Atheist: “There is no evidence for God.”
Christian: “Here is evidence for God,”
Atheist: “There is no evidence for God.”
Get the picture?
You will often hear an atheist assert that there is no evidence for the existence of God. You will seldom, however, hear or see any point of fact from an atheist to prove their claim.
Ask an atheists to show you one paper they have personally written, that is of substantial content, which proves their point that God does not exist. You will discover that only one in a thousand have actually done any personal research to support their view. The claims that a majority of atheists make—come from other atheists, who have received their information from other atheists, and so on.
The atheist will tell you that it is your responsibility to prove that God exists, while not being able to personally provide you with any personal research that confirms their theory. The demand by the atheists that the Christian must provide proof for God’s existence is unsupported by all the rules of evidence.
Dr. Simon Greenleaf, co-founder of the Harvard Law School, is considered one of the world’s great legal minds. His “Treatise on the Rules for Evidence that is admissible in our courts of Law” is still in use today, and is a valuable authority for what constitutes valid confirmation of facts. According to the professional opinion of Dr. Greenleaf:
“The burden for showing (evidence) to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.” –Simon Greenleaf
Evidence For the Existence of God
It has been stated that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God. Evidence is defined as: “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
Dr. Greenleaf is a world renowned expert regarding the parameters which constitute valid testimony:
“In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.”
When it comes to facts that concern the existence of God, often a different set of rules are established by the atheist which demand empirical evidence that would not be required under any other circumstances. This requirement is inconsistent with the rule of law, and unreasonable from the position of a intellectual or logical argument.
“In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect empirical evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd. And it makes no difference, whether the facts to be proved relate to this life or to the next, the nature of the evidence required being in both cases the same. The error of the skeptic consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of the things to be proved; and in demanding empirical evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth.”
In determining whether or not there is sufficient evidence for the existence of God, the kind of proof that should be required are matters of fact. The type of empirical evidence which can be tested and seen that many atheists demand for God’s existence is never required in any court of law, even in cases where the life of a person is held in the balance. Dr. Greenleaf states that it is an error to demand evidence by a different set of rules than those which are required in every other instance of human life where evidence is needed.
“In proceeding to weigh the evidence of any proposition of fact, the previous question to be determined is, when may it be said to be proved? The answer to this question is furnished by another rule of municipal law, which may be thus stated: A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test to which they can be subjected is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a man of common prudence and discretion, and so to convince him, that he could venture to act upon that conviction in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest.”
The amount and type of evidence required to prove anything is defined by whether it is reasonable enough to create doubt that it is not true.
On this basis alone, the evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming.
Those who demand empirical evidence for the existence of God state that unless they are provided with facts that can be verified by observation or experience, they will not believe. In all matters other than science, empirical evidence is not required. In every level of our judicial system, we can rightly evaluate the truthfulness of facts of authenticity by examining the evidence which is available to determine if it bears enough proof to say beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true.
We can easily determine if there is sufficient evidence for God by simply examining the Cosmos, the earth, human life, and the molecular world. In all of these areas where proof could be found for the existence of God, each one of these important physical parts of the universe we live in, reveals that a transcendent mind of infinite intelligence must be the origin of every complex and ordered structure.
No complex system or machine can possibly come into existence by itself. Therefore, when we observe anything that would require sophisticated engineering, or that exhibits laws of mathematics and physics, it is logical to conclude by the evidence of complexity that these systems came from an intelligence. This kind of evidence displays matters of fact by themselves that are reason enough to believe that God is the source of all things which bear the characteristics of design.
Empirical evidence does exist for God
In addition to matters of fact, today scientists also have empirical evidence that is well tested and observable by science and leaves no doubt for the existence of God—except in the minds of those who are predisposed to reject Him.
When Dr. Arno Penzias and Dr. Robert Wilson discovered the remnants of radiation in 1964, from the residual radiation of the beginning of the universe, up until that time, it was assumed by cosmologists that the universe was eternal. This would negate the existence of God from a scientific point of evidence, quite easily. By the discovery of a precise moment when the universe came into existence—when for eternity past there had been nothing—this became one of the greatest authentications for the existence of God and a confirmation of the first line of the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
Today, many noted and prize-winning scientists affirm that the universe is well ordered, balanced, and finely tuned for the existence of life; and that God is the only reasonable answer for the question of why the universe exhibits these characteristics.
