How Do We Know That God and Jesus Exist?

Frankly, we don’t. There are logical reasons why they may not. Partly semantics, and partly mathematics, you will see what I mean as you read further.

A very large percentage of the world’s population believes in a Supreme Being. Most of those believe that the Supreme Being created our world. Some of those – about 2.2 Billion people, or roughly 32% of the world population are Christian and believe that a man we call Jesus is the miraculous son of this Supreme Being.

When I was a boy of 14, I engaged a Catholic Priest in conversation and debate, even though I was not raised as a Catholic. He gave me an interesting definition of God. He said God created the universe and God was everywhere. God was all knowing. God was in everything. God had existed since the beginning of time, and God will always exist until the end of time. I immediately decided to try to define God using all of his terms. What could I imagine that fit them all? I came up with Nature.

Nature is visible and provable. It follows rules – the laws of physics. It works in specific ways, but not in other ways. There is the appearance of order, at least on large scales. Perhaps God was really nature, or perhaps God was the force thatGod_Jesus caused nature to do what it does. Time as we know it began with the beginning of this universe, and it will end with the end of this universe. Nature is bound by those limits.

Many with whom I have spoken are convinced God exists because of the existence of so many co-incidences that are required to be present for us to exist at all. Any of a number of things could have happened and we wouldn’t be here. If the dinosaurs had not been wiped out, perhaps THEY would still be here. Civilization would certainly be much different if we all kept being eaten. There are many examples. I have heard people tell me the human eye is so complicated that it must have been God that made it. It is not. Out of billions of evolving organisms we have eyes that work. The fact that eyes exist means that eyes, as with all developments of evolution, result from a series of outcomes. Some outcomes resulted in failure and those blind creatures didn’t survive and reproduce. The ones that could see more successfully avoided predators, survived, and continued their kind.

I mentioned this next point in another blog, but it fits well here as well. As you all know, usually only one sperm fertilizes an egg. Out of the millions of sperm making the attempt, one succeeds. That sperm and egg became a zygote that became you. If it had been a different sperm, the person born would have been your brother or your sister, but NOT you. You wouldn’t exist, but they would.

Your parents were also both created from the sperm that won the derby the night they were created by their parents, and their parents, parents too, back generation, after generation back through the ages since the beginning of species that reproduced. The ODDs of YOU being here are trillions times trillions times trillions to one. But you are here. Is it a miracle? Well, with all of that recreation going on, someone had to be here. If they were, and were it not you, then I’d be trying to tell them the same story, (presuming that I was here to do it).

The statistical probability of an outcome may be extreme, yet through a series of events, some outcome will occur. Things happen even though the odds of them occurring seem to defy belief, but they happen. It might be that the odds for an eye to develop through evolution is trillions times trillions time trillions to one – but hey, those are the same odds that you are here – and guess what – you ARE HERE!

We have all won the lottery of life simply by being born. As you are aware in an actual lottery, if people keep playing and playing, someone eventually wins. To the winner it might seem a miracle. To the rest of us – we realize that it was just luck. Hence God may exist, but the existence of God is not a requirement for us to be here. All we see and experience is statistically possible.    


As for Jesus, did he exist? It DOES appear that the man we call Jesus existed around two thousand years ago. Academics believe he had a following that began as a small group of uneducated, illiterate Jewish peasants. There have been no surviving documents ever found from the time of Jesus that were written about Jesus, or by Jesus or by any of Jesus disciples. Be aware that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John – the books from the New Testament that chronicle his life WERE NOT written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Nor were they written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. They were written decades later, long after the stories about Jesus circulated through the Roman Empire– by unknown (pseudonymous) Greek authors written in the Greek language. Further, early Christians in the early centuries did not adhere to the same beliefs, just as many believe differently today.

Some forged documents were written in the name of the Apostles specifically to support the claim that Christianity supported their viewpoints. One example may be the Gospel of Thomas which contains 114 “sayings of Jesus”.

There is ONLY one known non-biblical written early mention (within the first century)of Jesus outside of the Bible. In a work by Jewish author Flavius Josephus in his work “Testimonium Flavianum”. Oddly this very same mention is not present in the earlier versions of the same work, leading scholars to suspect that the sentence was modified by someone in the early Catholic Church at a later time to try to prove the existence of Jesus. Interestingly enough a 10th century Arabic translation of the same book does NOT contain the passage reference to Jesus. Since Jesus was considered a prophet by Islam, had his name been in previous manuscripts it likely would have been included. Hence, all accounts of Jesus and his life and teachings appear to only come from the New Testament and were written by his followers.

So does this dis-prove Jesus? No. Does it prove he is not the Son of God? No. So what does it prove? It proves absolutely nothing at all – except that he probably existed and that most Christians base their belief on a written work edited in 367 by a man named Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius was the man who was given the task and decided which books should be included in our Bible and which ones books caused confusion or chronicled Jesus as just an ordinary man and should be deleted. Our Bible today is little changed.

What are your thoughts?
Do you think God and Jesus Exist?

Originally posted 2015-08-20 09:34:46. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

40 thoughts on “How Do We Know That God and Jesus Exist?

  1. There are many problems with this article.

    1. It relies on the belief in scientism; that is, observation and experience are the arbiters of all knowledge: “Nature is visible and provable.” If one cannot “see” or experience a thing, that thing does not exist. The problem with the cited statement by the author is that both premises are false. One cannot “see” all things in nature. Second, those in the physical sciences rarely if ever use the word(s) “prove” or “provable.” Rather, such scientists use hypothesis and theory, which are very different from proof.
    2. It relies on the logical fallacies of argument from misplaced hasty generalization such as, “Many with whom I have spoken…” No sources cited. Who? Folk theologians? Scholars? The absence of sources reveals that this “Albert” engages in the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. I can ask ten people on the street about God, and I can receive ten different answers. This is the fallacy of argument from authority and not one on the merits. His generalization proves nothing and fails to support his primary premise.
    3. Albert, like many atheists, attempts to place the burden of proof on theists for God’s existence. However, when it comes to proving that God does not exist, they decry, “We do not have to prove God does not exist because God does not exist.” The problem with such an argument is that unless one can support one’s argument, then one is incapable of harnessing a premise to support one’s claim. When atheists make a claim about God’s existence, they must support that claim like anyone else. If they do not, they have no grounds for making the claim and they demonstrate that they are uninformed and fail to show that they know what they are talking about.
    4. Albert goes on to make a claim about the “Many…” who speak of “co-incidences” as a support for God’s existence. However, he fails to draw his own coherent conclusion except “things happen” and “you are here.” Really? Things just happen? Really profound. What does that prove about God? He meanders about dinosaurs and civilization being different, outcomes, egg fertilizations, but he fails to return to the “Many…” with any refutation. If his premise is that chance led to all things happening, then he does not understand the nature of chance. Chance is totally unguided. If any movement toward particles coming together and making up what exists occurred, that eliminates chance altogether. That is, things just do not happen for that which exists to exist. Nothing in all existence supports this claim. This claim also is a non sequitur because it does not support his primary premise (or attempt at one).
    5. Albert then exemplifies his ignorance of biblical history by claiming that the gospel writers did not write the manuscripts that bear their names. Rather he claims without citation or evidence that these manuscripts were written much latter. According to who? Just because he says so? I have news for Albert, he ignores a multitude of scholars, archeological findings, and those who knew the gospel writers and wrote about what they said and wrote. He confuses the Gnostic writings with the biblical writings without making a distinction. The Gospel of Thomas was not a forged document but one of the Gnostic manuscripts as were dozens of other such manuscripts. These documents were not written “decades latter” but as much as a century or so later according to the findings of the Nag Hammadi scholars. Albert has not done his homework and speaks from ignorance. This claim also is a non sequitur because it does not support his primary premise (or attempt at one).
    6. Albert states, “There is ONLY one known written early mention of Jesus outside of the Bible.” This is totally false. He has not read the early writings at all or performed any research that shows he knows what he is talking about. He fails to give credit to Polycarp, Tertullian, Eusebius, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Clement, Ignatius, Papias, Aristides, Martyr, and so many more who wrote about Jesus AFTER the first century. Furthermore, to dismiss biblical manuscripts outright without reason or cause as he does shows bias. Why does he dismiss them unless they have external support from extra-biblical authors? Many pseudo scholars who attempt to dismiss the Bible have done this without merit and without reasons for not claiming them as authentic. It is an attempt to dismiss a myriad of documented evidence for their authenticity from the first century forward. Such a raw dismissal ignores mountains of evidence and flies in the face of facts. This claim also is a non sequitur because it does not support his primary premise (or attempt at one).
    Albert needs to do a lot more homework and reading of scholarship to escape his ignorance and reliance on the belief of scientism. Nothing he claims is supported by any primary sources. He simply makes unsupported claims out of faith in hearsay. He must have faith because he has no firsthand experience in anything he claims but must rely on the sources of others to support his claims. That he fails to use sources demonstrates blind faith or a leap into the dark, for his claims have no merit and are false. His scholarship is thoroughly lacking, which demonstrates that he is extremely uninformed about the scholar who have mounted considerable evidence for God’s existence not only from what exists but also from logic and reason. Albert has a lot of reading to do before he can come close to supporting his thin claims.

