Seeker of Truth

For those who sincerely seek the truth, and only the truth. All are welcome, Christians, non-Christians, pagans, atheists, agnostics. etc. We hope you will find what you seek for.

Friday, August 05, 2005

What to Say to an Atheist

Direct from the Pope

This was shared by Pope Benedict XVI at EWTN cable channel.
He was asked by people on the topic of
"How do you prove God exists without seeing him directly?"

He answered this: You do not have to "see is to believe" as the
only source of truth. For example, you do not see my intellect or
intelligence but know fully well that I possess intelligence.

You can measure the wind (invisible to eyes) with a barometer, etc.
but you cannot do this to my intellect.
This does not mean my intellect does not exist or ceases to exist.

God's existence is verified by the order and beauty of his creations,
most epecially the creation of intelligent life.


1) The results of chemistry/physics tests are physical in nature
and can be verified by science because they are physical. Thus, we
can verify their existence.

2) Not so easy wih intelligence. It is invisible, is not physical and can
never be measured/verified physically by science. However, all of us
agree intelligence exists in a human being.

The same principle with God applies. The scientific method has its limits
and only means there are things (intelligence for example) that cannot
be verified by the scientific method physically yet still exist.

This nullifies the atheist argument against God - that He cannot or
does not exist just because the scientific method cannot be used to
detect His existence.

God exists as much as intelligence exists, even though both cannot
be detected physically by the scientific method.

End of discussion.


The scientific method, I do not attack as unnecessary. It is, it has its important uses. What is fallacious is how atheists misuse it, (mostly out of ignorance),

These are the atheists who claim that only the scientific method should be the absolute rule or method in determining reality.

If only it did not have its limits, its weaknesses, this would be true. Reality is far different.

There are simple truths that science does well at, but not all truths. This is in part caused by the simple truth that science can not always be purely objective. The subjective opinion of scienttists is vital to science, but this is also part of its weakness. It is based on human observations, which do not always agree w/ each other.

Ex. 1) We need oxygen to live.

Science can repeat this in labs, and it is demonstrably true all the time. This is pure objectivity.

Ex. 2) There is order in the universe

This is an example where science reaches its limits. Some scientists would agree, some would disagree. Same w/ order in snowflakes, etc. This is subjective, prone to different definitions.

Coin In a Box

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality." Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality. The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

There are three levels of reality that make this atheist principle an utter failure:

1) Physical reality

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth, and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

"To see is to believe" never worked anyway.

2) Mental reality

Let's assume:

If every person in the world thought of an ice cream at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality. It is just as real as physical reality. It occurred in a point in time, and would be part of historical reality.

Whether science detected their thoughts at that time or not can never make that mental reality disappear. So if you ask every person who thought of the ice cream if he/she really thought of an ice cream, you would of course get a positive answer.

But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur. It cannot be verified because it it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality?

3) Spiritual reality

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind. That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

Why? Because the Church invites scientists (theist and atheist, agnostic, etc.) to do an independent study on the miracles. If you research online well, the names of these experts are given to the public. There is no conspiracy here, just truth.

These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Truth And Nothing But Truth

Another thing. Many atheists believe Christians simply believe in
God because they were "born" into religion. Sure, many are Christians
only because of title, but do not actively seek out truth. But many
seek out the truth by making extensive research on different
religions and beliefs to separate the truth from hype.

I am one of these "seekers of truth". I am convinced of the validity
of the Christian faith (the Bible is historical and accurate, for
one). Up to now, I still seek higher truths. Knowledge is never-

In summary, what the great minds and great scientists have proven
and believed is that, even from a purely logical point of view, the
possibility of God (an intelligent, Supreme being) existing is higher
and more probable than a God not existing. The design of the universe
and creation has semblance of intelligent design, not randomness.

Order cannot exist by natural means alone but only through the
control of a higher, intelligent being.

Example: You cannot build a house of cards by simply throwing cards
randomly, it is impossible. The only way is to place it one by one,
carefully, with intellect. Tell me anyone who can do so otherwise?
Same goes with the creation of the universe, which has its own
defined set of laws, not a mass of chaos.

The universe is similar. It has certain patterns, fixed laws and
principles. It may seem chaotic sometimes, but one can still observe
order taking place.

Truly, as Louis Pasteur stated "Little science separates man from
God. Much science brings them back to Him." These great minds have
proven it and are convinced as well. Anybody who contradicts this is
implying he/she knows more about science and logic than these great
scientists. Please...

