By on January 12, 2012 in FAQ with 9 Comments


Answer :The reasons that people generally disbelieve in God can be categorized broadly in the following 3 reasons:
1) There is no proof for the existence of God.
2) We cannot see God. No one has seen God, so how can we believe God exists?
3) How can a God exist and allow so much suffering and evil in the world around us?

If there is no proof for the existence of God. Many people who want to believe in a God want a scientific basis to prove His existence. Even if people believe in a God, they need logical proof to convince others. Before we provide an answer, we can also raise a similar question, “Is there any proof in modern science to SHOW conclusively that “God does NOT exist?”
For anything to be accepted to be true, it must be “proved” based on the approach accepted universally by the scientific community. For every scientific proof to be accepted one must follow the following 6 steps:
1) AIM,

Modern science has proved beyond doubt that the Earth is a round, spherical globe.
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 – 1543) was one of the first persons in the western world to propose that the earth was a globe rather than a flat plain and that the earth moved around the sun and not vice versa. This was a great shift in thinking from the common stand taken by the Catholic Church at that time.
To explain his aim, Copernicus created his theory in a book “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), published just before his death in 1543. To prove the theory he collected data, performed certain procedures and observed their results. Some common observations he made to prove that the earth was round were:



Lunar eclipses were a great mystery to the ancient Greeks. I their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.
It was Aristotle who first recorded that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This arced shadow of the Earth on the moon is a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.



If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea. The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round.
In this way there are hundreds of procedures that one can perform to observe that the earth is round rather than flat as thought by the ancient aborigines of the western world. Today, with the help of satellite pictures it is clearly observed that the earth is indeed a globe. With all these consistent observations, without a doubt one can conclude that the earth is round.
Thus, every scientific proof must be able to show an AIM, THEORY, APPARATUS, PROCEDURE, OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSION. Since modern science has “proved” many of it’s theories, naturally people expect that there must be a solid scientific proof for God to exist. Before demanding to bring God into the laboratory for testing and to prove or disprove His existence, we will discuss some theory to prove His existence.
AIM: To prove that God exists.
C – Creation implies a Creator.
L – Laws imply a Law Maker.
OR – Order and Organization implies an organizer. Not universe but universal government. Not empty space but a soceity.
D – Design implies an intelligent designer.

Common sense and scientific logic confirm the fact that every creation implies that there must have been a creator of it and every invention points to an inventor. Is there any scientific proof to show a single object that came or appeared without a creator? Even if the creator is outside or beyond the observation of the person seeing the creation, still every person of average intelligence will admit that there must have been some creator of the creation or inventor of the invention.
For Eg.
The inventor of the telephone? Graham Bell (1876)
The inventor of the steam engine? James Watt (1775)
The inventor of the telescope? Galileo (1622)
The inventor of the electric bulb? Thomas Edison (1920)

Can any one of these inventions come automatically?

Will anyone with even an average intelligence accept that these inventions came automatically? Definitely not! Everyone accepts that creation implies a creator and an invention implies there is a creator. Every piece of evidence points to this fact. Yet, when we see the gigantic creation of the material cosmos, by what intelligence or scientific data do we conclude that the universe was created without a creator!