    1. Let me thank you for reading an replying to this article, though you seem a bit choleric.

      If you will read the other comments from readers that are posted you will find the authoritative citations you seek, namely Pagels and Ehrman, but I would be delighted to give you others. While I doubt you will do so, I suggest a university course on the historical Jesus. There is a firm academic foundation for everything I have said.

      Yes, I do believe in science, its methods and its discoveries. I respect that you differ in your opinion about it, though I obviously disagree with your conclusions. You choose to confine most of your discussion to dogma in the very style of writing you criticize. You might as well be a 15th century theologian living in the 21st century. I stand by what I have written.


      1. STA,

        I was not responding to others but to the primary article. To do not follow rabbit trails but wold rather respond to specific points another makes. To refer to other comments is not a reply on the merits.

        Your reference to the historical Jesus gives no specifics and therefore does not reply to any of my six points. There are numerous factions and speculations within the historical Jesus camp, if indeed you refer to the specific Historical Jesus theology. You cited no one from these factions. Do you refer to Schweitzer, C. H. Talbert, Semler, or Lessing? How about Schleiermacher and his “Life of Jesus?” That varies greatly from Schweitzer and his followers. Strauss also differed radically from both in his “Life of Jesus Critically Examined.” Or do you refer to Bultmann and his mythological approach? Perhaps you may not be referring to any of them but to the current Jesus Seminar and its total denunciation of Jesus as the divine Son of God, God Himself, and the risen Savior. You do not say but simply make another thin generalized reference. Your reference to the historical Jesus says nothing about the existence of God or the biblical claims of the gospels. Speaking of which, an overwhelming amount of evidence points to gospels as written between 60-90 AD, with John writing the last one before his death before the turn of the century. Matthew and John knew Jesus intimately. Mark and Luke knew the disciples and their families and were known within the Christian community at the time. The early Church Fathers affirm their authorship going all the way back to those who knew John (Polycarp and Ignatius and other writers). You would do well to learn Church history to write on it. What you write about the gospels does not agree with facts of history.

        You mention that you do believe in science, but you do not mention what you mean. Anyone can claim to believe in science, but believing really does nothing toward addressing your primary point about God. That is not an argument on the merits but a non-sequitur. The sciences are the means of discovery of all that exist. However, discovery is one thing while interpretation and application are quite different. Method arises from interpretation and application. You comment does not appear to recognize the difference because of your exclusion of God and evidences for Him. You mention God quite frequently in your post, affirming that God enters your thoughts just as frequently. Why? Why even bring God up if you do not believe in His existence? Why even discuss what you believe as non-existence at all?

        You refer to my remarks as dogma when your entire article consists of numerous dogmatic statements but without support. It is unfortunate that you stand on unsupported claims without citations.

        1. With all due respect, from your misquotes, and apparent lack of knowledge of the article, it frankly appears as if you skimmed it without reading it. You certainly did not read it in detail.I stated that there does not exist or has ever been found, any record written about Jesus, or by Jesus or by anyone who knew Jesus from the time of Jesus. That is not what you quoted me as saying. You went on to discuss second century writers.
          You are obviously a fervent believer. I am not a disbeliever, nor am I a believer. You ramble, you grumble. I suggest you read the article again and this time pay attention to what it actually says. Since you make many of my points for me you clearly missed what I was saying.


          1. >>>”There have been no surviving documents ever found from the time of Jesus that were written about Jesus, or by Jesus or by any of Jesus disciples. Be aware that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John – the books from the New Testament that chronicle his life WERE NOT written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Nor were they written in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. They were written decades later, long after the stories about Jesus circulated through the Roman Empire– by unknown (pseudonymous) Greek authors written in the Greek language.”


            I never previously misquoted you concerning your claims about the biblical authors. Quoting is citing what you wrote. I did not do that. You claimed that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the gospels that bear their name. It is irrelevant to authenticity to claim that “no surviving documents ever found from the time of Jesus, etc” That is simply a distracting red herring that has no bearing on the authenticity of source documents. .Again, you have not done your homework and your reasoning still does not support anything.

            Like many others skeptics (Erhman, etc.), you fail to make an honest inquiry into the origins of manuscripts (any manuscript for that matter) and jump to conclusions without any support. You simply fail to support your claims from honest scholarship. Furthermore, when I answer one of your claims and refute it, you move on to another without a reply to my refutation. That is taking distracting rabbit trails.

            However, let me reply to your claim that attempts to refute authenticity of authorship. Professor and scholar Paul Copan states,

            “No decent historian rejects wholesale any sources that have variations in secondary details. The New Testament has an astonishing track record of historical integrity” Copan, Paul (2009-06-01). True for You, But Not for Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith (p. 145). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)”

            He goes on to say that the NT is more textually reliable than any other book of antiquity. Do you believe Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle wrote what they did. No documents exists from what they wrote. Furthermore, there are very few (and rare) copies of copies of copies of copies of what they wrote. There are thousands more manuscripts than any other ancient work to corroborate the authenticity of the original gospel writings. I mentioned this before concerning Polycarp, Ignatius, and many others who knew the apostles. You ignored what I said!! Copies exist of virtually all of the NT from 100-150 years of their authorship. There are also lectionaries and writings from the earliest Founding Fathers (50-90 AD) who read the gospels and quote from them, not just once or from one person but numerous times from the same passage by many people. Therefore, all of the NT is recoverable from the quotes of those who knew the apostles and read their writings. All of these early writers provide independent authentication of all the NT. Again, your argument from Ehrman is a red herring. You are not well informed about archaeology and historical manuscripts and believe whatever you want without any support. Again, you also fail to support anything you claim.

        2. I suggest you obtain, and read:

          Bart Ehrman, “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction”

          Elaine Pagels, “The Gnostic Gospels”

          Richard Norris, “The Christological Controversy”

          1. Why do you insist only on liberals and continue to ignore what I have written? More rabbit trails. You ignore the early Church Fathers. Have you read them? Please answer. Have you read the following scholars:

            FF Bruce, David Black, Barry Blackburn, Darrell Bock, DA Carson, Gordon Fee, Joel Green, William Herzog, Colin Kruse, Walter Liefeld, Jonathan Lunde, Scot McKnight, Alister McGrath, and Douglas Moo?

