Theism

If we are willing to accept the Bible & the Quran as containing truth, then we know the answer to "where did we come from?" According to the ancient scriptures, we were created by God. So the next question is…why? After all, He’s God, and as such, He certainly doesn't need us for anything -- so why did He create us? Who is God really? What does He see in us, really? Check out some of the following for some answers…
All About Worldview: What issues shape your worldview and outlook on life? How do you view these issues and topics of interest in the world today?
All About GOD: The Christian community for seekers, skeptics, and believers.
Guardian Angels: Do we have God’s messengers following us around and protecting us from danger? Find out here.
Attributes of God: Click here to find out how the talent of the world’s most revered people matches up with the qualities found in God.
Where Is God?: The ultimate question of life and eternity. How can we know God exists? How can we relate to Him?
Who Is God?: Why does God refer to Himself in parental terms? Is He also mother nature? What does the Bible say?
Garden Of Eden: What are the ancient roots of this biblical story? Bible story or Bble truth?
Original Sin: A genetic defect we all share. The reason we are separated from God. The justification for redemption through Jesus Christ.
Names Of God: The Hebrew names for God express His never-changing character, nature and attributes.
Absolute Truth: Is morality relative to our time and culture or is it based on a universal standard for all of us?
Situational Ethics: Joseph Fletcher and his model of ethics. All decisions should be based on love. The model contradicts God's Law.
Why Are We Here?: What does God want for our lives? What's the end result of everything?
God's Love: Discover the premier and ultimate example of loving-kindness by studying God’s sacrifice of His Son. Jesus Christ.
God Is Love: God's meaning and expression of this term is much different than our 21st century understanding.
Holy Spirit: More than an ethereal life force, He is one of the three persons of God. A difficult concept simply explained.
Problem Of Evil: Why would God allow pain and suffering in a "very good" world? Check out the reasons here.
Love Of God: What is true, perfect and holy love? How can we describe the perfect love of God?
Meaning Of Life: Discover what it's all about. Examine the most intriguing answers to life's most difficult questions.
God: A look at how God reveals Himself through the Bible. His Word defines His nature.

Philosophical Worldviews

Using standard cultural labels, it seems we’re all becoming materialist, naturalist, relativist, humanist, hedonists that seem to think we have it pretty well together. Metaphysical thought is for philosophers and theologians. “Religion” is OK for those who need a crutch to limp through a difficult life. Well, philosophical truth is actually right below the surface… Check it out…
My Worldview: I didn't need any kind of supernatural notion of "absolute truth" or morality to adhere to common sense principles.
Metaphysics: Huge implications! A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.
Moral Relativism: The terms and definitions underlying this world-wide predisposition to pluralism.
Naturalism: Matter acting on matter for a sufficient period of time can create anything. Can it?
All About Philosophy: Have you experienced a rational investigation of truth? Are you on a quest for truth? Do you know the meaning of life?
Why Am I Here?: Discover the answer to this basic question or life. Learn the difference between an atheistic worldview and a theistic worldview.
Adam And Eve: The biblical record speaks for itself. What does today's world believe about our origins?
Polytheism: Many natural functions, many gods to explain them. A look at the ancient belief systems and their impact today.
Materialism: What are the terms and definitions underlying this popular world-view?
Does God Exist: What are the philosophical viewpoints of this ultimate question? Discover the facts and decide for yourself.
Moral Ethics: How do we make moral decisions? Is it a question of relativity? Or is it a question of absolute truth?
Roman Gods: The deities of ancient Rome. A summary of their names and functions.
Critical Thinking 101: We aren’t thinking anymore! We aren’t even asking the basic life questions anymore. We’re passive creatures, sponging-up pop media.
God: Does He exist? Is He necessary or merely convenient? He is revealed in the concept and design inherent in all things!
Egyptian Gods: A historical snapshot of ancient Egypt and its religious beliefs.
Is God Real?: How close can we get to actually proving the existence of God?
Cultural Relativism: Can notions of ethics and morality truly be viewed through different lenses?
Agnostic: The term is used everywhere today. What's it really mean?
Secular Humanism: Excluding God from schools and society. The Humanist Manifesto. Theory of Evolution. Atheist philosophy and doctrine. The religion of humanism.
Gods And Goddesses: The deities that formed the mythological backbone of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.
Morality: Where did our system of moral conduct come from? Did it evolve? Was it learned? Or was it perfectly designed?
Cultural Materialism: A view of the world attached to communism. Read more here.
Is There A God?: What's the latest in scientific and philosophical arguments for God's existence?
Greek Gods: An examination of the mythological roots of ancient Greece.
Cosmological Argument: Research the philosophical argument brought forward by Kalam/Muslim philosophers in the middle ages. Discover the three premises.
Dualism: Is the mind limited to the physical brain? Consider the philosophy of dualism and see how it stacks up to the facts.
Deism: How does Deism line up with the Bible’s teaching? Study passages and the evidence here.
Philosophy Of Life: My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads (Antony Flew).
Humanism: The history of Humanism and it's manifesto. What are the implications of a humanistic outlook? Does God exist? Explore now.
Communism: Marx, Engels and The Communist Manifesto. The economic and political philosophy. The atheistic and amoral reality. A costly experiment for society.
Realism And Naturalism: My biggest barrier to any kind of religious faith was 20th century science and technology - natural processes and wonderful chance.
Atheism: Is this a philosophical belief or an actual religion?
All About History: The world has been shaped through the historical events of the past. How have these events influenced our future?

Fossil Record - Are there "Transitional" Forms?

Let's start by looking at a few more of Darwin's very honest statements:
Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? 1 But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? 2 Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. 3 Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. 4Since Darwin put forth his original theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of evolutionary transition found thus far in the fossil record. In Darwin's own words, if his theory of "macro-evolution" were true, we would see a vast number of fossils at intermediate stages of biological development. In fact, based on standard mathematical models, we would see far more transitional forms in the fossil record than complete specimens. However, we see none -- not one true transitional specimen has ever been found. Our museums now contain hundreds of millions of fossil specimens (40 million alone are contained in the Smithsonian Natural History Museum). If Darwin's theory were true, we should see at least tens of millions of unquestionable transitional forms. We see none. Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." 5 He continues:
The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. 7Wait. I need to tighten this down! Are there some transitional fossils, or none? If Gould uses phrases like "extreme rarity" and "most species exhibit no directional change" when referring to the fossil record, that must mean that there are at least some transitional specimens. Right?

