I’ve got a couple of things to say before I show you that science proves the existence of God, so be patient and I will get around to it. First, I am rather small, so I have had to deal with bullies when I was younger. A bully is someone who always treats the weaker person in an overbearing or intimidating manner. The word is traditionally used to describe a person that is physically larger than the person he picks on. I don’t know if you realize it, but there are also intellectual bullies.

They are blessed with greater intellectual power and they use it to intimidate those who are intellectually weaker.

I class myself as weaker. Have you ever heard that “Your strength is your weakness and your weakness is your strength”? Well, because I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I have to break everything down to its simplest terms and then reassemble it to see if it really is as I was told.

Quite often I see someone brighter than I am, when told something, never questions the truth of what they have been told and they go on to build their understanding on a false base. It’s a case of their strength becoming their weakness. Well that is the start of weakness; it becomes much worse when after they have told everyone their theories and their pride will not let them recant. Then they become intellectual bullies and when anyone tries to point out an error they are attacked as complete idiots. So I know I will be attacked, but the truth is the truth and the truth is science has proved there has to be a God; they just are trying to hide the fact.

Have you ever heard the phrase “Turtles all the way down”? Let me tell you the story as I heard it. (There seems to be some other ways)

There was a young boy that had just reached the age where he began to be curios. One day while looking through a book he spied a picture of an elephant holding up the world. It brought a question to his mind and he went to his father, who knew everything, and asked him, “Father what is the elephant standing on?” His father having asked the same question as a lad answered, “Why, he is standing on a turtle”. That satisfied the boy for a few minutes, but then the obvious question occurred to him and he went back to his Dad and asked, “Father what is the turtle standing on?” Well, the boy was a bit brighter than his father at the same age, because the second question had never occurred to his father. Not wanting to seem as if he didn’t know he tried to wing it. “He is standing on another turtle” The boy didn’t even hesitate and blurted out, “What is that turtle standing on?” Now the boy had challenged his father’s knowledge too far, as he didn’t have an answer, and being a typical proud man was becoming quite angry. He snapped back at the boy, “Why there are turtles all the way down.”

Well, the boy knew when to shut up, but I am not a boy and I’m hearing the same kind of response when I ask science what the last turtle is standing on. The truth is science knows where the final turtle stands, but their pride will not let them admit it.

Let us examine some of the things science says about the beginning of the universe and some of its laws. The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation (or the LomonosovLavoisier law), states that the mass of a closed system of substances will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, although it may change form.

That equivalent statement is not true. It is apparent that matter, or atoms can be destroyed, but they can not be created.

Einstein’s formula E=MC² was proved when the Atom Bomb detonated, and again when the Hydrogen Bomb worked. Basically Einstein said matter is nothing more than energy bound together by more energy and one can mathematically compute the amount of energy in a given amount of mass.

Heb 11:3 NIV says, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” (Energy bound together by energy)

Both the Atom Bomb and the Hydrogen Bomb work by destroying matter, which releases the energy that holds the matter (Energy) together.

Go outside on a clear, dry, moonless night and look up. Everything that you see is matter being destroyed, or converted to energy. It can be properly said “destroyed” if it can not be returned to matter. Every star is a giant mass destroying machine. Actually you can only see one side of the visible stars and you can only see a small part of the universe.

Energy is only created by destroying matter. Even the power from a hydroelectric plant is produced by the destruction of matter, as is the very act of looking up.

Now, as you see the massive destruction of matter that is happening every second in the universe, doesn’t it stand to reason that if there is a method that turns energy back into matter that it would be readily visible?

Well there is no visible reversal of destruction. If you ask a scientist if it is possible to turn energy into matter he will say, yes we do it everyday in our particle accelerators.

There is a slight problem with that answer. Basically they take an electron and smash it into another electron and sometimes another electron and an anti-electron are produced. They are always produced in pairs: it’s not possible to produce just one. Because energy and matter are basically the same scientist claim they have turned energy into matter. 

These two electrons are supposed to be equal with opposite charges, but when they collide there are gamma rays produced.

Now grade school math will tell you that the sum of one positive added to one negative of equal value is zero, or nothing. Considering that electrons are particles of energy it should be clear that if they annihilate each other there could be no energy released as there is no excess energy left in either to be released: one would only cancel the others energy. Because there is energy released they can not be equal in value. It’s not as if we have two trains with the equal amount of the same kind of energy crashing together, but one train and one ghost train. If I were theorizing I would say that this is just a step in this particular method of converting matter into energy. (Electrons into gamma rays)

I might add that it takes a great amount of energy in order to accelerate an electron to speed required too produce this pair and we already know that matter must be destroyed to generate this energy. Ask yourself if one can claim that matter has been created if massive amounts of matter have to be destroyed in order to produce one particle. Also if you must have electrons to make electrons then have you really made matter?

To summarize this post: yes, we are both getting tired of this.

Matter does exist and therefore had to be created. Because it is not created in this universe it had to be created outside of it. This proves (To me) there has to be a God. Now I know science is not going to admit it, but that is not unusual for mankind.


  1. qmonkey says:

    embarrasing nonsense. essentially, we dont know everything, so therefore anything is prossible and probable!

    if it proves theres a god, then you DON’T have a faith.

  2. astudent says:

    Gee I sorry I embarrassed you. Actually we don’t know anything. Everything is only theories based on other theories.

    “Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory… Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.”
    (Stephen W. Hawking-A Brief History of Time)

    Now that we have that out of the way, and we can see that you have tried to bully me, what is your answer to how matter is created?

  3. qmonkey says:

    theorys are provisional….of course… but each time time the results of the experiments concur it becomes more likely. i have no answer to how matter is created … im happy to keep investigating… i don’t need to insert myths in place of lack of knowledge.

    saying that we don’t know anything … is word play really. the truth is we ‘know’ lots of things… but we keep an open mind… which gets more and more convinved at time goes on. myths and god stuff are irelanvent to this process. (until some one proves other wise – ie prove a mircle too me)

  4. qmonkey says:

    you know what… ignore that. its a boring done to death argument. you ARE actualy saying something new. my question would be… if the title of this post is true… what is the role of faith?