            PLEASE SAY YES OR NO

            I can name so many more I had to read in my NT courses, hermaneutics, apologetics, and systematic theology course I took in earning my Master degree in Seminary.

            I also read many of the liberals, especially those of the Jesus Seminar, part of the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus, to which you also ignored when I cited them. Rather, you meandered off on to another rabbit trail, which is what you do when you are challenged. You have much to read and much to understand about history, theology, and science. You love referring to them but when challenged, you run off to another topic.

          2. I have clarified the use of my term “early mention” in the article, to those non-biblical references within the first century.

          3. >>>”I have clarified the use of my term “early mention” in the article, to those non-biblical references within the first century.”

            And I refuted them as having no credibility within real scholastic circles with reasoned replies which you have ignored and not rebutted. As I said twice already, you referred to the gospel authors as fictitious and gave no evidence or scholastic support. You have yet refuted or offered a sound rebuttal to my refutations, which suggest that you cannot do so or cannot supply a logical explanation for your claims.

            You also show that you are not widely read and not well informed in biblical theology, archaeology, literature, but that you simply read liberals without giving attention to any other position.

          4. I see you like to tag and label people with whom you do not agree. Why do you feel that is necessary? Do you really think that makes your viewpoint more credible? It doesn’t.

            I have given you sources. Those sources are accepted world wide in academia-since I am in it, I know that to be true and correct. Elaine Pagels is a legend. So is Bart Ehrman.
            I get that you have a narrow view based upon your religious education. I also understand that being in a business where you need to rely on others with similar beliefs for your economic survival means that you have a vested interest in being right. I cannot say that you are wrong, because we really don’t know. But I do know that open exploration and the conclusions we draw from them makes us stronger not weaker.

            I am not going to convince you that the views I have expressed are correct. Hopefully my readers have a more open mind and WILL read the authors I have suggested, and broaden their views. Then they can make up their own minds.

          5. Not an argument on the merits. Still waiting for rebuttals to my first six points if you are capable of supplying them without referring to somebody else. Try using logic and reason sometimes. They really do work. Citing others as a support for an argument is ineffective, unconvincing, and a logical fallacy. If you do cite others, you must give specific citations and show how the citation supports your argument. Just to cite a person is meaningless. Have you ever written and published anything apart from an unsupported blog post?

          6. “you disagree with those accepted as the worlds formost academic experts…”

            Actually no, I agree with “the world’s formost [sic] (it is ‘foremost’) academic experts” and have noted many of them, which you refuse to acknowledge because you never heard of them.

            Let me give you their credentials:

            N.T. Wright – Bishop of Durham, Canon Theologian, Westminster Abbey, Professor of NT and early Christianity at University of At Andrews, author of more than 80 books

            Scot McKnight – Professor, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Seminary, authored 27 books on NT, Paul, Jesus, early Christianity, noted NT scholar.

            Douglas Moo – PhD University of St Andrews, authored 11 books on NT, 20 years professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

            DA Carson – Professor NT, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, University of Cambridge, authored 15 books

            Lean Morris – Australian NT scholar, PhD University of Cambridge, England, Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, author of 40 books on virtually every book of the NT and many OT books.

            Thomas Schreiner – NT scholar, PhD Fuller Seminary, author of 16 books on the NT

            As I said I can list more of those I have read. I can also list the liberal theologians I have read, but I doubt you would ever pick them up and read them.

            I bet you have never read the works of John Calvin, another scholar, or Jonathan Edwards, one of the premier intellectual scholars in US history.

            Once you read these, then we can have a real discussion. But, of course, I still wait for your replies to the original six points I gave to which you have continued to ignore.

            Until you reply to them, I will assume that you are incapable of doing so without stating, “Go read so and so.” I responded directly to your post without references to others. That is as it should be. I expect you to do in kind if you are capable. However, I expect that I will be waiting for a very long time for any point-by-point rebuttal if I receive one at all. I will check in from time to time to determine if you will reply. Otherwise, goodbye.

            Oh, Merry Christmas.

            Meanwhile, you are welcome to visit my blog and read my published articles at

          7. Floyd, you are correct that I don’t tend to read material written by certain people – your authors included – although I cannot say I have not read them, I’m sure not most of them unless they were writing 45 years ago when I was an undergraduate taking course work in the same. I later changed majors to astrophysics – but not too much on me. I prefer to remain private. The very nature of your chosen authors credentials for me, disqualifies them from an open-minded discourse on specific topics – namely anything controversial about their own subject. I would not, for example, read anything written by creationists about evolution. I am already well aware of their position and it would be absurd from a scientific standpoint. My promise to readers at the outset of this site was that I would give them my very best answers to the questions they ask. I acknowledge that my view may be incorrect. But it is my assessment at the time that I write it, subject to change as proof to the contrary becomes available. I cannot say that there cannot be God. If the physics of this universe allows it, then there may be. What I have said is that mathematically, God is not necessary to get us where we are. Probability allows for it. Since probability allows for it the simplest answer is that he does not exist. I am also a mathematician, such as it is. As for Jesus being the son of God – If God exists, then this becomes at least a possibility, no matter how remote. One cannot prove a negative – that something never happened or never existed.

            Thank you for the holiday greeting. Merry Christmas to you and your family as well, though coming from me understand that this is more a greeting about peace on earth and goodwill toward all.

          8. >>>” Floyd, you are correct that I don’t tend to read material written by certain people – your authors included – although I cannot say I have not read them, I’m sure not most of them unless they were writing 45 years ago when I was an undergraduate taking course work in the same.”

            Thank you for revealing your unwillingness to examine both sides of an issue. It also shows that you resist new knowledge and that you yourself are not open-minded. You are willing to criticize the Bible without knowledge and without the proper analytical tools: hermeneutics, the original languages, and research materials. Given that you are unwilling to examine both sides of an issue, you are really not qualified to write on the Bible, its history, culture, languages, and so on.

            All of the authors I cited are contemporary, and they authored most of their books and numerous articles in the past 20 years with most of them within the past five years (many in 2014 and 2015). Given your statement about your unwillingness to read certain authors, it does not surprise me that you would not even go to to at least check their works and dates of publication or look up their credentials yourself. Identify the coursework you took in biblical studies.

            “The very nature of your chosen authors credentials for me, disqualifies them from an open-minded discourse on specific topics – namely anything controversial about their own subject.”

            Hogwash. Yours is the logical fallacy of appeal to experience. Qualifications to author books on a given topic do not depend on your opinion (“…for me…”). This speaks a lot to your lack of credentials and qualifications to write on biblical issues. It also informs me that you do not understand credentials for expertise. Credentials depend on learning and mastering specific realms of knowledge. People demonstrate credentials through not only earning degrees, but also by demonstrating their knowledge through examination from PhDs and peer review of their works. Furthermore, they show credentials through writing from integrity. You apply qualifications much different from scholastics. Open-mindedness has nothing to do with being able to engage an informed discussion. MASTERY of it does. You also show a high degree of closed-mindedness by refusing to entertain knowledge. From that standpoint, your statement about open-mindedness is equivalent to its opposite and a biased evaluation. Besides, you confuse closed-mindedness with taking a position and thereby rule out everything with which you disagree. That is the essence of closed-mindedness and shutting down knowledge you refuse to accept.

            “I am already well aware of their position and it would be absurd from a scientific standpoint.”

            Your are eh? Which authors have you read? What are their salient arguments? How do they support them? Identify the various theistic positions of the beginning of things and the universe. You cannot, because you have not read them. Your above statement tells me that you are not well informed at all and that you make science that arbiter of all knowledge (scientism).

