Is there a God? Is it logical to believe in God? This page will try to briefly answer those questions. Although this page will not convince those who have already made up their minds to the contrary (Psalm 14:1), it is hoped that those who are not sure will realize that it is logical to believe in the existence of God. (There is also a related sermon online titled Is it logical to believe in God?)
Two Choices
First of all, we need to realize that there are only two choices: there either was at some time God (or similar power, the term "God" will be used throughout this article) which started the universe or there was not. If there was not, then the universe is completely random and life has no purpose. If there was a God, does this God still exist and if so does this existence affect our lives (a related article of interest may be What is the Meaning of Life?)?
Because there now is existence (and we do not intend to debate this point), then something has always existed. Either God always existed or matter has always existed. If there was no God, then matter has always existed. Matter, as much as is scientifically known (this author has a Ph.D. in one of the sciences) is composed of atoms which are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons (no one really knows what protons, neutrons, or electrons are composed of--though some type of energy appears probable there are also quarks and other items that seem to be involved).
Electrons "orbit" the nucleus of atoms (the nuclei normally consist of protons and neutrons) at incredible speeds. They are always orbiting. As much as humans know about motion, it is not possible for something to start moving without being affected by something else; thus it is not logical that electrons would be in motion unless something started them to be in motion.
The fact that it appears that there seems to be substantially more matter than antimatter (which in theory would be 50-50 if a non-Divine 'big bang' produced the universe) also suggests that the universe was designed (some say that perhaps there is a huge amount of antimatter). If matter/antimatter is not 50-50, then that violates a law of parity/balance in physics. So, this is another reason that physicists should consider a Divine Creator.
The fact of radioactivity also suggests that matter has not always existed. Radioactive substances are in a state of constant disintegration, thus if they would have been disintegrating forever, there would be no radioactive matter left. And science has proved that radioactive matter still exists.
To get around this point, some scientists suggest that the atomic structure of matter is reconfigured every several billion/trillion years through a hypothesis known as the oscillating universe theory: it is an interesting idea, but one that there is absolutely no proof for--as well as one that violates the known laws of physics as well as the known pattern of the universe. One on its major tenets is that as energy is exhausted from our expanding universe (hence they accept the earlier point that motion cannot continue without an external source), the gravity of the universe finally brings all matter together for a later reconfiguration (and explosion). This concept is absurd: it is like saying that after all material in an explosion stops moving that the attraction of all the material will bring it back together. I used to use firecrackers as a child and can tell you this does not happen. I understand about the effects of gravity and friction, but there is no friction in outerspace, thus there is nothing to slow the expansion down. Furthermore, the Hubble telescope has proved that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, rather than decreasing, thus totally disproving the oscillating universe theory. Many scientists now have correctly concluded that the universe will expand forever (see Scientists Agree With Bible that Universe Will Expand Forever). And is consistent with what the Bible teaches (Isaiah 9:7). I always felt that the oscillating universe theory violated the known laws of physics and was an attempt by some scientists to try to persuade themselves that there the universe had no beginning and that there was no God.
Notice the following:
Mocking non-believers for failing to grasp the logic behind the existence of God, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) cited an exchange with the late Texas entertainer Bob Murphey to disprove atheism during a prayer rally in Washington, D.C. Wednesday.
“Bob Murphey used to say, ‘You know, I feel so bad for atheists, I do,’” Gohmert recalled at “Celebrate America,” a three-week-long revival event. “‘Think about it, no matter how smart they think they are, an atheist has to admit that he believes the equation: nobody plus nothing equals everything.’”
“How embarrassing for an intellectual to have to say ‘Yeah, I believe that,’” Gohmert said, citing Murphey. “Nobody plus nothing equals everything.”
Gohmert delivered his final point to a chorus of applause as he concluded, “You couldn’t get everything unless there was something that was the creator of everything and that’s the Lord we know.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/louie-gohmert-god-atheists_n_5575241.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
As a scientist, I have long known that proponents of evolution treat the subject more like a religious view than a scientific theory. This is somewhat also what the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed revealed (see Ben Stein’s Expelled).