  5. astudent says:

    It strengthens my faith. To know that God inspired a man to write, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” And today we understand that matter (What is seen) is made out of what is not visible (energy). When I read “The heavens declare the glory of God” and I understand that the universe had to be created and is surely coming to an end, it increases my faith.
    You however believe in mankind and these words of mine mean little to you and if you paid any mind to them it would weaken your faith.
    I did get a laugh. Just so I understood your question as best as I can I looked up the definition of “faith”.
    1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an idea, or a thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
    If you apply the first definition to me I have faith, but if the second is used I have no faith, because it seems logical to me to believe in God and the very heavens are material evidence.

  6. lowerpericles says:

    What about kinetic, as medium?

  7. astudent says:

    I don’t quite understand your question. Could you elaborate a bit?

  8. qmonkey says:

    Im still not sure you address the core of the debate, all you do is wallow in unknown (i suggest). You should put your energy into real research, rather than trying to show that you’re faith isnt nuts. why not just start from scratch and see what you come up with.

    There is no good reason to believe in a personal God; there is no good reason to believe that the Bible, the Koran, or any other book was dictated by an omniscient being; we do not, in any important sense, get our morality from religion; the Bible and the Koran are not, even remotely, the best sources of guidance we have for living in the 21st century; and the belief in God and in the divine provenance of scripture is getting a lot of people killed unnecessarily.

  9. lowerpericles says:

    Uh nvm, still there is none absolute.

  10. astudent says:

    At some point one realizes that he is only throwing pearls. Your first paragraph is a poor attempt to bully me. You must be larger than the one you want to bully in order to be successful. I am sure you can find someone.
    Your second paragraph is only to bait me and as phony as any poorly made artificial bait I have seen. Though I have bitten before, I look a little closer now.
    Listen, that sound that you hear is me wiping the dust from my feet.

    Can you say that absolutely?

  11. james says:

    LOL, it’s incredible how faith can make one so ignorant. Or is it ignorance that allows one to have so much faith..

  12. astudent says:

    It is incredible how those who have no faith and know nothing about it can consider themselves experts on the subject. Is it ignorance that prompts them to criticize those that have and understand faith, or is it jealousy? Or must one try to make those that do have faith seem ignorant in order to give the illusion that they are intelligent?

  13. james says:

    You should stick to being a student because there is so much more for you to learn.

  14. astudent says:

    I have no intention of ceasing to be a student. You might try it. If you apply yourself you might not be an illusion. Perhaps then you might be able to explain if and how I am wrong about a subject instead of just attacking my faith, intelligence, and abilities. But then that might require real effort. By the way, is there any point to your comments?

  15. Hector says:

    Nice statement.

    Now, would you mind doing it including the First Law of Thermodynamics.


    Energy=Cant be created or destroyed?
    God=cant be created or destroyed
    is it then God=energy?

  16. astudent says:

    God is more than matter or energy. So you can not say God is equal to either.
    You are correct when you say God can neither be created nor destroyed.
    When I first read your comment I totally disregarded it, however using terms that man can understand energy might be a good way of looking at God. The Bible says He is Spirit
    “(John 4:24 NIV) God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” The best way I can describe spirit is the mind, or not physical, so energy would in a small way describe God. Actually there is no one word that would describe God. If you started with the word “energy” you would have to add “with intelligence” and then “with love” and then………..
    Theories are derived from observations and there is no event where energy is returned to matter observed anywhere in the universe, so my theory is the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong. (Matter can not be created, but it can be destroyed)
    Would you agree that if energy can not be returned to matter then the First Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect?
    Anyway thanks for the thought.

  17. alas says:

    For qmonkey,
    Faith comes in because one has chosen to believe that there is a mastermind behind this creation. This over any number of stories one might otherwise conceive of, ranging from being an alien experiment to a science project in a petri dish.

    For Hector,
    I would say that indeed, God is energy. God is what is. The evidence of God in us all is motion and rest. I think you’re onto something.

    For astudent,
    God is spirit. But what is spirit? I feel that spirit is energy in it’s broadest meaning of the word. There is energy in every particle of every thing, it is what sustains us. I think it’s the closest we can come to defining spirit.

  18. astudent says:

    You rightly say God is spirit, but he has to be more than energy.
    (ENERGY-The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power.)
    Look up all of the definitions for “energy” and you will find that it is not a thing. It is only “The capacity” to do something. Because of that you can say God is energy, but you can not invert the statement and say energy is God.
    Energy itself has no intelligence. I would agree with you that there is energy in very particle of everything and it does sustain us, but by definition it is actually nothing, nor can it create itself. Because of that creation had to come from outside of the universe. If I were trying to define God with worldly terms I would say God is energy with intelligence, power, feelings, emotions, compassion, …well it is just not possible. When I first read that God told Moses to say “I AM” sent him it seemed odd to me, but as I learn more about God I understand it. God can not be described with human language.

    As for your comment to qmonkey, “Faith comes in because one has *chosen* to believe that there is a mastermind behind this creation.” I have to say, “Faith comes in because one *has* to believe that there is a mastermind behind this creation.” If you observe the universe with truth there is no other logical way it could have come about. It is not truth to hold on to a theory like the “Big Bang”, or evolution, or to fabricate theories that include fantasies like “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” in order for flawed math to seem perfect. Science without truth is “Science Fiction” and that is what the study of science has become.