            Many scientific experts in all disciplines of the sciences are Christians. Unless you can contest and refute their written works, then you are disqualified in criticizing them (Scientific authors on God: Amor Aczel, “Why Science Does Not Disprove God;” Francis Collins, PhD (head of the gnome project), “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief;” Henry F. Schaefer III, PhD (Purdue professor of Chemistry, University of Georgia, “Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?”; Gerald L. Schroeder, PhD Nuclear Physics, “Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible).

            Now, please tell me that these scientific experts are not qualified to comment on issues within their own scientific fields and give your support concerning how and why.

            “What I have said is that mathematically, God is not necessary to get us where we are.”
            You never supported your claim. Just because you attempt does not mean you succeeded. I saw no mathematical formulas in your essay that shows proof of what you claim. That in itself demonstrates that you did not prove your point at all nor that you even made an effort. I have refuted your salient claims in my first six points, which you still have not answered. I am still waiting for your rebuttal of my initial six points.

          9. The discourse is over Floyd.
            Remember? We deemed it a waste of time. You clearly do not understand statistics and probability well enough to grasp what I said about God not needing to be present to get us to where we are now. It is a field of mathematics. Any outcome can come from the results of a previous random outcome. When you are along the trail of trillions of connected random outcomes, you arrive at some point in spacetime that exists. If you are at that point, that does not negate the improbability of being there, nor does it require a “super being” to get you there.

          10. >>>”The discourse is over Floyd.
            Remember? We deemed it a waste of time. You clearly do not understand statistics and probability well enough to grasp what I said about God not needing to be present to get us to where we are now. It is a field of mathematics not a formula. Any outcome can come from the results of a previous random outcome. When you are along the trail of trillions of connected random outcomes, you arrive at some point in spacetime that exists. If you are at that point, that does not negate the improbability of being there, nor does it require a “super being” to get you there.”

            The above comes out of nowhere. Who was writing to you? But since you took the liberty to reply to something unknown, I will reply. You article never provide one statistical formula for proving anything you said. Besides, I spent a large part of my profession in quantitative analysis and economics of business. Nothing in your article mentions probability from a statistical perspective. And all you rely on are discredited liberal sources with a closed mind to any other scholars. The below sentence is your only mention of “probability.”

            “The statistical probability of an outcome may be extreme, yet through a series of events, some outcome will occur.”

            Unfortunately, you are wrong again.

  2. SAT,

    The problem with your statement regarding the beginning of the universe is that the universe is not eternal. It had a beginning. The universe is expanding, therefore it has an origin. Space-time had a beginning. Before space-time, there was nothing. That means nothing, no energy, no matter, not even time. Why would that come into existence when there was no potential energy to even make it a probability? There was no probability, none.

    Also, you make sweeping statements about scholars and what they believe, most of which are false. It is widely accepted by biblical scholars (yes, even secular scholars, at least those that aren’t completely sensationalistiic like Ehrman) that the gospels were likely written by the authors’ whose names adorn their titles. And, these accounts were written within one generation of Jesus’ lifetime, the earliest probably being Mark in the 60’s AD, only 30 years after the events occurred. Like Mike has said, for ancient biographies, these are the most reliable and the closest to the actual events of any ancient biographies that we have. Most, like Alexander the Great, have biographies that were written hundreds of years after the events that they record. Plus, the gospel accounts would have been self-correcting since they were written so early. Many of the witnesses to Jesus’ life were still alive and would have protested if the accounts were not accurate.

    Even if we didn’t have the gospels, here is what we would know about Jesus non-biblical sources (some referred to by Mike): Jesus was a Jewish man, born in Palestine at the time of Augustus Caesar. He was a religious teacher who had a large following of disciples. He was crucified by procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, and it became very dark at that time. His disciples reported that he appeared to them 3 days after he died and that he was alive. These same disciples died for their beliefs without recanting their testimony.

    Also, Mike mentions Occam’s razor, and I find it much easier to believe that a single creator began the universe than hypotheses such as the multiple universe theory, or alien seeding, etc. Being an engineer (Aerospace and Mechanical), I also find it much more believable than space, matter, and time all of the sudden coming into existence without any external stimuli. That is not the way physics works. I realize that quantum physics tries to explain this, with a lot of hand waving and “constants”, but the more you study it, the more unsatisfying this type of explanation becomes. But you have to study it. Study both sides. Don’t trust blogs or bloggers. Like me, they all have a set of presuppositions that are difficult to overcome. I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. But not by blind faith, but by studying history, reading exegetically, contemplating texts hermeneutically , arguing both sides, and ultimately allowing my heart to work in partnership with my mind. My mind understands the physics. My heart informs me that God gives us such understanding to give us the impetus to search for its origin, and their we find Him.

    1. Brent,

      Thank you for our e-mail, and for the time you took to write it. I hope this reply better clarifies the points in my article, and subsequent discussions.

      You said, “my mind understands the physics. My heart informs me that God gives us such understanding to give us the impetus to search for its origin, and there we find Him”

      Such are your stated beliefs. I accept your decision. You have made up your mind. I think the verdict is still out, and evidence, supported by science, points in an entirely different direction.

      My purpose is to look beyond your beliefs and look to those very origins. They are yet unknown, but science seeks to find them.

      You also stated that “Space time had a beginning. Before Space-time, there was nothing.”

      We do not know what, if anything, existed before the big-bang, but you have no evidence to support your statement that there “was nothing” except your beliefs. Matter, as we know it, originated as it interacted with the Higgs field. This was conjecture for years, but it is no longer. The Higgs field, in a still unknown process, converted energy into matter. We know the process exists because the mathematics tells us the process works both ways. We have converted matter into energy, and we have found the mechanism (the Higgs field) that allows the process to reverse. An energy field had to exist to be converted into matter, since matter is created out of energy. If nothing existed – no energy field – then even the God you believe existed to start the process could not have existed, unless God is nothing. So I suspect you believe something (God) existed prior to the big bang to act as the catalyst. If God can exist before the big bang, it is just as logical to believe an energy field could have existed, and that last supposition is much more probable than a super-being of infinite power.

      The existence of our universe, and probability support the energy field. Our closest analogy is to imagine an immense magnetic field, though this is only an analogy.

      You also stated “there was no probability – none.” Had there been no probability, our universe would not exist, so there had to be some probability no matter how small.

      As to “my sweeping statements” that you feel are wrong, consider this; we ask for an impartial third party to view evidence and render decisions for a reason – to eliminate bias, and prevent people who have already made up their minds from being involved in the decision process. For example, we have had many questionable behavioral actions in this past decade from government. We don’t like it when government investigates itself. It allows for subterfuge, and closed door decisions. Instead we want openness and impartiality. The sources to which you allude are part of the religious business establishment that wishes to support its survival by using itself and its own writings and teachings.

      Those sources I seek and read, (I am about to site three for you to read) have spent their academic careers at leading universities dedicated to open exploration away from intervention. This does not mean that they are correct, but I believe for intellectual integrity to be maintained, they must be read and considered before coming to an academic conclusion. I have already done so. My mind, however, is still open to being changed if evidence to the contrary arises.

      I suggest you obtain, and read:

      Bart Ehrman, “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction”

      Elaine Pagels, “The Gnostic Gospels”

      Richard Norris, “The Christological Controversy”

      I hope you do find time to see if they are available for check-out or on-line reading from your local library.

      I again thank you for writing. I hope I hear from you again in the future. Your comments and observations are welcome. Please also encourage others to read and engage, should they wish, in the dialogue.