Microscopic Organisms - The Miracle of "Simplicity"

If the first, simple, microscopic organisms created in prebiotic rock soup are at the foundation of today's evolutionary thinking, then what is a "simple" microscopic organism? Is there such a thing? Wouldn't any organism -- even the first one -- have to synthesize fuel, generate energy, reproduce its kind, etc.? Therefore, what's considered "simple"? I guess a fertilized human egg at the moment of conception looks like a simple, single-celled blob no bigger than a pinhead. However, we now know that amorphous blob contains information equivalent to 6 billion "chemical letters" -- enough complex code to fill 1,000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small that it would take a microscope to read it.1 Through the marvel of DNA, every single human trait is established at the moment of conception. Within hours, that single cell starts reproducing and grows a cilia propulsion system to move the fertilized egg (now called a "zygote") towards the uterus. Within six days, the original cell (now called an "embryo") has reproduced its library of information over 100 times. Ultimately, that original blob of gelatin will divide into the 30 trillion cells that make up the human body. At that point, if all the DNA chemical "letters" were printed in books, it's estimated those books would fill the Grand Canyon -- fifty times! 2 OK, I don't see anything "simple" there… But that's a human egg, not a simple, self-existing, biological entity. Let's get back on track and look at a simple organism that exists in nature… How about a "simple" bacterium? No, let's just look at one part of a "simple" bacterium -- its motility mechanism… The so-called "bacterial flagellum" is what propels a bacterium through its microscopic world. The bacterial flagellum consists of about 40 different protein parts, including a stator, rotor, drive shaft, U-joint, and propeller. Through 21st century magnification technology, we now understand that a simple bacterium has a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times using electron micrographs. These microscopic motors can run at 100,000 rpm. Nevertheless, they can stop on a microscopic dime. In fact, it takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift gears and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the other direction! The flagellar motor is water-cooled and hardwired into a sensory mechanism that allows the bacterium to get feedback from its environment! 3 This blows my mind! How does it compare with an outboard motor I'm familiar with? Was the mechanical motor designed and then manufactured according to engineered specifications? Of course! Now, make that same outboard motor one thousand times more efficient and miniaturize it by a factor containing many zeros. The complexity is staggering! Even with 21st century technology, we'll never be able to create a micro-machine like this.

Cell Structure

The Complexity of the "Simple" CellEach person begins as a single cell -- a cell structure formed by the joining of the mother's egg and the father's sperm. That single cell contains the digital code to make thousands of other kinds of cells, from fat cells to bone cells -- from brain cells to lung cells. There are muscle cells, skin cells, vein cells, capillary cells and blood cells… Ultimately, from that one original cell, the human body will have something like 30 trillion cells conducting an orchestra of different functions. In the first half of this century, scientists still assumed that the cell was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. Without electron microscopes and other technology, the cell was treated as a "black box" that mysteriously performed its various functions -- an unobservable collection of "gelatin" molecules whose inner workings were unknown. Through the marvels of 21st century technology, scientists now understand the following:
Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.1Each microscopic cell is as functionally complex as a small city. When magnified 50,000 times through electron micrographs, we see that a cell is made up of multiple complex structures, each with a different role in the cell's operation. Using the city comparison, here's a simple chart that reveals the awesome intricacy and design of a typical cell:

As we delve further into the cellular world, technology is revealing black boxes within previous black boxes. As science advances, more of these black boxes are being opened, exposing an "unanticipated Lilliputian world" of enormous complexity that has pushed the theory of evolution to a breaking point. 2 Wow! That's at the cellular level. If the cell is that complex, what about the simplest organisms made up of these cellular structures? Is there really such a thing as "simple," now that we can view organisms using the latest in microbiological and biochemical technology?

DNA Molecule - the Impossibility of Information

The DNA molecule is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 19531, DNA is the famous storehouse of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until mid-2001, that the "Human Genome Project" and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that the DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill an entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double-stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. Each strand is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in pairs. The four bases that make up the stairs in the spiraling staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These stairs act as the "letters" in the genetic alphabet, combining into complex sequences to form the words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and functioning of the host cell. Maybe even more appropriately, the A, T, C, and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell. The DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex. Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather, a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function. Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing hundreds of zeros. We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose randomly is to say that information can develop randomly. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural material processes over millions of years. However, explaining the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted using those materials. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message itself. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature and design" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Although I'm not a scientist, logic tells me that the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule. Does this science stuff make sense? Am I correctly interpreting the awesome complexity of the DNA molecule that we only recently started to understand? It seems to me that anyone who goes out and truly investigates the miracle of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- has to be equally awe struck!
It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10-16 grams. It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man.2With the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule over the last few decades, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and, like today's most complex software codes, such information cannot be created or interpreted without some kind of "intelligence." For me, truly understanding the scientific reality of the DNA molecule single-handedly defeated my life-long presupposition that life arose from non-life through random materialistic forces. Even with trillions of years, the development of DNA is statistically impossible. But, hey, let's dig in further... If DNA is the information storehouse that acts as the blueprint for cellular development, what do these functional cells look like? Are they really all that complex?

Critical Thinking 101

Sometimes it takes a simple thought -- Critical Thinking 101 -- to shake the foundation of an entire thought system… It was during a youth sports camp in late 1999 that I had an effortless epiphany. "Make sure your kids drink plenty of water," we were told. "Hydration, hydration, hydration -- that's the key." "No problem," I thought. "Everyone knows this basic principle of nutritional science." Then it hit me... When I was playing sports as a kid, water was treated merely as a reward. Even if we got a moment at the drinking fountain, the coaches would monitor our time so we didn't drink too much. "You'll get a stitch in your side!" they said. In fact, at half time, we only got orange slices, because fluids would "cramp us up and slow us down." Then, I remembered my father's experience with sports as a kid. During his generation, athletes actually took salt tablets -- sometimes in large amounts. Coaches actually viewed hydration during a game as taboo. Ka-zip (or whatever it sounds like when a shutter clicks on a camera)! I had one of those "picture-moment" experiences, where a truth comes into focus and sticks with you forever... Science isn't static. Science changes over time. The observable evidence doesn't change, but the scientific understanding of that evidence does… In my straightforward illustration, three generations of athletes faced three different views of nutritional science. The observable evidence regarding water and the human body didn't change, but the scientific presentation (and especially, the public perception) of that evidence advanced at least three times over a few decades. For some reason, this simple thought challenged me. For some reason, this inconsequential moment in my life opened a floodgate of far-reaching questions. I needed to look at the observable evidence again. It was time to start examining my decades-old presuppositions about science, nature and technology. I decided to go back to the big picture basics of the world around me... I started to read and study...

When it comes to the origin of the universe, the "Big Bang Theory" and its related Inflation Universe Theories (IUTs) are today's dominant scientific conjectures. According to these interrelated notions, the universe was created between 13 and 20 billion years ago from the random, cosmic explosion (or expansion) of a subatomic ball that hurled space, time, matter and energy in all directions. Everything - the whole universe -- came from an initial speck of infinite density (also known as a "singularity"). This speck (existing outside of space and time) appeared from no where, for no reason, only to explode (start expanding) all of a sudden. Over a period of approximately 10 billion years, this newly created space, time, matter and energy evolved into remarkably-designed and fully-functional stars, galaxies and planets, including our earth. Here's what the experts are saying about the origin of the universe: NASA: "The universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."(http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html) UC Berkeley: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."(http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html) University of Michigan: "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other."http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm) PBS: There was an "initial explosion" of a "primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe."(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html) American Association for the Advancement of Science: "In the last fifty years a great deal of evidence has accumulated in support of a "consensus" theory of the evolution of the universe. The theory holds that a "big bang" precipitated a huge split-second inflation of the universe, followed by a gradual expansion that continues to this day and is now accelerating."(http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar/011603cyclicuniversesummary.pdf) All sounds familiar - I'll move on… When it comes to the origin of the universe, the "Big Bang Theory" and its related Inflation Universe Theories (IUTs) are today's dominant scientific conjectures. According to these interrelated notions, the universe was created between 13 and 20 billion years ago from the random, cosmic explosion (or expansion) of a subatomic ball that hurled space, time, matter and energy in all directions. Everything - the whole universe -- came from an initial speck of infinite density (also known as a "singularity"). This speck (existing outside of space and time) appeared from no where, for no reason, only to explode (start expanding) all of a sudden. Over a period of approximately 10 billion years, this newly created space, time, matter and energy evolved into remarkably-designed and fully-functional stars, galaxies and planets, including our earth. Here's what the experts are saying about the origin of the universe: NASA: "The universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."(http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html) UC Berkeley: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."(http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html) University of Michigan: "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other."http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm) PBS: There was an "initial explosion" of a "primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe."(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html) American Association for the Advancement of Science: "In the last fifty years a great deal of evidence has accumulated in support of a "consensus" theory of the evolution of the universe. The theory holds that a "big bang" precipitated a huge split-second inflation of the universe, followed by a gradual expansion that continues to this day and is now accelerating."(http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar/011603cyclicuniversesummary.pdf) All sounds familiar - I'll move on…