A belief many evolutionists falsely cling to is that life somehow sprang up from inanimate matter. A leading law of biology is biogenesis. The law of biogenesis states that life can only come from life. The non-God theory of human-life would have us believe that protein-like substances became alive, somehow figured that it had to eat, somehow knew what to eat, figured out how to eat it, figured out how to digest what was eaten, then figured out how to reproduce so that it would not die out. As someone who has studied molecular biology, I find this hard to accept. Single-celled creatures are too complicated to have simply came together by random chance in order to live. The idea that this life somehow knew how to evolve and turn into humans over time is just as absurd. This article will not attempt to deal with all aspects of evolution, but will state that the fossil records do not support the evolutionary concept that species gradually evolved into other species: Darwin thought that over time this would occur, but to this date (2014), it still has not (for more details, see Is Evolution Probable or Impossible? also called: Is God's Existence Logical, Part II).
Functional Design Help Demonstrate that God Exists
It has been argued that the fact that there is natural law, design, and order in the universe, this proves that there was a law giver, designer, and order maker in the universe. This is consistent with what the Bible teaches on this subject:
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God hath shown it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20).
The above shows that the Bible teaches that belief in God is logical.
Similarly I Corinthians says,
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?...But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty (1:20,27).
God has designed a functioning universe and the life within it. Yet, some illogically claim to disbelieve that complicated systems require a designer.
Does anyone really think that functional laptop computers, for example, randomly have appeared anywhere in the universe, and when they did, they appeared with software on them and electricity to run them? Yet many seem to feel that life, which is so much more complicated even at the cellular level, randomly formed and it randomly came alive. This is illogical to believe, though many who consider themselves educated claim to believe it none-the-less. See also Is Evolution Probable or Impossible? also called: Is God's Existence Logical, Part II.
The Existence of Atoms Help Demonstrate that God Exists
Notice the following from Robert McMinn:
Although the existence of atoms is considered an undisputed scientific truth today, it has not always been so. In the early history of man’s search for physical knowledge, some believed in atoms and some did not. But what can the current proof of the existence of atoms tell us about the existence of God?...I had to see the atoms, it seems, before I really believed they existed. My co-workers did not. They had proven to themselves the existence of atoms long before they could see them.
How could they do this? Because things that are unseen may often be made known by things that are seen. One may have faith in the unseen on that basis. Then, when one finally sees what has previously been unseen, one’s faith is confirmed by sight. This is why the existence of atoms has become a scientifically accepted truth. Scientists were willing to believe in the unseen atom because of its specific effects on what they could see, long before they could actually see an image of the atom itself.
Just as the existence of invisible atoms can be proved by their effects on what is visible, so can the existence of an invisible God be proved by the characteristics of the visible universe. Paul wrote, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). It is certainly foolish to deny the existence of invisible atoms in the presence of so much visible evidence to the contrary. For the same reason, only “the fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).
Just as the existence of actual atoms can be proved by an image of atoms, the existence of God can be proved by the image of God, that is, Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:4). Just as we are blessed in modern times to see the things men like Democritus and John Dalton longed to see, so also are we blessed to have the teaching and example of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it” (Matthew 13:16-17).
Just as scientific knowledge is increased in those who believe in the existence of atoms even though they have not seen them, blessed are those who believe in God who have not seen Him. Jesus told Thomas, “because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).
Although it may seem comical to us now, Democritus and others were widely ridiculed for their belief in the idea of the atom – the very idea that even children today have come to accept without question. Similarly, the day will come soon when the existence of God will no longer be debated, for “no longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest” (Hebrews 8:11). (McMinn R. Atoms and the existence of God. Commentary, July 28, 2011.)
The physical evidence also supports the existence of God.
Mathematicians Support the Idea that the Physical Universe Had a Beginning
Mathematicians at Tufts University have concluded that the physical universe must have had a beginning and that the ideas that it did not are mathematically flawed:
For instance, one idea is that the universe is cyclical with big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs in an infinite cycle.
Another is the notion of eternal inflation in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. These regions can be thought of as different universes in a giant multiverse.