Not only does the earth, our solar system, and the Milky Way galaxy display stunning evidence for fine-tuning; but these constants which make life a possible, were necessary throughout the entire existence of the universe, beginning 13.7 billion years ago when the universe came into being and began to rapidly expand. Had the precise and necessary conditions not existed in the first picoseconds that the universe began to expand, no life would have been possible here on earth, over 9 billion years later.
These necessary conditions that made life possible for all of us, were so closely adjusted—that had they varied even slightly, none of us would be here today.
The anthropic principle—which describes the universe as being possible only because certain necessary conditions exist—does not answer the greater question of why it exists?
As we study how the universe came into being in the first place, these mysteries are centered around our understanding why the present form of the universe exists instead of another form—unfit for life.
One of the greatest puzzles for scientists is their realization that all of the elements which were present during the initial expansion of the universe—should have caused a vastly different environment in which no stars or planets would have formed.
The likelihood that life would have been possible at all, was greatly limited by the manner in which the universe first came into being. Had there not been certain necessary laws which governed how, when, and how far the universe expanded and developed—you would not be reading these words or living on this planet.
Acceptance of evidence, depends on the receptivity of the mind making the inquiry
The Christian view (my view) that God must exist—based on the evidence, is supported by hundreds of empirical facts. This is evidence that can be observed, tested and validated.
Scientists today have yet to prove empirically, that the universe has a naturalistic cause. Many people simply assume that science has valid proof that the universe came into existence by natural causes. This is not true.
In fact, a growing majority of award winning scientists have written extensively on the subject of evidence, which they have personally followed—to a scientific conclusion that God must exist.
The conclusions of experts
I will present the conclusions of 30 highly regarded scientists and Ph,D’s who have deduced that God must be the source and cause of the universe, many who were formerly unbelievers in the possibility of this reality.
Frequently, I have been asked by Atheists, skeptics of the Bible and those who dispute the existence of God, if I have any sources other than Theologians. It is a common error of assumption that intelligent people do not believe in God. It is imagined by the uninformed that only the uneducated and naive believe in a God who is both Creator and the source of all life. For this reason, I present to you a partial list of the thousands of noted prize-winning Scientists, Physicists, Chemists, Mathematicians, Cosmologists, and other academics who believe that God is the source of the universe.
In the first picoseconds of the big bang, the expansion of gases, which would allow for the formation of stars much later, was clearly controlled to exact an outcome that would not be natural, nor expected—given the elements and environment of the initial first moments of the Cosmos.
This theme of control, or “fine tuned,” is a scientific term that was originated by scientists, not theologians. In the minds of many noted scientists who do not believe in God, they readily admit that this fine tuning absolutely exists in the universe, and concede that this reality demands an intelligence to make this phenomenon possible.
Theoretical Physicists, Stephen Hawking describes the impossibility of a universe existing at all, as a supernatural event apart from a naturalistic cause.
“The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications.” 
In the first picosecond (one trillionth of a second) of the universe, the precise balance between gravitational force and the expansion of energy were precisely calibrated within extremely narrow limits that were necessary for life to exist on earth, 13 billion years later. The big question is why they were calibrated at all since the models that scientists have developed for how the universe should have expanded, reveal a universe drastically different from what actually occurred.
Stephen Hawking describes the models that scientists have developed for a universe which began under the conditions that were present at the moment of the Big Bang:
“Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.”
Francis Collins, Ph.D. in Biology; an American Physician who helped map the entire Human Genome. Once a staunch Atheist, describes the unlikely chance that life would have ever taken place anywhere in the universe:
“The chance that all of these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters that we observe. In sum, our universe is wildly improbable.”
Solar Magnetohydrodynamics, Eric Priest, Ph.D. in Mathematics; considered one of the world’s leading experts on Solar Magnetohydrodynamics, which is the study of the subtle and often nonlinear interaction between the sun’s magnetic field and its plasma interior or atmosphere, treated as a continuous medium. Priest is an applied mathematician and, along with the other members of his research group at St. Andrews, is currently investigating a large number of solar phenomena.
As an applied mathematician, his research interests involve constructing mathematical models for the subtle and complex ways in which magnetic fields interact with plasmas in the atmosphere of the Sun and in more exotic cosmic objects. In particular, he is trying to understand how the corona of the Sun is heated to several million degrees and how magnetic energy is converted into other forms in solar flares.
Professor Priest has received a number of academic awards for his research.
The following text is from a lecture given by Dr. Priest on the topic: Trusting in Science or in God?, at St. Andrews University Chapel, Jan 25, 2009. This was in response to an article by Stephen Hawking, where he claimed that the universe was not created by God.