I'd honestly say that many Christians are ignorant of Christian
theology, but somehow hang on to their faith (by God's grace). They
may or may not stand to an attack from outside forces like atheism,
paganism, etc. Atheism is only one belief system, among many others.
Of course, atheists will insist they are correct or "special" from
other beliefs because it is human nature (ego) to defend one's
belief system and insist that it is the right one.

However, many Christians seek the truth (like you guys do, something
we have in common), and have experienced powerful arguments and
attacks to our faith and which only served to strengthen our love and
belief of God. This is better, because we actually challenge our
faith and theology to stand up to the strongest tests. Better than
being ignorant or in denial.

I've done my years of research and my Christian faith
stands up as truth among pretenders. I've also studied extensively,
arguments of the atheist and agnostic belief systems.


It used to be that most atheists deny the existence of any form of
"design". In debates with theists, theists would argue that "design"
was self-evident in nature and the universe, life, etc. Atheists would do
the opposite, they would state that "design" or randomness was
subjective, that they only see randomness.

Say, a snowflake (seen under the lens) had "order and design" to a theist
but an atheist would state there was no design or order.

Now more atheists are saying something new: that design and order does
exist but that doesn't mean an intelligent being is behind it.

Now that theists have at least convinced more atheists that order and
design do exist in the universe, life, etc. this is more of a first-round
victory for theists on this debate.

Second round begins. Soon, theists will be able to convince atheists that
design and order in nature is possible only by a higher, intelligent being
controlling it and designing it.

You don't see the Mona Lisa existing without an intelligent being
painting it. If it was a painting with random, abstract strokes, then it can
exist without an intelligent being. But not a Mona Lisa.

If you can believe that a computer exists only because a more intelligent
being designed it (the human brain is far more complex than a computer),
then human beings (intelligent life) can only exist because a higher, more
intelligent being, God, created humans.


We observe an orderly universe. We discovered that it is highly complex, with its own set of laws. And the most complex of all - the creation of intelligent life; can all this really just exist out of some random chance or accident?

Note thst we didn't make or create these natural laws. We only discovered them. They are solid evidence of intelligent design.

Can something exist from nothing? There is no observable evidence that it can. It is not possible.

How about the Big Bang Theory (and all existing theories)? The Big Bang Theory states a huge explosion created the universe. The problem with this is that any explosion requires ingredients. Things do not explode by themselves.

If there are ingredients that do exist, then where did the ingredients come from? Where do the ingredients of the ingredients themselves come from? And this logic goes on and on till infinity (ad infinitum), an infinite loop. Saying that something/someone can exist without a source is fallacious. It is not observable in science and it is not logically possible either. Obviously, there has to be a source for something to exist.

We can argue (for argument's sake) that even from a purely logical point of view, it is highly improbable that this level of order, complexity (and yes, beauty) can occur by random chance. So consequently, it is highly more probable that this intelligent design was created on purpose by an intelligent "Designer".

The truth is, a form of simple order is possible from random chance and even this usually occurs rarely. But to achieve a level of complex order (i.e. intelligent life) by random chance or accident is logically impossible. It would be analogous to throwing metal parts into the air and expecting to make a Porsche car by themselves.

If it is logically impossible for a certain high level of complex order to occur by random chance/accident, then the presence of complex order (i.e. intelligent life, etc.) simply indicates the logical impossibility of a God (Intelligent Designer) not existing.


Sir Isaac Newton (before Charles Darwin): "Atheism is so senseless! When I look at the solar system, this did not happen by chance."

Louis Pasteur (same time as Darwin): "Ideas such as spontaneous generation (evolution) do not fit the evidence.....Life comes from life."

Sir Ambrose Fleming (pioneer of electronics): "It is disastrous to the ethical development or spiritual life of the young to lead them to believe that men are descended from monkeys."

Warner von Braun (Pioneer of space exploration): "To be forced to believe ONLY ONE conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself!"

It's all a matter of perception.

Majority of the truly "great scientists" of both past and present (skills above
the average scientist) like Newton, Pascal, Fleming, etc. have studied nature
and science, and science WAS the way for them to acknowledge that a
Creator, supreme being exists, God.

I'm referring to popular scientists, not no-names. They became popular
because they distinguished themselves from peers.

They saw order in the universe, in processes.It's more believable to
believe in real experts' opinions and observations than ordinary
scientists, lay people (who simply are not at the same level of the greats).

There are those here who will argue that majority of present-day, modern
scientists do not believe in God. I ask "where's your evidence?" The only
way to know this is to ask each scientist all over the world, or make a very
reliable, comprehensive statistical survey among a statistically significant
numer of scientists.