  19. crash says:

    astudent i found your piece to be an interesting train of thought and it seems you’ve put a lot of time and effort into it. i admit that like you i’m not really an expert in the field so while reading your work i did some research of my own and have some criticisms;

    your theory seems to hinge on electron – positron (sometimes refered to as anti-electron) annihilation in that you say that being of opposite charges they cancel each-other out, what you seem to be overlooking is that electron-positron annihilation follows some strict principles of physics, the Conservation of Momentum and the Conservation of Energy.

    the Conservation of Energy. (closely related to the 1st law of thermodynamics which you misinterpreted the 1st law is not about Matter it says that Energy remains constant in a closed system ie-the universe) the universe maintains a constant amount of energy and simply transforms its state
    (like Einsteins theory which was not about destroying matter to make energy it was about converting the potential energy contained as matter into other forms of energy like an explosion)
    thus when the electron and the positron collide annihilating each-other the energy (and momentum) has to go somewhere so it becomes photons of equal energy.
    the conservation of momentum dictates this as well but it’s effects are not important to the discussion.

    sorry this post was so long!
    also i find it interesting that you theorize that matter exists therefore must have been created, that same theory demands that because God exists he must have been created. the alternative is that God is constant and always exists but does that not mean that the same could be true for matter?

  20. astudent says:

    Thanks for your comments. They make me rethink what I said and because I am not an expert it is fun.
    My point about electron – positron annihilation is basically the same as yours. It does release great amounts of energy; they do not cancel each-other out, so they can not really be matter and antimatter as accepted science says.
    The law of conservation of mass/matter that I referred to closely resembles the Law of conservation of energy, but it is about mass, not energy.
    The more I think about science laws the funnier it becomes. The definition of energy is “Physics. The capacity of a physical system to do work.” It is a word that was made up to symbolize that which was, and is not understood. Knowing the definition and substituting it for the word “energy” makes the scientific laws about energy sound rather odd. I thought it funny enough to include in this comment, though it does not directly pertain to your comment.
    You are correct about Einstein’s theory, however if you convert the energy in matter and can not reconvert it to matter you have destroyed the matter. My point is it can not be re-made.
    It might be clearer if I said elements are destroyed and there is no known way or even a theory (That I am aware of) that elements can be recreated. If that is true then all elements will eventually be converted to energy and the universe will cease to exist.
    As to your statement “Energy remains constant in a closed system ie-the universe” The universe is thought to be expanding and if that is true then can it be considered a closed system?
    Just to add a bit to the theme of the post. A rock in the coldest part of space is warmer than the space around it. The only way that is possible is for the rock to be producing energy and the only way energy is produced is by the destruction of matter.
    Did you see the report of the kilogram standard losing 50 micrograms after being kept locked away under glass for 118 years? If my theory is correct the loss of mass was inevitable.
    “O” I almost forgot to address your last question. Something has to last forever. If there is no God then the universe must be it. However all of the elements are being broken down to energy. This energy finally is radiated into space, which is basically nothing. How can nothing be heated? Isn’t that the end of energy and eventually the end of the universe?
    One of the hardest things for a mortal to grasp is the idea that something always existed and will always exist. Everything in the universe had a beginning and is ending: that is all we have been exposed to so it is all we really know. The concept of God is foreign to us, but that does not guarantee that there is no God.
    If the universe has an ending then something outside of it had to create it. As I said, “Science proves there is a God”.

  21. crash says:

    ah now we get into the philosophical side of the existence of the universe 🙂

    what can be construed as forever? in science the beginning of Time has a direct correlation to the beginning of the Universe (the Big Bang or however else it started), the problem being that if there was a Start to the universe then something had to start it but if Time was none existent then how do you start time?

    because like Math and Science, Time is a human construct, when you really look at it they are all just human ideas painted over the universe to explain to our minds something we could never truly understand. like how you would explain how a computer works to a four year old.
    but like a four year old trying to understand computers humans don’t have a complete grasp on all facets of the universe so it could be argued that while no adequate theory exists In Science to placate you does not truly mean that an answer doesn’t exist. it is akin to saying that before Newton layed down gravitational law there was no gravity.

    but that’s aside to what i was getting at, if there was a beginning of the universe and the universe is Finite (which it has to be because remember it’s expanding and how can you expand an infinite space unless your dealing with abstract maths where for some reason they feel the need for different sized infinites) then there has to exist something outside of the universe for it to exist in, a place where Meta-Time exists and the Universe And its Laws where created!

    thus if you do follow science to its completely unfounded philosophical conclusion which is fun to do you find that of course there must be something/some-entity Not restricted by this universe that was directly responsible for the Genesis of the universe and hence the human race.

    UNFORTUNATELY any attempts to elaborate further only resulted in organized religions who told the masses to love one another and then decided it would be a grand idea to go out and kill a whole bunch of people

  22. astudent says:

    Sorry it is taking me so long to answer. I am having problems with a service provider. It’s like Saturday Night Live. They disconnected my phone to connect everything to cable and then didn’t. When I e-mailed them to have someone repair the problem they insisted that I must call them to tell them. I know they can read because they answered my e-mail.
    It has only escalated from there. They will not bend and neither will I. Perhaps I will write a post on it.

    You comment was pretty good. I liked much of what you said, mainly because it is true and I do love truth.
    I’m to picky to agree with time being a human construct. The sun comes up and the sun goes down, yesterday and today are as real as gravity, but tomorrow might be a human construct.
    I had to laugh when I read your comment. You have a pretty good understanding that we can not understand. It is easy for us as amateurs to speak truth, but an expert in the field is influenced by his or her peers. One thing that makes it difficult is that he or she will be passed over for promotion if they agree with creationism. There are many more difficulties than that: too many to list.
    I almost disagreed with your last statement, but after some thought I do agree in part. The God of the Bible teaches that we should love one another: even our enemies. Those who kill supposedly in the name of God are not following the teachings of the God of the Bible. It is not that anyone just decided it would be a grand idea to go out and kill a whole bunch of people. Those who want power and riches above everything else will use religion as a tool to acquire them. If you can convince someone that God approves of murder and death then it becomes very easy to murder, especially when that someone benefits in some way from it.
    I understand that Christianity and Islam are both religions, but they are as different as night and day. What I don’t understand is why others lump both together and so condemn a religion of love and life along with one of hate and death. It’s just not logical.
    But to get back to the fun, suppose there is a Black Hole at the very edge of the universe, emitting gamma rays outwardly at such an angle that they do not strike any other heavenly body. Where to they go in a finite universe? Do they bounce of the edge of the universe, or perhaps go through the edge: into what? Or does the universe (Space) expand with them as they travel to contain them? Or perhaps space and time really are curved which leads to many other possibilities.
    Well I suppose at some point the fun fades.