“Stephen Hawking makes the claim that it is not necessary to invoke God as the creator of the universe and the assertion that physics alone made it. He may be correct in his first statement, but to rule out a possibly important role for God is in my view unjustified. It is certainly possible that God sets up and maintains or underpins the laws of physics and allows them to work, so that being able to explain the big bang in terms of physics is not inconsistent with there being a role for God.
Mathematical Physicist, Michaeł Heller, Ph.D.;
His current research is concerned with the singularity problem in general relativity and the use of non-commutative geometry in seeking the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics. He has published nearly 200 scientific papers, not only in general relativity and relativistic cosmology but also in philosophy and the history of science and theology; as well as the author of more than 20 books.
In March 2008, Dr. Heller was awarded the $1.6 million USD (£820,000) Templeton Prize for his extensive philosophical and scientific probing of the “big questions.” His works have sought to reconcile the “known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God.”
“If we ask about the cause of the universe we should ask about the cause of mathematical laws. By doing so we are back in the great blueprint of God’s thinking about the universe; the question on ultimate causality: why is there something rather than nothing? When asking this question, we are not asking about a cause like all other causes. We are asking about the root of all possible causes. Science is but a collective effort of the human mind to read the mind of God from question marks out of which we and the world around us seem to be made.”
Particle Physics, John Polkinghorne, Ph.D, an English theoretical physicist and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge from 1968 to 1979.
Dr. Polkinghorne is the author of five books on physics and 26 on the relationship between science and religion. Dr. Polkinghorne believes that science and religion are both aspects of the same reality.
“The question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality.”
Dr. Polkinghorne believes that standard physical causation cannot adequately describe the manifold ways, in which things and people interact and uses the phrase active information to describe the way in which several outcomes are possible; there may be higher levels of causation which ultimately chooses what the outcome will be.
“Does the concept of God make sense? If so, do we have reason for believing in such a thing?”
“The nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be … the Quantum Vacuum.”
Dr. Polkinghorne describes God as the ultimate answer to Leibniz’s great question, Why is there something rather than nothing?
“The atheist’s plain assertion of the world’s existence” is a grossly impoverished view of reality, …“theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address.”
He is very doubtful of St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument. Referring to Gödel’s incompleteness theory, he said:
“If we cannot prove the consistency of arithmetic it seems a bit much to hope that God’s existence is easier to deal with.”
“The intelligibility of the universe: One would anticipate that evolutionary selection would produce hominid minds apt for coping with everyday experience, but that these minds should also be able to understand the subatomic world and general relativity goes far beyond anything of relevance to survival fitness. The mystery deepens when one recognizes the proven fruitfulness of mathematical beauty as a guide to successful theory choice.”
Regarding the current push for the multi-verse theory:
“There is just one universe which is the way it is in its anthropic fruitfulness because it is the expression of the purposive design of a Creator, who has endowed it with the finely tuned potentiality for life.”
Astrophysicists, Joel Primack, Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1970; a professor of Physics and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz; and is a member of the Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics. Dr. Primack specializes in relativistic quantum field theory, cosmology, and particle astrophysics. He is also involved in supercomputer simulations of dark matter models. He directs the University of California High-Performance AstroComputing Center (UC-HiPACC). Primack is best known for his co-authorship with George Blumenthal, Sandra Moore Faber, and Martin Rees of the theory of cold dark matter (CDM) in 1984.
The View From the Center of the Universe by Joe Primack and Nancy Abrams.
“[Modern cosmology] tells us that the universe encompasses all size scales, so any serious concept of God must at least do as much. ‘God’ must therefore mean something different on different size-scales yet encompass all of them. ‘All-loving’, ‘all-knowing’, ‘all-everything-we-humans-do-only-partially-well’ may suggest God-possibilities on the human size-scale, but what about all the other scales? What might God mean on the galactic scale, or the atomic? A God disconnected from this amazing universe that science is revealing would be a God entirely of the imagination—in fact, well worked over by many imaginations. But a God that arises from our scientific understanding is not entirely created by us. Such a God runs deeper than humankind’s imagination and is speaking in some way for the universe itself.”
A quote by Joe Primack from National Geographic News:
“In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we’re now able to tell a coherent story” of how the universe began, Primack said. “This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God.”
Theoretical Physicists, Don Page, Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology; Professor of Physics and CIAR Cosmology; a Canadian theoretical physicist at the University of Alberta, Canada. His work focuses on quantum cosmology and black holes, and he is noted for being a doctoral student of the eminent Professor Stephen Hawking, in addition to publishing several journal articles with him. Dr. Page is an Evangelical Christian.