Origin of Life - What's the latest theory?When it comes to the origin of life, "evolutionary theory" is still the foundation of today's scientific worldview. By and large, the text books teach that organic life sprung from non-organic matter exclusively through a natural mechanistic process on a pre-biotic earth. That original life form then evolved into more complex life forms through a natural process of random mutations and natural selection. In a nutshell, the majority scientific hypothesis is that matter randomly acting on matter for a long period of time created everything we see. That's pretty much what I remember - no real change there... Wait! My skeptical mind started churning... How can nothing explode? Where did all that matter and energy come from? What caused its release? How did this explosion of everything (from nothing) order itself? How can simplicity become complexity? Where did the chemical elements come from? Where did the mathematical laws and physical properties come from? How do we explain the design, complexity and fine-tuning inherent in spiral galaxies, solar systems, and stars? How did life come from a rock? How did a bird come from a lizard? Why don't we see birds come from lizards today? Why are there no transitional fossils in our museums today? Why have we never observed beneficial mutations? Where did the information code in DNA come from? Where did the language convention that interprets DNA come from? How can we explain the random development of the human eye, reproductive system, digestive tract, brain, heart and lungs? What about the subconscious mind? What about love, morality, ethics, and emotions? Can these things really evolve gradually and randomly over time? Jeepers! What was happening to me? Literally, I was in a state of "stream-of-consciousness" skepticism. Everything I knew (and thought I knew) about the world around me didn't make sense any more. I couldn't go back! If I was going to be intellectually honest with myself, I couldn't retreat to my prior way of thinking... I had to go forward and personally look at the observable evidence... But, where to begin? By chance, a co-worker had collected a few of today's high school biology text books. I opened one on a lark, and was stunned by the first page I saw. There was the same evolutionary chart of species that I remembered from the wall of my high school classroom. It was a tree-like graphic with a bunch of simple life forms at the bottom, and a series of more complex creatures towards the top. I always thought that was a reasonable presentation, but now my skeptical mind was whirring... Regardless of any theoretical problems with the tree itself, what about all the evolutionary processes required to get to the first simple life forms at the bottom of the chart in the first place?


Theory of Evolution - How does it really work?The theory of evolution as depicted through the evolutionary tree in my high school classroom only dealt with the macro-evolutionary chain between organic creatures. Through my quick study, I found at least five other fundamental stages of evolution that would be required prior to any possibility of organic life. In fact, each stage seemed essential to the next in the overall theory... The first is "Cosmic Evolution" - the idea that space, time, matter and energy somehow "exploded" (or expanded) from essentially nothing in the sudden "big bang" that was the birth of our universe. The second stage is "Stellar Evolution." Since the big bang is thought to have produced only Hydrogen, Helium and a variety of subatomic particles, these elements must have somehow condensed into stars through some sort of evolutionary process. The third stage is "Chemical Evolution." According to general thought, the only chemical elements produced by the Big Bang were Hydrogen and Helium (and possibly Lithium). As a result of the incredible heat and pressure within stars, these original elements somehow evolved into the other 88 naturally occurring chemical elements we observe today. The fourth stage is "Planetary Evolution." The complex chemical elements thought to have evolved within ancient stars were somehow ejected, possibly at the violent deaths of stellar life cycles, releasing great clouds of swirling compounds. These clouds of chemical elements somehow formed finely-tuned solar systems, including our own. The fifth phase is "Organic Evolution" (also known as "spontaneous generation"). The theory is that the planet Earth began as a molten mass of matter a few billions years ago. It cooled off into solid, dry rock. Then, it rained on the rocks for millions of years, forming great oceans. Eventually, this "prebiotic rock soup" (water + rock) came alive and spawned the first self-replicating organic systems. OK, now I had more questions than ever, but at least I made it to the base of the so-called evolution tree. This is where the sixth phase of general evolutionary theory occurs -- "Macro Evolution." All living creatures are thought to share a common ancestor: a relatively "simple" single-celled organism, which evolved from inorganic matter (so-called, "rock soup"). Essentially, the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers, are all genetically related. Oh, we need to add one more... The seventh and final stage of the theory is "Micro Evolution." Micro Evolution is the variation and variety of traits expressed in sexually compatible "kinds" of organisms. Examples include the differences between various kinds of horses, dogs, cats, etc. This "variation within a kind" is what Darwin observed in the mid-1800's, and what we still observe today... OK, let's recap... Evolutionary Theory appears to have seven distinct and interrelated phases, set by Science in the following order:
Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing. Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two. Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements. Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock). Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life. Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life. Interestingly, the science books and the television documentaries declare that only the 7th phase - Micro-Evolution -- has been observed and documented. The first six phases of evolution are merely assumed… But that's OK, isn't it logical to use Micro-Evolutionary observations to connect the dots on all the other required "phases of evolution"? Wait. Where did this come from in the first place? Did this really all start with Darwin? Is this all in Darwin's book? Did I even read that book? It seems everyone remembers reading Darwin's Origin of Species, but how many of us really have? Darwinian evolution was presented as such an established fact in my high school biology class, I guess there wasn't any reason to go back and read the original theoretical treatise... That was then -- this is now. I decided to read Darwin's book for myself...

God: God: God: God: God: God:

Validated by Scientific EndeavorIn an attempt to disprove the necessity of God, graduate student Stanley Miller performed the famous Miller-Urey "spark and soup" experiment in 1953. Miller based his experiment on observations made by Harold Urey in 1952 regarding necessary atmospheric conditions for Spontaneous Generation of the "building blocks" of life. The ironic result of Miller's work was the validation of the Creation argument. Urey demonstrated that the presupposed atmospheric conditions of primitive earth were lethal to the "building blocks" of life. Oxygen destroys amino acids. However, without oxygen to deflect UV light, UV destroys amino acids. Thus, life can't develop as a result of Spontaneous Generation with or without oxygen. Geology indicates oxygen has always been a part of earth's atmosphere (every layer of strata, including the lowest layers, consist of oxidized rock). Furthermore, Miller demonstrated that Spontaneous Generation creates material lethal to life's "building blocks." The Miller-Urey experiment produced 85% tar, which is poisonous to life. Actually, Miller's experiment only produced amino acid "building blocks" in very small amounts (approximately 1.9% of the total product), but they themselves were harmful to life due to their structural makeup. The principle of "chirality" requires that all amino acids in proteins be 'left-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, be 'right-handed'. Miller's experiment produced roughly equal amounts of left and right-handed material, thus establishing the mathematical absurdity of creating even the basic elements of life from a "spark and soup" process. Miller also demonstrated the necessity of information in his designed process. Miller performed the experiment twice, once under "natural" random conditions, and a second time using a manmade "trap" to keep the resultant amino acids from being zapped and destroyed by subsequent sparks. The first test, which represented "natural" random chance, produced no amino acids. Thus, science, even in an attempt to disprove God, further demonstrated the necessity for a Creator.
God: His AttributesSo what are the attributes of this Creator God? First of all, the Natural Law of Cause and Effect states that an effect is always less than its cause. If all of the energy in the universe came from God, it stands to reason that God is all-powerful (Omnipotent). If all the combined knowledge of mankind is the result of God, it's logical to propose that He is all-knowing (Omniscient). If everything we see originally came from an unseen God, it holds that He exists outside our physical dimensions (Transcendent). If all humans were created by God to be personal beings, then God must be a personal being Himself. So what does this Omnipotent, Omniscient, Transcendent, Personal, Creator God want from mankind? Surely, man was created for a reason. What is it that all personal beings want? The answer: a personal relationship with other personal beings.
God: His Purpose for CreationInterestingly, the Bible describes God as an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Transcendent, Personal Creator who wants a personal relationship with mankind. However, mankind is separated from God by sin, a result of His gift of freewill. Furthermore, the Bible tells us that there must be retribution for mankind's crimes against God -- the breaking of His Divine Law. But that's not fair. We did not create ourselves with this ability to sin. We should not have to pay the consequences. Well, what would be fair? If God paid the penalty for us? "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1 John 4:9-10). "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