There is an incident in the life of Sir Isaac Newton that goes to show how he was a strong believer in a Creator.
Newton had an atheistic friend who would regularly argue with him on the subject matter of God. Newton decided to teach this friend a lesson for life. He invited the friend over lunch after exactly one week.
Within that week, Newton had a model of the solar system made, which was installed on large table in his laboratory. The artisan had done a fine job. He had created all the relative sizes of all the planets and their relative distances and moons with great precision. Further, he had constructed the model in such a way that all the planets and the moons rotated and orbited around the sun, when a lever was moved.
Next week, the friend came to Newton’s house for the promised lunch visit and was naturally intrigued by the model. Having expressed his admiration at the workmanship, he enquired about the artisan. Newton replied in all seriousness, “There was no artisan!” His friend started laughing. Still smiling his friend said, “It is fine if you want to keep the expert artisan a secret, but how can you say – there is no artisan!”
Continuing with the same gravity and appearing as if in deep thought, Newton explained, “Last night, when I was working in the laboratory, the lights went off. As I was moving about in the dark, I hit against a cupboard full of nuts, bolts and other hardware. The cupboard fell over and everything within it spilled out. When the lights came on, this beautiful model of the solar system had just popped up by chance!”
Of course the visitor was not convinced. He laughed even louder at this incredible story. Finally Newton explained, “You refuse to believe that this tiny machine came about by chance and yet you are convinced that the great original, the actual solar system has come into being without a designer or a maker? Now tell me, by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an absurd conclusion?”
Thus, Newton defeated his atheistic friend and made him realize that behind this marvelous universe, there is the intelligent hand of a Creator. Scientists have struggled hard to give a convincing theory or proof to explain the how the following 3 things have been created. In fact, by the scientific process it can be proved that the creator is beyond the realm of science to approach or prove with the current instruments or methodology. One needs a different set of laws and thesis to understand the creator.
Emotions, intelligence, consciousness and the creator are concepts that are very difficult to explain simply based on matter, chemicals or material laws. Scientists know that chemicals can affect emotions but they are failing to understand why emotions exist or where do they originate from? They have tried to create artificial intelligence but are at a loss to create real intelligence in robots. Quantum mechanics is beginning to appreciate that “consciousness” or awareness of one’s identity and the material world around us, is reality beyond the physical world.
Today, many are researching into metaphysical realms of science to explain how these concepts work. We shall discuss about the first three in then next session. In this session, we shall discuss how the creator exists beyond the physical or the natural world. The creator exists in a metaphysical or a supernatural realm, which needs instruments other than the scientists use to experiment with matter and energy.)

Atheistic people, who do not accept that there is a creator behind the creation, must give a proper, scientific explanation to the following questions.
1) Who created the varieties of species?
2) Who created the first life forms on the planet?
3) Who created the universe?

1) Who Created the varieties of species?
Answer – Modern Science based on Darwin’s theory says, “Evolution” created the varieties of species.
There are thousands and millions of varieties of species on the planet, in the form of germs, insects, fishes, reptiles, birds, beasts, mammals etc. From here did this variety of species arise? Darwin’s theory of evolution is most widely accepted theory to explain the origin of the varieties of life forms and species on earth. Darwin explained that through the process of “Natural selection”, nature allows the “survival of the fittest” species. The other species, which cannot survive, become extinct and newer varieties of species, which are fitter, survive.
In this way, life began from a unicellular organism, then grew into multi cellular, then the fishes and amphibians appeared and in this way all the varieties of plants, birds, insects, reptiles, mammals and finally human beings were created by gradual evolution over millions of years. All these varieties have come by chance, spontaneously created by a blind, insentient, purposeless law of nature without any intelligent direction.
This theory works very well to show how variations occur in species due to environmental changes and only the fittest in those species survive.
It is well known that the female anopheles mosquito bites can cause the disease of malaria in human beings. Therefore, DDT is sprayed on bodies of water to kill all the mosquitoes and their eggs to control their population. When DDT is sprayed, almost all mosquitoes are killed except for the fittest few, who may survive.
In the next rainy season, it is these surviving mosquitoes that breed. Therefore, this year the mosquitoes are of a stronger variety that are immune to the DDT spray. Then they need a stronger version of the DDT to kill these stronger mosquitoes. In this way Darwin’s theory explained that only fittest species survive and others become extinct over a period of time.
During droughts when food is scarce, birds with longer beaks survive and the ones with shorter beaks become extinct. This is because the birds with longer beaks can break into shells or dig into drier fruits to get some nourishment from within. In this way, by natural selection birds with longer procreate and that species continue to exist.)

The above examples are very good to explain how stronger and fitter versions of the same species survive by the process of “Natural selection”. However, there is a major flaw in this explanation.
1) This kind of “survival of the fittest” explains only how stronger versions of the same species survive due to natural selection (like the varieties of bacteria and mosquitoes and even varieties of human beings in the different cultures). It gives no explanation of how one species transform into another.
2) When bacteria become resistant to an anti-biotic, it becomes stronger bacteria. It never becomes a mosquito! Or DDT resistant mosquitoes only become stronger mosquitoes. They don’t become birds!

“Survival of the fittest” theory of Darwin is:
a) True for explaining the variations in the same species but
b) Fails to explain how the varieties of the species come about.

The question still stands – Who created the varieties of species on the planet?

In his book “Origin of species” pg. 202, Charles Darwin explained how the giraffe got its long neck based on his theory of survival of the fittest. He explains that giraffes originally looked just like any other short-necked grazing animal like an antelope or a deer in Africa. Darwin speculated that the animal that became giraffe later, felt that the survival of the fittest depended upon reaching up and plucking leaves from higher branches of tall trees
This went on for a long time. While the other grazing animals were content eating the lush green grass on the ground the brothers and sisters of the giraffe kept reaching for higher branches. Only those that reached the highest branches survived and all the other giraffes and all the other giraffes in the forest died of starvation.

This sounds like a good (fairy-tale!) theory, however, it has also raises many doubts:
1) According to this theory all the medium-sized neck giraffes died of starvation and only the one with the longest neck survived the drought-like conditions where vegetation was available only on tall trees. Then how did all the other land grazing animals survive at the same time?
2) Were the conditions of drought the same all over the entire continent of Africa and all over the world that not even one single medium-sized giraffe could survive, while all the short necked grass eating animals survived side by side with the long necked giraffe!
3) Where are the fossils that show evidence of medium-sized giraffes ever existed? The records of the fossils do not show single evidence a medium-sized neck giraffe. Where are the fossils that show that only giraffes survived a drought in any part of the world? There is not a single evidence that only giraffes alone survived or existed alone on any part of the planet, at any point in time! In fact the fossils show that giraffes always existing with hundreds and thousands of other animals, at all points in time.

That means, the fossils disprove the theory of evolution that giraffes evolved from other animals over a long period of time. Steven Stanley explains that, “The fossil records show that:
a) Numerous types of species fossils appear suddenly at a point in time and
b) No links between one major kind of living thing and another has ever been found.

The diagram and models of the transitional links between different species are simply imaginations and speculations of the various biologists, zoologists, archeologists and other scientists who have proposed these theories! If evolution of species is a scientific concept then it should because proved by a scientific method. Can any scientist show that evolution is true, by demonstrating the evolution of any living entity, even of a tiny organism into another organism in their laboratories.
In conclusion, evolution is not just a theory it is a false theory. In schools an colleges evolution is not taught as a theory, it is taught as a fact and accepted in general as “science”. The fact is that evolution is a false science to explain the varieties of species because:
1) Survival of the fittest creates variation in the species. It does not create newer species with much difference from the original. (Genetic mutations and breeding also do not create new species).

2) Fossils of life forms in the past show that the species are Created suddenly at different points in time, rather than gradually evolving step by step from simpler to complex forms.

3) No scientist has ever been able to demonstrate evolution, even at a tiny level in their laboratories.
Therefore, based on the scientific method we can safely reject the “Theory of evolution” to explain the varieties of species. It fails to explain how the varieties of species on land, what to speak of millions of varieties of fishes upto the blue whale, and the varieties of pants and trees. How did a mango giving tree become a banana plant? There are too many doubts and loop holes in this faity tale to be true!

Even by the wildest stretch of imagination or blind faith in this theory, if we accept that life began with single celled organism, grew to become multi cellular organisms that evolved into complex species with digestive, respiratory, musculoskeletal, nervous system etc., the doubt that needs to be answered is – Where did the original single celled life come from? How was it created? What answer do the scientists have for this?

2) Who created the first life forms on the planet?
Scientists believe that by spontaneous chance “some chemicals” came together to produce the first single celled organisms. This theory is full of assumptions and contradictions.
1) Richard Dawkins, in his book “The Selfish Gene” speculates that the earth’s original atmosphere was made up of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water.
2) Through energy supplied by sunlight, lightening or volcano eruptions, these atoms and compounds rearranged themselves into amino acids and protein-like compounds.
3) Then by accident, a remarkable molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself was formed by an accident.
4) Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by a highly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as membrane.
Thus it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.
This theory full of assumptions, accidents, and speculations can hardly be accepted as a scientific theory. The recent explosive knowledge in the field of microbiology has only serve to show how the oldest known single-celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex. Each of the steps of the outlandish “fairytale” story that go around in the name of “science” can be proved to be thoroughly wrong and impossible to achieve. Such fantastic speculation does not even appeal to common sense and can only be used to entertain children below 6 yrs of age.

Even if we accept this theory of “spontaneous” creation of life by the wildest stretch of human imagination, it still has to put two questions to rest:
1) Creation of the genetic code: This theory speculates that chemicals just came about by chance to build self-replicating life cells. This theory however fails to explain where the genetic code which determines the structure of the life forms. This genetic code is so complex that Bill Gates comments, “The genetic code within one DNA or RNA strand is a more complicate information system than the coded data of all the softwares created by Microsoft put together!”
We all know that Microsoft employs hundreds and thousands of intelligent engineers to “Create” software. It does not depend upon spontaneous chance for software to appear, have life symptoms and start replicating itself! Each species have a definite genetic code and it is impossible for one specie to convert into another, just like it is impossible for a laptop (another species) to be produced from desktops (original species) by evolution.
We can now imagine that if Darwin had a degree in ‘genetic engineering’, then he would laugh at his own theory that a bear can transform itself after many generations into a giant whale or a deer to develop into a giraffe. The genetic codes of each of the species are so complicated that scientists with all their intelligence are hardly able to understand it. How can such a code develop without an incredibly intelligent creator?

2) Why not produce life? Science means, there must be a logical theory, a procedure to prove it and observe the proof. Our challenge to the scientist is to prove that this fantastic fairy tale theory full of faults, accidents and assumptions by applying the scientific method!
a) PAST – There was no human observer when evolutionists say life came by chance chemical combination.

b) PRESENT – There is no evidence of life coming by chance, anywhere in the world, that is happening now. An easy way to prove this theory of evolution is to produce some form of life I the laboratory by chemical reactions. At this stage of scientific advancement, scientists know all the chemicals that are present in the cell and can synthesize them in the laboratory.
However, laboratory experiments to create life, big or small, have miserably failed. They have failed to create a single mosquito, an egg or even a bacterium.

c) FUTURE – Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. Even if the scientists succeed in creating life by mixing some chemicals in a test tube or in laboratory, they simply prove that life comes from intelligent life. Life does not come from random chance chemical combinations that are happening in nature.
Biologist Edwin Conklin said, “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”

Hitching says, “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so full of doubts among even those who teach it…. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals became alive?”
We know for a fact that it never happens today. There is no evidence available that it has ever happened in the past. Scientific research and experiments have proved that the laws of nature and science will never allow life to be created from chemicals. Faced with repeated embarrassment of failing to create life with chemicals, the scientist created a new theory that life on earth came from aliens from another planet in the universe.
This theory also became popular and caught the imagination of mainstream scientists. This theory gives explanation of how life came to the earth planet, however, it simply postpones the main question further – How did life originate on those planets with aliens? With such a failure to apply the scientific method to the theory of evolution and the origin of life from chemicals, is it honest for science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?

Every piece of scientific discovery points to an intelligent creator rather than creation happening by blind chance. Even if by the wildest stretch of human imagination we somehow cover our intellectual capacities and put blind faith in these inconsistent and fantastic theories, still a fundamental doubt still remains to be answered by these scientists: Where did all these chemicals come from to create life, by chance? Where did the universe come from? Did the universe also come by some blind chance or is there an intelligent creator behind it?

3) Who created the universe?
They most widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe amongst the scientific circles is the “Big Bang Theory”. What is this “big bang theory”? According to the big bang theory, the entire universe began from “a point of infinite temperature, infinite density and zero volume”. This very hot point of zero size exploded. As the explosion expanded and cooled, the entire universe with all its galaxies, stars, planets, and space etc appeared from that “one point”. This sounds like a great idea for an exciting science fiction movie.
Even if we accept the big bang theory, it does not prove that there is no creator. In fact, the big bang theory proves that the universe was created and that a creation comes from a creator. Thus, the fact that a creation must have a creator is confirmed even by modern science. Who is the creator and how one can understand Him is beyond the scope of material science to understand. For that we need different tool of a higher science of metaphysics or spirituality.

If there is a big bang or a bomb explosion in a city, 2 things are certain:
i) People are eager to know the origin of the bang, “Who created the explosion? Who was responsible for it?”
ii) People are sure that the bang created destruction and disorder. One cannot expect a harmonious orderly coming out of a big bang explosion!