I'd rather believe the great scientists of both PRESENT AND PAST, than
average scientists. That simple really.....


It's about being balanced.

Atheists have a tendency to "over-logicize", they depend too much on
logic, science. Logic, science are only two sources of truth, but they are
not the only sources. Logic and science have limits, and eventually,
the atheist is limited in his/her search for truth.

On the other hand, a person can be the exact opposite. He/she may
"over-rely" on faith alone without balancing it with his/her faculty of
reason. One can become an overzealous fanatic.

There is a reason why God gave both faith and reason to men and women.
It is to be used in conjunction, to balance each other out.

Therefore, the theist has more truths by having not just faith nor logic,
but using both. The theist is the more balanced being.


You cannot have a car without "car makers", meaning metal would not
by itself form into a ferrari. It has to have an "intellect" for such
complex design.

Some here have tried to argue by stating "lesser analogies" to the
house of cards, meaning they gave other examples of things taking
order by itself, seemingly without an intelligence behind it. These
are lesser examples, because they cannot compare in complexity to the
structure of the house of cards.

Like the "ferrari example", a ferrari would be similar to the house
of cards. Other analogies are too simple to compare with the "house
of cards". It would be like comparing a "beautiful artistic piece of
metal" to a ferrari.

Basically, it's about the delicate balance on how the universe
operates. Ex. the spinning of planets around the sun, the principles
involved are so delicate, so orderly that the planets do not move out
of its orbit nor hit each other. It is "too orderly" to say the
planets just formed themselves into this pattern.

Analogy is "house of cards" or the "ferrari".

And especially planet Earth. The laws and elements in our planet
have heavy scientific evidence of "intelligent design", as if the
elements somehow were "balanced" to provide and support a wonderful
event - the existence of life.

The existence of life here is too "advanced", too "intelligent", for
anybody to simply state it can exist without an intelligence
carefully balancing the elements which support life. Like the
"ferrari example", the ferrari cannot simply exist without
"intelligent people" making it. Metal, by itself does not naturally
form into a ferrari (maybe an artistic piece of metal, but not
something as advanced as a ferrari).

It is still more logical that a higher intelligent being, God, created energy
that produced the universe to SUPPORT life and intelligent life than
atheist logic that somehow, the universe and intelligent life "existed by
accident", that life and intelligent life came from non-living, inanimate,
non-intelligent sources. Such logic is contradictory, and more highly

This is why majority of famous scientists believe in God
(Pascal, Newton, Pasteur, etc.). Their level of skill is higher than
most scientists, including "no-name" scientists.

Can you use probability theory on my "ferrari example"? Can you lay
claim that "theoretically, metal by itsef will form into a ferrari,
complete with engines, first-class mags, pioneer audio (don't forget
the woofer). Oh the "horse logo" may somehow carve itself.

The "house of cards" cannot be formed by even a million random
throws. It is plain physically impossible. It's like telling me a
human being will jump 100 feet into the air after 1 million tries,
that it is highy improbable, but possible.

Probability theory cannot be used here. It is a human invention,
therefore not perfect and prone to error. Science has to accept that
some things will have limits, some things are impossible to occur. A
theory is not a law, it is more of speculation, not reality.

This is reality: Unless anyone has performed a "complete house of
cards", with just throwing it into the air (like magic), this
argument cannot be refuted by mere speculation. If you have done it,
then you win, simple as that.


1) Atheist Fallacy: Order can exist without intelligence guiding it. Ex. snowflake, soup, universe, nature, etc.

Theist Attack: This is one of the weakest arguments of atheism, always torn to shreds in major debates, always.

By the scientific method, we can self-evidently observe only organic beings (at least the level of humans's IQ) can create complex order. Not even animals are capable of the complex order we refer to (car engine, ferrarri cars, etc.)

Note we are considering the universe and its order as complex. Another complex order is the very existence of human life and intellect (also the only being with scientific capability).

Never has it been obsserved that inanimate objects (nature, universe, stones, rocks, etc.) can make complex order as say, something in the level of a car engine.

The snowflake you say? It is not equal to the complex order that a car engine has. I could make a simple kaleidoscope toy with mirrors and it will easily re recreate the geometric patterns we see on a snowflake (via a microscope).

Yup, a simple toy to recreate the geometric patterns. You cannot obviously do this with a car engine. It takes a lot more time, and effort to make a car engine. Snowflake and car engine are very different and are not the same in complexity.

Atheists should stop using the snowflake as an example of order comparable to the order present in a car engine.

Basically, by the scientific method, it is self-evidently observable that there has never been a case of inanimate objects capable of order (what more, complex order of the universe and its laws, intelligent human life, etc.)