“…I am a Christian and believe that God has created the whole universe. Of course, as a physicist I’m trying to understand a bit more of how He did create it or in what state He’s created it. But I think these laws show the faithfulness of God and the patterns that He’s used. On the other hand, I don’t think the laws are constraints on Him. It’s his own choice to create with these things…”
“Science looks for the simplest hypotheses to explain observations. Starting with the simple assumption that the actual world is the best possible world, I sketch an Optimal Argument for the Existence of God}, that the sufferings in our universe would not be consistent with its being alone the best possible world, but the total world could be the best possible if it includes an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who experiences great value in creating and knowing a universe with great mathematical elegance, even though such a universe has suffering. God seems loathe to violate elegant laws of physics that He has chosen to use in His creation, such as Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism or Einstein’s equations of general relativity for gravity within their classical domains of applicability, even if their violation could greatly reduce human suffering (e.g., from falls).” 
Physicist, Stephen Barr, Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University in 1978. Professor Barr writes and lectures frequently on the relation of science and religion. Since 2000, he has served on the Editorial Advisory Board (now the Advisory Council) of the religious intellectual journal, First Things, in which many of his articles and book reviews have appeared since 1995. His writing has also appeared in National Review, The Weekly Standard, Modern Age, The Public Interest, and Commonwealth.
The following are a few excerpts from The Mythological Conflict Between Christianity and Science—an interview with physicist, Dr. Stephen Barr, conducted by Mark Brumley, September 25, 2006.
“The science/religion debate/discussion operates on a number of levels. One is on the cosmic level—the existence of the universe. What can science tell us of the universe’s origins? Are there limits to what science can say? What role do philosophy and theology play in considering the question of the universe’s origin?”
“One has to distinguish the question of the universe’s beginning moments from the question of why there is a universe at all. In my view, science will never provide an answer to the latter question. As Stephen Hawking famously noted, all theoretical physics can do is give one a set of rules and equations that correctly describe the universe, but it cannot tell you why there is any universe for those equations to describe. He asked, “What breathes fire into the equations so that there is a universe for them describe?”
“As far as the beginning moments of the universe go, science may eventually be able to describe what happened then. That is, when we know the fundamental laws of physics in their entirety—as I hope someday we will—it may well turn out that the opening events of the universe happened in accordance with those laws. In that sense, “the beginning” could have been “natural”. However, that would not explain the “origin” of the universe in the deeper sense meant by “Creation”.
Let me use an analogy. The first words of a play—say Hamlet—may obey the laws of English grammar. They may also fit into the rest of the plot in a natural way. In that sense, one might be able to give an “internal explanation” of those beginning words. However, that would not explain why there is a play. There is a play because there is a playwright. When we ask about the “origin” of the play, we are not asking about its first words, we are asking who wrote it and why. The origin of the universe is God Almighty.
“Stephen Hawking, in A Brief History of Time, talks about God and the mind of God. Yet he also seems to question whether there really is the need for a Creator in order to explain the existence of the cosmos. How do you see the matter? Is God a “necessary hypothesis”? Does science have anything to say about the question?”
“Hawking asked the right question when he wondered why there is a universe at all, but somehow he cannot accept the answer. The old question is, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Science cannot answer that question, as Hawking (at least sometimes) realizes. I think his problem is that he doesn’t see how the existence of God answers that question either. Part of the reason that many scientists are atheists is that they don’t really understand what is meant by “God”.
“Anything whose existence is contingent (i.e. which could exist or not exist) cannot be the explanation of its own existence. It cannot, as it were, pull itself into being by its own bootstraps. As St. Augustine says in his Confessions, all created things cry out to us, “We did not make ourselves.” Only God is uncreated, because God is a necessary being: He cannot not exist. It is of His very nature to exist. He said to Moses, “I AM WHO AM. … Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: ‘I AM hath sent me unto you.’’’
“I think scientists like Hawking would be helped if they could imagine God as an infinite Mind that understands and knows all things and Who, indeed, “thought the world up”. If all of reality is “intelligible” (an idea that would appeal to scientists), then it follows really that there is some Intellect capable of understanding it fully. If no such Intellect exists or could exist, in what sense is reality fully intelligible? We need to recover the idea of God as the Logos, i.e. God as Reason itself. I note that Pope Benedict has stressed this in his recent addresses about science and in his speech at Regensburg. It is an idea of God that people who devote their lives to rational inquiry can appreciate.”