God: God: God: God:

His Attributes Revealed in His Creation?Does God exist? If so, what are His attributes? Is He a God of Love? Is He an angry God? Is He passive and complacent? Has He revealed His demeanor at all? Saul of Tarsus, commonly known as Paul the Apostle, a first century theologian, wrote to the Christian Church at Rome, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). According to Paul, if we make an unbiased investigation of the world around us, we can determine God's existence and His attributes by merely observing the things of nature. In essence, by examining creation we can discover the Creator.
God: Necessity or Convenience?Is God necessary, or merely convenient? 20th century science successfully proved with certainty that the universe is not eternal -- that it did have a beginning. An eternal universe is contrary to our Natural Laws (laws that remain unbroken within the observable universe). Furthermore, beginning with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, science has determined that space and time are intertwined. So much so, in fact, that they are no longer separate concepts, but referred to as the "space-time continuum." Once upon a time, there was a time when there was no time. Thus, explaining our origins by pointing to the eternal existence of the universe is no longer a valid position. Now, there are only two options to answer the riddle of the existence of all things: Either Someone made the world, or else the world made itself. The first option is summed up by this formula: Matter + energy + information = concept and design (creation). The alternative is expressed by this formula: Matter + energy + time + random chance = complexity and apparent design (an incredible accident).
God: Concept & Design Revealed!Do we see God's handiwork? Over several millennia, mankind has developed an appreciation of the beauty and complexity of the universe. However, it wasn't until 1953, with the discovery of the structure of DNA molecule by James Watson and Francis Crick, that mankind finally began to understand the incredible design that permeates all life. Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of concept and design. Information Science tells us that concept and design can only result from a mind. Therefore, a Creator is the scientific default for all that we see. Unless mankind is able to identify a natural mechanism by which the universe could have created itself, a Creator is necessary.

Is there any proof that God exists?

Whenever this question comes up, I am always reminded of Thomas in the Bible who would not believe that Jesus was alive until he could touch Him. That is the same analogy many people use today when it comes to answering the question “Is there any proof that God exists?” They want physical proof for something that must be taken on faith value. It takes greater faith to believe that an unseen God exists than it does to just dismiss Him because you cannot physically confirm that He is there. For those who deal in evidence there is proof all around you and inside of you that God does exist. Is there any proof that God exists? Take a good look around. When most people look at the world around them, they see only the trees; they do not see the forest that is there. It should be obvious that God exists because of His creation, not only us humans, but the world we live in, the galaxy that world is in, and the universe that the galaxy is in. Our universe contains too much order for our existence to have been created out of chaos. We are complex beyond our imaginations and when you look at such a complexity, you see God and His creation. Is there any proof that God exists? Take a good look inside yourself. Most people fail to look inside themselves for God. Instead, they look to their surroundings and conclude that since the world is such a mess, God must not be there, if He ever existed at all. They forget that since God created us, we bear His fingerprints and those fingerprints point to His existence. First, we are all born with an innate knowledge of what is right and wrong. Even a young child knows that when they misbehave they are doing something that goes against their parents’ wishes. The knowledge of good and evil comes from God. It was put there to keep us in balance and to allow us to understand why we need to come to God for forgiveness. Second, we have a desire to seek love. Our whole life is spent trying to fill a gap that exists in our souls; a gap that only be filled by the love of God. No matter what we do to try and fill this gap -- money drugs, alcohol, sex, possessions -- the hole will never be filled until we turn back to God and accept His Son as our Savior and Lord. These are only two of the inward feelings that should tell us that we are more than just some random mistake of nature; that we are created, that a real God that created us, and that He is still there watching over us. Is there any proof that God exists? Take a good look at His Son, Jesus Christ. All we need to do is take a good look at the life of Jesus to see that He was a man, but more than a man, He was God. When was the last time you saw a man walk on water, calm a storm, or make a man rise from the dead? Even Jesus Himself conquered death and rose again to ascend to Heaven. Think about the impact that Jesus has had on this world from the very moment of His birth; the way His life, death and resurrection have shaped world history, changed lives, and healed souls. No mere man could do this so we must say as the Roman soldier did at His crucifixion, “Surely this is the Son of God.” Philosophy says that our existence is based on that which we perceive existence to be. It is even suggested that maybe we do not exist as we think we do here, but on a different plane of reasoning not yet known to us. As God’s creation, we know God is real; all we have to do is take a good look.

Has anyone ever seen God?

According to the accounts of the Bible And the Quran , no one has ever looked on God’s face, for God Himself says “But, you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exodus 33:20). It is not only for the sinful man that He says this but also for the believers in Jesus Christ. Moses asked this of God and God answered that He would show him His Glory. The Hebrew word for glory in this verse is ‘Kabowd’ meaning the culmination of God’s goodness and sovereignty. Can this Divine Spirit be seen as men see each other? Our eyes are not created to see the spiritual things of this world. Our bodies cannot withstand to behold the awesomeness of God. Surely the Creator who made the whole universe is beyond our ability to envision. Has anyone ever seen the Image of God? God has revealed Himself to many of the Old Testament characters but in diverse manifestations: Adam, Gen 3:8-21; Jacob, at Bethel in Genesis 35:7, 9; Abraham, Gen 18:2-33; Israel in Judges 2:1-5; Gideon in Judges 6:11-24; Solomon in 1 Kings 3:5, Isaiah 6:1-5, Ezekiel 1:26-28. In Numbers 12:8, God speaks of Moses saying, “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord.” Moses saw God as much as he was able with earthly eyes. Paul states in the New Testament, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12, KJV). Our human limitations will be transformed when we enter the Kingdom of heaven if we believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Then, we shall see God.

How can we know if God exists?