There are atheists who will argue that the universe/nature is capable of forming its own orderly processes without an intelligence guiding it.

This is a fallacy since the universe/nature is inanimate, and therefore this belief violates the basic laws of science and logic. Yup, we have observed only organic beings are capable of order, but not inorganic beings. Never.

Since the universe/nature, etc. are inorganic, they do not have intelligence and obviously you need intelligence to create order (again especially of the highest levels of order).

The only logical way to force the belief that the universe/nature, though inorganic in nature is somehow, capable of creating order is by making it (universe/nature) a "special exception". This of course violates the laws of logic (on making special exceptions) .

If the universe/nature though inorganic, can create order without an intelligence guiding it, then anytihng goes. I should be able to observe, by scientific method, other inorganic objects creating order. This, is a clear "special exception" fallacy.

Sadly, I do not see rocks forming into tall buidlings, a lake creating a swimming pool by itself, etc. This is logically impossible. It takes intelligence (organic beings) to use inorganic things to form any semblance of order (car engine, etc.)

Thus, the order we see and observe is impossible without an intelligence guiding it. The intelligent design we see proves the logical impossibility of God (an intelligent Being) not existing.

Take note that science can only work from an environment of order, not disorder. There is no disorder in the universe (or science cannot even exist).


I've been in major debates against atheists and time and time again, the fundamental flaws of atheism lead to their consistent defeat. This is expected because atheism's flaws are basic, fundamental in nature and cannot stand against good theist attacks.

One (among many) of their popular tenets is "Order can exist without an intelligence guiding it".

Atheists will resort to giving examples of order in nature (by their subjective definition of order). They would proceed to naming these. Some popular ones include snowflakes (viewed under a microscope), soup (yes, the contents in it as well), super novas, the structure of gems (diamonds, etc.), molecular structures, rainbow, etc.

The theists and atheists will debate back and forth - one in approval, the other one against it.

A scientist though, can be objective and use the scientific method to see the truth.

First, it is clear that the very notion of order can be subjective in nature. The structure of snowflakes, rainbow, supernova, and all mentioned examples are prone to subjective observation. Hence, the counter-attack by the theist debaters. Their strategy is built on this fact.

By the scientific method, a scientist will divide subjects into specific, separate groups for objective observation. Each group will be put into separate rooms and be provided a piano, and a full deck of cards.

Group A consists of rocks - this would represent inorganic objects.

Group B consists of insects, bees for example - this represents the animal kingdom

Group C consists of humans - this represents the human specie, the group w/ the highest intellect.

They will be observed for a period of time. The results:

Group C was able to achieve a high level of order. The piano was played (recognized as a musical instrument) and a house of cards was built. Intelligence that provided order was displayed of the highest among the three.

Group B displayed some order, though not in the level of Group C. A beehive was made, a structure with geometric design inside. Acceptable as order.

Group A, composed of inorganic objects displayed zero order, no activity or even any movement made.

By the scientific method, we can conclude that inorganic objects are incapable of producing order of any kind without an intellgence/intelligent being guiding them.

The notion that inorganic objects, snowflakes, gems, rainbows, etc. by atheists are somehow capable of producing order by themselves is fundamentally flawed.

Only intelligent beings, controlling inorganic objects can make these objects arrange into order as the scientific method proves.

If an inorganic object (rocks in our example) cannot do any movement or order by itself, then all inorganic objects will have to share that characteristic.

Arguing that snowflakes, supernova, etc. are capable of order is a viiolation of the "special exception rule", and definitely goes against the laws of the scientific method.



1) There are only 2 classifications: inorganic and inorganic objects.

We can observe inorganic objects not capable of order. Only an intelligent, organic being must control the inorganic object/s to form any semblance of order.

Ex. Metal parts scattered in random. These are observed by the scientific method as incapable of creating a car engine by themselves. Only a human being (organic object w/ intellect enough) can move these to create the engine (complex order/object).

Science has concluded:

1) Organic objects are capable of order/complexity

2) Inorganic objects are incapable of order by themselves.

This is basic scientific laws/observation. It is irrefutable unless you can show inorganic metal parts moving by themselves to create an engine.

Now, the atheist newb spouts (out of ignorance): "Order is possible without intelligence. Order can be made by inorganic objects."

The atheist spouts: Oh, look at snowflakes, nebula, crystals, proteins, etc. as having order.

So the atheist is making a radical claim that: some inorganic objects are capable of order.
Then how come metal parts don't move by themselves to form an engine?