Robert Jastrow (September 7, 1925–February 8, 2008) was an American astronomer, physicist, and cosmologist; a leading NASA scientist, populist author and futurist. Dr. Jastrow claimed to not know whether God exists or not, yet many of his comments reveal that he did posses a great deal of faith that God exists. All of the conclusions that Dr. Jastrow made regarding the universe came about by his years of study on the origin of the universe and how life is possible on one planet in a remote section of the Cosmos.
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
“On Earth, a long sequence of improbable events transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row. Contrary to the prevailing belief, maybe we are special …. It seems prudent to conclude that we are alone in a vast cosmic ocean, that in one important sense, we ourselves are special in that we go against the Copernican grain.”
“There is no explanation in the Big Bang theory for the seemingly fortuitous fact that the density of matter has just the right value for the evolution of a benign, life supporting universe.”
“The Hubble Law is one of the great discoveries in science; it is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis.”
“Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
On the implications of a universe that had a beginning:
“There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.”
“Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion.”
Dr. Jastrow’s view on the inevitability of science and religion:
“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 mountain 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.”
In describing Albert Einstein’s discovery that the universe had a beginning:
“Einstein never liked the idea of a big bang because it suggested a beginning and a creation, and a creation suggested a Creator. And Einstein didn’t believe in that concept of a deity, as the Creator. He thought the existence of the deity was expressed in the laws of nature, something as Spinoza did. But he came out here (Mount Wilson Observatory), and he looked through the hundred-inch telescope, of course he had made up his mind long ago already to accept this, but he turned around to the reporters, who were admiring the scene, and he said, “Yes, I believe it, there was a big bang ….”
Max Planck, Founder of the quantum theory and one of the most important physicists of the twentieth century.
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Anthony Flew, Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater.
“I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.” 
“It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.”
“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”
“The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books – a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”
Ilya Prigogine, Chemist-Physicist, Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry
“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”
Dr. Paul Davies, Noted author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide University.
“The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see,” Davies adds, “even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life—almost contrived—you might say a ‘put-up job’.”
Professor Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in High Energy Physics [a field of science that deals with the very early universe], writing in the journal “Scientific American.”
“…how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.”
Isaac Newton, “General Scholium,” in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Isaac Newton. 1687
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Hoyle, Fred, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections”
“16O has exactly the right nuclear energy level either to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen or to facilitate sufficient production of 16O for life. Fred Hoyle, who discovered these coincidences in 1953, concluded that “a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”
Christian de Duve, “A Guided Tour of the Living Cell,” Nobel laureate and organic chemist
“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”
Simon Conway, A leading paleontologist, who discovered the significance of the Cambrian explosion of animal life, writes in his seminal book, Life’s Solutions:
“I am convinced” that nature’s success in the lottery of life has “metaphysical implications.”
Alan Sandage, Winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”
Robert B. Griffiths, Ph.D. in Physics, American physicist at Carnegie Mellon University. He is the originator of the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics.
In his notes, Dr. Griffiths states:
“Quantum mechanics is hard to understand not only because it involves unfamiliar mathematics, but also because the usual discussion in textbooks about how to relate the mathematics to the real world is incomplete.”
At present, Dr. Griffiths is the Otto Stern University Professor of Physics at Carnegie Mellon University. He has published over 140 articles as well as the book, “Consistent Quantum Theory.” He is a member of Sigma Xi, a Fellow of the American Physical Society and a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation. Griffiths’ research interests continue to include the foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum computation, and the relation of physical science and Christian theology.
Dr. Griffiths has written a wonderful book regarding the relationship of Christianity and Physics called “Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship.”
“We can’t understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural.”
“Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me … I should like to find a genuine loophole.”
Barry Parker, Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe, New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, p. 202
“We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there was no creation, and that the universe has always been here. But this is even more difficult to accept than creation.”
“Until the late 1910’s humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning.”
“Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God,” Day Star Publications, 2000, p. 177
“How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed…”
“The Fate of the Universe”
“In order to make a universe as big and wonderful as it is, lasting as long as it is—we’re talking fifteen billion years and we’re talking huge distances here—in order for it to be that big, you have to make it perfectly. Otherwise, imperfections would mount up and the universe would either collapse on itself or fly apart, and so it’s actually quite a precise job. And I don’t know if you’ve had discussions with people about how critical it is that the density of the universe come out so close to the density that decides whether it’s going to keep expanding forever or collapse back, but we know it’s within one percent.”
“If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe.”
