atheist and christian
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.
Atheism runs into a brick wall when it comes to providing explanations for several crucial questions.
Can you identify the person referred to in this passage? Can you guess what book of the New Testament this passage comes from? Scroll to the far bottom for answers: 3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces…
Religion should be abandoned because it motivates killing—argue atheists. But the first problem with this argument is that “religion” is a notoriously slippery term. It is therefore impossible to rationally categorize God-believing church attenders as “religious” and atheists as “non-religious.”
Secondly, the most prolific killers in all of human history were the Communists and Nazis. Communism is an officially atheist political philosophy, and the Nazis rationalized their killing with atheist philosophy.
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.
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.”