The atheist needs to make a third division (See first two scentific observations above):

3) Some inorganic objects are capable of order.

This, of course directly contradicts the second scientifically observed event:

2) Inorganic objects are incapable of order by themselves.

If some inorganic objects are capable of order as atheists claim, then why are other inorganic objects incapable of it? Then how come metal parts don't move by themselves to form an engine?

There is no logical consistency with the atheist claim. It's either "inorganic objects do not make order by themselves" or "Inorganic objects are capable of order". This is the scientific method.

But the atheists who claim this are actually saying "There's a third division. Some inorganic objects are capable of order, some are not."

Really? That is a clear "special exception" violation. Case closed as always.


Note: In order for something to be a fact (established truth),
it must be empirically observed while occurring at present, and
must be reproducible by experiment.

1) Both evolution and creation cannot be reproduced by experiment.

2) Both evolution and creation cannot be empirically observed while
occurring at present.

Therefore, evolution is an unproven theory and never fact.


The statement "The results of the scientific method should be followed" is unscientific
because it is a value statement that does not get its authority from anywhere but itself.

"We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it
prove itself? "It uses the scientific method."

Atheist Statement: "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is
axiomatic (self-evident)."

Christian answer: Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic?
Does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is
not scientific itself.

I would have to do all the experiments to come to that conclusion. Other than that,
I take it on faith that all of the scientists who did the experiments and reviewed them
and tested them are not lying to me. That is my point.

You cannot use the "scientific method" as a reason to make science as an authority of
truth, simply because the only way to prove science as the truth is to use the
"scientific method"! The logic is circular.


Actually, from a microbiologist's perspective, all of those are far easier to explain
through intelligent design than evolution.

In fact, the immune system relies on a chain reaction of enzymes as well as the
coordinated activity of T-cells. The number of genes required to manufacture
all of the proteins necessary for it to work at all numbers in the thousands. To
claim that random single gene mutations created this process is beyond reason.
It is absolutely impossible.

None of the enzymes involved in combatting foreign proteins are used for any other
purpose in the body. Nor are they molecularly similar enough to have been modified
and retained by the random mutation of single genes. If you change one gene out of
those necessary for the maintenance of your immune system, you would not get a
system that works differently, you would get one that doesn't work at all.

According to the currently prevailing theory of evolution, the immune system
would have taken millions of years to develop, even in simple organisms, and it
would not have worked at all until it was complete. The theory of evolution indicates
that organisms would have shed these worthless protiens rather than conitnue to use
energy and nutrients to continue manufacturing them.

Microbiology has opened an entirely new world of biology to us. It is one that is far
more complex than anyone had previously imagined, and it will eventually be the
wooden stake that kills evolution.


1) Ok. Atheists believe in science. Science and the scientific
method's authenticity is under the power of the so-called "scientific
community", a community of scientists and researchers.

Atheists state they believe the logic and discoveries made by
scientists in the scientific community. This means you believe a
group of people, who are experts in science.

Question: What, again gives these scientists and community the
authority to be believed in? Why should we believe what they say,
anymore than we would believe in other "logic" communities, like
philosophers (who also use logic)? By what authority should they be
believed in?

Logic is not the exclusive domain of science. Various disciplines
use logic and reasoning, like theology, philosophty, etc. A group of
theologians in the Vatican, are authorities that Catholics believe
in. They teach the Catholic faith and truths (using logic).

What would be the difference in believing in theologians, anymore
than believing in scientists? None. They are both belief systems,
though contrary to each other at times. Science is philosophical and
based also on faith (again since you cannot use the scientific method
to validate science, circular).

2) Great scientists like Louis Pasteur, Pascal, etc. and creationist
scientists alike are experts in science, and have concluded that the
universe and its laws are of "intelligent design", and that from a
purely logical point of view, the possibility of an intelligent
being, God, creating the universe is higher than the universe
existing from non-intelligent source/sources.

Other scientists, called evolutionists, believe otherwise. They too
are experts in science but concluded that they see no proof of
intelligent design, or of God existing.

Again, by which authority do we believe these two major divisions,
in the obviously divided "scientific community" itself? Either you
believe one or the other, you cannot believe both. So, again, this
proves science is not purely objective (as atheists falsely
conclude), but still based in part by faith, subjective reasoning or
opinion. This debate is proof of the scientific community's lack of
unity in certain major areas.


Exactly the point. In order for science to be "purely objective",
the scientists who examined and evaluated evidence for evolution
should agree 100%.

In the surveys you have provided, a percentage
still did not agree (or were creationist believers). I therefore
conclude this makes science "partially subjective". The data may be
purely objective, but take note that scientists examining these data
are human. and have "differences of opinion" (creationists vs
evolutionists for example).

