The Existence of God

The Existence of God

By Larry Siekawitch

How Do We Know God Exists?

Is there a God? Is Christianity fact or fiction? Is the universe just a fluke that came about by chance and will eventually be destroyed? Are we just a compilation of molecules that just happen to work together pretty good or are we the design of God made in his image? These questions are the most important questions in the world. They are more important than who will win the Super-Bowl this year. They are even more important than the hospital x-rays that may show I have cancer. They are more important because they deal with eternity. Think of this way. If Christianity is true then we all live for ever - either in heaven or in hell. We all die but then what? If Christianity is not true and the atheists are right then all the martyrs who died for their faith are fools. The answers to these questions make a world of difference, which is why it makes sense for every individual to examine the evidence. Below is a case for Christianity. Examine the evidence with an open mind - your eternal destiny may be at stake. If the evidence is found wanting then you have been detained for a small portion of time from the things that really matter to you. If the evidence is convincing then you must make a decision, because a fantastic eternal life awaits you. This paper is written for two purposes: for the skeptic to show him that Christianity does not expect him to make a blind leap of faith in the dark without reason, and for the Christian teacher looking for material to train others in the area of apologetics "The branch of theology dealing with the defense and proof of Christianity" (Webster's).

There are three questions that the non-Christian needs to be confronted with: Is there a God? Is the Bible trustworthy? Does Jesus' life, death and resurrection prove the claims of Christianity? If you can show them that the answer to these three questions is yes you have broken down the intellectual walls keeping them from Jesus. This doesn't mean they will accept Jesus. I remember talking with a man in college who was a convinced skeptic. After a while in our conversation he admitted that I had convinced him that there was a God. After a while longer he admitted that Christianity made sense and he thought it was true but he went on to say that he wasn't ready to become a Christian. When I asked why he was honest and said that he wasn't ready to give up his life of sin. There are people that don't want to be confused with the facts. They don't want to believe. This material may make them uncomfortable but it will not change their minds. But for the honest seeker that has never seen a good case for Christianity this material can take away the barriers keeping him or her from following Jesus. There will always be the necessary room for faith. God has provided us enough revelation of himself to convince any honest skeptic but not enough to force a person that doesn't want to believe against his will. It is faith, but it is faith founded on fact.

The direction we will be taking is first to convince the atheist into becoming an agnostic, then to convince the agnostic that there is a god, then to show him that the Bible is true, then to show him that Christianity is true, then finally to answer some of the tough questions that seem to contradict Christianity (see chart A).

Atheist to Agnostic

First, an atheist is someone that believes beyond the shadow of a doubt there is no God. Psalm 53:1 says, "The fool says in his heart there is no God." The Bible calls the atheist a fool because atheism is illogical. For a person to say that there is no possible way beyond his limited knowledge of reality that there might be information revealing God's existence. We are finite creatures; that means we have limited amounts of knowledge; we don't know everything (though some of us appear to think we do). If there are areas of knowledge outside our limited range then it is a possibility that outside our limited range there is knowledge of God's existence. In order for us to say absolutely that there is no true knowledge of God's existence we would have to have all knowledge (see chart B). If we had all knowledge we would have one of the attributes that only God could have therefore we would be God. So we find ourselves in the strange predicament of being God and yet denying God's existence. But if we are limited and therefore are not God we must admit that there is at least the possibility that there is a God outside of our knowledge; it might be a likely possibility or it might be a very long-shot possibility but nonetheless it is a possibility. If we admit this we cease being a fool (a person who thinks he is God and yet denies God's existence) and move into the area of agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the belief that we are unsure whether there is a God or not. There are two types of agnostics: 1) those who say there may or may not be a God, they just have not discovered his existence yet if he does exist, 2) those who say they do not know if there is a God or not and no one can ever know. The first category is a true agnostic. The second category is just a disguise for atheism and moves into the category of being a fool. They are a fool because if there is a God then surely he is able to reveal himself to us, therefore there is at least the possibility that someone could know if there is a God or not.

Agnosticism to Theism

Our next step is to convince the agnostic that there is a God. We are not now trying to prove the existence of the God of the Bible, just that there is some form of supreme being responsible for creating the universe. The Bible claims that God has revealed himself to every person through what theologians call general revelation (Read Psalm 19; Romans 1:18-23; Acts 14:17; 17:26-28; Romans 2:4; 2:14-15). General revelation is the revelation of God through his creation and through our conscience. It is not specific and detailed but it does show that God exists and it does reveal a few things we can know about this supreme being. The general revelation is basic logical deductions from what we can observe and reason. First we will look at the three options for the universe's existence and then we will look at three proofs for God's existence.

I. Three options for the existence of the universe (see chart C):

II.

A. The universe created itself. This is illogical because it would already have to be in existence in order to create itself and therefore would already be created so it could not create itself. Star Trek's hypothesis that sometimes the affect comes before the cause is fun science fiction but it is not logical.

B. The universe is eternal. This solves the problem of being created because it never was created. The problem with this view, which is held by most atheists as well as most Eastern religions, is that is goes against all scientific discoveries concerning the universe. To hold this view is to hold a view without a shred of evidence and with very much convincing evidence to the contrary. It is definitely a leap of faith into the dark. The impossibility of an eternal universe is discussed below in detail under the heading "Does the Bible and Science Conflict?" Briefly stated the Big Bang theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove the theory of an eternal universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, "The amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing due to continuing heat loss. In other words, the universe is running out of usable fuel; it is slowly dying a heat death." If the universe is running down there must have been a starting place where maximum energy was there otherwise it would have already run out if infinite time is given. Listen to what Robert Jastrow, internationally known astronomer and founder and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has to say:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

C. An uncaused, eternal, all-powerful being created the universe out of nothing (see Genesis 1:1-3).

II. Three arguments for God's existence:

III.

A. The Cosmological argument. The cosmological argument is based on the law of Cause and Effect which all scientific investigation depends on. It says that for every effect there was a cause. We drop a ball off the Empire State building and it falls to the ground; what caused it to fall? The affect was caused by gravity. Everything that ever happens had a prior cause to it happening. When we trace the causes and affects back to the beginning we must ask "What caused the first affect?" We know there was a first affect because we have already determined that the universe had a beginning. There must be a first cause and that first cause cannot be contingent (its existence depends on another), must be eternal and uncaused as well as all-powerful and personal. The first cause cannot be contingent because if it had a need and depended on something else for its existence it could not exist before anything else was created or caused. The first cause must be eternal otherwise we would have to ask the question "What caused the first cause?" (which is why it would also have to be uncaused). The first cause would have to be all-powerful or at least extremely powerful beyond our wildest imagination in order to create the vast expanse and intricacy of the universe. The first cause would also have to be personal in order to create personality. The God of the Bible fits all of these:

A. God is self-existent (uncaused) John 5:26

B. God is eternal Deuteronomy 33:27

C. God is independent of anything else (non-contingent; necessary) Psalm 50:9-13,21; Isaiah 66:1-2.

D. God is all-powerful Jeremiah 32:17; The term "LORD Almighty is used of God 252 times in the Bible.

E. God is personal Exodus 3:14

B. The Teleological argument. Cicero said, "If you saw a splendid house, you surely would not assume that it was built by mice or weasels. A splendid house implies a splendid architect; and a wonderful world implies a divine creator." The gist of this argument is that since the universe appears to have design and purpose there must be an intelligent designer. The argument can be looked at like this:

1. The universe appears to have design and purpose.

2. The best explanation for design and purpose is an intelligent designer.

3. Therefore, the universe is probably the result of an intelligent designer.

Clark Pinnock gives one of a multitude of examples of this argument from design:

If we saw a scattering of stones on a hillside spelling out the words, "Welcome to Canada," we would not suppose that these stones had fallen down the hill and formed the message by themselves. They could have done so, but it would be very unlikely. Instead we would conclude that some intelligent agent had arranged the stones in that pattern so as to communicate with us. I believe it is reasonable to think that God wants to communicate with us and does so in part through the wise ordering of the world, which is a cosmos not a chaos (60).

Another aspect besides the complexity, intricacy, and order of the universe is that the universe appears to have purpose. Not only does the design demand a Designer, but the purposiveness of the universe demands a Purposer. First look at the beauty of this world. I agree with Jean Anouilh who says, "Beauty is a rare miracle that reduces to silence our doubts about God." Donald Williams says, "Not even the hardest of hearts can see a blazing sunset over the Pacific without some sense of awe" (150). Let's consider the human being. Think about the purpose and beauty in our ability to reason, communicate, have emotions, see colors, taste foods, laugh and cry. Not only that, we have the ability to ask the question of our own existence. Clark Pinnock challenges us to consider the human brain:

It consists of about three pounds of grey matter, and yet no manmade computer of any size can duplicate the myriad of operations it routinely performs for us every day. Composed of thirty billion nerve cells, the brain is a vast, largely unexplored continent - one of the wonders of the universe. How can a person be expected to believe that an organ of such incredible complexity and versatility came to exist by accident as the result of an unintelligent and purely material process? (59).

The only other explanation is chance. You have heard of the infinite monkey at the infinite typewriter that given enough time will eventually pound out Shakespeare's Hamlet. One day the scientist rushes to the typewriter, pulls out the first page and says, "At last we are vindicated. To be or not to be that is the gershuveblem4ts. By chance alone there is no purpose or design and what chance creates ends up in gersheveblem4ts (Martin). That is why C.A. Chant, Professor of Astrophysics in Toronto University says that "at least 90 percent of astronomers have reached the conclusion that the universe is not the result of blind law, but is regulated by a great Intelligence" (Grounds 22). Nobel Prize winner and physicist Dr. Robert Millikan declares, "To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist" (Grounds 22). The scientists agree; the universe had a beginning; it could not have appeared all by itself; and its design and purposiveness rule out chance. So a creator is necessary and it appears that Romans 1:18-22 is right:

This is the argument from design and purpose; it shows that there is a supreme being and that this supreme being must be all-knowing and all-wise or at least very smart and very wise. The God of the Bible is all-knowing and all-wise (see 1 John 3:20 and Romans 11:33-36).

C. The moral argument. In discussing this argument I am indebted to C.S. Lewis and C. Stephen Evans. Romans 2:15 says that God has written his basic laws upon everyone's heart and so we are all without excuse. We all have a conscience (though it is possible to sear our conscience 1 Timothy 4:2). The argument can be stated:

1. Unless there is a God, there cannot be objectively binding moral obligations.

2. There are objectively binding moral obligations.

3. Therefore there is a God (Evans 69).

Some reject objectively binding moral obligations in favor of what is called "cultural relativism." Cultural relativism is the idea that there are no moral absolutes; all morals come from our upbringing in the particular society we grow up in and the circumstances we live through. What might be right for me may not be right for you and what might be evil for you may be good for me. Many point out the dissimilarities of ethical standards in different cultures to back up this view. In actuality the amazing thing is the abundant similarities of basic moral values among all cultures.

The most serious problem with moral relativism is that it nullifies any possibility for moral progress. If there is no real standard then to say we are better or worse now is senseless. We cannot condemn those who promote antisemitism, racism, or infanticide.

Besides the vast similarities of ethics in the various cultures and besides the fact that cultural relativism does away with any possibility of moral progress, nobody lives by this idea in day to day practice. To say you believe something is true and yet all your life is lived as if it were not true is to deny that you really believe it is true (except when it is convenient). Evans puts it this way:

It is extremely difficult to hold consistently to any form of relativism or emotivism in practice. It is easy enough to say that there are no real moral obligations; but most people cannot help believing that, when they are wronged by someone else, the act is really wrong. If a person maliciously trips me and then laughs because I have cut my lip, it will seem to me that the person has wronged me and that it is a true fact that he has done so. It is no good to say that the person who tripped me thought the act was right and therefore for him it was right. The act was wrong, and the person should have recognized this and regretted the act, even if he felt no such emotion. The person who did the tripping is likely to say the same thing when he is tripped (71).

All of us have a conscience. We are compelled to do certain things even though we don't want to, often when it goes directly against our natural instincts. We feel we ought to do something or we ought to abstain from something else. There appears to be a law within us, a sense of ought. This certainly does not prove the existence of a supreme Being but it does cause us to think. It is difficult to conceive of morality and "oughtness" to have evolved from blind chance. None of the other animals have this peculiar trait. They just act on instinct. But not man. Could it be that God has placed within us his ideals to protect us and lead us to himself? This argument reveals that God is a moral being that cares about morality and justice.

When we view the three arguments above we see a strong case for the existence of God. Though we may have not absolutely proved his existence we see that all the evidence is in favor of his existence. From these arguments we learn a little about what God is like. The Cosmological argument reveals that he must be uncaused, eternal, independent, all-powerful and personal. The Teleological argument reveals that God must be intelligent and wise and therefore personal (as well as artistic). The Moral argument shows that he must be a moral Being who cares about justice and morality. Is that all we can know about the creator of the universe? How can we know if Christianity is right? Let's now look at the case for the Christian faith.

Why Should I Trust the Bible?

John Warwick Montgomery tells us a parable:

A great king (God) had a son (mankind) who had grown up out of contact with his father. While journeying in a distant province the son fell seriously ill. The doctor accompanying him (reason) was incapable of treating the disease, but the king, learning of his son's plight, sent instructions (the gospel) for the healing of the boy. However, the king's numerous enemies also discovered what had happened, and they likewise sent remedies - purporting to come from the king - which were actually poisonous (non- Christian religious and philosophical options). The son's solution to this dilemma was to evaluate the remedies by three tests: first, what each remedy revealed about his father (comparison being made with the likeness to the father possessed by the son himself); second, how accurately each remedy pictured the nature of the disease; and thirdly, how sound the various curative methods appeared to be. With the help of the doctor, the son finally made his decision in terms of the remedy that best satisfied all three tests (120).