Is it possible for a finite mind to know if God exists? There are three main arguments that theists (those who believe in God) use to demonstrate the existence of God. They are the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The Cosmological Argument This is an argument from creation to a Creator. The term comes from the Greek word, cosmos, meaning “universe.” The argument itself is dependent on the law of causality that says every finite thing is caused by something other than itself. The cosmological argument can be summarized as follows:
The universe had a beginning.
Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else.
Therefore the universe was caused by something else (a Creator).There is a wealth of scientific evidence supporting the first premise. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed, isolated system the amount of usable energy is continually decreasing. As a closed system, the universe started with a finite amount of usable energy, and it is running from order toward disorder. Since the universe still has usable energy remaining, it cannot be eternal, or it would have ran out of usable energy long ago. Astronomy has given much evidence that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang Theory posits that the universe exploded into existence and is now expanding. This idea is supported by the Doppler “red shift” observed in light throughout the universe as galaxies move away from one another. A radiation echo that produced the exact pattern of wavelengths expected from a great explosion was also discovered. Additionally, astronomers have found a great mass of energy that would be expected from the initial explosion. As science continues to provide evidence that the universe had a beginning, we are left with two possibilities. Either no one created something out of nothing, or someone created something out of nothing. Which option is more reasonable? The Teleological Argument The term “teleological” comes from the Greek word, telos, meaning “purpose.” This argument reasons from design to an intelligent Designer. It can be stated as follows:
All designs imply a designer.
There is great design in the universe.
Therefore there must be a Great Designer of the universe.From our experience, we know that natural causes never produce specified complex systems, such as books, symphonies, or cars. We know that natural causes of wind and water produced the Grand Canyon, but we would never say that wind and water naturally produced Mount Rushmore. Watches imply a watchmaker, buildings imply an architect, and books imply an author. The design in these things is obvious, and we conclude a designer. Astronomer Carl Sagan wrote that the amount of information in the human brain expressed by the total number of neuron connections would be equivalent to 20 million books. He stated that “the neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy, the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans.” If even computers require a human designer, then does the human brain not need an even more intelligent designer? The Moral Argument The moral argument reasons from a moral law to a Moral Law Giver. The argument can be outlined:
Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver.
There is an objective moral law.
Therefore there is a Moral Law Giver.The second premise is the keystone in the argument, without which it falls apart. How do we know there is an objective moral law? Terms like “injustice” or “wrong” imply that there is some objective standard of comparison to which the terms refer. Without a moral standard, there would be no moral difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa. To say Hitler was wrong would merely be an opinion that has no real basis for others to agree with it. If Hitler was wrong by an objective standard, then there must be a standard beyond all of us. If there is such an objective moral law then there must be a Moral Law Giver (God). How Can We Really Know? Ultimately, these arguments will only convince someone who is willing to accept the possibility of God’s existence. To come to that place you have to examine your presuppositions, or what assumptions you have. When you are intellectually honest with yourself then you are ready to consider the evidence.

Is there evidence God exists?

The question of whether or not God exists has far reaching implications. If such a creator exists, new questions arise such as, ‘why did He create us?’ Because the discussion of these implications is entrenched in questionable ideology to most, the initial premise of God’s existence is dismissed out of hand. So the notion that there is no proof for God’s existence becomes prevalent in an ungodly society. Of course such a notion is mistaken. Philosophical arguments to prove God exists are woefully ignored. Consider Saint Thomas Aquinas’ argument on motion. Motion Exists. Motion can only be caused by other forms of motion. If you go back far enough you will find a primary unmoved mover. This is God. The Cosmological argument is another simple argument. We know that everything that exists has a cause related to its existence. We know that the universe exists. Because it is exists it must have an uncaused cause. The uncreated cause is God. Both of these arguments are dependant upon the universe having a beginning. If the universe is infinite, then a primary mover -- a creator -- has no place. However modern cosmology has determined the universe does have a beginning. The laws of thermodynamics have determined this. According to the second law of thermodynamics, we are running out of working energy. It’s obvious that things wear down. If the universe were infinite then we would have run out by now. The universe is drifting toward disorder. The question of how it became so remarkably ordered in the first place also points to God. As William Paley would suggest, if you see a rock on a beach you wouldn’t know how it got there. If you see a watch there you would know it has a designer because of the complexity and order of the watch. We can know God exists from the order and complexity of the universe. We can see remarkable order in physics. The law of gravity is perfectly fine-tuned to support the existence of life. The combinations of physical constants in our universe are perfectly set for the existence of life. Since an infinite number of combinations and values for the physical constants in our universe are plausible, we can safely assume someone set the conditions for life. And we know that it wasn’t aliens from the planet Zork from the 5th universe that set these conditions, as this would only transfer the problem to the planet Zork, who would require a cause. God is, by definition, that which is uncaused. Finally we find that human beings have an inward sense of morality. This presupposes an absolute value and standard to which we make comparisons, and this is God. This is how we apply natural law, and these values of right and wrong were written upon the hearts of men so that those who knew not the law were able to abide by the law. The one who wrote this knowledge of right and wrong on the hearts of men is God.

Does God Exist - The Big Questions Does God exist?

An answer to this fundamental question is a prerequisite for answering the other big questions of life: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Do we serve a purpose? Do we have any intrinsic value? What happens after we die? The question of the existence of God is fundamental.
Does God Exist - A Philosophical IssueBefore we ask the question "Does God exist?" we first have to deal with our philosophical predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist! Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28). If, on the other hand, I were neutral, and didn't already have an "a priori adherence" to a particular worldview (be it naturalistic or otherwise), the question "does God really exist?" wouldn't be pointless at all. Rather, it would be the first step in an objective and meaningful search for ultimate truth. Our willingness to ask the question with an open mind is fundamental to our ability to discover the truth behind the answer. So first of all, before you even ask the question, decide whether or not you're really willing to accept the answer.
Does God Exist - Things to ConsiderOnce you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer:
Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more? If your curiosity has been piqued and you desire to look into this matter further, we recommend that you consider the world's assortment of so-called Holy Books. If God does exist, has He revealed Himself? And if He has revealed Himself, surely He exists...

The Meaning of Life

If we were to find some scribbles on a piece of paper, and ask what they mean, then we would be asking what the person who made the scribbles meant them to signify. Scribbles only mean something if they were made for a reason. If we found out that the scribbles were just drawn at random then we would cease to look for meaning in them. Random scribbles don’t mean anything.
The same is true of life; it only makes sense to ask "What is the meaning of life?" if we believe that life was created for a reason. If life simply evolved on Earth by accident, if we just happen to be here, then life cannot have any meaning. Life can only have meaning if it was created for a purpose. If there is no Creator, then there can be no meaning of life.
Of course, people can try to find meaning in life without believing in a Creator. We can set ourselves goals—wealth, fame, helping others—and decide to devote our lives to achieving them. If we do this, then in some sense our lives seem to become about achieving wealth, or fame, or whatever, to take on that meaning. It seems possible to impose meaning on life through our own decisions and desires.
Indeed, most people who ask "What is the meaning of life?" really mean something like "What goals should we set ourselves?"
There is a misunderstanding here, however; meaning cannot be imposed on life through our decisions and desires. The attempt to impose meaning on a life that would otherwise be devoid of meaning fails
Either life has intrinsic meaning, or it doesn't.
If life has intrinsic meaning, then the goals have already been set and there is nothing we can do to change them.
If life doesn't have intrinsic meaning, then setting ourselves goals doesn't get us any closer to fulfilling our purpose, because there is no purpose for us to fulfil. If there is no ultimate aim to life, then there are no better or worse goals that we could set ourselves; deciding to pursue wealth would add meaning to our lives just as well as deciding to pursue happiness, and neither would add meaning to life any more than a deciding to collect bus-tickets, or to pursue melancholy, or to commit as many acts of petty violence as possible. The answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?" is "There isn’t one; it doesn’t matter what you do." If life starts off meaningless, then it must end up meaningless.
People can try to find meaning in life without believing in a Creator in just the same way as they can try to find meaning in random scribbles or in clouds. If one looks at a cloud hard enough for long enough and applies enough wishful thinking then one can find a hint of a familiar face or object, and try to project this meaning onto it.
That doesn’t make a cloud a portrait, though; it doesn’t give it true meaning. Thinking that the meaning of life is the pursuit of our self-set goals is like seeing a face in a cloud and calling it a portrait. The true meaning of life depends on the reason for our creation. If we want to find the meaning of life then we need to ask why we were put here.
Christianity gives one answer to this question. The reason that we are here, according to Christianity, is that God created us to have a relationship with him. This is why God created a universe fit for human life, and why he laid down guidelines for how to live our lives. According to Christianity, each one of us is created for communion with God; God wants to know us, to love us, and to rejoice with us.
Christianity continues to tell us that the barrier to this relationship is sin, but that in Jesus God heals that relationship, removes that barrier no matter how great it has become, and restores us (this is the gospel). Faith in God and in Jesus is therefore right at the heart of the Christian conception of the meaning of life as the means of achieving fulfilment.