It is irrefutable fact. The people need a
"scientific community", experts, to analyze the data for them. This
is because if they don't exist, anybody's personal opinion will be as
good as anybody else's. Science needs these experts.

Unfortunately, they do differ in opinions. Opinions on, say origin of
the universe will need to be 100% agreed upon to make science
purely objective.

Creationists vs. evolutionists' never-ending debate shows a fatal
flaw in the scientific method and science itself. period.

Majority vote, again, by scientists can never be a basis of truth.
Again, by what authority do your evolutionist scientists deem themselves
to be the judge of truth, since majority, in scientific method, does not


1) "Science is the only method of truth. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

This popular atheist argument is defeated by the "coin in a box" argument by theists. It's not only defeated but totally destroyed.

If I hid a coin in a box in a deep cave, then proceeded to ask the top scientists in the world if they believe a coin or not exists in that box (without mentioning anything else), and they say "there's a lack of evidence, so by the scientific method it does not exist." Then, that's a fallacy.

Whatever the scientific community says is irrelevant to the reality that when I go into that deep cave I see the existence of my coin, because I myself hid it there exactly.

By atheist logic, that coin must not exist. Tsk, tsk.

It's no wonder that atheism is not even considered a hard opponent by experienced theist debaters. It is an average opponent, as I emphasized earlier, atheism's fundamentals are considered weak.

More experienced atheist debaters (especially those who eventually converted to theism after knowing this truth amidst other truths), if honest enough (hard to find honest atheists in debate who will admit defeat staring them), eventually discover this truth.

The point of it is to show that science and the scientific method is too
limited to just rely on purely the use of scientific method to prove the existence of someone/something.

For science to claim it is the only way is radical and fallacious. Clearly, it is but one way, but not the ony way.
The existence of my coin, even without evidence to anybody, confirms this.

For the atheists, a tip: You should say "The scientific method is a good way to prove existence of someone/something,
but not the only way." This would give you more credibility in the eyes of good theist debaters.

The scientific method is similar to the legal law's rule of providing physical evidence to support a claim.
It works on many situations, yes, but it fails on other occasions. It doesn't mean this method will work on
each and every situation. This is an atheist fallacy.

We observe its failure in legal law. In cases where not enough physical evidence was presented, there are cases where the truth was
not observed. An innocent man was charged guilty, spent years in jail, etc.

Then, the real killer confesses to the crime. See? The limitations of our logic, of the scientific method
and legal method result in this - Limitation of truth/reality.


I had friends, who had a hard time believing in the existence of God.
They can be classified as "strong atheists". Any belief in the
supernatural was laughed at. They only believed in science and logic.

To believe in supernatural phenomena and events would eventually
pave the clear way for belief in a supernatural being - God.
So it is essential to refute the occurence of the supernatural or paranormal.

I have seen how most of these friends eventually believed in the existence
of God, not in the traditional ways (Bible preaching, using hell as a threat,
intelligent design theory, etc.) but of all ways, the "supernatural" way...

1) One friend got converted by, of all places, a haunted
house (newly moved in). He saw events which simply cannot be explained
by science. At night, he saw a white robed lady going inside a restroom.
He knocked on the door, but no one answered. When he went in,
no one was there.

His wife also experienced the same phenomenon.
Scared the wits out of her.

One night, they saw together an apparition (through a semi-closed door).
It was a woman in white holding a candle. The woman disappeared slowly,
and they saw the candle still floating in the air apparenty going in their

My friend has analyzed that if "supernatural events" are real
(since he witnessed them first-hand), he wil have to accept the fact
that a supernatural being can exist or does exist. He is now a believer in

It is this friend who doubted the reality of miracles before. Now, he is
studying closely the miraculous events at Fatima, the Holy Bible, etc.
Most of my other friends are doing the same, convinced of he and his
wife's testimony.

I've learned this truth: God has His ways to acheive His goals. Why does
He allow supernatural events to occur?
Because He knows these things can show proud atheists/agnostics that
the supernatural is reality and that He, God is real. He humbles intelligent
people that not everything is explainable by logic and science
(like supernatural events in the Bible).

By accepting that the supernatural does occur, even the strong atheists
would have to eventually accept the existence of a supernatural
being - God the creator of both natural and supernatural.

Yup, in this way, even the supernatural fufills an important purpose.....


A great mind or genius is great despite any age. It is classical and
is unaffected by time or technology. What we call "modern technology"
today will look primitive 300 years from now. So, where do you draw
the line? What does "modern" really mean now?


