘programmer’ behind our own personal computers (our brains), how can you ever confidently suggest that your brain is capable of doing anything? Yet, clearly, your brain is capable of millions of things and you still think that came without a ‘programmer’?

          • 0P-Tigrex

            Your framing of ‘randomness and chance’ shows how little you know about evolution, genetic variation and change. You’re asserting there is a ‘cosmic creator’ behind our brain… but can you PROVE that? If you cannot, then it’s just a hypothesis. Should you be able to prove that.. you’d win a nobel prize. Get it at sport.

          • jmichael39

            “If you cannot, then it’s just a hypothesis. ” – dude, wake up…all your supposedly scientific theories on the origins of the universe are hypotheses too. Intelligent Design presents its theories based upon scientific evidence. You don’t like it? Oh well. That’s your choice. Minds much more attuned to these issues have debated them for generations. From a scientific perspective, I accept the reality that facts, as Metaxes summarizes in his piece, provide more than sufficient reason to accept the theory of a Designer to the universe. Combine that with what I know of facts outside the realm of science and I have no doubt about my beliefs. You’re free to reject that. I completely understand why you would. No one really wants to be accountable for their actions in this life to anyone, let alone an eternal God.

        • jmichael39

          that’d be nice if we were only living materials. We’re obviously far more than that. Chemical materials are not self-aware. There is no moral conscience. There is no free will…or will at all.

          • 0P-Tigrex

            Cats are self aware. Alligators are self aware. Flies are self aware. “We’re obviously far more than that”. I will assume neither you or I know the full scope of what our conscience is and why we have it. To assume we have it because we’re ‘specially made by god’ is childish.

          • jmichael39

            So what if they are? And you have no little proof that they are self aware. But even if they do, that merely adds more proof to substantiate my point in the previous post. Your red herring about somehow placing specialness upon us in completely irrelevant to this thread. If you want to get into that in another thread, I’d be glad to.

            As for the issue of arguing for theistic world view from consciousness, I recommend J.P. Moreland. He is the quintessential scholar on the subject from a Christian perspective. Here’s a link to a short summary of his argument with many hyperlinks for further reading

            https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/j-p-morelands-argument-for-theism-from-consciousness/

            Here’s another good book of his that hits on the subject as well, called The Soul

            http://www.amazon.com/Soul-How-Know-Real-Matters/dp/0802411002/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421113320&sr=1-1&keywords=jp+moreland

      • 0P-Tigrex
        • John_33

          “Don’t look at us we don’t have any answers for you, just questions for you to think about.”

          I think that quote near the end sums up the video quite well. We don’t need to go to empty philosophy (e.g. “are we really alive?”). We know we are alive – it’s silly to doubt it. The only way evolutionists can continue to propagate their dead theory is if they modify the definition of life, which leads to a host of ethical questions. If life is just comprised of dead matter, then can we kill it? Maybe it’s not ‘murder’ in the sense that religious people used to think it was – after all, sanctity of life is a religious idea so isn’t murder a religious concept then too? Maybe if we see a man stabbing a woman, then it’s only dead matter reacting with more dead matter, and we should ignore it. Thus, moral decay sets in due to a silly thought process created to defend Evolution.

          Also, the video did not explain how nonliving material can become living material. It only tried to obfuscate the facts. I give them credit for their efforts in trying to hide Evolution’s defects, but it still did not refute any of my points. 150 years later and evolutionary science still has 0 explanations for how living materials came to be. Moving the goal posts on the definition of life is not an answer.

          • jmichael39

            Well done, John. Notice the silence from the Atheist-gallery?

          • 0P-Tigrex

            lol. And you think having 0 explanations for how ‘living materials’ came to be proves a god must have done it? That’s a silly argument. The video is just to get you thinking. Are we all dead, or are we alive? What do we consider ‘life’. It’s an interesting concept.

          • John_33

            A theory without any explanations is severely flawed. Would you trust your doctor if he wanted to do surgery on you but he couldn’t explain what he wanted to do? I wouldn’t. Why then should we believe that living material came from nonliving material when there is no explanation or evidence to support such a conclusion? Science doesn’t work that way. I can understand why people are hanging onto the theory, though. Without the theory of abiogenesis, life could have only been started by God, so many continue to cling to the theory despite the lack of evidence.

          • James Grimes

            “It only tried to obfuscate the facts. It also didn’t refute any of my points. 150 years later and evolutionary science still has 0 explanations for how living materials came to be. Moving the goal posts on the definition of life is not an answer.”
            That’s how The Useless describe life without creation by God. They seem to make it up as they go along.

  • http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/ Dionysus

    If science made the case for God, they’d rewrite all the books and say we have new evidence. Instead its here’s what we know and can prove. And science is humble enough to say here’s what we don’t know. https://richarddawkins.net/2014/12/letter-to-the-editor/

  • robertzaccour

    Well it’s certainly more convincing than “nothing created everything”.

    • 0P-Tigrex

      Ignorance doesn’t assert a “god” did it. You can’t even define your god except it being all powerful and all knowing. What a load of crap.

      • jmichael39

        First of all, no one has to define God for your theory that the is no god to be false. All we have to do is prove that there is the possibility of a creator and you and all your atheism is for naught.

        But honestly, you can wipe Christianity from the face of the earth if you could do one thing. Would you like to take a shot at it?