  3. Finally, a civilized discussion without name calling, finger pointing an ending with “Obama did it”.Thank you Gentlemen for “the food for thought”. I really enjoyed the banter back an forth more than the original post to be honest although without it I wouldn’t be here to begin with. My search, even at age 60, still eludes me. Or maybe, deep down, I already possess it but want justification from someone whose views match mine. Either way, you both have given me much to ponder an for that I say Thank You. If only the rest of the Web was so enlightening…yeah right…..LOL.

    1. Donald, thank you for your comment.
      If I might be so bold as to suggest that rather than seek further justification from those who’s views match your own, venture to seek, read, and understand opposing views. I have often found insight from those with whom I disagree, and it has broadened my perspective many times. Please do return and if you enjoy what you read, suggest this site to others.
      Thank you


  4. Mike I have read leading Biblical Scholars, devout Christians, supporting the above which you ascribe to secular or materialist scholars. They have had the enriching opportunity to accept the truth staring them in the faith. And they remain devout but had to accept a changed paradigm given their desire to not be in a state of cognitive dissonance.

  5. Paul/Saul was likely not actually a Pharisee. More like a wannabe who didn’t make the grade but who was quite good at self promotion. Research this if you are interested. It’s a fascinating study. I imagine the first Christian synagogue members in Jerusalem are rolling in their graves because of how far Christianity has strayed from the original beliefs, Paul being the first in a long line responsible for that travesty.

    As noted in previous reply the gospels were clearly not written by the authors they are attributed to.

    Also fascinating is the study of the legitimacy of the Christian claim that “Jesus” is Moshiach Ben David. It can be disproven using only internal sources. He didn’t fulfill the prophecies in The Tanakh. So though his existence is not questioned in Judaism (relevant given “Jesus” was Jewish) his status as Moshiach Ben David is.
    The Christian Bible can be used as the sole source to discredit itself. Jews for Judaism have resources detailing the aforementioned as does Tovia Singer. I enjoy watching the debates between rabbis and preachers. They almost always end with the preachers stating, after losing their arguments to reason, that you just have to have faith.
    How many murders have been committed by those just having faith?

    1. >>>”Paul/Saul was likely not actually a Pharisee.”

      N.S., Have you read NT Wright, one of the most respected scholars today? He vigorously disagrees with you. The early Church Fathers also saw him as such, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp (both contemporaries of the Apostle John). Others also affirmed his status: J. R. Michaels, Scot McKnight, A. B. Canedy, and so many other scholars. What are your sources

      Paul himself said he was. Are you calling him a liar?

      >>”As noted in previous reply the gospels were clearly not written by the authors they are attributed to.”

      Sources please. I notice you give none. Your statement goes against a majority of scholarship with only a few lightweight liberal theologians who redefine Paul holding to a different view.

      >>>”It can be disproven using only internal sources. He didn’t fulfill the prophecies in The Tanakh.”

      What internal sources? According to whose interpretation? Non-Christians? Please provide scholastic sources to back up your claims.

      >>>”The Christian Bible can be used as the sole source to discredit itself.”

      Sources please.

      >>>”They almost always end with the preachers stating, after losing their arguments to reason, that you just have to have faith.”

      Who says what you claim? Sources please. Cite scholastic names please.

      >>>”How many murders have been committed by those just having faith?”

      So, are you saying everyone commits murder? Everyone has faith in something, even atheists and agnostics. The faith of atheism is responsible for the greatest number of murders in the history of mankind. And do not cite the crusades unless you know what you are talking about. Numerous liberals have engaged in revisionism of the crusades.

      The support for your claims do not exist.

      1. I have cited scholars for you to read. Are you not reading what I have spent my time writing to you? Whether these sources are Christians is irrelevant. The issue with your discussion besides your apparent gross misunderstanding of science (at least as indicated by your statements)is that you will only seek out like minded religious theologians. That would be like
        the Catholuc Church investigating the allegations against it of child abuse. It found nothing, it admitted nothing it did nothing.
        Look outside of your narrow recitation of the religious writers you like to quote. Look at the historical academics and what they have discovered outside of religion. I suggest you begin with the scholars I gave you in my previous replies.

        1. >>>”Whether these sources are Christians is irrelevant.”

          You are wrong. Worldview is very relevant to and accurate assessment of truth and fact. Liberals bring their own assumptions to biblical studies, and for the most part they are wrong. Ehrman is a skeptic agnostic/atheist and brings that biased worldview to his approach to biblical studies. He assumes the BIble to be fiction and begins from that point with his approach. He has been refuted numerous times for his biased hermeneutics, higher criticism/Jesus Seminar approach, and bad assumptions (See Scot Mcknight, Douglas Moo, and D. A. Carson).

          These three scholars have shown that Ehrman was not honest in his assessment of certain ancient fragments ( Pagels writings of the Gnostic gospels have nothing to say about the reliability of the NT books. So her assessment of them is irrelevant to the discussion of the Bible. Her attempts to associate Paul with the Gnosticism have been proven wrong several times over (Again see Carson, Moo, and McKnight. Also see NT Wright. They have repudiated such hypotheses over and over. Such people like Pagels continue to publish refuted retreads. In terms of Norris, he rejects the biblical rendition of Christ. All of them follow the Higher Criticism/Jesus Seminar approach to biblical studies, which continues to surface with the same old approach since the Graf/Wellhausen days in the 19th century.

          If you wish to continue to ignore my arguments without any rebuttal, then I see no reason to continue the discussion. You continue to surface the same thing over and over while offering no rebuttal or defense for anything you have claimed. All you do is offer up three people who give long refuted retread approaches of the past century and their own biases. Are they the only people you have read?

          I am still waiting for answers to all my questions to you, especially whether you have read any of the scholars I highlighted in my posts.

          1. I do agree with you that continuing this discussion is a waste of time.

            I disagree with you and you disagree with those accepted as the worlds formost academic experts by feebly attempting to discredit them by parroting religious authors you accept but no one outside your field will.

            How frustrating that must be. They have done exceptional work I’m sure, but derived from contaminated Petri dishes arriving at conclusions based upon nonexistent contrived early church evidence. You cannot use a late second or early third century eye witness to an event two hundred years before. They were not there.

            Most of the rudiments are falsified church written, directed, and entirely self serving. If you had even once opened your mind to read something contrary to your beliefs instead of stigmatizing an author as “too liberal” or throwing labels such as “Atheist” or “Agnostic” or “not Christian” hoping something might stick, you would know that.

            What you have told all of us is that you reject them out of hand because you feel that they might express their work with the same prejudice that theologians have expressed their own. They however are academics. They are bound to an honor code above and beyond merely expressing their beliefs.

  6. Comparing the statistical probably of a specific individual being here (out of all the sperm and eggs in the history of recreating) to the statistical probably of an eye evolving or life evolving at all is a false analogy in my opinion. It presumes that fertile recreating has to produce someone- if not me than someone else. To extend the analogy it means we presume that the universe had to produce life. But it didn’t. After decades of study there still is absolutely no fundamental reason evolution should exist as a mechanism in this universe- even though it appears to. There is nothing in any of the other physical laws that give a basis for life tending to develop and then evolve into more and more complex organisms- even in a Goldilocks zone. You can’t depend on statistics and time to prove or even prefer atheistic evolution because life isn’t just a happy statistical anomaly. It is a statistical non-starter.

  7. Mike…

    you should look up the definition of FACT and HUMAN ORIGIN.

    I tried and didn’t find anything to do with the bible or God, or any made up fairytale that required total belief in the unprovable and the ability to ignore FACTS.

