Following on from the article, The Atheist Anomaly (and before that, Chance Chaos or Designated Design?), it occurred to this writer that an article addressing the existence of a Creator – which has been a long time coming due to reticence on this writer’s part – was long overdue.

A number of ‘proofs’ have been briefly touched upon in the preceding articles and so a more in-depth discussion is warranted.

The purpose here is not to win over atheists: for ‘a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.’ And while it would be satisfying if an agnostic changed their mind, it is – to be honest – an exercise partially for this writer’s benefit.

Endeavouring to view these arguments from an atheist’s perspective as well as a theist is part of the motive in writing as well as to try and understand why an atheist would resist what are to many, logical (and irrefutable) arguments – refer Addendum.

The church network this writer was exposed to as a youngster – leaving its fellowship when a young adult – provided seven proofs of which we will investigate; as well as the formulated proofs complied by Thomas Aquinas.

From a non-believer’s point of view, there is no definitive proof that God exists, short of Him materialising in their living room and revealing Himself as such.

Thus for people in this category with that mindset they are reminiscent of Thomas the disciple who then went on to became an apostle. Here is how Christ handled his disbelief and doubt. And this was a man who had known and travelled with Jesus for over three years.

John 20:24-29
English Standard Version

24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin [his twin is not revealed in the Bible, thus by inference his twin was not one of the other twelve disciples], was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them,

“Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”

27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side.

Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me?

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

While an atheist would argue the point, it takes a whole lot more effort to disbelieve than it does to believe.

That is, to believe everything we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, feel, think (our minds)… just happened. By themselves and without any forethought or premeditation. Simply blind luck and by chance, yet resulting in the natural order exhibiting (otherwise inexplicable) intelligence.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Maybe to a person adrift from reality, but not to someone of rational sound mind. One doesn’t require faith, personal conviction or a reliance on philosophical arguments to acknowledge and understand the complex biological code underwriting all life forms, whether they be stars, planets, the Earth, flora, fauna or humanity itself.

Simply: the Creator reveals Himself through His creation – Romans 1:18-21.

Though we are getting ahead of ourselves.

Broadly, the categories of arguments for God’s existence are as follows.

Firstly, those that are deemed Logical. Of which there are three primary arguments.

Ontological:

Whereby it is posited that the very ‘concept of a perfect being implies its existence. If God is defined as the greatest conceivable being, then God must exist in reality, as existence is a necessary attribute of perfection.’

This writer has difficulty with this line of reasoning and would not be convinced. By this reckoning, anything we imagine then must exist or come to life. Just because we think there is a God, does not mean there is one.

Cosmological:

An assertion that everything that exists has a cause. ‘Since the universe exists, it must have a cause outside of itself, which is often identified as God.’

This writer agrees there is logic in a cause behind everything, though as expounded in the article, The Atheist Anomaly, the immediate cause of our physical universe was not the Creator but rather a nemesis manipulator – Article: Asherah.

Teleological: the premise that the ‘order and complexity of the universe imply a designer. The fine-tuning of the universe for life is often cited as evidence of this designer.’

The question of whether random chaos is responsible for the creation, has been discussed in the article: Chance Chaos or Designated Design?

This writer would certainly find it difficult to explain how all that exists was not planned and designed by something – whether it be God or something else… and whether by a singular source or a plurality of beings.

A second category in arguing for the existence of God is an Empirical approach.

Creation Demands a Creator:

Much as the logical arguments, the ‘existence of the universe and its complexity suggests that it must have been created by an intelligent being. This is supported by scientific theories like the Big Bang, which indicate that the universe had a beginning.’

Agreed, in that a Creation without a Creator is nonsensical. But, the Big Bang theory does not support a Creator and attempts to explain a beginning without one.

Thirdly, there are Philosophical Considerations.

Moral:

‘The existence of objective moral values points to a moral lawgiver, which many identify as God.’

This is valid for if one says an ethical and moralistic sense of right and wrong in humans is built in, then who or what put it there? And if one says it just naturally occurs in our natures, then why are humans so different from animals? Particularly when the intelligence of certain creatures deemed advanced, such as dolphins, octopi, chimpanzees and ravens are still not to be compared with humans.

Existential:

‘Human experiences of meaning, purpose, and beauty in life suggest a transcendent source.’

Well, yes – this follows on from a moral argument with the same conclusion.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in his work, Summa Theologica (Part I, Question 2, Article 3), formulated five proofs for the existence of God. Aiming to demonstrate God’s existence through logical reasoning based on observations of the universe and natural world to show the necessity of a first cause and the ultimate source of all things.

1. Motion:

Everything in motion must have been set in motion by something else, leading to a “First Mover.”

This is tantamount to saying the Big Bang did not start itself.

It would appear that this makes more sense than not. Can a fire start itself? No, it doesn’t. Though forest fires appear to initiate themselves, they in reality begin from either the carelessness of someone dropping a cigarette butt (already lit) for example, or from the sun heating an object so that it ignites (sparks) into flame.

Simply: cause and effect, demonstrated by the fact nothing acts unless it is first acted upon – as energy is not created or destroyed but is moved and transferred. This is in keeping with Newtonian law (“Every action has an equal and opposite reaction”) and the understanding that originally something had to have moved without something else moving it. 

What was the first thing to put other things in motion?

Bible Hub:

‘Aquinas reasoned that something must initiate the movement from potential to actual, and this cannot go back infinitely. Therefore, there must be an “Unmoved Mover,” who set all processes in motion and is, Himself, not moved by anything else.

Scripturally, one can connect this idea with Isaiah 40:26:

“Lift up your eyes on high: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host by number…”

This passage affirms that the processes we see in the heavens have a single Originator.’

Thus for the lack of a better candidate, the first mover is God.

Can science or an atheist provide an alternative prime mover?

No, they have offered an explosion as the leading answer. The Big Bang is a flawed theory but pretending it is correct; how did the original ‘small and dense point’ become ‘hot’ enough to ignite? More importantly, where did the small, dense point come from in the first place?

These questions are unanswerable and therefore invalid unless someone admits a who had to be involved in initiating the process. In other words, the ‘unmoved mover’.

2. Efficient Cause:

Every effect has a cause; there must be a first cause that is not itself caused, which is God.

This is a reiteration of the first way.

Though rather than motion or action it refers to existence itself. For Aquinas states:

“In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known… in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself” (Summa Theologica I, q. 2, a. 3, co.). 

Saint Mary’s Press:

‘Nothing, [Aquinas] explains, can cause itself to exist. To be the cause of itself… the object in question would need to exist prior to its own existence. And because that isn’t possible, everything that exists must have been brought into existence by something else [in other words, the creation must have had a cause which was uncaused].

This beginning, or “efficient cause,” is… God.’ 

3. Possibility and Necessity:

Contingent beings exist, but there must be a necessary being that caused them, which is God.

This is a reiteration of the second way.

Bible Hub:

‘Contingent beings are those that at one point did not exist and at some future point may cease to exist. They depend on another for their existence, such as plants reliant on soil, water, and sunlight. If everything in the Universe were contingent, there would be a time when nothing existed at all. From nothing, nothing could come. Hence, there must be at least one Necessary Being-that is God-who is not dependent on anything else for existence.

Psalm 90:2 connects with this necessity of God’s eternal existence:

“Before the mountains were born or You brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting You are God.”

The crux of this argument relates to something which has an end, then it must have had a beginning. If something has potential for nonexistence, it is impossible to have always existed.

Saint Mary’s Press:

‘… If everything that exists had a point in time where it didn’t exist, then (following [the] previous argument of cause and effect) nothing would exist now, since there would have been nothing to bring something else into existence. This means that something has to exist that has no potential for nonexistence, and something that is necessary in and of itself. This necessary being was not brought into existence, since it has no possibility for nonexistence. It is without beginning, and it is (again, back to Proof 2) the cause of all things that exist. 

This necessary being… is God.’

4. Gradation:

There are varying degrees of goodness; there must be a source of all goodness, which is God.

Agreed, just as there is bad and therefore a source of all badness – John 8:44.

Good and bad did not create themselves – Genesis 2:9.

The beginning point of goodness, is God – Psalm 100:5.

Matthew 5:48, ESV: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

5. Design:

Natural beings act towards ends; this implies an intelligent designer, which is God.

The fifth way resembles a version of the teleological argument, or argument from design.

Simply: design reveals order and order requires intelligence.

Psalm 19:1, ESV:

‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.’

Andrew Corbett adds a further valid proof for God’s existence:

The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth

For those readers interested in the evidence that Christ not only came to Earth but was also the Son of God, the following articles comprehensively investigate the subject: Arius, Alexander & Athanasius; The Christ Chronology; and Appendix VIII: When the Creator came to dwell with His Creation.

Saint Mary’s Press:

‘Part of Aquinas’s goal with his Summa Theologica was to argue for the teachings of the Church using logical arguments to affirm theological teachings in a way that someone without any faith or experience with religion would be able to grapple with and understand. The arguments of the five proofs are rooted in this approach, which is one of the reasons they still hold so much value to this day.’

Bible Hub:

‘Aquinas’s Five Proofs are not merely abstract discussions; they invite the seeker or skeptic to look deeply at the world and one’s own life. Each argument addresses fundamental questions: Why is there something instead of nothing? Who or what sustains existence? Why does morality feel objective? Why does nature seem so ordered?

Aquinas’s Five Proofs remain cornerstones of classical theistic philosophy, encapsulating reasoned arguments for God’s existence. These arguments converge with biblical revelation, showing that faith in God is not a leap into darkness but a step in the direction that logic, morality, and observation already point.

The coherence of Scripture, scientific observations of the world, and philosophical reasoning all indicate that

[1] God is the Unmoved Mover,

[2] the First Cause,

[3] the Necessary Being,

[4] the Highest Standard, and the

[5] Intelligent Designer.

Andrew Corbett – emphasis mine:

‘In December 2004 it was announced that long time British Professor and Philosopher, [Antony] Flew, regarded by many as “the world’s most acclaimed atheist”, had renounced his atheism in favour of theism…

One of the reasons cited by [Professor] Flew was ‘the evidence.’

‘He admitted that for a long time the growing problem of Evolution’s inability to explain how life began, or for that matter, how anything began, led him to the inevitable conclusion that it was an inadequate answer in the face of the evidence.

Then when the DNA Genome code was unraveled the evidence for Design became “undeniable.”

These two pieces of evidence (1. the existence of life demanding a Life-Source, and 2. the scientific evidence of an extremely complex code in the make-up of that life – DNA) were enough for Professor Flew to renounce atheism.’

“Perhaps the most popular and intuitively plausible argument for God’s existence is the so-called argument from design. According to this argument, the design that is apparent in nature suggests the existence of a cosmic Designer… Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God” – There IS a God, Antony Flew.

Britannica:

‘Antony Flew (born February 11, 1923, London, England – died April 8, 2010, Reading) was an English philosopher who became a prominent defender of atheism but later declared himself a deist.

Flew was the son of a Methodist minister and was educated at a Christian boarding school. As a teenager, he decided that the traditional Christian concept of a good God was inconsistent with the presence of evil in the world… and thus he adopted atheism [at the age of fifteen].

In 1950 Flew delivered a short paper, “Theology and Falsification,” before Oxford’s Socratic Club… Flew argued that theological utterances about God’s nature, presence, power, or goodness are meaningless because there is no conceivable evidence that would refute them. Flew quickly became a prominent figure… and a popular intellectual spokesperson for atheism.

Books by Flew such as God and Philosophy (1966; reissued 2005) and Atheistic Humanism (1993) provided articulate expositions of atheistic principles that won a wide popular as well as academic following. Flew’s writings influenced later atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris…

Flew nevertheless maintained an intellectual interest in religion, reading broadly and holding discussions with philosophers and scientists who were also practicing Christians or Jews – particularly the American evangelical philosopher Gary Habermas and the U.S.-born Jewish scientist Gerald Schroeder.

In 2004 Flew courted controversy with his announcement that, upon reviewing the scientific evidence, he had come to accept a very limited form of deism, a theological perspective based on the concept of a God who created the world but does not make his will known through revelation within it [Article: The Atheist Anomaly].

His announcement drew praise from many Evangelicals and criticism from atheists, many of whom suggested that Flew—in his early 80s and suffering from aphasia – may have been confused or even taken advantage of by individuals with ulterior motives.
Flew publicly defended his perspective with the claim that the God he had come to believe in was similar to the unmoved mover proposed by Aristotle. However, Flew never returned to Christianity and continued to deny the survival of the human mind after biological death [Article: DEATH: A Dead End or a New Beginning?].

In 2006 he was among the signatories of a letter urging British Prime Minister Tony Blair to introduce intelligent design (ID) into science classes in state-supported schools.

The 2007 book There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, cowritten by Flew and the Christian author Roy Abraham Varghese, further incensed atheist critics, particularly when it was revealed that Varghese and a ghostwriter did most of the writing.’

Corbett:

‘Professor Paul Davies calls the undeniable design of [the] universe and in particular earth’s unique place in the universe as The Goldilocks Enigma. There are simply too many ‘just rights’ in the universe to dismiss the universe’s obvious design.

While the late Professor Carl Sagan dismissed planet earth as an insignificant, pale blue dot, his successor, Professor Brian Greene (Professor of Mathematics & Physics at Columbia University), is far less prepared to deny the obvious. He says that the fact of the universe’s [design] cannot be denied so the real issue is not whether it is designed but who is the Designer?

Professor Greene appeases atheists by avoiding the theologically loaded term: “God”, instead opting for the term Grand Organising Designer, which coincidentally equates to G.O.D.’

The proofs which follow can be found in the Seven Proofs God Exists by Garner Ted Armstrong – capitalisation his, emphasis mine.

Proof Number One

‘In any explanation of the question of ORIGINS, one must explain the ORIGINS of matter, force, energy, gravity, inertia and the other laws, as well as the origin of LIFE.

But evolutionists start with all these ALREADY CREATED AND IN EXISTENCE. Therefore the evolutionists, in fact, ACKNOWLEDGE CREATION before their explanations actually begin! They are thus forced to acknowledge the pre-existence of the CREATOR – for they begin their theories and explanations with THESE WORKS OF HIS CREATION already having been CREATED!

The existence of law, unchangeable, immutable, irrevocable, unseen and yet active, absolutely demands the existence of a great lawgiver… (James 4:12).

That lawgiver is God!’

Proof Number Two

‘… there is an absolute, demonstrable law of science which comprises the second major proof of the existence of a life-giving God.

That is the law of biogenesis!

“Bio” means life! “Genesis” means beginning. This law, then, is a law concerning the beginning of life. This law, simply stated, is the absolute law that life comes only from life. That the not-living can never give rise to, give birth to or produce the living. There is perhaps no law known to science that can be any more firmly and easily demonstrated than the law of biogenesis. The very existence of life demands a life giver… (Genesis 2:7)
   
God is the great life-giver!’

Proof Number Three

‘What is matter? Matter occupies space and has weight. It is not always necessarily seen, since certain gases, and even the air which you breathe, are also classified as “matter.”
   
… with the discoveries in nuclear physics, and following Madame Curie’s experiments with radium, scientists have now found there is a certain amount of “disintegration” in matter. This deterioration of uranium is a scientific fact! Uranium (U238) gradually disintegrates through many intermediate stages into lead (Pb206). There is no proof of any new uranium coming into existence today!

Hence science has firmly established that there has been no past eternity of matter! Matter must have at some time come into existence. It had to have been, at some time, created. Creation, then, the very existence of things, absolutely demands and requires a Creator. That which is made requires a Maker. That which is produced requires a Producer.

Therefore, the third great proof is that the creation requires a great Creator.’

Proof Number Four
 
‘Scientists have attempted to show the evolutionary pattern by “comparative embryology,” by a study of selective breeding, genetics, and various other aspects of biology. However… there is an absolute, irrefutable, immutable, unchangeable law, which absolutely prohibits a jump from one kind to another kind!

Scientists have attempted to prove their evolutionary theories by “selective breeding” and studies in “mutations.” These do not prove evolution! They prove, rather, the existence of absolute, unchangeable LAWS governing the reproduction of all animal and plant life, and that those laws function within certain limited bounds that cannot be transcended or broken.

This absolutely proves, not only the existence of a Lawgiver, but that there is, alive, acting RIGHT NOW, a Great Sustainer, of all that is. These laws are upheld, sustained, KEPT in action. How?

By the Sustainer, who is GOD!’

Proof Number Five

‘Look about you. You live in a complex, intricate and interdependent world. It is a world of great design. Life, as we know it, is entirely interdependent upon other forms of life. Nothing lives or dies to itself. The cleavage properties of minerals, the wings of a bird or a fly, the beauty of a sunset, the facets of a quartz crystal, and above all, the marvelous, tremendous masterpiece of all design, the human body, all point out that for such intricate design, there had to be an eternal designer.

Design in the universe proves the existence of a designer!’

Proof Number Six

‘This sixth proof of the existence of an Almighty God is perhaps the most astounding of all. About one full third of your Bible is prophecy; and while most of that one third pertains to our present day, there are many, many prophecies which have already been fulfilled…

The very fact that God is able to foretell the future, and bring it to pass, is a great proof of His existence!’

The first five proofs speak for themselves and fall into the categories already discussed.

If an atheist cannot recognise their logic over any perceived faith they think is involved in understanding them, then end of discussion.

Yet using fulfilled prophecy is one proof with which atheists have a field day. For example, certain prophecies in the Book of Daniel are argued away as being written after the event. Any debate with an atheist on this point is not worth the effort. All this writer would say, is that numerous prophecies in the major prophets and minor prophets – including the Book of Daniel – are yet to occur as with the majority of the Book of Revelation.

When they do come to pass, then naysayers will learn that they have been wrong.

Proof Number Seven

‘This last proof is perhaps the greatest proof of all to true Christians.

It is the proof of answered prayer.

However, since the skeptics, atheists and doubters probably have never prayed, and hence have never had prayers answered, they continue to DOUBT.

Real answered prayer is NOT the mere working out of events as a result of “concentration.” Many people today seem to assume prayer is merely an accomplishment as a result of “positive thinking” or a psychological adjustment. This is gross error!

Real answered prayer is a direct, completely miraculous supernatural intervention from Almighty God! It is the result of being obedient to God’s Laws, asking according to His will, and then believing in faith until the answer comes.’

Non-believers wonder at the stupidity of praying to an invisible imaginary friend. Yet until one sincerely humbles themselves before the Creator – through the mediation and intercession of his Son – genuinely admitting our flawed state and seeking real help in overcoming our abominable human nature (by talking with Him regularly); we will not comprehend what a trusted relationship with our Maker is truly like.

This kind of relationship with God grows… and so His answering our prayers then becomes a real experience, but to try and convey this to someone who has no idea what this means, is akin to trying to explain the wonders of the world to an unborn foetus in the womb.

Comparing a number of sources and articles the evidence for God (as well as a number of additional proofs not included in this article) predominately fall into the following argument categories:

Cosmological: First Cause
Teleological: Design/Designer
Empirical: Creation/Creator
Moral: Morality (Goodness)

Thus Thomas Aquinas’ first two proofs – first mover and first cause – are essentially cosmological (logical); the third – possibility and necessity – is partially cosmological or empirical; the fourth – gradation – is moral (philosophical); and the fifth – design – is teleological (logical).

Garner Ted Armstrong’s first two and fourth proof – law giver, life giver and law sustainer – are cosmological; the third – creation requires a creator – is empirical; and the fifth – designer – is teleological.

The proofs in common between Aquinas and Armstrong and a number of lists complied by others, include

a. design requiring a designer;

b. creation requiring a creator; and

c. life requiring a life giver or first cause.

This writer considers the following list as good as any found and replicates Garner Ted Armstrong’s, with the addition of a moral code under law giver.

I. Creation – the immense variety and number of species – demands a Creator and originator.

II. Life (biogenesis) demands a Life giver and initiator.

III. Law – whether they be laws of physics, chemistry or a moral code – demands a Law giver and instigator.

IV. The sustenance (maintenance) of all said laws and life demands a Sustainer and overseer.

V. Design – the myriad intricate patterns within the Universe at the macro cosmos level or at the micro sub-atomic level – demands a Designer and inventor.

VI. Fulfilled Prophecy

VII. Answered Prayer

While this list aligns with Christian belief, clearly atheists would find fault with every proof presented. Though if the foremost atheist in the world Antony Flew can see the light, then perhaps there is hope for some non-believers after all.

Regrettably, it suits many atheists (and agnostics) to deny God so as to absolve themselves of responsibility in having to listen to God (read the Bible) and do – God forbid (no irony intended) – what He says.

It is not always an atheists ‘informed intellectual conviction’ in disbelieving the existence of a Creator, but more often than not, a ‘stubborn moral refusal’ to do so.

Thus in essence turning their back in disobedience, so as to not have to be obedient.

Yet what God requires of them (and of everyone), is only to treat other people as they would like to be treated and to put God first in their lives instead of themselves – Matthew 22:37-39, Isaiah 45:22-23.

Far better to bow down before the Creator willingly, than to have (figuratively) ones knees broken and forced to do so.

Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isaiah 45:22 English Standard Version

Keep asking, and it will be given to you. Keep seeking, and you will find. Keep knocking, and it will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks, it will be opened.

Matthew 7:7-8 Evangelical Heritage Version

“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

Wernher von Braun

“He who denies the existence of God, has some reason for wishing that God did not exist.”

Saint Augustine

© Orion Gold 2026 – All rights reserved. Permission to copy, use or distribute, if acknowledgement of the original authorship is attributed to orion-gold.com

Addendum

Enlightening and not so enlightening comments from non-believers in response to Andrew Corbett’s (Pastor of Legana Christian Church, Tasmania, Australia and National President of ICI Theological College, Australia) article:

5 Proofs for the Existence of God.

I. The First Cause
II. The Universe Exhibits Design
III. Universal Moral Law
IV. The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
V. The Claims of Christ can be Experienced

The reader will spot a theme (as well as capitals, quotation marks, exaggerated punctuation, bad grammar and spelling mistakes) amongst the replies in that while seeming or endeavouring to appear erudite, they in reality mask a stubborn refusal – born from either anger, arrogance or asininity – to be truly honest with themselves.

For they face a wall of evidence that they just happily vanish away as if it wasn’t there. All the while, they unwittingly remain in darkness from the wall’s long shadow cast over them. But as with all truth, it will remain long after an atheist dies and takes their incorrect opinions, arguments, ideas and beliefs with them to the grave.

David:

‘NONE of these come even close to proving the existence of “god”. Dr. Corbett needs to take a class in elementary logical thought.’

For someone using a mind which evolved from slime of a primordial soup, no they do not prove anything. For someone with a mind which did not evolve from slime of a primordial soup and able to reason rationally, yes they do.

Sid:

‘What is the difference in “proof”, “evidence” and “argument”? I have heard many interesting arguments for the existence of a deity, but I have never seen any evidence. And, certainly we can rule out proofs since they belong to the realm of mathematics.’

Pseudo intellectual double speak.

William Jordan:

‘Andrew – demonstrate your evidence because nothing here is even remotely considered any evidence of any god! Period! An all powerful god and still for centuries, no one can demonstrate his/her/its existence???? Unreal religion has survived for even 2 weeks – let alone for centuries!’

The Creator reveals Himself to those who obey Him and who develop a genuine relationship with Him. God is not a side show magician, willing to do parlour tricks for just anyone who mockingly challenges Him or to prove Himself to anyone who does not possess real faith.

Neil:

‘So who created the creator?’

Really, where has this guy been?

Steve Hawley:

‘You are believing something that is unprooveable [Dutch?]. Prove that Jesus existed [Article; The Christ Chronology], prove that the big bange [French?] never happened, You have proven absolutly nothing’

Adam Jerry Garcia:

‘I laughed out loud. This is god exists because you don’t know how the world was created or if it was even created. The universe is a two sided vector. Your existence is a slice of the vector. Deal with it.’

What does this even mean and what relevance does it have to anything?

John:

‘There are inconsistencies with each of these arguments, and each one has a strong rebuttal. As I’m typing this on my phone, I will keep the rebuttals short.

1 The concept of a linear time line does not take into account the state of the universe before the big bang. From our knowledge of black holes, we understand that the laws of time and space become severely warped as one approaches the event horizon. Within a black hole, the physics that governs our everyday world does not exist in the same way once you pass the event horizon. Time becomes virtually meaningless when you approach an infinite density. Therefore time would not exist in the same frame of reference if all matter in the universe were compacted to a singular point, and the notions of cause and effect would have entirely different meanings. To the point that it has been hypothesized that the universe condensed into a singular point at some time in the future, and no longer being bound by time as we know it, expanded 15 billion years ago.

How does this refute a first cause? Digressing about time is a tangent and makes no difference whether it existed before the – let’s pretend – Big Bang or not. Time likely did not exist prior to the physical creation of the Universe. The Bible reveals that the Sun and Moon were placed above the Earth for the principal purpose of time keeping – Articles: The Calendar Conspiracy; and Floating Sphere or Fixed Circle?

2 The idea that everything was designed because we have all the right mixtures of gases, just the right distance from the sun, etc. Is actually a kind of backwards thinking. It wasn’t that all the conditions on earth were right for us, it was that our ancestors were able to evolve to adapt to current conditions [how convenient].

We evolved to survive in temperatures that already existed, and to breath gases that already were in the atmosphere. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of species that could not adapt throughout the history of our planet, and those animals went extinct. If conditions on earth changed too much, too fast, we too would go extinct [that is one almighty cosmic gamble].

Our species and it’s ancestors were simply very good at adapting to the changing climate, and reproducing [phew, how lucky the human race is then].

This doesn’t show design, it shows evolution.

Only for the mind which has evolved from slime.

3 Morality is a human creation [no, it truly isn’t].

There is no intrinsic morality within anyone [utterly wrong].

It is much closer to a case of treating people how we want to be treated [so one can quote a biblical philosophy when it suits? (Leviticus 19:18, 34)].

A child typically understands enough to know that if they want to make a friend, they have to be nice to that person. Being mean causes that friend to leave them. As a society, we agree on sets of rules that typically benefit a large group, preferably everyone, allowing all the people to experience a genuinely happy life. Lacking a desire to do harm says more from the realm of psychology than it suggests any sort of god.

Which is worse? Deceiving someone else or self deception (as in the paragraph above)?

4 The problem with trying to claim the eye witness account of Jesus is that historians have shown time and time again that nothing was actually recorded until decades after the alleged death of Jesus. Unfortunately, this means that a simple kindergarten game of “telephone” can show how these claims do not hold any validity. By the time it was written down, it was a case of “My dad’s, brothers, friends, moms, uncle actually saw this happen!” Rumors became literature, not fact.

People who take this line of approach have not studied in depth

a. when and by whom the gospels were written; or

b. the available data on when Christ lived, was born and died and where he was for the eighteen missing years – between the ages of twelve and thirty – in the gospel accounts (Articles: The Christ Chronology; and Appendix VIII: When the Creator came to dwell with His Creation).

5 No real argument can be made for anecdotal evidence when someone claims to feel god, or experience them outside of whether others feel the same way. I was raised Catholic, and despite my intense desire to feel god, despite years of prayer, and going to church, I can say I never felt god [Bingo… there we have it. The grinding of a very big axe].

I never felt that spirit that others claim [for one of two reasons:

a. God is not working with you in this life; and

b. either related to point a or not, a lack of genuine repentance and humility will block a relationship with God so that one feels the way described].

On the other hand, there was a group of scientists who discovered they could actually induce that feeling through a combination of sensory deprivation and a very low dose of acid. Since we humans have the ability to recreate that feeling through artificial means, it would suggest that an evolutionary trait that lends itself to mystical feelings must have passed on [correct in part as the pineal gland is the seat of the feelings being described – Article: 33].

I could speculate as to why that would be, however, my inability to explain the why does not give credence to the notion that there is a god.

To summarize, many of the methods that people have attempted to use to prove god exists are either missing critical pieces of information that disprove them, or depend on the lack of scientific knowledge to further the claim that there is a god. Lack of proof for one hypothesis does not guarantee proof of another. Our world is not black and white, it is an incredibly complex and majestic existence that we should appreciate and enjoy, but that does not mean there is an intelligence behind it [yes it does, for God deals in black and white and the Adversary deals with the fifty shades of grey in-between].

Accepting the truth that there is no god was not easy, or fun. It was an incredibly painful experience to do away with the dogma that was instilled upon me from birth [even so, it is a false god they have now drawn near to by distancing themselves from the One true God].

However, I could no longer ignore the inconsistencies, and the fallacies of the bible [the Bible is a coded book, not given to all to understand at the present time], and I can say that I am a much happier person because of it [because they have absolved themselves from any responsibility to be obedient – though a day of reckoning still awaits all atheists and agnostics].’

Bridget:

‘If God exists there should be no ambiguity about it. If God exists and the devil too then why don’t they fight each other directly and leave weak human beings out of it, why make us the battlefield. If God exists it should be apparent to all without recourse to theology or scriptures. If He is alive, here now today, then we should know of it personally without needing to be convinced by enigmatic religious either. Why hide, the ambiguity has only lead to error, as even a non omniscient could foretell.’

Fair point, which highlights the fact that this is how things are playing out, like it or not. There is a reason and it will work out for good ultimately, even though it does not seem that way now – Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega.

Jamie:

‘It is still unclear from your explanations or understanding how even if it was true that the universe had a beginning but couldn’t have begun itself why we must deduce it was a someone – you only really get to vague deism there but why it couldn’t just be can only be ruled out because you personally can’t accept that rather than have any proof to deduce that

And even if all that is conceded and it would be a huge concession without evidence how do we leap to the God of the bible? Maybe you accept that it is the best explanation given the information you have but no way could definitively ascertain this?

Perhaps it does appear a big leap to go from no-one to someone being responsible for the Universe. It could be fired right back at them that it is a big leap to go from God (who claims responsibility) to no-one or nothing being responsible for the Universe.

If all of human history was wiped out and rebuilt [it was after the Great Flood], God would have to relay his message again [he did (Abraham)] but it could no way be the exact same message [it was] and the fact he isn’t extremely clear in his messages [yes He is] it could be acceptable to assume [no it isn’t] it would be a completely different albeit a little similar story [partially correct (Moses) but what is the point?]. In that future there could be a similar person [Jesus Christ] as yourself preaching with exact same conviction but relaying a totally different story

Something you commented on a lot was morality yet morality is demonstrated easily to have evolved since the stories in the bible and continues to evolve with modern philosophy day by day. Why didn’t God start off with the final moral code rather than deliberately invoke suffering of probably most humans that have ever lived and almost all animals and other living things [because the ‘god of this world’ is not the same God] ’

Serge Sicard:

‘Let’s step back a bit and look at it in the context of the universe. Irrespective of when or how everything came about on earth, if for whatever reason, the earth’s population was wiped out (highly feasible: deadly virus, environmental disasters, etc.), the rest of the universe would not even “notice” it (e.g., undetectable, even within our own solar system, let alone within our own galaxy).

Let’s move further out, if the earth itself was to disappear, the rest of the universe would not even “notice” it either, not even our own galaxy would (our moon might be a bit confused, though).

Moving further out, if our own solar system would disappear (it will eventually, when our sun “dies” in 7 or 8 billion years), it would not change an iota to the the rest of our galaxy and the universe and so on, including the disappearance of our own galaxy.

The concept here is that the creation, continuing existence and eventual disappearance of the earth and its population is totally irrelevant (a mere spec) to the rest of the universe, so considering the earth (and its inhabitants) to be special/chosen/central, including from a god perspective, for whatever reason is pointless, a bit like the “inhabitants” of an ant hill thinking that their ant hill is a chosen ant hill and matters to the rest of the world.

So basically, the very existence (or non-existence) of the earth is irrelevant to the rest of the universe, whatever fairy tales are spun/contrived to the contrary to try to explain and deal with the uncertainty/fear.’

Regrettably, entirely faulty logic and reasoning. The bible reveals that this ‘ant hill’ is of paramount significance. Until the time it is destroyed and replaced with a new Earth that is – Article: Heaven & Hell.

Tom:

‘“Proofs of God” The so-called proofs are designed to comfort those who already believe. For the non-believer, it is just a number of assertions, suppositions,…no proof or evidence whatsoever. Nothing convincing [for the mind which has evolved out of a primordial soup].’

John Bridges:

Hard to know where to start [ditto] – definitely not evidence though.



1. 1st cause – there are quantum events that appear to be acausal in fact the recent Nobel Prize in physics discusses the nature of retro causality (non-locality). This undermines everything must have a cause. Of course the Universe defines time and space so you have to ask “What does causality mean without time”. So even if we admit the Universe has a beginning – that beginning starts time – no cause required. The Big Bang is actually the big expansion – there is an horizon where we swap from Relativistic gravity to quantum phenomena- and we don’t have the physics to describe what that dense early state is doing – modern quantum gravity theories allow for past eternal initial states – so physics doesn’t actually give you a beginning for the universe on any measure.

Gobbledygook.

2. Apparent design and complexity are not proof of anything – we use bounded evolution in engineering and software to “design” things – but this is random perturbation within the boundaries of a given environment- no designer necessary. The odds of all the things in the universe being right for us to exist are not 10^120 they’re 1. We exist and all the parameters necessary for that existence exist. That is the most you can say. It’s also a fallacy to treat all those parameters as independent – they’re not – so even if we were rolling dice to get a universe that works they would be in the 1000’s not 10^100+. But all the physics we have uncovered also suggest that the fundamental parameters that allow this universe to exist and be stable are perhaps 1-5 parameters
– everything else is dependent on that – no design required. The other thing is – proponents of design have no theories about when the Quantum Pixies ™ interfere and guide the universe

Gibberish.

3. Morals don’t exist objectively – if that were true it wouldn’t have been acceptable to stone a woman 2000 years ago for alleged adultery. As for your 3 use cases Xianity and Islam and Judaism fail on all 3. El/yhwh/Allah murders and commits Genocide freely ( the ark, all the first borns …). If you ask your friends is sex with a 12 year old ok – they would shake their heads and call you a sicko paedo – yet it’s only in the 20th century that we moved the dial from 12-16 years old. Jews Practice adulthood at 12 (girls) and 13 (boys). Morals are a relative Contract between society and its members Maximizing the stability of the former and the welfare of the latter.

Human reasoning.

4. Resurrection- there is barely any evidence that a man called Jesus existed let alone the resurrection which was tacked onto a mystery play about Xianity. Using this as evidence would get you incarcerated for life.

Does not know what they are speaking about. Hasn’t researched the subject, nor wants to (for fear of what they might find).

5. “Claims” – there is nothing to connect a posited creator to Xianity. If you look rationally at your apologetics the best you could do is argue there was a creator – but inductive logic would deny this – but it’s role would be to initiate the naturalistic universe we see – and go away. Creation force unnecessary after the first dominoe.

Double Dutch (apologies Dutch speakers).

Miranda Hotspring:

‘John’s comment is about how I see it too [all hail John]. No evidence here at all, just a lot of nonsense and false claims.

Suffering from the same delusion.

The resurrection of the mythical Jesus is not an historical fact, far from it. Not that it would be unusual, the moment of death even today is difficult to accurately detect sometimes. There was a recent article about a woman who died in hospital, was taken to the morgue, and some hours later was discovered to be still alive. Would have been even more difficult 2000 years ago. (No electronic heart monitors for example) Even Pilate was surprised that he was dead already when they asked to take his corpse down.

Right.

As John also accurately says there is barely any evidence Jesus actually existed. Absolutely none from the period he is supposed to have lived. It all comes from decades later. Biggest lie ever told! Most of it made up and cobbled together from earlier myths and fairy tales by Paul I suspect.

Not true – hasn’t researched the subject either.

Morals are an evolved trait that allowed groups of our early ancestors work together for the benefit of all. Codes of behaviour are seen in chimpanzees and other animals. Do they have their own gods?

Clever argument… not.

Religion started as an explanation for the world our self aware ancestors found themselves in. There have been about 8000 gods over the millennia, the Christian one is just one more. Apologists don’t seem to have a problem rejecting 7999 of them, so why not just one more? Don’t give me any crap about your god being the only real one, or the true one, dozens of other religions also make that claim!

Well, there is only One true (unknown) God. All the others really are fakes – they are all deceivers.

Well into the 21st century and idiots are still grovelling to their superstitious nonsense. Unbelievable!’

Well into the twenty-first century and the deceived are still ignoring the obvious.

Denky28:

‘1, 2 and 3 are I believe compelling reasons to believe in the existence of God. 4 and 5 in my opinion actually undermined the very valid arguments put forth in 1-3. They were not compelling at all to me and in my opinion not the most compelling reasons to believe in Jesus Christ either.’

Now this is a hard person to convince.

David:

‘None of the 5 points are objective proofs of God. I will list why below:

1 – A lack of a known cause for the creation of the universe is not proof of the existence of God, and simply because God exists as an explanation does not mean that God is the correct explanation. It is the same as answering a maths question with no known answer with a random number. Simply because it exists as an answer or explanation and that it may be the only explanation does not mean it is correct. And the existence of God still doesn’t answer the third option for the lack of cause that you presented, that the universe is an illusion. After all, this is an unanswerable question, but are you really going to believe that the only answer present to you – God – must be the correct answer? As previously said, simply because it is the only option present does not mean it must correct. Furthermore, the comparison with the non-existent chair contradicts the point about Anselm you made earlier. You can still talk and think about things that don’t exist. Therefore, our self-conscious, and our conscious attempts to communicate do not put aside the possibility that the universe is an illusion which doesn’t exist, which would mean that there would be no reason for God to exist as the universe itself would not exist. Therefore, not only is the proof of God loosely pulled from the fact that there is no known cause, there is doubt if there really is a cause or not.

Ever heard of “Occam’s razor”. A problem-solving principle that suggests when faced with competing hypotheses (or a lack of them), the simplest explanation is usually the best or most accurate.

2 – The point is roughly the same, the fact that there is a lack of a designer for a universe which exhibits design does not necessarily mean that God must be the designer behind it. There are ways that the situation could have happened, for example, by extreme luck [good luck with that – no pun intended].

This time there isn’t even a lack of other reasons in order for you to use as a proof of God. You could argue that the chances of all the characteristics that were listed happening all at the same time are very very small, but in a universe which seems to have be infinite in time and expanding infinitely in size, the chances seem ever so ‘infinitely’ bigger [but is the universe really continually expanding?].

What I find curious is that in your introductory passage on wether or not God can be proven, you point out that without objective proof then your God is not true and only subjective truth remains which can be offered as proof. However, so far the first two points were subjective. They are based entirely on how the reader feels and what they assume about the lack of a reason for the creation of the universe and the universe’s exhibition of design. There was no objective truth demonstrating how God IS in fact the creator of the universe, or how He IS the designer of it too, just the assumption that if there is no obvious answer then it must be the your God.

Design does not design itself. Life does not create itself, yet it does recreate. Who or what created the first life for this process to begin?

3. William Lane Craig is absolutely wrong in his 3-part statement. Moral laws can definitely exist without the existence of God. Moral laws are primarily formed out of the survival of societies. For example, a society with no negative moral outlook on murder would have murdered itself out of existence. Therefore, societies that existed existed mostly because of the moral conduct they put in place, and the exclusion of anyone who does not follow it. In short, it didn’t take the ten commandments to tell people not to murder themselves, most of us figured it out beforehand. And almost all religions have their own version of moral conduct. How does the existence of a moral conscious prove that your God is specifically the God to have installed these in each human, but not the Hindu’s God or the Muslim’s God.

Right.

4. There are cases when someone who was clinically dead has been brought back to life [after three days?], yet nobody proclaims them to be the Son of God. How can you then say that Jesus is in fact the Son of God solely based on the fact that he rose from the dead? Furthermore, describing converted catholics as eyewitnesses is wrong. Simply because there are new catholics does not mean that the catholics must have witnessed Jesus’s resurrection. Otherwise any newly converted catholic would be witness to the resurrection of Jesus. I don’t know much about the validity and documentation of the resurrection of Jesus, so I cannot really debate on wether it is true or not, but I’d love to see some reliable documentation other than bible verses

Articles: The Christ Chronology; Arius, Alexander & Athanasius; and Appendix VIII: When the Creator came to dwell with His Creation.

5. A spiritual feeling does not mean it was caused by God [this is true (1 John 4:1)].

Again, the same flaw in logic appears, that simply because there is no other explanation for the feeling you receive means it must come from Christ. And a so-called ‘invitation’ to Christianity is not proof of God’s existence.’