Montgomery proposes three tests. The first test is "What each remedy revealed about the son's father. We have already seen that logic strongly argues for the existence of a god who is personal, powerful, eternal, wise, and moral. The Bible declares all of these attributes of God.

Montgomery's second test is "How accurate each remedy pictures the nature of the disease." Many of the liberal and humanistic religions stress the basic goodness of man's nature. They say corruption comes from society. This goes contrary to the facts of history and logic. History reveals that man is not basically good; he is basically selfish and sinful. The liberal view is also illogical because society is a bunch of individual people. To blame the situation of the world on society is to blame it on people. This is exactly what the Bible teaches: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

Montgomery's third test is "How sound the various curative methods appear to be." If God has revealed himself in propositional form, that revelation would have certain properties due to his infinite knowledge and moral perfection:

1. It would be entirely true - his infinite knowledge would prevent errors and his truthfulness would keep him from deception.

2. It would be a coherent unity therefore not self- contradictory.

3. It would contain God's will for man and provide the motivation to live according to that will (Shelly 92).

God has revealed himself in the Bible without error. The Bible itself claims this inerrancy (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Matthew 5:18; etc.). Let's look at some of the proofs for the Bible's claim to be the infallible word of God.

The first proof we have testifying to the reliability of the Bible is the archaeological evidence. Nelson Glueck, a respected Jewish archaeologist claims: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference" (Shelly 103). The liberals made wild claims against the Bible a hundred years ago but now they are silent. This is not true of other religions. The Mormon claim for inspiration of the Book of Mormon has been categorically condemned by the Smithsonian Institute because of the fallacies shown by archaeology; this is not so with the Bible. A.N. Sherwin-white, a respected classical historian at Oxford says about the book of Acts, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd" (Shelly 110). A case in point is the historicity of Jesus. We have several first century writings from non-Christians (Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Rabbi Eliezer, and Josephus) mentioning details about Jesus and his crucifixion, John the Baptist as well as many other details found in the Gospels. The old contention that there never was a historical Jesus is blown away by the evidence.

The next proof is the Bible's uniqueness and unity. The Bible was written by over 40 authors who came from just about every walk of life conceivable including fisherman, kings, a butler, priests, and a tax collector. The 66 books of the Bible were written over a 1500 year span in three languages on three continents with one theme and no contradictions. C.J. Sharp captures this miracle well:

If a fragment of stone were found in Italy, another in Asia Minor, another in Greece, another in Egypt, and on and on until sixty-six fragments had been found, and if when put together they fitted perfectly together, making a perfect statue of Venus de Milo, there is not an artist or scientist but would arrive immediately at the conclusion that there was originally a sculptor who conceived and carved the statue. The very lines and perfections would probably determine which of the great ancient artists carved the statue. Not only the unity of the Scriptures, but their lines of perfection, suggest One far above any human as the real author. That could be no one but God (Shelly 114).

A third reason why Christians believe God is the ultimate author of the Bible is the predictive prophecy in the Bible. This aspect is unique to the world's religions because if one predicts something will happen and it does not, they are proven to be phony. The Bible is literally filled with detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy. I refer the reader to Josh McDowell's books Evidence That Demands A Verdict and Prophecy: Fact Or Fiction? for detailed proof of the prophetic accuracy of the Bible. Here I would like to list 61 prophecies along with their fulfillment about Jesus (as recorded in Evidence That Demands A Verdict):

1. Born of the seed of woman - Genesis 3:15 and Galatians 4:4.

2. Born of a virgin - Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:18,24,25.

3. Son of God - Psalms 2:7 and Matthew 3:17.

4. Seed of Abraham - Genesis 22:18 and Matthew 1:1.

5. Son of Isaac - Genesis 21:12 and Luke 3:23-24.

6. Son of Jacob - Numbers 24:17 and Luke 3:23-24.

7. Tribe of Judah - Genesis 49:10 and Luke 3:23-24.

8. Family line of Jesse - Isaiah 11:1 and Luke 3:23-24.

9. House of David - Jeremiah 23:5 and Luke 3:23-24.

10. Born at Bethlehem - Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:1.

11. Presented with gifts - Psalms 72:10 and Matthew 2:1,11.

12. Herod kills children - Jeremiah 31:15 and Matthew 2:16.

13. His pre-existence - Micah 5:2 and Colossians 1:17.

14. He shall be called Lord - Psalms 110:1 and Matthew 22:43-45.

15. Shall be Immanuel (God with us) - Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23.

16. Shall be a prophet - Deuteronomy 18:18 and Matthew 21:11.

17. Priest - Psalms 110:4 and hebrews 3:1.d

18. Judge - Isaiah 33:22 and John 5:30.

19. king - Psalms 2:6 and Matthew 27:37.

20. Special anointment of Holy Spirit - Isaiah 11:2 and Matthew 3:16,17.

21. His zeal for God - Psalms 69:9 and John 2:15-17.

22. Preceded by messenger - Isaiah 40:3 and Matthew 3:1,2.

23. Ministry to begin in Galilee - Isaiah 9:1 and Matthew 4:12,13,17.

24. Ministry of miracles - Isaiah 35:5,6 and Matthew 9:35.

25. Teacher of parables - Psalms 78:2 and Matthew 13:34.

26. He was to enter the temple - Malachi 3:1 and Matthew 21:12.

27. He was to enter Jerusalem on donkey - Zechariah 9:9 and Luke 19:35-37.

28. "Stone of stumbling" to Jews - Psalms 118:22 and 1 Peter 2:7.

29. "Light" to Gentiles - Isaiah 60:3 and Acts 13:47,48.