All evidence proves that big bang explosions cause disorder, disharmony and destruction.
Eg1) What was the result of atom bombs on Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? Did the bomb explosions result in better organization?
Eg2) Do explosions in printing presses create beautifully bound classics of Shakespeare or they create a scene of destruction?
Eg3) Do the bombs that fall on cities in wartime produce superbly designed buildings, streets and signs with traffic laws? Definitely Not! In fact they create total disorder, chaos and disorganization.
The universe we live in not some lump of destroyed materials but a perfect residence with arrangement for food, water, heat, light, medicine etc. for all living beings to live in harmony. Can anyone expect a beautiful, multistoried housing apartment complete with all facilities for food, water supply, lighting, electricity, hospital facility etc. to speing from a “big bang” or a big explosion. Even if we accept it on blind faith, the big bang theory still fails to answer the basic question convincingly: Who created the universe? It simply diverts the attention to explain what happened AFTER the creation of the universe.

Wikipedia writes about the Big Bang theory, “Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant.”

The Big Bang theory fails to answer the basic question and raises even more doubts than it answers about the origin of the universe;
1) Where did this “magical point” come from? (Scientists have no idea or explanation for it).
2) Why did it explode at some point in time?
3) Who created the bang? What was His purpose in creating this? (No answer).
4) What did it explode into? Was there space and time before it? Then where did that space and time come from? (No answer).
4) Can we physically explain what that point was made up of? (Scientists – The point is physically indescribable). Can we mathematically verify it? (Scientists – The point is mathematically unverifiable).

This is because we cannot apply rules of mathematics to the numbers zero and infinity. We cannot add, subtract, multiply or divide with the numbers “0” and “infinite. What is 5, 10, 500 or even 25,000 million when multiplied by zero or infinity? It is mathematically indescribable. In essence, the scientists want us to blindly accept that “a supernatural point” which is beyond time and space created the universe. However, there is no “scientific” or observable data to prove that the universe came from a big bang. This is simply a theory in search of a proof. In fact, scientific laws prove that this theory can never be proved!

Even if we have “believe” in this “big bang theory”, still it doesn’t prove that God does not exist. In fact, it simply replaces the word God, and says that “a point” is the Supernatural Creator of this universe and the cause of all other causes! This theory forces us to accept that there is a supernatural point which cannot be explained by any material science, mathematics or laws and neglects or fails to answer even simple questions like the one’s raised above.
Scientists accuse the religionists of the unforgivable crime of having faith in some “Supernatural God” who cannot be proved or seen by the means of natural material science. Now, through the big bang theory for the origin of the universe, the scientists are guilty of the same crime of having faith in a “Supernatural point” which cannot be proved by means of material science. Scientists are now stuck with the same problem of “blind faith” without proof.
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to prove that the universe started from “a point”. Still the scientific community and the educationists have complete and blind faith that this theory of the origin of the universe is the absolute truth! Even if the big bang theory is true (by the wildest stretch of a blind-faith based human imagination), it still does not prove that God doesn’t exist. In fact the only thing it proves is that “A Creation implies a Creator!”

The big bang theory clearly proves that
1) The universe was created at a point in time (13.7 billion years, source: Wikipedia 2010).
2) The creator of the universe is beyond time and space of the universe.
Eg. Just like the programmer is greater than the program, similarly, the creator is greater than the creation. Just like the programmer is outside the program and cannot be understood by any means available in the program, similarly, we cannot be understand the creator completely by simply applying logic and using means of science available in the creation. We need supernatural tools to understand the creator.

The Creator is supernatural, existing before all conceptions of time and space that we know. The question is, whom should we accept as the Supernatural Creator of the universe –
i) “A Supernatural Point” – which has no evidence of existence in the past (no one was there to see it when the scientist claimed it exploded!), no proof in science in the present and which can never be proved in the future or
ii) “A Supernatural intelligent Creator” – who can be realized and observed through supernatural or metaphysical processes.
Encyclopedia Britannica admits, “It should be emphasized that no theory of the origin of the solar system has as yet won general acceptance. All involve highly improbable assumptions.” The choice is yours to put blind faith on an illogical, unscientific, unverifiable and Supernatural point or reasonable faith based on logic, science, reasoning, realizable, and Supernatural God, as the creator of the universe.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

About the Author

About the Author: .


If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.