        • 0P-Tigrex

          No, because “Christianity’ isn’t something you can just kill. It’s psychological. A possibly of god doesn’t prove a god exists.

          • jmichael39

            well, the apostle Paul placed the entirety of the Christian faith on a string for anyone like you to try to cut and destroy. You can give it a shot if you want. But it sounds to me like you don’t think you have sufficient intellectual acumen to handle the debate. Fair enough.

          • jmichael39

            again, another post you conveniently ignore…as if somehow if you don’t respond you won’t look like a pathetic troll.

          • 0P-Tigrex

            Did i ignore you you? No i didn’t.

  • Naiko

    Which is the most logical conclusion? The universe came out of nothing or some one created the universe?

    • 0P-Tigrex

      That’s assuming it came out of nothing. There are things we DO NOT KNOW about the universe still. This is a false dichotomy.

      • jmichael39

        Unless you have been every where at every time in the history of the universe, you do not know there was no creator…yet I’m betting you’d rather believe that something can come forth from nothing before you would choose to believe that the universe came forth from a creator.

        • 0P-Tigrex

          Again.. that’s ASSUMING the universe came out from literally nothing (something we can’t even conceive). But keep trying.

          • jmichael39

            The only thing I assumed there is that you’ve no ability to have been everywhere at all times, so you have ability to suggest that because you have no person evidence of something that it never happened or never existed or even still doesn’t exist. You seem to be the one making the assumptions. YOU keep trying. I know the basis for what I believe. Your entire belief system is based upon your lack of knowing something.

        • 0P-Tigrex

          I don’t know there wasn’t a creator.. so therefore a creator MIGHT exist.. is such a terrible argument. Everything looks designed and purposeful to humans.. we are wired to see patterns and we try to make sense of things that don’t make sense to us. There are top level theoretical and quantum physicists who tackle this question everyday.. and you want to ask ME the history of the universe? Lol. Wow

          • jmichael39

            I never said that WAS my argument. Your argument does seem to be exactly the same though, from the other angle. I don’t see any evidence so there must be a god.

            Yes, I’ve read some of the writings about quantum physics. There is much there to articulate in evidence that there is much more to reality than what our mere five senses can perceive or our minds can conceive.

            So why is it again that you utterly reject the notion of God?

        • James Grimes

          nothing x nothing = nothing (Christian)
          nothing x nothing = everything (Atheist)

          • SteveN

            Atheism = loose everything
            Christian = loose nothing

          • James Grimes

            The Atheists have nothing to base eternity upon. They will have an eternity, but not with decent Christians.

          • SteveN

            As top soil.

          • James Grimes

            Right.

  • Joe Volpe

    Why does anybody argue about this topic? The truth is nobody was there when the universe was created. There is no “proof” of either theory. You have to have faith to believe in either one.

    Why do people argue about God? If he is real then he is here with us right now. If he is real then he would prove it to you somehow, if you asked him. If you really want to know the truth no matter what it is and with no agendas, you will find it. If you make decisions or viewpoints based on lies, you will never find the truth. Be truthful with yourself, then you will find the truth

    • James Grimes

      ” If he is real then he would prove it to you somehow…” The proof is in Jesus, the Son of God, who was at the Creation, and who is the Savior to many on this site. This is all the proof we need. Sorry if it’s not good enough for you.

      • Joe Volpe

        He’s my saviour too James. He proved it by coming into my heart when I didn’t believe. That’s my point. No need to argue about things that cannot be proven. If he is real then he will answer when you cry out to him.

        • James Grimes

          I apologize. I had misinterpreted your comment. Have a blessed day.

          • Joe Volpe

            No apology necessary James. You were just attempting to defend the faith. Take care

          • James Grimes

            You are very gracious. Thank you.

  • Gary

    Either the universe made itself, or it was made by someone. It is impossible for it to just come to exist without being caused (chance). But in order for it to make itself, it would have to exist before it existed. That isn’t possible either. The only possibility is that someone made it. Then the argument becomes who was that someone? Christians say it was the God of the Bible.

  • compguy83

    “Non-scientist says thing about science. Is, unsurprisingly, wrong.”

  • allchornr

    This is just god of the gaps is it not?

    In my science based worldview I’m happy to accept “we don’t know all the answers” and we may never know, but there is a constant search for them and something like abiogenesis is a far more plausible attempt at explaining the origin of life than “god dunnit”.

    http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Abiogenesis

    Before I’m accused of it, I am not trolling and would be interested in intelligent debate only.

  • 1theonlyAnswers2

    The Bible was and is always true and correct. look at any flower how can you not see a creator God… and he came to us in human body …….Jesus Christ …….TRUE GOD …that saves…….

  • Lowell C Exum Jr.

    Atheists have to believe that nothing created everything, a scientific impossibility. Once an an agnostic and a believer in Darwinian evolution myself, this particular blog post “To my atheist friends: You are NOT an atheist.” I wrote this with my agnostic and atheist friends in mind. You can read it here: http://onewayjesus.weebly.com/blog/to-my-atheist-friends-you-are-not-an-atheist . I also wrote this one “Who created God?” with my agnostic and atheist friends in mind http://onewayjesus.weebly.com/blog/who-created-god . I would love for you to read and also get your feedback. Thanks.