  23. Mike says:

    “Only God can create matter.”
    Man can only create things with what already exists.
    Man has become so lofty and arrogant in his interlect,that he has become a fool.
    Man in his flesh cannot even begin to understand how mighty God is – who after all is a spirit.
    A person once said to me in a statement,”Your God is a vain God – because the bible says he made us for his pleasure.”
    I then asked him if he had children (which I knew he had) he then was wise enough to understand.

  24. astudent says:


    Well said. Matter is like Humpty Dumpty. All of the king’s horses and all of the king’s men can not put it back together again. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try, but so far all that we have done is destroy matter. We can make an H-bomb, but we don’t have a clue how to make a mirror image of it.

    I admire your ability to frame a comment which enables another to understand. I always think of the best answer when it is too late to give it.

    Ha, you can see how late my answers are as you see how long it took me to return your comment!!!

  25. stefan says:

    I feel this article has proven nothing but the fact that the universe is a complicated place, which it is. That alone in noway proves the existence of a higher being it’s just proving that you or noone else understands what this is or how it came to be. You can understand elements of how it works but to act like you truly understand would be thinking of yourself on the same level of god for.

  26. astudent says:


    What is it to “feel” that an article has proven nothing?

    Why does understanding one thing make a person think of himself or herself as on the same level as God? Do you think that you know one thing?

    I didn’t feel this understanding. It is simple logic. Very easy to understand.

    Would you agree that the universe is being changed into energy? And have you thought that without matter to excite that energy is nothing?

  27. James says:

    There are so many issues with your claim, but lets bring it down to fundamentals:

    While there are gaps in scientific understanding, there will always be some questions waiting to be answered. And while gaps exist, there will be religious extremists trying to clutch on to slight unknowns as possible signs of the existence of a diety.

    What you can’t contribute to the conversation, despite your anecdotes about father/son escapades, is any real evidence that religion is correct and science is incorrect. Science continues to offer more and more answers to posed questions via rational, reproducable deductive method. Whereas, since this method was brought into accepted use more than 200 years ago, there has been no plausible ‘miracle’ or ‘supernatural event’. No ‘messiah’. I ask you, where is religion’s proof of validity? In fact, religion does everything it can to keep real science away, even though science proves itself to the point that it gives you power, quantum mechanics, and in turn, silicon chips and computers. So don’t pretend that we don’t understand Quantum mechanics, because if that were the case we couldn’t build transistors.

    And finally, destroy but can’t create matter? Please. Your premise that Hydroplants destroy matter is incorrect. They turn turbines by bleeding off the kinetic energy of the water itself. Matter is harder to manufacture than it is to destroy… in focused quantities. Also, given your obvious understanding of energy conservantion, you will understand that if you detonate a very small about of matter via atomics you are able to release massive amounts of energy. The reverse is also true, if you utilize massive amounts of energy, atomic bomb scale, you can recreate matter. That atom smasher you illuded to, is doing that right now.

  28. astudent says:


    I believe you have a good idea when you say we should bring it down to the fundamentals.

    First, it seems to me that to say there are gaps in scientific understanding is a gross understatement. Science does not even understand the basics, so most of what scientist claim as understanding today will be the humor of tomorrow. Just as what was taught before is laughed at today. The earth is flat, if God wanted man to fly He would have given him wings, science proves bees cannot fly, I could go on and on, but the basic truth is you believe in science as I believe in God. Your so called knowledge changes everyday, but my Textbook hasn’t changed in two thousand years and that is because it is perfect.

    You do not believe in God, therefore you do not study His word and yet you speak as if you understand!

    You are correct when you say I can’t cite any real evidence that religion is correct and science is incorrect. One cannot see if they cover their eyes, nor can they hear if they cover their ears. As far as science being incorrect, it is neither correct nor incorrect. It is an art that seeks understanding and if it were perfect, it would no longer seek.

    You have it backwards. Science or those who believe in science, do everything they can to keep religion away. I would not keep anyone from studying and trying to understand what God has made. Why would I? You speak of fundamentals, but the real fundamentals are where did everything originate, what is life, and is there a God.

    A real scientist would not disregard anything that they do not understand. If you have not even considered there might be a God then why do you say, or rather imply, there is not one? I am speaking from experience, as I did not believe in God until I truthfully considered the question.

    I see that you think of yourself as a scientist. Well, then answer me this, what is energy?

    You say that the turbines in a hydro plant are turned by the kinetic energy stored in the water and you are correct, but the fundamental question is “How did the water acquire the kinetic energy”?

    Don’t you understand that the kinetic energy was imparted to the water by the energy from the sun? The sun heats the oceans, causing the water to evaporate. The sun’s energy also creates clouds and winds and those winds carry the clouds over the earth, and rain is created. That, James, is where the kinetic energy comes from: the destruction of the matter of which the sun is made. That energy is not being returned to matter. It is only acting on the matter (water) and then it is gone.

    Einstein proved that you can turn a small amount of matter into a massive amount of energy and I can accept that, but you only “say” that matter is recreated. Who proved that? Would not it be more correct to say that you “think” energy can be returned to a solid state?

    No the atom smasher, as you call it, is not creating matter. It is just smashing atoms. Can you really tell how something is made by smashing it?

    The universe is as large as anything can be and massive amounts of matter are being turned into energy and that is plain to see, but nowhere is the process of energy being returned to a solid state visible. Perhaps I just missed it! Your the scientist, you show me.
    Where is the gigantic atom smasher of the universe?

  29. Nanda says:

    If you just give Him a chance He’ll prove Himself to you. Thats what I did, and I didn’t believe in God….let alone His son.

  30. astudent says:


    You are correct, I didn’t believe in God either, until I gave Him a chance. I didn’t understand that I needed His son until I compared myself to Him. The only thing it cost me was my pride. I was wrong, there really is a God, and He is wonderful.