30. Resurrection - Psalms 16:10 and Acts 2:31.

31. Ascension - Psalms 68:18 and Acts 1:9.

32. Seated at right hand of God - Psalms 110:1 and Hebrews 1:3.

33. Betrayed by a friend - Psalms 41:9 and Matthew 10:4.

34. Sold for 30 pieces of silver - Zechariah 11:12 and Matthew 26:15.

35. Money to be thrown in God's house - Zechariah 11:13 and Matthew 27:5.

36. Price given for potter's field - Zechariah 11:13 and Matthew 27:7.

37. Forsaken by his disciples - Zechariah 13:7 and Mark 14:50.

38. Accused by false witnesses - Psalms 35:11 and Matthew 26:59,60.

39. Dumb before accusers - Isaiah 53:7 and Matthew 27:12.

40. Wounded and bruised Isaiah 53:5 and Matthew 27:26.

41. Smitten and spit upon - Isaiah 50:6 and Matthew 26:67.

42. Mocked - Psalms 22:7,8 and Matthew 27:31.

43. Fell under the cross - Psalms 109:24,25 and Luke 23:26.

44. Hands and feet pierced - Psalms 22:16 and Luke 23:33.

45. Crucified with thieves - Isaiah 53:12 and Matthew 27:38.

46. Made intercession for his persecutors - Isaiah 53:12 and Luke 23:34.

47. Rejected by his own people - Isaiah 53:3 and John 7:5,48.

48. Hated without a cause - Psalms 69:4 and John 15:25.

49. Friends stood afar off - Psalms 38:11 and Luke 23:49.

50. People shook their heads - Psalm 109:25 and Matthew 27:39.

51. Stared upon - Psalms 22:17 and Luke 23:35.

52. Garments parted and lots cast - Psalms 22:18 and John 19:23,24.

53. To suffer thirst - Psalms 69:21 and John 19:28.

54. Gall and vinegar offered him - Psalms 69:21 and Matthew 27:34.

55. His forsaken cry - psalms 22:1 and Matthew 27:46.

56. Committed himself to God - Psalms 31:5 and Luke 23:46.

57. Bones not broken - Psalms 34:20 and John 19:33.

58. Heart broken - Psalm 22:14 and John 19:34.

59. His side pierced - Zechariah 12:10 and John 19:34.

60. Darkness over the land - Amos 8:9 and Matthew 27:45.

61. Buried in rich man's tomb - Isaiah 53:9 and Matthew 27:57-60.

I admit some of these prophecies are vague and could have been deliberately fulfilled but what about the following: 1. Place of birth (Micah 5:2). 2. Date of birth (Daniel 9:25). 3. Manner of birth (Isaiah 7:14). 4. Manner of death (Psalms 22; Isaiah 53). 5. Piercing in side and crucified (Zechariah 12:10; Psalm 22:16 prophesied before the invention of crucifixion). 8. Burial (Isaiah 53:9).

The Bible made several prophecies of the complete destruction of cities. Many of the cities it said would be rebuilt and several it claimed would never be rebuilt - The Bible is 100% accurate in both categories as archeology shows. One amazing example is the city of Tyre. Ezekiel 26:3-5,7,12,14 and 16 predict:

1. Nebuchadnezzar will take the city.

2. Other nations will participate in the fulfillment.

3. The city is to be made flat like the top of a rock.

4. It is to become a place for spreading nets.

5. Its stones and timber are to be laid in the sea.

6. The old city of Tyre will never be rebuilt.

History records that Nebuchadnezzar took the city but the people escaped out to an island. Later Alexander the Great took the Island off the coast by taking the old cities rubble and throwing it into the sea making a land-bridge (this caused the old city to look flat like a rock due to the scraping of the material). The old city is now a place for fisherman but no city has been planted there even though there is an excellent water supply to support a major city.

Another interesting aspect of Biblical prophecy is the New Testament prophecies concerning the last days. John, Zechariah and others had prophecies and visions of the future which they attempted to describe with the words available to them at that time. The amazing thing is how accurate the prophecies are of the way the world is today. There was no way they could have known two thousand years ago what the conditions would be like today. For example, in Revelation 9:13-19 John describes an army of two hundred million soldiers that will cross the Euphrates river from the east. At that time there weren't even two hundred million people on the earth let alone in one army. Today China boasts of an army of two hundred million soldiers; China is east of the Euphrates river. John describes this army as riding on horses with breastplates and of which out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulphur. They had power in their tails and were used to kill a third of mankind. It sounds like John is describing modern day warfare with tanks. He called them horses because that was the only mode of transportation then. John described in Revelation chapter 13 a one world government which would have a cashless money system that worked with a mark on each person's hand or forehead. Today we have scanners in our grocery stores that will soon do away with the use of money. This will cut down crime considerably and so will be accepted readily by a world in desperate need. Right now we use debit cards for these type of transactions but an invisible implant underneath the skin with our social security number on a bar code will work better because it is more easily accessible and will do away with the problem of losing our debit and credit cards, not to mention the problem of credit card theft that will be done away with by this new system. Our technology is ready for this and yet we must ask, "How did John know?" Zechariah 14:12-16 describes a battle which God will use to judge the nations (compare with Revelation 19:17-21). He describes the "plague" like this: "Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths." This sounds gory but we can't escape the similarities to the destruction of people by nuclear warfare and fallout. How did Zechariah know? There was nothing comparable to this at all in his day. The most likely explanation is that God, who can see the future, told him, thus verifying the Bible.

Allow me to mention one other prophecy. The existence of the nation of Israel is phenomenal. Throughout the Bible God said he would bring his people back to their inheritance. Shortly before the total destruction and exile of Israel in 70 A.D. Paul wrote how eventually in the end of time "all Israel would be saved" meaning they would come to Christ (Romans 11). God is not finished with Israel. I am not trying to defend the actions of Israel. I think as a nation they have proven themselves time and time again to be wicked, but God is not through with them, "For God's gifts and his call are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29). Look at the history of Israel. They began from a wandering nomad named Abraham who never owned a single plot of ground except his own burial plot. They grew in numbers as slaves in Egypt (somehow not intermixing with the other races of that land). After being slaves for 400 years they somehow left Egypt and actually conquered the nations living in Palestine even though they were not trained in warfare. Half the nation was destroyed and exiled during the rule of the world empire of Assyria (722 B.C.). The other half was destroyed and exiled during the Babylonian rule (586 B.C.). They returned under the Persian rule somehow not losing their identity during the forced domination and exile. The Greeks sought to annihilate their identity by forced integration; anyone who stood in their way was killed. After the Greeks, the Romans subjugated them and eventually destroyed the temple and banned all Jews from their homeland (70 A.D. and following). For the next 1900 years they roamed the earth as nomads under constant persecution (this was prophesied in Hosea 3:4-5). The Muslims would kill and disperse their groups. The so-called Christians would force them to recant their beliefs or kill them. Their money was constantly being confiscated. All of this led up to the atrocity of Hitler who exterminated six million Jews. Anti-semitic prejudice still runs rampant today. The entire Middle Eastern world wants nothing more in life than to see the total annihilation of the Jews. The Six Day War was an incredible victory for Israel against the entire Arab world because all the odds were against them. How can we account for Israel's existence? How can we account for the widespread hatred toward Israel throughout history unless there is a supernatural evil controlling their opposition? The survival of Israel and the fact that they are back in their homeland after 1900 years should at least cause us to consider the claims of the Bible.

