Evidence for God from Science

Who is playing make-believe? (Atheists or theists)

Contrary to atheist rhetoric, it is actually DISBELIEF in God that requires adults to play games of make-believe …games that rival those of those of children in their measure of naive credulity.


Why life could not have emerged without God.

Darwinian evolution is often declared to render belief in God unnecessary. But this is absurd because Darwinian evolution DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to answer the really important question: How did life emerge from non-living matter? It is difficult to overstate the entertainment value that can be derived from watching highly prominent atheist biologists trying to answer this question. Francis Crick (famous as the co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix), for example, cited INTERVENTION FROM SPACE ALIENS as the source of life from non-living matter in his book Life Itself.


Why evolution cannot be used to rationalize atheism.

Contrary to what atheists would have you believe, Darwinian evolution is actually a NON ISSUE when it comes to the question of the existence of God. It will come as a surprise to many that CHARLES DARWIN HIMSELF endorsed theism in his autobiography.


Riddles for atheists.

Atheism runs into a brick wall when it comes to providing explanations for several crucial questions.


Isn’t the universe eternal? (Thus doing away with the need for a creator).

Everything with a beginning requires a cause. This is the Law of Causation, without which, science would be impossible. Atheism has therefore relied on the premise that the universe is eternal (without beginning), and therefore does not require a creator….no origin, no Originator. But modern physics (including Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity) declare that the universe DID have a beginning.


OK…I want numbers. What is the probability the universe is the result of chance?

Readers of the essay entitled Is There A God (What is the Chance the World is the Result of Chance?) may be interested in knowing some hard numbers with regard to the probability that the universe occurred randomly (i.e. no conscious creator involved). When one examines these numbers, one immediately understands why the Cambridge University astrophysicist Fred Hoyle was justified in saying, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Page 3 of 4
1 2 3 4