  31. I think the fact that we can both perceive sensual input experience pleasure (such as sex pleasure) is proof of (bear with me, I am Episcopalian and not a fundamentalist) a god. Just think about it for a minute–there is no quantifying or deconstructing these things any further. What I believe we can most assuredly count on, is that physical reality is a reflection of spiritual reality. That perception comes first, something designed the universe to reflect that perception, and everything in nature is wired with a function and both an ability to perceive and feel. Do you really think DNA made itself? There are definitely some good points that the atheists have, and I don’t believe for a minute that we can come to objectively prove the flood or that the Earth is 5 or 6,000 years old. We don’t need to, and it’s a bad idea to base your understanding of the Divine on that. What I’m saying is that intelligent design (with the knowledge that chronology is and time/space are the alteration that make our universe what it is) is really the only speculation that we can get to make sense. However, I have faith THROUGH Christ, so my faith itself is based on the apostles’ testimonies and not in a logical analysis of the universe–and I do believe that much of the bible is esoteric myth (but if you feel inclined to believe it and look to it for inspiration, Christ himself fills the symbolism and prophecies with meaning and it will deepen your understanding of who God is and why we need him so badly). Still, I feel these issues are a stumbling block for intelligent people wanting to have faith in Jesus.

    But rest assured, He is there for the aware and the less-than-gifted alike. It’s up to you to work out your problems of understanding for yourself, not curse the history of the church and religion in general as the source of all the world’s evil. People can’t live without either or spirituality or mythological psychology, and the world would be a lot worse if it weren’t for faith–science isn’t the knight in shining armor that some of us have made it out to be. Or, perhaps many of us in western civilization have put our faith in the Church of Christ without Christ–which we are learning does not really work. Though in truth I am a leftist liberal, I just give credit to JC and God for my good leftist Christian values. Peace…

  32. astudent says:


    If it is only sensual pleasure that proves God then almost everyone would believe and if one “really” believes in God, then they would investigate the matter to determine just what God wants, is, does, etc (please bear with me, I am a fundamentalist, not an Episcopalian, although I think one can probably be both.). Ha-ha.

    I am quite sure that God cannot be proven with any physical proof, but that does not stop those who do not believe in God from trying to prove there is no God and if we do not raise questions from our understanding then the other side wins. They will say that we have no answer and if we do not speak up, then we surly do not have an answer. I will sit down and shut up when they do.

    Faith comes from all Scripture. The apostle’s testimonies are only a small part of Scripture. Why miss anything? It has been said that if one can believe the first verse in the Bible (Gen 1:1 (NIV) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”) then anything after that is easy to believe. It truly is esoteric, but not myth. If any part is false, then it is all false and therefore it could not be the Word of God.

    I do not curse the history of the church: not the church as a whole. The church is only people and I do not place faith in people even if they are saved.

    I do not base my understanding of God on what I see. God does not let us see Him. I do not have to; as He has given us everything that anyone needs in order to understand. But of course, one cannot understand God if they do not believe there is one and most do not believe.

    What man could analyze the universe? I only attempted to show that those who claim too, do not understand the basics. Should I not attempt to explain that their view makes no sense? If we do not question them who will?

    I do not have much regard for my own intelligence, but I am not totally stupid either. I do not believe what someone says just because they claim to know and I do not think anyone should accept what I say, with out question, either.

    Having said all of that there is much of your comment that I agree with and I appreciate your input. I can see that you are intellectually blessed, but you do not use it to bully. Thanks, I appreciate that.

  33. Sivonni says:

    I have found that most arguments against the Bible devolve to the point where I realize what my “opponent” for lack of a better word, really objects to is religion or what a specific religion interprets the Bible to say.

    Here’s how I respond: “Religion is Man’s way of trying to understand God. Every religion is made by man and, therefore, imperfect. The Bible was made by God and Man is struggling to understand it. We’re just not smart enough yet. That doesn’t make it wrong. It makes US wrong.”

    I believe the Bible is completely accurate and divinely inspired. The hundreds of recent archeological discoveries in the last couple decades alone have proven so much of even the smallest details that it’s somewhat ridiculous to doubt the veracity of the Bible as a historically accurate text. I’ll happily supply links to those interested.

    Scientifically, I find God’s instructions on how to live, to farm land or cleanse oneself that modern agricultural and medical scientists have only recently discovered to be far more amazing that the same old arguments about Intelligent Design and how the universe came to be. The rules that God put into place (not touching pigs or “bottom feeders” because of diseases and bacteria they carried, which people in these times could have no knowledge of) to protect His children and the harsh enforcement of it fascinated me. How do you stop a plague from happening before people knew about blood and body fluids? You tell people don’t touch this, clean yourself this way, and anyone who doesn’t has to die so they can’t spread the infection (or the insubordination). Brutal, but…so was life at that time.

    God’s small references to how tides or wind works and his descriptions about specific collections of stars and how they are traveling through space (which modern science has only JUST discovered) made me goggle in shock once I really dug into the studies I chose (as opposed to whatever a preacher happened to be speaking about).

    I was raised in church but that made me MORE skeptical, not less. Luckily, I had a teacher who encouraged us to not take his word for it, but to look into researching the scripture on our own. Everywhere I looked I found books written by men and women who began as atheists, determined to disprove the Bible. After years of research at the top universities, archeological sites, and discussions with the likes of Richard Dawkins, they all became believers.

    I read some books and articles (including Mr. Dawkins) written by disbelievers who made interesting points but not ONE accurately researched book ever disproved any of the Bible. Not one. Many of them admitted as such but the ones who did not become believers seem to cling to the Richard Dawkins reasoning: “It can’t be true because I refuse to believe it.”

    Atheism is a religion and it’s followers are extremely devout.

  34. astudent says:


    That was very well said. I agree with everything you said and I don’t think I could have said it any better.

  35. orege says:

    Eger gercekten bir tanrı olsa bile onu siz kanıtlayamazsınız o kendini bilim içinde kanıtlıyor siz farkında bile değilsiniz.

  36. astudent says:


    In english you said – If you really do it to prove a god, even within science itself proves that you’re not even aware of.

    Isn’t all science done to prove something or some concept that one has?