One last question is "How do we know the Bible has been kept in tact over 2000 years of copying?" First the Old Testament. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls our earliest Hebrew copy of the OT was the Masoretic text dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date around the time of Jesus copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the OT dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies. In considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole dating from 125 A.D. to the late fifteenth century when the printing press was invented. We also have thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries which quote the New Testament. We can actually put the entire NT together just from the early Christian quotes. With all of this massive manuscript evidence you would think we would have massive discrepancies - just the opposite is true. The manuscripts agree in 98% of the text. Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two major passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance. Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies. How could there be such accuracy over 1400 years of copying? Two reasons: The scribes that did the copying had meticulous methods for checking their copies for errors. 2) The Holy Spirit made sure we would have an accurate copy of God's word so we would not be deceived. The Mormons, liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by historical manuscript evidence. Besides that their view of God is suspect when they claim his word would not last.

We can trust the Bible because it has been accurately preserved. We can trust the Bible because it is proven to be the word of God. In the next section on why we should believe Christianity is true we will see further miracles that verify the Bible.

How Do We Know Christianity Is True?

Intro: It all centers around the person Jesus. Jesus performed miracles and made claims to be God. This forces us to consider him in one of four ways: He is either Lord, liar, lunatic or legend. The option of his being a good teacher alone is not acceptable because of his claims and actions. A good person doesn't claim to be the only way to heaven unless he is (John 14:6). A good teacher doesn't claim absolute lordship to the point of dividing families if necessary unless he is absolute Lord (Mt 10:34-39). This proposition rules out liberalism and Islam. Let's look at the possibilities in reverse order:

I. Was Jesus just a legend? Archaeology disproves this (see above under proofs for the Bible's inerrancy for specifics)

II. Was Jesus a lunatic? If he claimed to be God and is not he is a lunatic on the level of a man who thinks he is a poached egg. But was Jesus crazy? His teachings are recognized around the world as the most sound and ethical teachings taught by anyone ever. This obscure man born in a city of 200 never traveling over 200 miles, never writing anything, and killed as common criminal has influenced this world more than any other human ever - does this sound like a lunatic? Few are willing to say he is crazy.

III. Was Jesus a liar? Remember he produced the most ethical religion on earth. Would a liar die for a cause he knew wasn't true? His opponents never questioned whether he performed miracles or not; they accused him of being possessed. Would a possessed man do so much good that Jesus did?

IV. The only other alternative is that Jesus is Lord. If he is Lord then we must listen to everything he says. We don't have an option to only listen to the parts we like. The Bible says all other religions are false and that Jesus is the only way of salvation. This rules out all other religions. Jesus is Lord and he proved it by his resurrection. Let's look at the resurrection in more detail:

The Resurrection

The next proof for the supremacy of Christianity over the other religious options is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The fact that a son of a Jewish carpenter from an obscure town, who never wrote a book, never traveled farther than a couple hundred miles, had no formal education, and was killed as a common criminal, changed the course of history more than any other man in history gives us reason to at least consider his claims. Frank Morison was an English journalist who set out to prove the resurrection of Jesus was a myth. He ended up becoming a Christian and writing the book Who Moved The Stone? What convinced him I believe can convince others. Let's look at the evidence.

I believe that the belief of Jesus raising from the dead is the most logical explanation for the missing body. We must explain the fact that there was no body in the tomb. Let's review the possibilities the atheists have presented: 1) Some have suggested that the body is still in the tomb. This group can be broken up into two subgroups. One group says that the disciples went to the wrong tomb. Another group says that the disciples saw an illusion. If this is true then two difficulties must be answered. If it was an illusion then it was a pretty big illusion. According to 1 Corinthians 15:6 there were over 500 witnesses of Jesus being alive after he was buried. At the time Paul wrote that, most of them were still alive and a person could ask them if he didn't believe Paul. If one claims he saw a dead man alive you call the men in white jackets. If five claim they saw a dead man alive you say it's a joke. If ten claim they saw a dead man alive you think its a conspiracy. But if over 500 claim they saw a dead man alive you at least go and check the coffin. This is exactly what the Jews did. If the body was still there then when the Jewish officials saw all the commotion of the Christians claiming Jesus rose from the dead, all they would have to do is say "No he didn't; here's his body." But they could not do that because the body was missing. What the Jewish officials actually did was claim that the disciples stole the body. This is the second option.

2) The disciples stole the body. The tomb was guarded by soldiers and was blocked by a very heavy boulder with a Roman seal placed on it. Let's just assume that the disciples snuck into the graveyard when the guards just happened to fall asleep (even though it was a death penalty for a guard to fall asleep on duty). They very quietly removed the boulder and stole the body. If this is true then we must deal with the problem of the credibility and the faithfulness of the disciples. The disciples turned from cowards to lions after the supposed resurrection. Would that have happened if they knew it to be a lie? The disciples are responsible for recording the book with the highest ethical standards known to mankind which constantly demands truthfulness and condemns lies; is this possible for wicked liars? I say wicked liars because they consciously misled people who would later die for that deception. Would these same disciples be willing to die for what they knew to be a lie? If they stole the body then when the Romans demanded them to recant they would have gladly rejected Jesus because they knew he was still a corpse. But they didn't. They all went to their horrible deaths claiming that Jesus rose from the dead and that he changed their lives.

3) Because of the impossibility of the first two explanations most atheists opt for the last theory - the swoon theory. This theory states that Jesus did not actually die on the cross. He only appeared dead. When he was placed in the cool tomb he was resuscitated and then appeared to the disciples. We still have the problem of his getting by the guards and removing the boulder. We must also assume that the centurion whose entire job in life is to make sure the criminals are dead was wrong in this case. John would have had to lie about the incident of the soldier piercing Jesus side after he died, because the account says that blood and water came out which pathologists tell us is proof of death. Not only this but we must imagine a weak, half dead Jesus somehow appeared to the disciples in strength and glory enough to convince them that he had risen from the dead. This would make Jesus a liar. I find it amazing that this is the most popular explanation by the atheists for the missing body.

Let me tell you one other possibility - Jesus rose from the dead! Unless we have preconceived biases against the possibility of miracles (which is stupid because if God exists he can certainly do miracles) we must conclude that the most logical explanation for the missing body is that Jesus rose from the dead. If Jesus rose from the dead then he is Lord and we better listen to him when he says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

As a side note I would like to mention one other person who claimed to see the risen Christ - the Apostle Paul. It is difficult to explain how this man, who at one time zealously pursued the death of Christians, became a Christian after seeing the risen Christ and later died for his faith.

What About Those Who Have Never Heard?

We are not now talking about those who reject Jesus for another religion; we are talking about those who never have the opportunity to hear about Jesus. Is God just in condemning them? There are five considerations that I think will help us understand this complex and important issue: 1) the revelation of God, 2) God's knowledge, 3) God's desire, 4) God's goodness, and 5) the power of the gospel.

The first concept we must consider is God's revelation - How does God reveal Himself to humanity? The Bible describes two ways in which God reveals Himself: He reveals Himself generally to all of His creation through the creation and through conscience. He also reveals Himself specifically through His word. These are known as general and special revelations. General revelation is to all creation in general and is not very specific. Special revelation is to select people and is very specific. A survey of some pertinent Bible passages will help make this more clear.