So although we seem to live in an inflating cosmos, other universes may be very different. And while our universe may look as if it has a beginning, the multiverse need not have a beginning…
Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.
Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.
However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.
They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.
They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.
The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin. (KFC. Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning. MIT, April 24, 2012. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/?ref=rss)
And if the physical universe had to have a beginning, then something that was not physical must have started it. And that leads to the logical conclusion that a non-physical being, like God, must have done so. And that is what the Bible teaches (Genesis 1:1).
Perhaps it should be pointed out that the Bible also agrees with the conclusion of the Tufts' researchers that the universe can continue to expand/inflate forever (cf. Isaiah 9:6-7; Luke 1:33).
Scripture and properly understood science are compatible (and I am not declaring that there cannot be any flaws in the Tuft’s mathematical model, though I agree with the conclusions that the universe had to have had a beginning and can continue to expand).
Although some will claim that they believe in science and not religion, the reality is that the theory of random creation is a religion. It is not based upon observable scientific facts. It is more of a hoped for explanation of a creation without a Creator. It is an illogical position that is wrong.
Certain scientists and their supporters might claim that since they cannot see God that they cannot believe in God. Yet, various forms of atomic particles cannot be seen, yet they are believed to exist because of the effects that they appear to cause. Yet, the same logic can also be shown to demonstrate that there is a God. Furthermore, it should be noted that science has also failed to ever disprove that there is a God. Instead, many foolishly seem to wish to hold on to that false belief.
The Bible itself teaches:
1 The fool has said in his heart,"There is no God." (Psalms 14:1)
Why?
Because belief in God is logical. The universe demonstrates the existence of a Creator God (Romans 1:20).
Stephen Hawking Claims NOTHING Preceded the Big Bang
The atheist crowd has long been puzzled by what supposedly preceded their Big Bang.
Theoretical physicist and atheist Stephen Hawking has given his answer to what precipitated the so-called ‘big bang’:
March 3, 2018
We’ve heard a lot about the Big Bang. It’s the moment when something impossibly tiny began to grow over the next billions of years to become the universe that we know (at least partially) today.
But what was there before it? Anything? Nothing? Some small, inaudible bangs?
Neil deGrasse Tyson, on his “Star Talk” show, sat his fellow physicist Stephen Hawking down and asked for his view.
Hawking offered a simple and direct answer.
“Nothing was around before the Big, Big Bang,” Hawking said.
He explained that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity insists space and time form a continuum curved by the matter and energy in it.
For Hawking, therefore, the beginning of the universe is best described by a Euclidean approach.
“Ordinary real time is replaced by imaginary time,” he said. Honestly, that happens to me all the time. I imagine time has gone by at a certain pace, only to discover I’ve been imagining things.
For Hawking, however, imaginary time “behaves like a fourth direction of space.” https://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-tells-degrasse-tyson-what-preceded-big-bang/
So, Dr. Hawking claims that out of nothing everything physical came into existence.
Well, then there must have been something spiritual that caused it to come into existence. Not time.
By definition, there is nothing in nothing, hence nothing cannot create everything.
What preceded the “big bang” has always been a problem for the evolutionist types.
March 3, 2018
The Big Bang theory is the idea that the entire universe began as a pinprick that has been expanding ever since—essentially, that the only reason the universe feels so vast is because it’s had 13.8 billion years to get that way. The idea itself has held up pretty well, although scientists still aren’t quite sure what force is driving all that growth.
And of course, the theory itself doesn’t do anything to explain where precisely that first dot of the universe came from in the first place, hence the brainteaser. And we do mean it when we say brainteaser—Hawking’s explanation includes this excellent line: “Ordinary real time is replaced by imaginary time, which behaves like a fourth direction of space.”
But don’t let that scare you off; his main point is surprisingly easy to grasp: Hawking approaches the problem by offering a detailed analogy, comparing space-time to any other continuous, curved surface, like the surface of the Earth. “There is nothing south of the South Pole,” Hawking says. The same principle holds with the universe: “There was nothing around before the Big Bang.” http://www.newsweek.com/what-watch-stephen-hawking-explain-what-he-thinks-came-big-bang-829026
Dr. Hawking’s logic is false and his conclusion is wrong. Yes, relying on IMAGINARY TIME as the cause of the universe is not correct, despite Dr. Hawking trying to make his view sound scientific.