Sorry to say, but any man who doesn't believe in an afterlife is
Clearly there is an afterlife, and the only proof you need is
your very thought! Analyze it, the "mind (soul)" has no physical
dimensions, and no location, and therefore is not a material thing.

The mind breaks every law of science, and doesn't require an energy
source to sustain itself. So clearly it must "live" on even though
the body perishes. (even Einstein believed this) And proof of God (a
supreme, or perfect being) can be attained by reading some of the
meditations of Rene Descartes through natural reason.

And by natural reason, I mean it is self-evident. ie: we say two
are parallel and will go on infinitely without ever intersecting, but
we cannot actually prove this with physical evidence. It is self-
that the lines will not intersect. Now then we can examine the valid

: 1. An idea of the existence of God exists.
: 2. Cause for the idea must have at least as
: much formal reality as the idea has
: objective(realness) reality.
: ____________________________________________
: ^ A perfect being exists.

: And more proof would be that it is impossible to create something
more perfect than yourself. ie, creating something beyond your
comprehension would be impossible. So from that idea we can conclude
that all things are created from someting more perfect than itself,
and at the very beginning of that chain, we can will find, that
Perfect, Infinite, Supremely good being.

On the origin of God:

God has always existed since the beginning, that's why He is
omnipotent. The fact that He is God means no one created Him. If
someone did create Him, then He would not be God (the one who created
Him would be God).

The Bible is the Book of Truth. It was not created for propaganda
purposes, nor does it contain "fantasy stories" or myths. It is based
on plain truth, each and every word of it. It would be too lengthy to
explain everything here but the miracles in the Bible have only
recently been verified as true.

For reference, please watch "The Discovery Channel's" series
entitled "Secrets of the Bible" on cable channel. The scientists
themselves (both atheist and Christian scientists combined),
through the accuracy and wonders of modern technology and
computers were able to do objective analysis and study of the
authenticity of the Bible's events.

It is noteworthy to mention here that the verification of
"miracles in the Bible" as historical and accurate were confirmed
by a large party of both "atheist" scientists and Christian

This is to make it as unbiased and objective as possible. Only facts
and proofs spoke for themselves.

There was good evidence
of the Bible's truth (parting of the Red Sea, David slaying Goliath,
Samson, Gideon's destruction of Israel's enemy through prayer alone,
etc.) You won't regret it.

On historical Bible:

There was a feature on cable (I believe it was Discovery channel
again), which strengthened the occurences of "Noah's Ark". Basically,
scientists were puzzled to find "fossilized remains" of plants,
animals, etc. on high places where it was physically impossible to
have a presence there. Say, "sea fish fossils" atop mountains, etc. A
great flood is likely to be the cause. It's too long to discuss here

Also, accounts of a great flood during the beginning of time have
been discovered in many ancient texts from different cultures.

Why sufferings and imprefections occur despite a perfect God:

Sufferings, wars, diseases, deformities are not the will of God but
He allows these to occur for specific purposes. Nothing happens
without His permission. Say, a landslide occurs and instantly kills a
lot of people. He allows this as a warning to people's greed, say the
careless cutting of trees for commercialization, etc.

God will not do your work for you. He does not spoil His children.
Instead of blaming God for the world's misery, we should blame
ourselves more. Mahatma Gandhi once said "The world has enough for
man's need, but never enough for his greed."


It is no coincidence that communism and atheism share the same
belief/philosophy that there is no god.

Engels, one of the founders of communism, states that religion is an
obsolete system, that religion is not needed anymore when communism
arrived. He attacked religion as a "myth" of sorts, lacking objective

Nothing could be farther from the truth (Again, both atheist
scientists and christian scientists have verified the miracles of
the Bible as true. Watch "Discovery Channel's "Secrets of the Bible.
Objective proof is all there. Period.) No atheist here has been able
to refute these proofs (for starters, watch it first).

Well, look at communism's steady demise over the years, now it is a
failure. Same with atheism, it will have its time, but eventually
the philosophy will disappear. History has a tendency to repeat

Q: If God created man, then who created God?

A: If there was a being greater than God, you would still ask
"Who created the creator of God?" You could ask this again and
again for no end. The flaw is you are basically falling into the error
of "infinite regression".

You are saying that there is no beginning, which of course is illogical.

From a purely logical point of view, the existence of an intelligent God
designing the universe and intelligent life is MUCH MUCH higher and more
probable than "infinite regression".

There is a beginning and everything has to have a beginning and an end.

Q: Why does God allow evil to occur? Did God create evil?