    You continually miss the many points that STA is making, most notably that he doesn’t believe or disbelieve in GOD as either conclusion can not be proven to be true. You have heard of the tea pot theory I am sure, where the universe and all within are created by a tiny tea pot that is all knowing. It too created, controls and overseas everything, as you believe GOD does. Unfortunately there is as much evidence for that theory being the truth as does your theory of GOD. I do not believe or disbelieve that theory either. I call it a theory as it lacks supporting evidence and relies on Belief as you so often stated yours does.

    Yet You continually try to use scientific evidence to prove your beliefs, (where you state about the origins of the bible, who wrote it, why it must be true, etc… but if evidence then arises that doesn’t support you, you rubbish science as another religion. You do realise MOST people on the planet do not believe your theory that GOD created us and heaven and earth.

    Do you believe we live on a round or oval planet?(it actually isn’t, Geodial is a closer approximation) or that gravity exists. I ask this as (Gravity and shape of the earth) are what we now classify as Facts not beliefs.

    I am sure the evolution of Humans is a very sore point for anyone forcing themselves to believe in GOD as it conflicts directly with what is written in the bible. I use the word forcing, as one must go to great extents to limit what they learn (ignore facts) and continually restate to themselves to belief in the unprovable. So if we need ignore factual evidence to support our belief what do we call that… ignorance… much better to just not research it…. if you don’t find the facts you can remain ignorant.

    Did you know the probability we evolved from an ape species is approximately equal to the probability gravity exists.

    In other words not everywhere continually has gravity been tested (as that would be impossible within our current knowledge base). It has enough to be classified as a FACT but maybe it doesn’t really exist.. and likewise evolution may not be true because we have only found many many pieces of factual evidence of this evolution from species to species. No one witnessed this evolution first hand, videoed it and placed it on Utube. (Also impossible within our current abilities)….. maybe God placed them there to test us…..

    There are many people who want to make their own decision on what to believe and not to believe. STA is really supporting that view, while you sit there and just say your beliefs are right.

    Im afraid Im with STA, I await with an open mind for new discoveries and will allow new factual information in before I believe one way or the other.

    and thats before I get into all the grief, death and agony the world has seen directly due to these ignorant beliefs.


  8. What an excellent defense of your beliefs Mike. Very accurate use of bible verses. “In the beggining God created the heavens and the Earth” (Gen 1:1) it is a very simple yet accurate statement of our origin from our author. However the intrincates of how He did it is for us to discover. What is not appropiate is when most of the modern scientist deny the possibility of a Creator when mere observation suggest it and the deeper we go we encounter complícate patterns that points toward a maker. Scientist didn’t always were this way. Newton was a firm believer in the God and in the Bible and by todays standards he is by far one the most intellectually gifted.

    Maybe God blessed him for not denying His Grand Instructor, who knows. I applaud sincere men and women of science that defend their beliefs in an enviroment so hostile to anything God related. God bless you Mike.

  9. Fine-tuning arguments to me were never the most satisfying proof of God’s creation, for the same “lucky accident” reasons you explained—it may be that we’re just the only survivors in the one goldilocks universe out of trillions of failed ones. Although on the whole this requires layers of assumptions that creation doesn’t, and it’s interesting how many atheists have been given some pause by apparent fine-tuning, “as if prescribed by outside agency” (Hawking) as if the universe “knew we were coming” (Dyson), which I believe is a hint of the sometimes buried intuition we all have about a Creator (Romans 1). But I do think there are ontological arguments more satisfying, at least for me, but in any case you need to start with the right information.

    While much of what the priest you asked to define God said was true, it’s incomplete. If God created nature, He can’t actually be nature. Also, Scripture claims God is eternal, which means He existed before/outside of time rather than being subject to and bound by it. We would do better to define God based on what the Bible says about Him.

    If we accept by faith it’s claims (faith is the only real option for knowing about the distant past and ultimate origins), the observable world makes sense. The empirical fact that “nature is visible and provable. It follows rules – the laws of physics” only makes sense on the Christian worldview, because it provides an adequate explanation for phenomenon like laws (which in our estimation are always authored) and why billions of people can’t seem to shake the intuition that God exists. If we assume by faith, again, because that’s our only option, that the universe came about from matter and motion by undirected natural means, we really can’t rationally account for what we can observe (i.e. laws like logic, morality, uniformity, physics, etc). Our basic presuppositions are not provable, and we rely on circular reasoning to defend ultimate convictions, either Naturalism (laws like logic are defended using logic) or Christian Theism (the Bible is true because it says it’s true). But faith in Naturalism multiplies assumptions and still doesn’t make sense of nature (laws and minds from a mindless origin). Faith in Christian Theism does.

    A few observations about some of the arguments you’ve made:

    Jesus’ early followers weren’t historically characterized as a “group of uneducated, illiterate Jewish peasants.” Matthew’s previous career as tax-collector doubtlessly involved reading, writing, math, accounting (and fleecing) skills. Luke was a doctor. Peter and John are called “unschooled” in Acts 4:13, but “agrammotoi” in that context, while he was interrogated by a Jewish council, likely meant unschooled in Jewish law. The very reason they were before the Sanhedrin were Peter and John’s interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures (which requires reading). If you’re including Paul, he was a highly educated Pharisee and had likely memorized the Torah.

    There’s actually very little reason to doubt that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the authors of the Gospels since their authorship was widely recognized from the church’s earliest days, there were no other authors suggested, and there are thousands of Greek manuscripts of the Gospels that identify them as authors. If the ancient testimony points to these 4 as the authors of the gospels, I’m not sure how we can claim to know better nearly two millennia later.

    It’s a bit disingenuous to say that the Bible was “edited in 367 by a man named Athanasius.” The number of canonical books were likely fixed long before Athanasius, who only affirmed the Scriptures as they were already laid out as “the fountains of salvation…” (he referred to them as already “canonized”) and declared that the list shouldn’t be changed. All 39 Old Testament books seem to have been nearly universally agreed upon by the Councils of Jamnia in 90 and 118 AD, with some debate over the Apocrypha (which still continues today), and all but 5 of the New Testament books were canonized by 170 AD (Muratorian), nearly 2 centuries before Athanasius. Around 200 AD, Origen was using all 27 NT books, and Constantine likely had the same set when he commissioned 50 copies of the NT in 331.

    Interesting post!

    1. David thank you for your wonderful reply. One of our key differences is that you are looking to prove Gods creation and I am not. From the way you state your conclusions throughout your letter it is apparent that you discount science and that you have already made up your mind about creation.

      Since you believe that God exists you look for evidence in support of your argument and ignore anything to the contrary. In so doing you overlook numerous errors.

      If we all believed what we were told based upon faith we would still believe our world was flat, that the sun orbited the earth, and that it was acceptable to destroy people who believe differently than we do. That great “wisdom” came from the same people and from the same period from which you take other “facts”.

      Much harm has come from religious closed mindedness. It has fought science for centuries in its effort to control ignorant people it would not teach to read or write. It wanted to subjugate threaten and intimidate. Most of all it wanted wealth and power. Religion is a business and it thrives on money from its believers. Without them it dies. Religion is on the decline today because people question concepts that fail the test of modernity. This does not preclude God. But if God exists I suspect he or she is appalled by what he or she sees.

      We cannot live in a goldilocks universe out of trillions. If we live in a multiverse, it is not limited to trillions, it is infinite mathematically, just as is the computation of the letter Pi, there is always still yet another number to follow. There would therefore be an infinite number of Goldilocks universes.

      Further since we have a finite number of particles in our own universe they can only be rearranged a finite number of ways leading us to believe that somewhere there are replicas of our own universe.

      Your statement that creationism doesn’t require layers of assumptions is inaccurate. There are so many layers that need be believed, including the infallibility of the Bible. It is science that is pure.

      You have only one source and one must believe your source material is correct and I do not. It is filled with errors, misstatements, mis-translation and inaccuracies.