“To make sense of this view (design as opposed to accident), one must accept the idea of transcendence: that the Designer exists in a totally different order of reality or being, not restrained within the bounds of the Universe itself.”
George Smoot and Keay Davidson
“Wrinkles in Time, New York”
“The essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
I am in possession of a document containing of some 75 noted scientists who all espouse similar and conclusive comments on God as the source of the universe.
The atheist seldom offers any evidence for their assertion that God does not exist—because their is no such evidence, they simply demand that Christian’s provide evidence for the existence of God. In this brief article, you can see a taste of what is available to rationally and logically conclude that God must exist. This web site contains some 4,000 pages of evidence, which includes citations from experts who confirm the statements made on the pages of this web site.
Of course, no amount of evidence will ever convince anyone who has a predisposition to not want to believe. It is this person that is often the most annoying and difficult to converse with. They will not do the hard work of personal investigation and study—instead they regurgitate the phrases, quotes and statements of countless other atheists, who also are misinformed and rely on faulty information from and endless genealogy of misinformed persons.
Perhaps you will be the exception to the general rule and investigate the evidence for God—yourself: It is substantial and overwhelming. Otherwise, why do you suppose so many intelligent people have studied the information and followed the evidence to its conclusion—arriving at the intellectual deduction that God must exist—by necessity?
 Merrriam-Websters Dictionary 2012
 Simon Greenleaf. The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence (Kindle Locations 270-271). Kindle Edition.
 Ibid. Locations 271-278 Kindle Edition The word “demonstrative”, translated: “Empirical.”
 Ibid. Locations 278-284 Kindle Edition.
 1. Arno Penzias, 1983, 3; see also Bergman 1994, 183.
2.Penzias, A.A.; Wilson, R.W. (1965). “A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s”. Astrophysical Journal 142: 419–421. Bibcode:1965ApJ…142..419P. doi:10.1086/148307
 See the chapter in this book: “Ph.d.’s Who Believe in God and Creation.
 1. Collins, Francis S. (2006-07-17). The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (p. 75). Free Press. Kindle Edition.
2. I. G. Barbour, When Science Meets Religion (New York: HarperCollins, 2000).
 Stephen Hawking, A Brief History, Page 138.
 Collins, Francis S. (2006-07-17). The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (p. 74). Free Press. Kindle Edition. ”
 The branch of physics that studies the behavior of an electrically conducting fluid such as a plasma or molten metal acted on by a magnetic field.
 Description from Wikipedia
 “Science and Christian Belief”, (“The Faith of a Physicist”)– published in the UK as Science and Christian Belief (1994) ISBN 0-691-03620-9, Chapter 3
 Sharpe, Kevin (July 2003). “Nudging John Polkinghorne”. Quodlibet Journal 5 (2–3)
 John Polkinghorne, Science and Theology (SPCK/Fortress 1998) ISBN 0-8006-3153-6, Page 72
 John Polkinghorne, Science and Theology (SPCK/Fortress 1998) ISBN 0-8006-3153-6, Page 75
 Source: Wikipedia
 The View From the Center of the Universe by Joe Primack and Nancy Abrams. Page 276
 National Geographic News http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion_2.html
 Used by permission, Interview of Don Page byAlan Lightman on May 18, 1988, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics College Park, MD USA, http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/34294.html
 Description from Wikipedia
 The Mythological Conflict Between Christianity and Science, An interview with physicist Dr. Stephen Barr, By Mark Brumley, September 25, 2006 ignatiusInsight.com: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/sbarr_interview_sept06.asp
 “A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview With Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982
 God and the Astronomers
 Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, second edition, New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, p. 93
 Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, second edition, New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, p. 53
 From and interview by “Evidence for Christianity.” http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/interview-with-robert-jastrow-ph-d/
 Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)
 Anthony Flew, “There is a God.”
 Anthony Flew, “There is a God.”
 Anthony Flew, “There is a God.”
 I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28
 “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20. (1982), p.16
 Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
 Griffiths, Robert B. (2002). Consistent quantum theory. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80349-6
 Griffiths, Robert B. (1980). “Not Scientific Quality”. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 32 (September): 190.
 Griffiths, Robert B.; Polkinghorne, J. (2008). “Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship”. Physics today. 61 (2): 61. ISSN 0031-9228
 “OK, Where Are They?”, Astronomy, July 1996, p.36
 George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993, p.30
 Richard Morris, “The Fate of the Universe”, New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 28
 Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 153
 Richard Morris, “The Fate of the Universe”, New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 153
 George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993, p.189