    Stick to the claim and do not attack the reason.

  37. Holy G says:

    I see truth as simple logic.

    1) The universe began.
    2) Did it arise through mere chance? Or from something outside of time.
    3) Logic says God 100%

    As for religion, my beliefs are highly on Christianity.

    Reasons why:

    Jesus Christ showed what it was like to be righteous,humble, Holy.
    He was born in Nazareth,its a city so small u cant find it on a map.
    He was a carpenter with no education yet spoke words of truth, gave us insight like never Before and had a very IQ for a man without education,especially back in those times. How can you explain such a thing?

    In the eastern world everything derives from your location of birth, being that Christ was born in the smallest city he humbles us all to show us he has better credentials for us.Its not about pride. In heaven we will all be righteous 100% and understand one day.

    Aside from that, for a man to claim to be god, speak words of such authority, willing to die for it…..How much simpler can it get?

    On top of the fact that He shows he unconditional love for us by dying for us. Love is the realest feeling nor can it be seen but it can be felt. I personally have been a christian with the holy spirit for so long i have felt God and once too was a skeptic looking for truth.

    When you compare Christianity to other religions you realize it is not a religion but a relationship with Christ.

    The Quran is false because Mohammed says he does not even know where he is going when he dies.

    Religions have principles to meet. Relationship expresses Love .
    Only the bible gives us a purpose for our life. Without infinite knowledge one cannot claim God is not true. The prophecies are overwhelming evidence as well. How do you explain BC and AD. Christ lived and spoke truth.

    I was once into the laws of the universe, realizing the order of the laws are too great to come by mere chance as well. Sometime the most complex things are the simplest,like water. The sun and moon. You call that chance,i call it creation.

  38. astudent says:

    Holy G,

    You said much and I couldn’t have said it better.

  39. G says:

    Excellent Blog i am hopping on this website more often,thanks.

  40. Micheal says:


  41. Nihilist says:

    I have read through your entire article and all the comments.

    Why does belief in God matter?

    Be there no God or a God, the universe is here, so what bearing does His existence have upon our lives?

    I also see liberal egalitarian ideals being spewed all over here and some hedonism too. You all assume that death and suffering and conflict is to be avoided.

    Somehow a religion which promotes lover & tolerance, turning the other cheek, submission, and so on is a more righteous than one which promotes pride, retribution, killing, honour, defiance, etc.? Seems to me that Christianity is a slave religion.

    Why should we not suffer and die? Why should killing others matter? Their souls are being set free are they not, to join Him in Heaven to live their lives in Eternal Bliss? Something like that I think.

    I do not believe in morality. I am amoral. I construct a baseless morality to live by and to subject others to if I so chose. I can’t argue that I am right, but I do not accept other moral systems as valid either.

    I do not understand how you can believe in Christianity and yet be so adverse to pain, suffering, and death. Why not embrace it and spread it everywhere? Why not bring about the apocalypse?

    I really wish to know, you probably haven’t encountered someone like me yet, but I rarely see someone like you either. How do you derive your morality and justify it to others? Why do you have a problem with death?

    Do you believe in a duality of afterlifes, one that is hell, and one that is heaven? Which would you rather be and why? What is “heaven” and what is “hell”?

    Do you believe in purgatory?

    What is the connection between god as an originator of the universe (genesis), the afterlife, and how mortals should live their lives?

  42. astudent says:


    Those are all good questions and I have asked God and myself all of them. Therefore, I think that I can answer them. However, you must understand that they are my answers, though I firmly believe God gave them to me.

    All that I know and all that I understand about God comes from the Bible.

    With even a vague understanding one can see, from His Word that everything was made by Him and there is a purpose for everything.

    He did not just make every thing and then go away. Basically I would say, no not I, but the Bible says, that God is love; love needs someone else to love. He had to make someone else, because before He did, there was only Him.

    No one wants to love someone that does not love them and it is not possible to make someone love you if they do not want to.

    There will come a time when those who do not want to live with God, because they do not love Him, that God will grant their wish. You do not want to be among them and that is why God is important.

    You are correct, Christianity is a slave religion! How bad could it be, to be the slave of a Master that is all knowing, all-powerful, and that loves His slaves? What do I have to fear from such a master? Perhaps He will give me so much that I will not be able to stand it! Well, because He is all-powerful, I know that He would grant me the power to stand it.

    If anyone is a true Christian, they will obey the two basic commands. I say commands; however, they are really rules to live by. The second one answers many of your questions and it is “Do to others, as you would have them do to you”

    That rule, if everyone would apply it would grant all of this world peace. There would be no murder, thievery, or any other crime. I don’t want anyone to steal from me, so I will not steal.

    You say, ” I construct a baseless morality to live by and to subject others to if I so chose”, but you would be the first to cry foul if and when someone subjects you to their form of morality. Your tune would surly change.

    I on the other hand, will subject no man to my morality. If God doesn’t stop sin, then surely He does not want me to. All He asks is that I warn others, so consider yourself warned.

    Who is it that isn’t adverse to pain, suffering and death? You could and should call me a nut if I wanted any of that for myself, or anyone else.
    I would do nothing to bring about the apocalypse. God will come when He chooses and nothing I can do will change His mind. I would not try, after all He is God; I am not.

    Why yes, I have encountered many like you. You are just another unbeliever. There is nothing special about that. In your own mind, you believe that you have all of the answers, but you have not asked yourself all of the questions.

    I derive my morality from the Bible and my morality is only logical. It is based on the second royal command. Is it not clear that there would be no crime if we all obeyed it?

    To quote Woody Allen, “I am not afraid of death; I just don’t want to be there when it happens”. Actually, I am not afraid of death, because though I will die a physical death, I will then go to be with God and He has promised me eternal life along with eternal joy.

    Heaven is a place that all Christians will live with God and Hell is a place where everyone else will go to live without God. Think about having to live with all of the murderers, thieves, rapists etc. Could you ever relax? Wouldn’t you always be afraid to turn your back on anyone? The thing that would haunt you forever is that you did not have to be there. You could have been with God, but you refused to consider Him.