First of all God reveals Himself generally to all creation through His creation. Psalm 19:1-4 says:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

This passage shows that God can be seen by looking at His creation. When we see an awesome sunset over the ocean, or when we view a majestic snow-capped mountain the natural response is "Wow, there is a God!" When we review the intricacy and design of the universe, its complexity and built-in purpose, we are confronted by the Great Designer - It could not be by chance! Our passage declares that the creation continuously proclaims everywhere that God is alive. From this revelation we can see that God must be very smart and that He appreciates beauty.

Acts 14:17 says:

Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.

Here we see that God takes care of His creation - this is what we call the providence of God; This stretches out to all of creation, as Matthew 5:45 says, "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." God gives us joy, provision, and orders the events of our life because He cares about us and because He wants to reveal Himself to us. Acts 17:27 says, "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." So we see that the question "Is God fair in judging people that have never heard of Him" is a mute question because everyone has had some revelation of God. God gave us this revelation in hopes that we would seek Him.

The fault lies in us, not in God. Romans 1:18-25 is the classic passage on general revelation and so deserves to be quoted in its entirety:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen.

I use to think that people in other religions were sincerely seeking God, but according to this passage they are actually rejecting the true God because of their sin. They "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" even though "what may be known about God is plain to them." According to this passage they are "without excuse." Now this passage does not say everything about God including Christ's death on the cross is revealed to all men, but something about God is revealed that should cause people to honestly seek Him and find Him. Jeremiah 29:13 says, "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." General revelation is limited, but it is enough, especially when we couple God's revealing Himself in His creation with God's revealing Himself in our conscience.

God not only speaks to all creation through creation, He also reveals His moral standards to all creation through the conscience. Romans 2:14-15 says:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

Everyone has a conscience. The conscience is not exact and we can actually sear our consciences through continual disobedience to what we know is right (1 Timothy 4:2), but it is a general guide to the character and requirements of the God whose image we are made in (Genesis 1:27). This image has certainly been marred by sin but it is still to a certain degree intact (Genesis 9:6). It is amazing when the different cultures of this world are studied that the laws are so similar. Everyone at a certain time in their life receives a conscience - God telling them what is right and wrong. No one knows at what age this conscience comes (see Romans 7:9), and some probably never receive a conscience (i.e. the severely mentally retarded, babies that die). But in general everyone has a conscience. Not only that, but everyone goes against their conscience. A person may not have the Bible but he does have that inner witness that he rejects - he does what he knows he should not do. For instance, I am pretty sure everyone lies, and yet who would say it is not wrong to lie? Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." We are without excuse.

The revelation that God exists as our creator, that He is good, and that we have rebelled against what we know is right is general revelation. This revelation of God should cause us to humbly seek His mercy. Some may even find His mercy this way. David Clark describes this possibility as the "implicit-faith view:

In this approach, people in a culture that has no contact with Christ or the Bible see through nature that a God exists and through conscience that they are out of touch with him. Although they know nothing of Christ specifically, God prompts them to cast themselves into his hands for safekeeping. They are saved just as any other people are saved: through God's gracious action on behalf of those who are moved by God to call on divine mercy for rescue. They are saved objectively on the basis of Christ's work of atonement; they are saved subjectively in that God elicits a faith response to the glimmer of light in natural revelation. It is true both that it is only through Jesus Christ they are saved and that they have no conceptual knowledge about Christ. (Through No Fault Of Their Own? p.42)

This explains how Old Testament people could be saved. They responded in faith depending on God for mercy. Notice that it can not be any form of salvation by works - the gospel is not distorted. It does not depend on their sincerity - it depends on Christ's payment for their sins and their faith response to God as He has revealed Himself to them in general revelation. Are there any examples of this in the Bible or in history? Yes! Melchizedek and Jethro both were true followers of God without any special revelation that we know of (Genesis 14:18-20; Exodus 18:1-27). In history Don Richardson describes several occurrences in his book Eternity In Their Hearts. All of these people will certainly receive the full gospel if presented to them (see Cornelius in Acts 10 as an example). The question we must ask however is "How many actually come to God this way?" I hope for many, but some are not as hopeful as I am. There is no way to tell. One thing is for certain: A person's likelihood of coming to God is raised dramatically when they hear the gospel. We cannot depend on general revelation alone to reach them - we must bring them the special revelation of the gospel if we want to see a large harvest.

The second concept we must consider concerning the question "What about those who never hear the gospel?" is the concept of God's knowledge. Chet Cady says, "God knows all things both actual and possible; past present, and future; completely, perfectly, simultaneously, and eternally" (The Attributes of God p.22). Psalm 147:5 says, "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit." Hebrews 4:13 says, "Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account." Because God knows everything - even all possible occurrences (middle knowledge) - He knows who will respond positively to the gospel. With this information He can order our lives (to a certain extent without taking away our freedom), so that we will have the greatest possibility or likelihood that we will respond positively to the gospel. Acts 17:26-27 says:

From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

Some people might say "People born in the United States or Europe have a better chance of hearing the gospel so that isn't fair." But everyone receives some revelation and God will make sure that anyone who would respond positively to the gospel will hear it (see Acts 10 as an example).

The idea that God will make sure that people who would respond positively to the gospel will hear it couples the consideration of God's knowledge with God's desire. 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." God wants everyone to be saved. Ezekiel 18:23 says, "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" And in verse 32 He says, "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!" God does not want to have to send anyone to hell. He is holy and just so He will if they refuse to repent and turn to Him, but he wants everyone to come to Him. Some might ask, "Then why doesn't He just save everyone?" God in His sovereign will has decided to give us freedom. He will not force His love on anyone, that would be spiritual rape. He did not make us robots, that would make love impossible. When He calls us to Himself He gives us the ability to accept or reject Him - the fault is our own not His if we reject His free offer of love.

Another idea that is somewhat in tension with the idea that God will make sure everyone who would respond if they heard the gospel will hear the gospel, is the fact that God uses us to present the gospel. What if we rebel and refuse to share with the lost? Ezekiel 33:7-9 states:

Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself.

We still have a responsibility to share the gospel with the lost - that is how God leads them to Himself. If we neglect our calling to share the wonderful life God has given us, the lost will still be punished for not responding to the light of general revelation, but we will be held responsible as well. I do not know what all that entails - the Bible is not specific - but I don't intend to find out, because sharing my faith is a wonderful part of the joy of knowing God. Philemon 1:6 says, "I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ." According to this verse those who neglect the privilege of sharing their faith cannot experience or comprehend the full amount of God's blessing for them. God is right - it is a blessing, a privilege, and a responsibility to share our faith with the lost who have not heard the gospel.

The next consideration is the goodness of God. God is good! Our inability to understand His ways does not change this fact. Isaiah 55:6-9 is profound:

Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

We must turn to Him if we want forgiveness. If we want justice that will certainly come - we need mercy not justice. We are finite and therefore limited in our understanding. God is infinite and therefore unlimited in His understanding. We are sinful and even our ability to reason has been tainted with sin and selfishness. God is perfectly sinless and therefore has no hindrances to making sound judgements. Because this is true, there will be times when we don't understand His ways, but they are still good and just. This is where faith comes in. God has proven Himself faithful, so even with the question of the lost who never hear the gospel, we can count on God being good. Two considerations are helpful here: 1) The Bible does indicate that those who don't receive much light will be judged less harshly than those who do - there will be degrees of punishment in hell. Don't ask me to explain how this can be - I've never been to hell, but Luke 10:13-14 states:

Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.

If it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon then that means there must be degrees of punishment (see also Luke 12:47-48). As Carl F.H. Henry says, "All are judged by what they do with the light they have, and none is without light" (Through No Fault Of Their Own? p.255). 2) God doesn't have to forgive anyone. We are all guilty of rebellion and high treason against the Sovereign ruler of the universe. He would be perfectly just in condemning us all. I praise God for His mercy which He wishes to give to anyone who will humble themselves enough to seek Him for mercy. God is good!

The last thing I would like to say about the subject of the lost is that they have the greatest opportunity of receiving forgiveness when the gospel is presented to them in love. There is power in the gospel. Romans 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes." Hebrews 4:12 says, "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." The presentation of the gospel under the leading of the Holy Spirit, when coupled with prayer can actually open a person's heart to be able to make a decision for Jesus. Besides this, the "implicit Christian" has no way of growing and enjoying the life Jesus has to offer him or her. That person will never be discipled and serve the Lord. We are commanded by Jesus to go into the world and make disciples who will follow Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20). I conclude this section with a challenge from Tite Tienou:

Again, we need not go to such extremes to recognize the value of all of God's revelation. Ultimately the question is not, What kind of revelation do you have? but Do you know God and do you follow him in humble service? God has made himself known in various ways (Heb. 1:1-4) but Jesus Christ, the Son, explains God to us best (John 1:18). While both general revelation and special revelation "speak" of Christ, the latter is much clearer. General revelation is like someone telling a lost traveler, "If you take this road you eventually will get to your destination." Special revelation, on the other hand, is like someone handing a clearly marked map to a lost traveler with the words, "If you follow this map you will get right to where you want to go." I do not know many travelers who would choose the aggravation involved in following the first recommendation. Most would breathe a sigh of relief when given clear directions. Special revelation has the same liberating effect on weary, searching, sin-sick human beings. The problem is that most lost travelers are so caught up in their attempts to find a way home (ancestral religion) that they would rather continue their search than accept clear directions (Christianity). (Through No Fault Of Their Own? p.214)

Do The Bible And Science Conflict?

Evolution

The first thesis I would like to propose is that if evolution can be shown to be contrary to the facts then the only other viable solution to the question of man's existence is creation by a creator. Please bear with me and then evaluate all the information and see if what I am saying fits logically with the facts.

There are only three possibilities concerning the existence of the universe:

1. The universe is eternal.

2. The universe began from spontaneous generation.

3. The universe was created at a specific time.

Let's review these in line with the facts. The first possibility is that the universe is eternal. Scientists like Albert Einstein tried with all their ingenuity to prove that the universe was eternal. They did this because of their fear of the alternative (my opinion). This theory was completely blown apart when Edwin Hubble, using the newly built 100-inch telescope at Mt. Wilson, California, announced his famous law of red shifts: "The more distant a galaxy, the greater, in direct proportion, is its velocity of recession (determined by the shift of its spectral lines to longer, or redder, wavelengths)" (Hugh Ross 57). In other words the farther away a galaxy is the faster it is moving away from the other galaxies. This is the appearance of a gigantic explosion which has its fastest speed at the point of the explosion and then each particle from the explosion gradually slows down as it moves away from the other particles. When we look at the distant galaxies we are really looking at the way things were billions of years ago because it took the light we now see that long to travel to us since the galaxies are billions of light years away from us. Even Einstein gave up his "cosmological constant" and grudgingly accepted the necessity for a beginning because of Hubble's findings. The law of red shifts shows that the universe is expanding and so it must have had a beginning point. There are many other scientific discoveries showing the age of the universe. I will refer to one more evidence and then refer the reader to the book The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross. Hugh Ross says:

Beginning in the 1950's, astronomers developed the means to determine the ages of stars by matching their observed colors and luminosities with colors and luminosities derived from nuclear burning rates and the conditions that the interiors of stars are in hydrostatic and thermal equilibria. The success with which the theoretical calculations (based on simple physical principles) predicted the observed characteristics of every kind of star and star cluster ranks this work as one of the most extraordinary achievements of modern science.... In tackling the steady state and hesitation models astronomers for a long time ignored an amazingly simple argument. It is this: galaxies are all middle-aged. There are no newly formed galaxies. Neither are there any extinct varieties. Galaxy formation must have taken place at only one time in the history of our universe. Therefore, the universe cannot be steady state, and, to negate Eddington's proposal, evolution has not had "an infinite amount of time to get started. This age of the galaxies is confirmed by looking back in time. Since the light from distant portions of the universe took billions of years to reach us, we can view the universe as it was billions of years ago. Such an exercise reveals that the galaxies look progressively younger as one looks farther and farther out into space (90,93).

The law of red shifts proves the universe is expanding, therefore it had to have had a beginning point of expansion.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics also proves The universe must have had a beginning. The 2nd law basically states that the universe is running down. Disorder is increasing and energy is being irreversibly converted from hot to cold bodies. Our sun is constantly burning hydrogen and converting it to helium. It is about half burned out (Don't worry; it still has several million years to go). If everything is getting cold and, as Isaac Asimov put it, "The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!" (Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, 6), then the universe must have had a beginning, otherwise, it would have already reached maximum entropy (it would already be cold).

I have not disproved evolution yet. All I have shown is that there had to have been a beginning. Therefore the first possibility that the universe is eternal has been proven scientifically to be false. Notice I did not use theories to prove this. I used laws (the law of red shifts and the 2nd law of thermodynamics) that are universally held as facts by all scientists.

The next possibility is that the universe just appeared out of nowhere. This is the idea of spontaneous generation. Louis Pasteur forever abolished this idea with his experiments with mold. This agrees with the first law of thermodynamics. Duane Gish explains this law:

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy may be converted into another, energy may be converted into matter, and matter may be converted into energy, but the total quantity always remains the same. You can't get something from nothing, and you can't take something and make nothing out of it (Institute For Creation Research iii).