      I don’t know if you have taken formal coursework on this subject matter because you argued the pseudonymous origins or Matthew Mark, Luke and John. No academic today believes these were written by these authors. First they spoke Aramaic not Greek. They could not have written them in Greek. They were written by native Greek speakers. Second they were not written contemporaneously with these men they were written after their deaths between CE (AD) 40-115.

      Frankly we do not know that we do live in a multiverse. But if not and if ours is the only universe, then it is still capable of being everything it is without the invention of an all powerful being to start it on its way. If our physics permits it, then it also does not preclude the existence of such an all powerful being.

      We should know later this year whether we live in a multiverse from results from current experiments at the Large Hadron Collider.

      As to the priest who was kind enough to spend his time trying to help an ignorant boy, he should not be faulted.

      Time and space are connected into one thing called space-time. They are one. Therefore before our universe existed there was no time. Hence your presumption that God came before time existed. This would mean he didn’t exist.

      You continue, “if you accept by faith its claims (faith is the only real option to know about the distant past and ultimate origins) the observable world makes sense.” But you see I do NOT accept by your beliefs on faith. I demand proof. You have only your thoughts and feelings.

      Nor do I accept your source material as accurate or objective. It was written by scientifically ignorant men without any knowledge about our universe. You are accepting a Roman world as your knowledge base upon which to build your world.

      1. STA, thanks for your reply. Proof is person-relative, so if I “prove” God’s creation, great, but not really what I’m expecting to do. We are both tied to our own worldviews, so it would take a lot to shake loose either of our ultimate convictions. To a large degree, yes, I have already “made up my mind” about Christian Theism, as have you have about Naturalism or Scientism. That is after all what belief is, making up your mind about something. It seems many Naturalists or Atheists I’ve talked with like to disassociate their worldview from “belief” or “faith”, but it never plays out that way. As for evidence, you and I don’t “look for evidence to support” our own views, we are looking at the same evidence and interpreting it differently based on what we already believe. Let’s be honest: you didn’t arrive at Naturalism by following the evidence, You made certain assumptions first, then built your belief system from there. Same as everyone else.

        Is science the world’s most important endeavor for you? Or is it family, love, relationships, truth, or virtue? How to you deal with the philosophical underpinnings of science? Can you justify scientific reasoning, or uniformity of natural laws, or the rules of logic, with something other than than scientific reasoning, uniformity of natural laws, and the rules of logic? If you say such principals need no justification, that’s a religion called Scientism, and any religion might say the same about their own god. Our most basic presuppositions are just that, presupposed before we do any science, and in fact such basic assumptions make science possible.

        That said, I have no disdain for science, unless it’s done poorly or applied beyond its own self-described limits. You’ve scattered quite a few sweeping generalizations about “religious close[d] mindeness” that really don’t apply. For starters, the Bible doesn’t teach that the world was flat or that sun revolves around the earth. Terms like “four corners of the earth” and “sunrise/sunset” are commonly used today (by scientists) to describe outer limits and the *relative* movement of the sun. Reading comprehension that includes context and an awareness of the difference between prescription and description when we see accounts of violence in history will help with the false notion some have that the Bible teaches that “it was acceptable to destroy people who believe differently.” Actually, that idea is a product of any culture that idolizes autonomy, past and present. It’s true that many have invoked the name of God to control and intimidate, gain wealth or power, and many of done the same using their own name. If you’re already bent on controlling, intimidating, gaining wealth or power, why wouldn’t you try to borrow the highest authority you could? Although Pol Pot managed to kill millions without claiming God’s authority.

        On the multiverse and multiplying assumptions: “If we live in a multiverse” is blind faith in the unseen at best, and the only reason to assume a multiverse is a prior commitment to Naturalism. It’s not a conclusion from the evidence, but a Naturalist interpretation of the evidence. The same goes for the eternal inflation hypothesis deemed necessary to account for the universe’s apparent size and uniformity in all directions. Even the notion of “infinite” comes with no practical experience or empirical knowledge. Yet we talk about “forever” and “eternity” in normal conversation, love songs, complaining about long lines, afterlife talk, as if it’s something we’re certain about, though everything we see and touch begins and ends. You can’t get to infinity with math or computation of Pi; the best you can do is move toward it, and you’re just as far from it as when you started. Yet this somehow serves as a Naturalistic basis for multiverse theory. Creation requires faith in the unseen too—the eternal Creator described in the Bible. But that faith actually makes sense of the universe, its size, uniformity, and why we insist there is something like eternity, because God “has also put eternity in their hearts” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Naturalism, despite the layers of assumptions, doesn’t rationally justify them.

        Re: “You continue, ‘if you accept by faith its claims (faith is the only real option to know about the distant past and ultimate origins) the observable world makes sense.’ But you see I do NOT accept by your beliefs on faith.” I DO see that. Rather, you accept your own beliefs on faith but are unable to account for your basic presuppositions on Naturalism. You say “I demand proof”, but you actually don’t, because you assume things that can’t be proven for your own most deeply held convictions.

        Re: “Matthew Mark, Luke and John. No academic today believes these were written by these authors.” Plenty of “academics” (maybe you mean something else by that term) hold that position, and I think it’s out of place to say we know better than Iranaeus (a friend of John’s disciple Polycarp), Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzeus, Jerome and others much closer to the question and whose testimonies have gone virtually uncontested until recently. You’re right, the Gospels were likely written in Greek, but incorrect in the assumption that the four disciples didn’t know Greek. Judea, Samaria and Galilee were bilingual and even trilingual areas, evidenced by multilingual public inscriptions as well as coins minted by Jannaeus and Antigonus in the last century BC with Hebrew on one side and Greek on the other. Cities, regions, (Decapolis and Idumea) and people (Andrew, Philip, Nicodemus, Theopolis) in Palestine often took Greek names, and Greek customs and measurements were part of the culture. The assumption that Jesus and his disciples only spoke Aramaic is not well supported. And I’m not sure why you say the Gospels were written after the 4 disciples died. The original Gospels were all most likely penned before AD 70, possibly even around 60. None mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, significant because Jesus’ prophesied its fall, and other big events are missing from Acts, which we know was written after Luke (Nero’s persecution in 64, death of James in 62, Paul in 64 and Peter in 65). John died a natural death around 100 AD. Matthew, Mark and Luke were martyred, but their deaths are recorded after the Gospels in other accounts.

        You say the Bible “is filled with errors, misstatements, mis-translation and inaccuracies.” For example?

        You say the universe is “capable of being everything it is without the invention of an all powerful being to start it on its way.” How so?

        Thanks for the dialog. 🙂 Have a great week.

        Mike (not sure who David is…)

        1. Mike – I apologize for getting not getting name right.

          Proof of anything scientific is not as you assert- person relative. Your religious beliefs may be person relative because they are philosophical, but laws of mathematics and physics are by definition not up to interpretation as to their validity unless you are in fact dealing with a hypothesis, and not a law. The word is used too little and the term theory sometimes is applied improperly. Laws of physics are not something open for debate. They are laws. They are provable by experiment. If they involve an area of science that is not capable of being either proved or disproved it falls into the realm of philosophy of science. An example would be the existence of strings in string theory.

          You still misunderstand my position. I am not tied to any world view. I do not deny the existence of God, as you still seem to do to the facts of sciences inspite of your protests otherwise. I merely point out that God is not necessary to create our universe. Our universe can exist merely through the random occurrence of outcomes. Think of it this way. Once the universe began, and 14.3 billion years passed, it would have, through whatever took place, arrived at some point. If at that point there were intelligent beings, they may too have marveled at how they came to be. It might not have been us, but if you take any situation and play it forward some outcome will occur, even improbable ones. I have a hunch as to how this question on the existence if God will ultimately play out, but I have no firm opinion on gods existence. I maintain an open mind and am willing to consider all arguments.

          I am not a naturalist, I am a believer in science. I have little interest in discussing your philosophy. You are using source material that comes from church authors to try to prove your claims. Academically that material is self serving- it tries to validate itself- by making claims that have since been academically discredited. There is NOTHING contemporaneous with Christ written by ANYONE to suggest he said, did, or was involved in anything suggested he did except excerpts from the bible or from sources trying to validate the bible and in so doing, the validity of the early Catholic Church and hence itself. It must be discarded as contaminated.

          IF you can provide ANY document that is contemporaneous with Christ please tell us now and where we might see it, because no academic on earth knows about it. We would all love to see it.

          My assumptions are simply restatements of the laws of mathematics and physics. I do believe that mathematics often shows us where to look for new discoveries even before they can be experimentally demonstrated. At that stage as previously expressed they are hypotheses.

          As for my personal life, your appeal to me is lost, I’m afraid, as it runs beyond the scope of this discussion and the articles on various topics.

          You appear to like to label things and try to stick them in a neat little box. Unfortunately mathematics and physics are too large to fit. Philosophy is limited because there are sometimes mathematical expressions that become what appears to be paradoxical and you referred to one in your first note- but only because you don’t understand it. The viewing of a photon or an electron does not itself cause a particle to break into a wave function. In other words there is no magic. It is that it is not possible “to view” anything without some sort of interaction. It is THAT interaction that cause the duality.

          Scientific facts are not assumptions and you saying so does not make that true. More to the point you assert many things in your writing and then go on as if some further result is true based on your beginning incorrect presumption.

          If you were an attorney, you would be challenged for assuming facts not in evidence. That is, you must prove your premise before you can use it to try to prove those things that depend on your premise being true.

          Many of your assertions are false and as such much of your reasoning is as well.

          The flat earth comment and other misbeliefs are not in the Bible, they were put forward by the early church- the same ones who wrote the made up, academically unsupported history of Christianity you now quote. If the material you quote is unsupported, so too must be all of your arguments. Your early Christian history is incorrect. I suggest you take a course or better- several of them- from an academic institution not affiliated with any church.

          I have dedicated too much time on this already, and as I said I have little interest in philosophical beliefs.

          As for biblical errors here is one: The Red Sea is NEVER mentioned in early manuscripts, Yam Suph or “sea of reeds” however, is. The error comes from Greek translators misunderstanding an alphabet with no vowels. This is provable.

          A second is the name of God. YHWH, Yahweh, is shown in earliest manuscripts. Gods name has never been or ever was Jehovah. This is provable.

          As to the beginning of the universe- it happened. The universe exists; it has existed. You are in it.

          Energy converted into matter in a huge expansion of space time.

          Truthfully scientists still do not yet understand the process of how it happened- but we know it did.

          Likewise we are yet to reconcile the physics of the very very small- quantum mechanics, and of the very large- relativity- but even so, we are convinced there is an answer out there somewhere. Who knows? Perhaps you will be correct and we may find evidence of God- or perhaps not.

          1. SAT, sorry for the ambiguous use of “proof”. I was using it in a difference sense than mathematical proofs, responding to your statement about “looking to prove God’s creation.” In that context something is proven if you’re convinced, so in that sense proof is person-relative.

            All beliefs, religious or otherwise, are also person-relative, and that would of course include your own. Our beliefs contribute to our individual worldviews—how we personally view the world as a result of our experiences and convictions—so you do have a worldview, perhaps more agnostic than naturalistic, and you explain your own worldview as you claim to have none.

            That doesn’t mean your beliefs aren’t unique; no two worldviews are identical. What is universally human is personal belief, operating out of worldviews, and rooting our thinking in premises philosophically assumed, not inferred. You like science, and that’s great, but the reason you or anyone else likes science or thinks scientifically is anything but scientific, and why we do something is ultimately more important than what we do.

            Scientific facts are observable and verifiable and generally seen as objectively true. I don’t deny those. What we can’t observe and test however is open to challenge. For example, scientific laws are observable and testable patterns in nature we’ve been able to rely on, so we dub them “laws.” Why and how those patterns are there and are constant, however, is assumed. First principals always are. For example, your premise that “you must prove your premise before you can use it to try to prove those things that depend on your premise being true” (laws of logic) is assumed. I agree that in general conclusions should follow from premises, but we can see that first principals are unprovable within any axiomatic system. It’s basically David Hume’s problem of induction. In mathematics, it’s Kurt Godel’s incompleteness theorems. Any discussion about God, origins, or first causes will sound like philosophy because these are first principals that can’t be proven.

            You say you’ve little interest in philosophical beliefs, but your original post asked for readers’ thoughts on the existence of God. Much of my answer is philosophical, so thanks for bearing with me. 🙂

            For Christian evidences you are demanding source material that isn’t Christian or that doesn’t try to validate Christianity. Would you also require a scientist to validate science using non-scientific textbooks? Under this model, once a source does seem to support the Christian or Biblical worldview, it’s discarded as self-serving or “contaminated.” Evidence is simply not allowed to exist. To your suggestion, I would expect any course on church history from a teacher or institution completely disconnected from any church to be severely lacking.

            As for Biblical manuscripts “academically discredited,” I suppose if you’re asking someone holding a secular or materialistic worldview, or some religious view other than Christianity, of course they would seek to discredit the Bible, but this is not universally or even widely held as true.

            I wouldn’t expect there to be many writers alive at the same time as Jesus that would have any cause to write about Him, and if there were any I would expect the survival rate of those documents, like others at the time, to be extremely low. Jesus was executed as a criminal and thereby marginalized as one of countless entries in Roman execution records, if recorded at all. On the other hand, Tiberius Caesar was pretty well known throughout the world at the same time, but there are only 9 sources dated within 150 years of his lifetime that mention the Roman emperor (10 if you’d like to count Luke). Caesar generally isn’t met with the same skepticism as Jesus, even though there are over over 4 times as many sources dated within 150 years of Jesus’ death that do mention Him (9 NT authors, 20 early Christian writers, some of which were mentioned above, heretical writings, and secular sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, and others. Jesus’ fame rose after His death, and the fact that His contemporaries were willing to die believing they witnessed a resurrected Jesus is a better testimony than documents authored contemporaneously with Christ. Christianity should not have survived the first century if Jesus wasn’t who He claimed to be.

            You are correct concerning the Red Sea/Reed Sea confusion and the fact that we don’t know how to pronounce the Hebrew word YHWH. But these “errors” and others don’t affect meaning or doctrine and bear no theological implications.

            I can’t argue with your last two paragraphs, you’re exactly right. And I see there is the possibility that out of an endless number of universes and an endless number of possible outcomes, we could end up with this exact universe. But we consider it by making an endless number of assumptions (one for each alternate universe we grant possible) and in the end we still have more assumptions to make because we’re left with far more questions that answers, assuming we will answer the question scientifically one day (even though ultimate answers seem to lie in philosophy). Ducking the blade of Occam’s Razor, Christian Theism doesn’t require endless assumptions. Only that God exists as described and revealed in His word, and on top of that it makes sense of what we can observe. At the end of the day, that’s why I think God and Jesus exist, to answer your original question. Out of an infinite number of possibilities, the truth of Christian Theism is just one of them, and like everything else unseen it requires faith. But the reward of that faith in view here is its relative simplicity, predictive and explanatory power for what we can see. It makes the most sense out of “here we are.”

            Thanks again, I hope you enjoy your weekend! 🙂


Leave a Reply