    Purgatory is not in the Bible, therefore I do not believe in purgatory.

    I believe that I have already answered your last question/questions. That is if you think about what I said.

  43. Nihilist says:

    You say “Do to others, as you would have them do to you”.

    What if you have no love for yourself, are a masochist, and have a death wish? I don’t think such a mentality is uncommon. I feel the golden rule fails there then, for not everything you would want done to yourself, would be things that others want you to do to them necessarily.

    Consider the Norsemen who wanted to die in battle, to be granted a warrior’s death. If they are to follow the golden rule then for them the most reasonable thing to do is go to war, fight fiercely, and slay as many of their enemies as possible.

    When one is depressed and world-weary, they may be waiting for someone or something to come along and finish them off. In such a mindset why hold back on killing others?

    If they detest and hate them self, perhaps due to years of abuse or having a guilty conscious or whatever other cause, they may wish pain and suffering upon themselves to atone for their past or because they feel they deserve it. There brain can also just be wired wrong such that they enjoy pain or don’t really feel pain.

    This one might seem like a silly example but its also applicable to the golden rule: what if you have too many things and you fantasize that someone would come along and steal all the stuff you don’t want and in so doing help clear up the clutter in your home or business? It would seem then that the thing to do for others is to also steal stuff from them when their places are cluttered with too many things.

    One reversed example would be assisted suicide. Maybe you yourself don’t want to die, but someone else does because their body is crippled, they are in terrible pain, and they just want you to end their suffering and let their soul free. If you wouldn’t want to die even in such a state then you are to let them continue suffering (and probably dying a drawn-out painful death). Yet this would not be in accordance with their wishes, only your own.

    Yet another example: Maybe you would want someone to have children with you. So following the golden rule the right thing to do is to mate with them, because that’s what you’d have them do to you. Problem is they may not want you to mate with them even if you would want them to mate with you, so you have a case of rape.

    I see no end to problems with the golden rule. There are things that others might want you to do to them, which you wouldn’t want done to yourself, and there are things that you might want done to yourself, that others would not want done to them.

    I don’t think that the golden rule would bring about “world peace” and an end to thievery and crime. I feel that such a state of affairs if they were achieved by some freak accident could only be temporary at best for numerous reasons and that the longer you have a peace, the greater the cataclysm or war to come.

    What do you think of the following: There is no profound joy where none have suffered deeply, no appreciation for rest where none have been weary, and no lasting love without despair? Does that make you wonder if escaping the balance in life would not lead to regression?

  44. astudent says:


    A masochist would not even think about practicing his or her sickness on others. Therefore he or she has no reason to apply the Golden Rule to it. The rule is not a command to do something to others. It is a rule to apply when you consider doing something to others. A masochist needs a sadist and vice versa. Neither are obeying the Golden Rule and both are wrong in the sight of God. The masochist is not doing to the sadist as he would have the sadist do to him and the same is true of the sadist. If everyone would practice the Second Greatest commandment, masochists would not be able to find anyone to abuse them, nor would a sadist abuse anyone.

    A Norseman that wanted to be a great warrior, wanted to win battles, not die. Dying in battle was his ideal only if he lost and he did not want to lose. A warrior’s job is killing the enemy and because of that he cannot apply the Golden Rule to the enemy. However “if” everyone would apply the Golden Rule there would be no wars and no need of soldiers. It doesn’t nullify the rule. It emphasizes the need to obey it.

    I would hold back killing someone for “any” reason that they think it right for me to kill them. Have you never thought that the person might change their mind? Haven’t you ever been depressed? Are you now? Sometimes just a little sleep will impart a whole new attitude to someone.

    All of your examples are silly. Perhaps if someone would break in and steal your possessions, then you might understand how silly your words are.

    Assisted suicide is the same as someone wanting to be killed: just said a different way. I already answered that. Someone commits suicide and the next day someone finds a cure.

    It is not just my wish, but God’s wish that they remain alive. By the way are you admitting that we have a soul to free?

    Again the Golden Rule is not a command to do something wrong to another person just because you want to have sex with them. You are just making up situations that you think God will not give me answers to. Your tune would surly change if you were thrown into prison and three or four big men decided they wanted to have sex with you.

    You see no end to problems with the Golden Rule, because you are doing your very best to try to see problems. You cite silly examples, because your quest is silly.

    There can be no doubt that if everyone would practice the Golden Rule that all thievery and crime would stop. The reason we have crime is everyone is free to make up their own mind, if they want to obey God, or not obey God. When they choose not to obey, crime is the result.

    What do I think of your last paragraph? Hate is the opposite of love: not despair. Anything is possible with God. Though the words make sense when only viewed from a worldly perspective, God can give profound joy without suffering, and the ability not to become weary (Isa 40:29-31). God “is” love and never had, or will have any despair. Sin is a travesty, not a balance.

    Nihilism – noun – 1. Philosophy. a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence. b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. 2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief. 3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement. 4. Also Nihilism. A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination. 5. Psychiatry. A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one’s mind, body, or self does not exist

    If you are really a nihilist then who are you talking to: according to you I do not exist!

    Test the claim that comes from your name. Rise from where you are, go to the nearest door, open it and place you left hand on the doorjamb, just above the lock. Now, using your right hand, slam the door as hard as you can. Now, if you still believe in nothing, then what the heck is hurting?

  45. Nihilist says:

    Do you consider the case of sadomasochists who both wish to inflict and receive pain?

    A Norseman would have wanted to slay many enemies but he wouldn’t have wanted to die a natural death.

    Yes, I am deeply depressed. I don’t see why others should be denied death if they are ready to accept it in the moment. Even if they are to change their minds in the future it doesn’t matter.

    I wouldn’t want my possessions stolen for the most part. They could help clear out some things which would just be donated anyways though.

    Why would God wish that we live and yet make us mortal? It appears to me that he intended for death to claim us all at some point. Why delay the inevitable?

    I consider the soul to be the one thing which sets us apart from philosophical zombies. I don’t say for certain if there is anyone besides me that has a soul though. I also do not know that my or any other supposed souls can truly be set free or how this would work.