The only other alternative explanation for the existence of the universe is that the universe was created at a specific time. The big bang theory has been offered as the explanation fitting this possibility. Whether this idea is true or not begs the question. For one thing, even if the whole universe was at one time compressed into one tiny space and then exploded, we still have to answer the question "Where did the tiny ball of universe come from?" And the big bang theory does not contradict the Bible. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It does not say how he created it. Allow me to quote James Spencer:

The Big Bang really solves nothing. It does not account for the creation of matter, it simply starts with a microdot of infinitely compressed matter. But where did the matter come from? Advocates of the Big Bang theory say that question is irrelevant: Whatever occurred before the Big Bang is unknowable and, therefore, simply not important to those of us who exist on this side of that moment.

It is worth noting that secularists who scoff at the Christian's faith in God are themselves believers. They wonder at the Christian's ability to believe in a supernatural Being who created cosmic dust or "matter." "Where did He come from?" they ask. "How can you believe in a God who just is?" At the same time, they themselves believe in dust, content that it just is. Both Christians and secularists exercise faith: One exercises faith in God, who is self-existent; the other exercises faith in dust itself, which just exists. It is not a question of who is a believer, it's only a question of what we choose to believe in (91-92).

What I will now propose is that man was not created through evolution as a natural process from the big bang.

Let's look at the "evidence" for evolution. When I use the term evolution I am speaking of macro-evolution which states that one species evolves into a higher species through positive mutation (the survival of the fittest). I am not talking about micro-evolution which states that there are changes over the years within a particular species. Men are getting taller. Grey moths are surviving whereas white moths are not in industrial England. These are only proofs for micro-evolution which no one disputes. It is the illogical jump from micro-evolution to macro-evolution that I am debating. Famed evolutionist and Oxford Zoologist Richard Dawkins said this about those who reject evolution: "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." (Johnson 9 from Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker). Psalm 14:1 says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Either Dawkins is right, the Bible is right or neither are right; let's look at the evidence.

Darwin taught that species evolved into new species over millions of years and so all of life has a common ancestor in the distant past. This evolution took place through natural selection. Natural selection is the idea that the fittest individuals in a population will produce the most offspring (survival of the fittest). The way evolutionists define "the fittest" is that the fittest are those who produce the most offspring. In other words, the individuals which produce the most offspring will produce the most offspring. This tautology hardly answers how a fish can become a man. Allow me to give one example of the animal kingdom which could not have been propagated through the process of natural selection alone:

The most famous example of sexual selection is the peacock's gaudy fan, which is obviously an encumbrance when a peacock wants to escape a predator. the fan is stimulating to peahens, however, and so its possession increases the peacock's prospects for producing progeny even though it decreases his life expectancy.

The explanation so far is reasonable, even delightful, but what I find intriguing is that Darwinists are not troubled by the unfitness of the peahen's sexual taste. Why would natural selection, which supposedly formed all birds from lowly predecessors, produce a species whose females lust for males with life-threatening decorations?....It seems to me that the peacock and the peahen are just the kind of creatures a whimsical Creator might favor, but that an "uncaring mechanical process" like natural selection would never permit to develop (Johnson 30,31).

Darwin taught that natural selection took place through favorable mutations that helped the new animal produce more than his predecessors. Because of the favorable mutations the new breed would multiply while the old breed would die out. Evolutionists are divided as to the extent of each mutation. Darwin and most evolutionists today believe that millions of these favorable mutations had to occur in minute stages over a long period of time so that the animals slowly evolved into higher and higher species. Many evolutionists saw the impossibility of this micromutation theory. 1) They realized that the earth was not in existence long enough for such a slow process. 2) They realized that unless the mutation was complete it would not help to further the reproductive chances of the animal, in fact, it would hinder it. For example an animal that slowly evolves wings from appendages would become awkward for climbing or grasping and would therefore be easy prey. In order for a mutation of wings to be an advantage it would have to evolve in one step from the mother having legs to the baby having wings completely capable of flight. Another example is the eye. An eye would be worthless until the animal had the total complexity of a working eye along with the mental and neural capacity to use the information obtained by the eye. 3) The third reason some evolutionists reject micromutations (with good reason) is the total lack of fossil evidence (We will discuss that later).

Those who rejected the micromutation theory did not give up on evolution. They proposed the macromutation theory (also called saltations). Men like Professor Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley stated that micromutations could only account for small variations within the species boundary. He said that evolution must have occurred in single jumps through macromutations. He admitted that large-scale mutations almost always produce "hopelessly maladapted monsters," but that on rare occasions a "hopeful monster" would be produced. Phillip Johnson answers this theory quite well. He says:

If Goldschmidt really meant that all the complex interrelated parts of an animal could be reformed together in a single generation by a systemic macromutation, he was postulating a virtual miracle that had no basis either in genetic theory or in experimental evidence. Mutations are thought to stem from random errors in copying the commands of the DNA's genetic code. To suppose that such a random event could reconstruct even a single complex organ like a liver or kidney is about as reasonable as to suppose that an improved watch can be designed by throwing an old one against the wall (37).

This is exactly why Darwin and most evolutionists today reject even the possibility of macromutations as the cause of evolution. So you see the evolutionists prove each other wrong and destroy any possible answer as to how evolution works. Is there any evidence for evolution? The evolutionists last resort is the fossil record. Let's see if history backs up the fantastic claims of the evolutionist.

If evolution is true then we would expect literally millions of transitional stages to be found in the fossil record. Many people talk of the "missing link," but if evolution is true then there should be millions of missing links, and they should not be missing after over 100 years of extensive exploration of the fossil beds. That is not the case. Here is what evolutionist Stephen Gould admits about the paucity of fossil evidence:

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed" (Johnson 50).

Both stasis and sudden appearance are the exact opposite of what Darwin predicted would be found in the fossil record. The fact of stasis being seen in the fossil records shows that not even micro-evolution was taking place in enough quantity to be recorded in the fossil record. Johnson brings out the devastation to evolution that "sudden appearance" imposes:

The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the "Cambrian explosion" of around 600 million years ago. Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period, without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require (54).

Some might ask, "What about the ape-men?" Let me sight a few examples to show the subjectivity involved in this question: 1) The famous Nebraska Man constructed from a single tooth was later found to be a tooth of an extinct pig. 2) The Java Man was later found to be the remains of a gibbon. 3) The Piltdown Man discovered in 1912 was found to be a hoax in 1953. 4) The Australopithecines are only ancient apes. 5) Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man are now categorized as Homo sapiens.

The last difficulty for evolution that I would like to bring up is the problem of the beginning of life. It is said that somehow as chemicals sloshed around in a primordial soup until the right chemicals formed molecules and these molecules formed together just right until life appeared. Now remember once this happened it had to immediately begin evolving because if it died without reproducing (how?) the whole process would have to take place again. Johnson makes the point:

The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokaryote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech. Even if one assumes that something much simpler than a bacterial cell might suffice to start Darwinist evolution on its way - a DNA or RNA macro-molecule, for example - the possibility that such a complex entity could assemble itself by chance is still fantastically unlikely, even if