Evidence for the Resurrection

Even in Jesus’ time, some of those who faced the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic question decided that Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic. So staggering were Jesus’ claims about his role in God’s salvific plan that they were sometimes hard to accept even for those that knew him and witnessed his ministry. This is ultimately why he was put to death. How, then, are we to decide who Jesus really was?
The Christian position is that this question was settled at the Resurrection. Whatever we might have thought about Jesus before he was raised from the dead, when God raised Jesus from the dead he put an end to all speculation. The Resurrection was God’s endorsement of Jesus’ teachings, a vindication of Jesus’ claims that got him crucified, a declaration that he was and is Lord. Whatever evidence there is for Jesus’ resurrection, then, is evidence for the truth of the claims that he made about himself.
The basic sequence of events surrounding Jesus’ death at the birth of the church, Christian apologists remind us, is uncontroversial. Theologians and historians are generally agreed on the kinds of claims that Jesus’ made, and that it was because of these claims that he was crucified. It is also generally accepted, the apologists continue, that following his crucifixion Jesus’ followers, who now included some who had not followed him previously, claimed to have seen him, risen from the dead. These followers preferred to die rather than to retract this claim, and it is on this testimony that the church was founded. This much is taken to be uncontroversial: the crucifixion, the claims to have seen the risen Jesus, and the willingness to face persecution for making this claim. The question is what we make of it.
The Swoon Theory
One attempt to explain this data, sometimes called the "swoon theory", denies Jesus’ death. On this theory, Jesus didn’t really die at all. Yes, he was crucified—that much is undeniable—but he survived the crucifixion. When he was laid in the tomb he was unconscious, but alive. He then resuscitated, escaped from the tomb, and appeared to the disciples, who mistakenly thought he had been resurrected. This theory thus neatly explains the resurrection appearances without having, implausibly, to deny the crucifixion.
Apologists dismiss the swoon theory for a number of reasons.
First, people didn’t survive crucifixion. Crucifixion was a brutal form of execution, one well-practiced by the Romans. The Romans knew what they were doing; Jesus could not have made it through the crucifixion alive.
Second, even if he had made it through the crucifixion alive, Jesus would not have been in a fit state to escape from the tomb. The tomb in which he was laid, according to the Bible, was enclosed by a large boulder, and guarded by Roman soldiers. Even if he had survived crucifixion, Jesus would have been too weak to move the boulder, and wouldn’t have got past the guards.
Third, even if Jesus had survived the crucifixion and escaped from the tomb, there’s no way that he would have been mistaken for resurrected. The rigours of crucifixion would have left him in an appalling state, yet Jesus appearance before his disciples was such that they thought he was in a glorified, resurrection body. The swoon theory, apologists conclude, therefore cannot seriously be maintained.
The Hallucination Theory
A second attempt to explain the historical data, the "hallucination theory", denies that Jesus appeared to his disciples. Jesus’ disciples would have been emotionally fraught having seen their leader executed; what more natural than that they should imagine that they had seen him come back from the dead?
Again, apologists argue that this explanation of the resurrection appearances doesn’t quite fit the historical data.
First, the claim that Jesus had returned from the dead wasn’t natural at all. Some of the Jews of the time believed that there would be a general resurrection, a resurrection of everyone, at the end of time, but none of them expected an individual to be resurrected in the present.
Second, some of those to whom Jesus appeared certainly weren’t expecting him to come back from the dead because some of those to whom Jesus appeared weren’t even disciples of his. Some were converted to Christianity by their experiences of the risen Jesus; those experiences cannot have been produced by their faith, because they didn’t have any faith until they saw him.
Third, and most conclusively, they add, the appearances of Jesus that were claimed just aren’t of the kind that can result from hallucinations. Hallucinations are individual affairs, but the appearances of Jesus were before groups of people. Group hallucinations do not happen, there must have been something else going on than this. Again, then, it is concluded, the naturalistic theory doesn’t do justice to the historical data.
The Conspiracy Theory
A third attempt to explain the historical data surrounding Jesus death and the birth of the church is the "conspiracy theory". According to this theory, there were no appearances of the risen Jesus at all, whether hallucinatory or not; the disciples made it all up. This theory explains away the resurrection appearances as a fiction, and so again neatly solves the historical problem.
The conspiracy theory, apologists argue, is more a desperate attempt to explain away the evidence than a genuine attempt to explain it. Still, though, they take the time to criticise it.
First, the disciples’ claim would have been easily disproved at the time had it been false. All that would have needed to be done to silence them would have been to produce Jesus’ body. This, though, was not done.
Second, it is again difficult to account for the testimony of those who had not followed Jesus prior to the resurrection on this theory. Why would those who rejected Jesus when he was alive buy into Christianity when he was dead?
Third, the disciples commitment to the cause counts strongly against the idea that their claims were made up. Jesus’ followers faced great persecution for their claims about Jesus, yet, after his death, not one of them retracted those claims. Before Jesus’ death this was not the case; famously, Peter denied Jesus three times. Something transformed the early Christians into fervent witnesses to the resurrection. What could have done that other than a genuine resurrection?
The Appeal to Common Sense
The historical evidence surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion and the birth of the church, then, is perplexing. None of the naturalistic explanations of that evidence, it is argued, does justice to it; we are pushed towards a supernatural explanation, to the conclusion that Jesus really was raised from the dead and so really is Lord.
At this point, it can be tempting to say that any naturalistic explanation, no matter how far-fetched, is better than this supernatural explanation. Sure, the odds of someone surviving crucifixion are tiny, but isn’t that explanation more likely to be true than the Christian alternative? Sure, it is almost impossible that the disciples simultaneously hallucinated a risen Jesus, but isn’t it more likely than that they saw the real thing?
If we rule out the possibility of miracles from the beginning, then of course the answer to these questions will be "Yes". If we assume from the outset that miracles cannot happen, that God does not exist, that Christianity is false, then of course any other explanation of the historical evidence will be preferable to that offered by Christianity.
To make these assumptions, though, is simple prejudice. There is a genuine historical puzzle here, and each of us must look for an explanation that we find genuinely satisfying. For my part, none of the naturalistic explanations satisfies me. I find it much more plausible to set aside my prejudice against miracles, and think that God raised Jesus from the dead, than to believe any of the alternatives outlined here.