    The pursuit of sex in and of itself is not something which concerns me. I do not wish to rape anyone or to be raped and I don’t think prison rape in particular is anything to joke about or threaten. I do not care about sex beyond procreation and do not and have not ever engaged in sexual acts for pleasure or otherwise. I don’t want to declare myself asexual but by today’s standards I might as well be. I have a disdain for hedonism and sexual self-gratification.

    It is not hard at all for me to see problems with the golden rule. I just right away thought that not everything I would do to others (even things which they may take as kind, things they want me to do to them) would I want done to myself.

    Your idea about eternal bliss sounds awful to me, like being tortured to death by tickles or other such methods of using pleasure to inflict suffering. I can not imagine not growing weary and eternal happiness.

    Your definition of nihilism is indeed what I believe in. I however see nihilism as an affliction, a disease of the mind, something which should be destroyed. I do not believe that nihilism will bring about any improvement to the future at all.

    Causing pain to my self doesn’t matter. I’m not sure why you want me to do it in that particular way you describe. Tell me though, what is hurting? Is pain an illusion of the mind? Is the pain in my body? Where does that sensation come fourth from and to? What does pain tell me about existence?

    Nihilism is a bottomless pit of despair nothing good comes out of. The infinite doubt, the amorality, the consequences it has for society, the purposelessness, listlessness; everything about it sickening.

    I only venture to engage you in discussion because you seem to be someone who hasn’t been infected yet by nihilism, someone who might lead me away from it. Everywhere else I only encounter this nihilistic disease.

    I hope that you change me and not that I change you.

  46. astudent says:


    Please forgive my late response. I find it rather hard to converse with someone so silly: that is I would if anyone that was so silly really existed. However if anyone were really that silly they would probably claim that they did not really exist! You know, like a nihilist.

    I had not considered the sickness of sadomasochists. If they practiced their particular sickness just between themselves, then no one else would be hurt. So they would not sin against man, however they would be guilty of sin against God. It is not God’s plan that we hurt each other. He didn’t make us that way. It is a man’s plan to do what ever pleases him, regardless of what happens to God or anyone else.

    You know nothing about warriors. A warrior only wants to win battles and if the enemy slays him then he lost the battle. The only logical end is to never lose and the result for a successful warrior is to die very old, from natural causes; waiting on the next battle.

    You cannot be depressed! As a nihilist you do not exist and therefore you can neither be happy, or sad, or depressed, or wise, or stupid, or anything: you are just nothing.

    You have no possessions! You are a nihilist! Possessions do not exist! There is nothing to possess.

    If you existed you would understand that God gave you permanent life. After this phase of life you will go on to live forever and if you do not search for truth, with truth, then you will spend eternity out of the presence of God. You will spend eternity hating yourself and going over and over the silly statements that you have made on this blog, as well as other places. It will not bring any joy to me, but at the same time it will not take any of my joy. God has promised me eternal joy and your plight will probably not even cross my mind. After all, how could anyone that does not exist brother me?

    How could you have a soul if you do not exist? Are you a nihilist or are you a liar? Perhaps you are just confused, or maybe not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    You said,” I just right away thought that not everything I would do to others (even things which they may take as kind, things they want me to do to them) would I want done to myself.” If you could understand, that is the point. It is quite obvious that you cannot understand!

    You cannot cause pain to yourself, because you do not exist.

    You cannot engage me in discussion, because you are a nihilist and you do not exist.

    By the way, one who claims to be a nihilist would have to believe that nihilism exists. Because nihilism is the belief that nothing exists then nihilism itself cannot exist.

    Perhaps you are a nihilist of convenience, like all those who would call themselves nihilist. (Jude 1:14-19 NIV) ”Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.”
    That is what the God that you claim that you do not believe in said about you almost two thousands years ago.

    If I continued to try to discuss anything with something that did not exist, I would be as nuts as you: provided that you are lying and you really do believe that you and I exist. However, if you do not exist then you can neither be sane or insane: just nothing: certainly nothing special.

    I cannot change anyone that does not want to be changed. You do not exist, therefore you cannot change me. Change is the individual’s responsibility, not someone else’s.

    This is very funny to me. I do not have to worry about hurting your feelings, because as a nihilist you do not exist and therefore you have none. So when I say that you are dumber than a box of rocks, and anything that does not exists cannot have any intelligence, then not only am I correct, but I am not violating the second Royal Law. But then looking at the situation from another angle, if I was dumber than a box of rocks, I would want someone to tell me. So I would not violate the second Royal Law either way.

    Actually, I would rather that you did not exist. That would be infinitely better than existing and having to spend eternity in Hell. I would not wish that on anyone.

    See ya. Well, that is if I could!

  47. Stephen says:

    1: Nothing comes nothing, something comes from something. You can’t have mass unless something was there already. What that means is something must have existed all the time. The fact that there is matter proves that matter must have always existed. This matter/ energy we would call God.

    2. Biology: Life gives birth to life, dead stuff doesn’t. Which means that life must have always existed. This matter/energy was always living.

    3. DNA: DNA can only exist if there are cells and enzymes that can cut and paste DNA otherwise the life form can’t exist. However you have to have DNA in order for these cells and enzymes to exist! So how do these two different things, that need each other to exist, come about at the same time unless something made it happen? This would be God.

    4. DNA information comes from more information. Meaning that something with greater knowledge sends out some knowledge. DNA is information. My point: something in the beginning must have great information. So this matter/energy was intelligent.

    5 DNA corrupts over time. Meaning that all life will become extinct in the future. My point, In the beginning DNA had to be perfect without defect and so after time became corrupted. So this matter/energy had to be perfect.

    6 Scientist studying the mitochondria have come up with the conclusion that all human beings came from four women in Africa and possibly just one woman. Thus backing up the Bible. Before Adam and Eve and the idea that the whole human race came from just this couple was a joke. Its not anymore!

    It is clear that the evidence tells us there has to be a creator! God.

  48. astudent says:

    Well said

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: