If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning.
The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no
beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been
changed from form to
form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the
The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left
represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each
other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had
three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart.
The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and
bigger and bigger with every passing day.
Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day
before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a
If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states,
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us
what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused,
one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy,
and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a
In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong,
invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our
laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your
television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of
science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.
The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect
The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence
If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the
cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic.
Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is
"through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once
We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was
made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.
The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to
rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in
explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the
anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject
Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.
this site makes a good rational case imho, but again it must be your own journey the time when you look up and ask why? Then naturally you will ask
A PRACTICAL MAN'S PROOF OF GOD