Can Evolution Explain Our Origins?

Atheists often characterise arguments for God’s existence as “God-of-the-gaps” arguments. By this they mean that God is invoked to explain the otherwise inexplicable, to bridge the gap between what we can understand about the world and what we in fact see around us.
As a counter to such arguments, atheists tend to invoke modern science. Science, they say, can now explain all those things that were previously taken to support belief in God. We no longer need to invoke God as an explanation of them; the explanatory gap has been closed.
One example of this concerns the question of our origins. The argument from design argues that the only adequate explanation of how we got here is that there is a God that created us. Some forms of the argument support this suggestion by looking at human biology.
Consider the complexity of the human eye, for example. Some have thought that the eye is no less clearly a product of intelligent design than a machine like a watch. Its complex parts work together in harmony to some purpose; it must, therefore, have been created for that purpose by God.
Atheists often respond to such arguments as this by citing evolution theory. Evolution theory, they say, can fully explain the appearance of design in the world around us. There is no longer any need to look to religion for an answer to the question of our origins.
Evolution Theory
The explanation of the origin of life offered by evolution theory is roughly this: Once upon a time, there was no life. Purely by chance, there came to be simple organisms capable of reproducing themselves. Random mutations introduced variety into the population of these organisms, with the result that some of them were better suited for competition than others. A scarcity of the natural resources necessary for these organisms to survive introduced competition for those resources. Those least fit for competition were unable to secure the resources that they needed to survive, and died without reproducing. Those best able to compete multiplied, with random mutations again introducing further variety. As this process was repeated, the organisms developed on an upward curve: each round of mutations introduced better organisms, and each round of competition killed off the weaker organisms. We are the result of the repetition of this process over millions of years.
Irreducible Complexity
Perhaps the most important Creationist response to this has been to appeal to irreducible complexity. An organism is irreducibly complex if taking away some of its parts doesn’t just make it work a little worse, but makes it not work at all.
An illustration of irreducible complexity is a mouse trap. A mouse trap consists of several elements: a flat platform, a spring, a trigger, an arm, and some cheese. A mouse trap with all of these elements will work well. A mouse trap that lacks any one of these elements, though, won’t just not work well, it won’t work at all.
If there is no platform to which the other elements can be attached, then the mouse can grab the cheese from the unassembled mouse trap with impunity. If there is no spring, then the mouse will set off the trap, but the arm won’t snap down on it. If there is no trigger, then the mouse can grab the cheese without setting off the trap. If there is no arm, then it doesn’t matter that the mouse sets off the trap. If there is no cheese, then the mouse won’t go anywhere near the trap. To have a mouse trap that functions at all, then, you need every one of these elements; if you’re missing any of them then it just won’t work.
Evolution theory holds that we have evolved incrementally over time, gradually changing from one state that works to another state that works better. If evolution theory is true, therefore, then there must be a succession of states, each of which allows us to survive, through which we have evolved on an upward curve.
This, though, doesn’t seem to be the case; we seem to be irreducibly complex. To illustrate (actual examples are a bit more complex than this): think of the organs that make human beings work, our hearts, lungs, stomachs, brains, etc. A human being that lacks any of these won’t just have less survival value than one with all of them; it won’t have any survival value at all. A human being without a heart is a dead human being, as is one without either lungs, or a stomach, or a brain. We therefore can’t have incrementally acquired these things, first getting one, then another, and so on; we must have acquired them all at once. That, though, isn’t evolution. Evolution is a gradual process.
Evolution, then, cannot explain the origin of irreducibly complex biological organisms. If (and that's a big "if") we are such organisms, then there must be more to how we got here than evolution.
Evolution and Consciousness
A second problem for evolution theory is that of explaining the origin of consciousness. Human beings are not just physical systems; we have rich mental lives. There is more to this mentality than electrical events in the brain. For any mental state, there is a physical event (what is going on in the brain) and a mental event (what that feels like for us). The two are, at least in principle separable; there’s no logical contradiction in having one without the other.
The process of natural selection selects organisms for survival based only on their behaviour, on what they do. An organism that behaves as we behave but which does not have the attendant mental states that we have will have just as much survival value as we do. Mentality is not necessary for behaviour, and nothing more than behaviour is necessary for survival, so there is no survival value to having mental states.
Evolution theory, though, can only explain the origin of traits that have survival value. For example, we have two eyes rather than one, according to evolution theory, because that makes it possible to judge distances more accurately, increasing our chances of survival. Consciousness, though, does not increase our chances of survival; we are no more likely to survive than we would be if physical events in our brain did not give rise to conscious experiences, if our decisions just happened automatically as in a computer.
Evolution theory, therefore, cannot explain the origin of consciousness.
Evolution and Chance
Let’s set those problems aside for a moment, though, and suppose that evolution theory can explain how complex biological organisms could arise on this planet. Does this solve the mystery of how we in fact did come to be here? No. Even given the coherence of evolution theory, it is still highly unlikely that unguided natural processes would give rise to life in the time-frame that evolution theorists say that this has happened.
Life on Earth is phenomenally complex. Given the degree of complexity that it exhibits, there simply hasn’t been enough time for it to be likely to arise through evolutionary processes. Even if it were possible for life to come from non-life via a process of evolution, we would not expect it to have done so yet.
If life evolved, then it is therefore likely that that evolution was not random, but rather was guided by God’s hand. Unless we introduce God, evolution theory is inadequate as an explanation of our origins. Blind natural selection just won’t work as an explanation on its own.
Prerequisites for Evolution
The main reason, however, that evolution theory cannot provide a full explanation of our origins, is that it can’t take us right back to the beginning of the story. In order for evolutionary processes to get going, a lot of things must already be the case. For example: there must be biological organisms; there must be an environment capable of supporting them; they must be capable of reproduction; random mutations must introduce variety.
How did these things come to be the case? Where did these simple organisms capable of reproduction come from? Why do we have an environment capable of supporting life? Evolution theory cannot provide an answer to these questions, because evolutionary processes cannot occur until these conditions are met. Evolution theory therefore cannot provide a full explanation of the origins of life.
This makes it possible to reformulate the argument from design in a way that renders it immune to evolutionary critiques, making the question of whether evolution theory is plausible irrelevant to the question as to whether design arguments are successful. Modern design arguments begin not with biology and the marks as design in biological organisms, but with physics and the way in which the laws of nature are fine-tuned to make life possible.
The are many marks of intelligent design in the laws of nature. The various physical constants such as the weak force and the strong force must have very specific values in order for life to be possible; they do. The Big Bang, if that is how the universe began, had to involve a very specific amount of energy in order for life to be possible; if it happened, then it did involve that amount of energy. These and other features of the universe make it appear that it was designed with life in mind.
Evolution theory simply cannot explain why we have a universe that is fine-tuned to support life, because the laws of nature have not evolved. The argument from design therefore survives the evolutionary critique; evolution cannot explain our origins.