To say there was nothing is not scientific. Oh yes, Dr. Hawking claimed that somehow time caused it, but that is also an erroneous and absurd position.
But God is spiritual and created the universe. Those who think that with nothing the universe popped up without God are really being absurd.
The Apostle Paul also wrote the following to Timothy:
7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, (2 Timothy 3:7-9)
People like Dr. Hawking are always claiming to be learning. But obviously, he and others like him have NOT been able to come to the knowledge of the truth. He and the bulk of the evolutionists are NOT progressing, ARE RESISTING THE TRUTH, and the folly of their positions should be obvious to all. Dr. Hawking’s recent statement, here was nothing around before the Big Bang,” is a public manifestation to all that the evolutionists’ explanations for the origin of the universe without a Creator God is folly.
The only logical explanation of what preceded the physical universe is that something not physical always existed and brought the universe into existence.
That is what the Bible teaches.
A spiritual being, the Creator God, initiated the universe.
True science and real logic must conclude that this is so
God Understands the Universe
God understands the entire universe and the Bible is His word.
Did you know that the Bible teaches that something from the sky, most likely a comet, will crash into the waters of the earth?
Over 1900 years ago, notice what the Apostle John was inspired to write in the Book of Revelation 8:10-11:
Then the third angel sounded: And a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the water, because it was made bitter.
And while that does not have to be a comet, it certainly sounds like one.
Why?
In addition to looking like a star falling from the heavens looking like a torch, comets appear with cyanogen (cyanogen gives comets a green hue--to see please see the article Wormwood and Planet Nibiru). Astronomers state hydrogen cyanide on comets may be their source of cyanogen gas.
Interestingly, if the cyanogen gas mixes with water to form hydrogen cyanide. Hydrogen cyanide has an almond odor and bitter taste, and reportedly causes death at concentrations over 5 parts per million.
And thus for Bible skeptics, the fact that before humans had any idea that comets could produce a poisonous bitter water, it is recorded in the Bible. This should be additional proof to those willing to see that the Bible has been inspired by God.
Conclusion
In Genesis 1:1 it says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
True science and real logic suggest that this is so.
The universe did not randomly form out of nothing.
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God hath shown it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20).
The fact of a physical universe opposes the view that nothing created it.
Those who do not believe that God exists are being fools, not true scientists.
It is logical to believe in God.
Click here for much more additional information in the article Is Evolution Probable or Impossible? also called: Is God's Existence Logical, Part II.
Here is a link to a YouTube video titled Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life and one to a longer sermon titled Is it logical to believe in God?
Additional items of related interest may include:
Is God’s Existence Logical? Is it really logical to believe in God? Yes! Would you like Christian answers to give atheists? This is a free online booklet that deal with improper theories and musings called science related to the origin of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and evolution. Two animated videos of related interest are also available: Big Bang: Nothing or Creator? and A Lifegiver or Spontaneous Evolution?
Where Did God Come From? Any ideas? And how has God been able to exist? Here is a link to a YouTube sermon titled Is it logical to believe in God?
Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II This short article clearly answers what ‘pseudo-scientists’ refuse to acknowledge. Here is a link to a YouTube video titled Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life.
How Old is the Earth and How Long Were the Days of Creation? Does the Bible allow for the creation of the universe and earth billions of years ago? Why do some believe they are no older than 6,000 years old? What is the gap theory? Where the days of creation in Genesis 1:3 through 2:3 24 hours long?
How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient? Here is a biblical article which answers what many really wonder about it.
What is the Meaning of Life? Who does God say is happy? What is your ultimate destiny? Do you really know?
Bible: Superstition or Authority? Should you rely on the Bible? Is it reliable? Herbert W. Armstrong wrote this as a booklet on this important subject.
B. Thiel Is God's Existence Logical, Part 1? www.cogwriter.com (c) 1998. Updated 2005/2006/2007/2010/2011/2012/2013/2014/2018/2019 0815