God Exists


Daniel in the lion’s den is an event I can vaguely relate to. Some years ago I attended a movie screening held by the NSW Humanists in Sydney. I was the lone Christian and Biblical creationist at a meeting attended by scientists, atheists, Skeptics and hard-core Darwinians. I had attended the meeting to secure a public debate between a visiting leading American Christian Apologist, Dr John Warwick Montgomery, and the then President of the Australian Skeptics, Mark Plummer, both lawyers. The subsequent debate was well attended and reported by the Sydney Morning Herald.

After the screening that night I engaged in a lively conversation with the head of the science department of a major Sydney university. We both enjoyed the conversation He gave me a draft copy of his forthcoming book on evolution, and invited me to be his guest at the post screening dinner to continue our discussion.

During the meal I asked him whether he was an atheist or otherwise. He said he was probably an atheist. So, the following exchange took place:

I asked: Do you regard yourself as a hard-boiled atheist, or a soft-boiled atheist?

Scientist: What’s the difference?

Me: Well! The hard core atheist says that God doesn’t exist.

Scientist: Yes that’s probably my position.

Me: Einstein said he had less that 1% of all available knowledge. How would you compare yourself to Einstein? Would you have more or less knowledge?

Scientist: I would have to say less.

Me: So, how can you say with any certainty that God doesn’t exist when you have less then 1% of knowledge. You would need 100% knowledge of all that exists to affirm that no God exists. You can’t substantiate that, can you?

Scientist: No. I can’t can I.

Me: Than that makes you a soft-boiled atheist.

Scientist: So, what’s a soft boiled atheist?

Me: The soft-boiled atheist is someone who says that you can “never know” whether God exists or not.

Scientist: Yes, I would agree with that!

Me: But how can anyone say you can “never know” unless you know all there is to know? Again you would need to have 100% knowledge to say you can never know.

Scientist: I guess I can’t say that either, can I.

Me: No! I guess you just don’t really know, do you.

Scientist: True! I don’t really know.

At this point a scientist from the Australian Museum sitting opposite wanted to know what we were discussing.

Scientist 1: we are discussing whether God exists or not.

Scientist 2: I’m an atheist who believes there is no God.

Scientist 1: You can’t really say that with any certainty.

By this time the discussion had drawn the attention of others at the table.

Interjector: What about all those miracles in the Bible. Surely you don’t believe these really happened.

Me: Yes I do! I responded. Which specific miracles are you talking about?

Interjector: Well! You know, Christ rising people from the dead and the resurrection of Christ Himself. As well as the Biblical accounts of animals talking, such as the talking ass. How could anyone possibly believe that all this stuff actually took place.

Me: Actually, everyone at this table does, including you.

Interjector: You’re joking! How can you possibly say that?

Me: Well! Everyone at this table believes that evolution is true. Right! So, you all likewise truly believe that dead matter spontaneously brought itself to life and then supposedly turned itself into all the living creatures, including humans. So, I need to point out that in comparison to this the Biblical miracles would be a mere walk in the park for God: Because the dead bodies brought back to life were already fully assembled and previously functioning human.

Interjector: So, what about talking animals?

Me: I must again point out that everyone at this table likewise believes in talking animals. We all know this because everyone at this table truly believes that the supposed monkey like animal human ancestor one day “started talking”, and even singing”. So, you all also believe that animals can talk. The big difference is that in the Biblical account it was God talking via an ass.


Step 1: Attempt to use experimental and observational science for your beliefs. Once that fails, we go to. ...

Step 2: Work with unobserved events and hypothetical  assumptions. Once that fails,we go to... 

Step 3: Extrapolate contrived historical theories you  have no evidence for. Once that fails,we go to... 

Step 4: Attempt to say that like you the other side of  the argument is "guessing the past". Once that fails we go too... 

Step  5:
Claim that the universe came from nothing out of nowhere, that mud brought itself to life, turned mud into mind, goo into you via the zoo, and earth  into Einstein, and that your monkey like ancestor “one day started talking”. 

Step 6: If a hurled squashed tomato hits you in the face,  just assume the tomato made and hurled itself. 

If you can believe all that, special creation by God is a comparative  stroll in the park

THE BOTTOM LINE: The whole point here is that the scientific world cannot escape miracles: Because all of science is ultimately founded on the premise that miracles must of necessity happened in the past. We know this because there is ultimately no other option to account for cosmic existence, life and everything else. The scientific world will argue that all these ‘natural’ miracles happened without a miracle worker anywhere to be found in the universe. The scientific world asserts that all these "vastly improbable" events happened, even tough there is no "veifiable scientific answer". We have a name for vastly improbable events that have no verifiable scientific answer. We call such events "magic" or "miracles" The problem the scientific world has is that everything in existence is dependent on an transcendent cause beyond the universe to account for its existence. We know this because nothing exists within the universe with “self-creating” or "self-existing" capabilities. So, we have all these ‘natural’ miracles supposedly happening without a miracle worker anywhere to be seen. Which all theists would have to concede is “really miraculous”

The "Religion" of atheistic Science, masquarading as science. I have no problems with a claim, hypothesis or any theory being proposed. That is what science and physics is all about. What concerns me the the current enforcement of a godless “philosophy” in the name of science: The imposition of the metaphysical RELIGIOUS dogma of atheistic SCIENTISM masquerading as science. The hard-core atheism of “philosophical” naturalism and godless materialism which is now being deceptively paraded science is nothing more than metaphysical RELIGIOUS dogma. A religious dogma founded on unproven “blind faith” beliefs well beyond the testable and verifiable limits of science and physics. A growing number of scientists and philosophers now openly acknowledge this, including atheistic philosophers such as Thomas Nagel and Daniel Dennett. As admitted by Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”

.Miracles of Science

Tomato that made and threw itself



Atoms Balanced
Natural Patterns