The Moral Argument

The moral argument appeals to the existence of moral laws as evidence of God’s existence. According to this argument, there couldn’t be such a thing as morality without God; to use the words that Sartre attributed to Dostoyevsky, “If there is no God, then everything is permissible.” That there are moral laws, then, that not everything is impermissible, proves that God exists.
Most facts are facts about the way that the world is. It is a fact that cats eat mice because there are lots of animals out there, cats, and lots of them eat mice. It is a fact that Paris is the capital of France because there exists a city called Paris that is the capital of France. For most facts, there are objects in the world that make them true.
Morality Consists of a Set of Commands
Moral facts aren’t like that. The fact that we ought to do something about the problem of famine isn’t a fact about the way that the world is, it’s a fact about the way that the world ought to be. There is nothing out there in the physical world that makes moral facts true. This is because moral facts aren’t descriptive, they’re prescriptive; moral facts have the form of commands.
Commands Imply a Commander
There are some things that can’t exist unless something else exists along with them. There can’t be something that is being carried unless there is something else that is carrying it. There can’t be something that is popular unless there are lots of people that like it. Commands are like this; commands can’t exist without something else existing that commanded them.
The moral argument seeks to exploit this fact; If moral facts are a kind a command, the moral argument asks, then who commanded morality? To answer this question, the moral argument suggests that we look at the importance of morality.
Morality is Ultimately Authoritative
Morality is of over-riding importance. If someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play. It might be in my best interests not to give any money to charity, but morally I ought to, so all things considered I ought to. It might be in my best interests to pretend that I’m too busy to see my in-laws on Wednesday so that I can watch the game, but morally I ought not, so all things considered I ought not.
If someone has one reason to do one thing, but morally ought to do another thing, then all things considered they ought to do the other thing. Morality over-rules everything. Morality has ultimate authority.
Ultimately Authoritative Commands Imply an Ultimately Authoritative Commander
Commands, though, are only as authoritative as the person that commands them. If I were to command everyone to pay extra tax so that we could spend more money on the police force, then no one would have to do so. I just don’t have the authority to issue that command. If the government were to command everyone to pay extra tax so that we could spend more money on the police force, though, then that would be different, because it does have that authority.
As morality has more authority than any human person or institution, the moral argument suggests, morality can’t have been commanded by any human person or institution. As morality has ultimate authority, as morality over-rules everything, morality must have been commanded by someone who has authority over everything. The existence of morality thus points us to a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation.
What the Moral Argument Proves
If the moral argument can be defended against the various objections that have been raised against it, then it proves the existence of an author of morality, of a being that has authority over and that actively rules over all creation. Together with the ontological argument, the first cause argument, and the argument from design, this would give us proof that there is a perfect, necessary, and eternal being that created the universe with life in mind and has the authority to tell us how we are to run it. The correct response to this would be to seek God’s will and to practice it. This, according to Christianity, is what life is all about.

Religious Pluralism and Tolerance

Religious pluralism is the view that all religions are equally valid. According to religious pluralists, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, et. al., are all equally worthy, even equally true religions. Each of these is a legitimate expression of a unique cultural heritage, and to reject it as false is to reject that cultural heritage, to marginalise a people. Religious pluralism is currently on the rise.
Religious Pluralism and Political Correctness
The reason that religious pluralism is on the rise is that it’s politically correct. To pronounce against any religion, it is often thought, to say that a religion is false, is deeply disrespectful. Religious exclusivists, those who believe that the various religions of the world contradict each other and so that only one of them, at most, can be true, are intolerant, and intolerance is to be condemned in all its forms.
On the contrary, religious exclusivism, the view that different religions can and do contradict each other, is a necessary foundation for religious tolerance; religious pluralists have no reason to be, and cannot be, tolerant. Further, religious pluralism, because it both asserts and denies that religious exclusivism is false, is self-contradictory, and the tolerance argument for religious pluralism, which holds that we ought not be religious exclusivists is, by its own standards, intolerant.
Religious Pluralism is not Necessary for Tolerance
The argument that we must be religious pluralists because we must be tolerant misunderstands what tolerance is all about.
To tolerate a point of view is not to believe it to be true, to agree with it; religious tolerance is not about agreeing with people from other religious traditions to our own. Rather, tolerance is about treating with respect those with whom one disagrees.
In order to tolerate a person’s beliefs, therefore, one has to disagree with them. Tolerance does not involve agreeing with people; it involves disagreeing with them but treating them respectfully anyway. There is no need to be a religious pluralist in order to be tolerant of those of other faiths.
Religious Pluralism Makes Tolerance Redundant!
It is therefore not only not necessary to be a religious pluralist in order to be tolerant, but is also impossible to be tolerant if one is a religious pluralist. Tolerance requires disagreement; one can only tolerate what one believes to be in error. Religious pluralism, which denies that any religion is in error, is therefore inconsistent with the virtue of tolerance.
Religious Pluralism is Self-Contradictory
Anyone who remains in any doubt about the tolerance argument for religious pluralsim should ask themselves what this argument says about the objective truth-claims of Christianity. On two levels, this pluralist approach to religion compromises its own foundational values.
First, religious pluralism involves the denial of objectivist Christianity; in saying that religious truth is relative it asserts that traditional Christianity is false. Religious pluralism, in committing itself to the view that no religion is false, condemns those religions that take the opposite view as false. Religious pluralism is therefore self-contradictory.
Second, in saying that we all ought to be religious pluralists, the tolerance argument for religious pluralism is, by its own standards, intolerant. If tolerance really is of overriding importance, surely, then objectivist Christians should be tolerated, allowed to hold their ‘intolerant’ beliefs.
The case against the tolerance argument for religious pluralism is overwhelming. Religious pluralism is not necessary for tolerance, and in fact makes tolerance redundant. Further, religious pluralism is self-contradictory, and the tolerance argument for it is, by its own standard, intolerant.
We are in danger of losing the ability to disagree respectfully. Religious pluralism, which claims to uphold the virtue of tolerance, actually threatens to erode it still further. The solution to religious intolerance is not to pretend that we are all in agreement really, but to learn to disagree respectfully.

The Paradox of the Stone

Some of the various arguments for atheism claim that the concept of God is incoherent, that there are logical problems with the existence of such a being. Perhaps the best known of these is the paradox of the stone: Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?
Either God can create such a stone or he can’t.
If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent.
If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent.
Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God. God, therefore, does not exist.
Problems With the Paradox of the Stone
Although this simple argument may appear compelling at first glance, there are some fundamental problems with it. Before identifying these problems, however, it is necessary to make clear what is meant by “omnipotence”.
Christian philosophers have understood omnipotence in different ways. René Descartes though of omnipotence as the ability to do absolutely anything. According to Descartes, God can do the logically impossible; he can make square circles, and he can make 2 + 2 = 5.
Thomas Aquinas had a narrower conception of omnipotence. According to Aquinas, God is able to do anything possible; he can part the red sea, and he can restore the dead to life, but he cannot violate the laws of logic and mathematics in the way that Descartes thought that he could.
If Descartes’ conception of omnipotence is correct, then any attempt to disprove God’s existence using logic is hopeless. If God can do the logically impossible, then he can both create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, and lift it, and so can do all things. Yes, there’s a contradiction in this, but so what? God can, on this understanding of omnipotence, make contradictions true.
Descartes’ understanding of omnipotence therefore doesn’t seem to be vulnerable to the paradox of the stone. Descartes can answer the question "Yes" without compromising divine omnipotence.
Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence, which is more popular than that of Descartes, also survives the paradox of the stone. For if God exists then he is a being that can lift all stones. A stone that is so heavy that God cannot lift it is therefore an impossible object. According to Aquinas’ understanding of omnipotence, remember, God is able to do anything possible, but not anything impossible, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something impossible.
Aquinas can therefore answer the question "No" without compromising divine omnipotence.
The paradox of the stone, then, can be resolved; it fails to show that there is an incoherence in the theistic conception of God, and so fails to demonstrate that God does not exist.