A: One thing I've observed that's so true, most atheists became one
because of ignorance. Yup, no offense meant, pls. don't take it
personally, it's just the truth. Ignorance especially on Christian

God allows evil to occur, but it is not His will for it to occur. He
did not create evil in this world. Evil is a result of people with
free will abusing their free will.

God gave men and women the gift of free will, the ability to
reason, to choose. This is because of His love for us and that He
made us as His children, not robots who have no choice. You are free
to do good or evil. Reward for good, punishment for evil. This means
there will be humans who will inevitably choose to do evil.

You see, free will is so important. Free will is what makes a human
being different from an animal. That's why we have cages for wild
animals because they do not reason. Free will is also the reason why
we have criminals inside prisons, people who must be punished for
abusing their free will.

When you have a child, you give the child a certain freedom. Ex. You
have to give that child freedom to play in the playground, even
though you know there is a risk of your child hurting herself, say
getting bruises, etc. Sure, you could guard every inch of her ground,
but that will spoil her. That wouldn't be freedom.

If you guard her every move, you are restricting her freedom. She
will not learn the lessons she needs to by herself. Same with God on
us His children. He has to give us freedom, respecting our free will.
In this He has to allow certain risks of people doing evil (abusing
free will). This is similar to a parent allowing a child freedom to
play even with the risk of her falling and hurting herself.

You cannot have it both ways. Freedom has a price.

He does not will or want evil to occur (because God is a being of
infinite and pure goodness, being the source of all types of love),
but necessarily must permit it to happen in order for free will to be
enforced. If God did not allow evil to occur, then free will can
never exist in the first place. If free will cannot exist in men and
women, then they cannot be considered human beings, capable of doing
good or evil. They would be robots or animals with only instinct and
not capable of choice or human reasoning.

It is a fundamental truth of Christian theology that God did not
create evil. Evil cannot come from God, because God is a perfect
being of perfect love and infinite goodness. A perfect being cannot
have imperfections or make a mistake. Got it?

A universal law is this: Evil cannot come out of something good (and
vice versa).

Q: God created man. Man did evil acts. Therefore, can God be evil?

If I create a robot, and the robot killed a person (against my
wishes), I cannot be considered evil.

God created people WITH free will. Many people choose to do good.
Some will choose to do evil (selfish interests). Abuse of free will
to do evil is called "sin".

God created us to be happy, meaning true happiness is only derived
naturally from doing good. Conversely, sadness and lack of peace
naturally occurs when a person sins. This is an innate "natural law"
that God made. Even atheists will admit they feel good when they do
good things and feel sad when they commit evil. It is an innate
instinct in souls.

God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He created
"knowledge" of evil (so a person who ate this will not be innocent
anymore of what is good and what is evil). He did not therefore,
create "evil" itself.

Q: "If God did not create evil, how did evil exist?"

1) Atheists can say all they want, that atheism is not a belief
system. It's subjective. Truth is, it is a belief system because you
simply believe that God does not exist. Don't fool yourself that
you're so different from other belief systems, that you rely on
logic and science (Christianity relies on logic and science too,

2) Ok. It is written in the Bible that evil first originated from a
highly-ranked angel, Lucifer, (means "Bearer of Light). He rebelled
against God (abusing his free will and causing the first sin). His
pride/vanity made him love himself above God, and made him want TO

He tempted 25-30% of the angels in heaven to rebel against God, and
were defeated by God's champion, St. Michael the Archangel (he was
of much lesser rank, but had God's power in the end).

An angel (free will is a gift to both angels and man) who sinned.
Take note that NOBODY tempted Lucifer to rebel. But he tempted other
angels (who now are free to tempt men and women, protected by their
own God-given guardian Angels who advise them against temptation).

3) Again, evil and suffering is allowed by God to occur, because of
the concept of free will, and also as punishment for sins. Say, wars
occur because it is a chastisement of man's greed for power, etc.


I just watched a show about "near-death experiences" or "life after

There was this atheist (he called himself a free thinker/atheist)
who got a stroke one day. He was unconscious on the operating table.
Suddenly, he saw his body being revived desperately by the doctor and
nurses. His family was crying.

He murmured "This is impossible, how can I be conscious, and see my
body and everybody else? Could it be that a soul/spirit really
exists after death?"

ATTENTION Atheists: Many who've experienced "life after death"
experiences have recounted the same thing. They saw their body,
(being pronounced dead even). They also were able to describe
accurately, in complete detail, the events they saw. They described
the people present, the loved ones (even the style and color of

Remember that at that exact time, their eyes were totally closed,
their brains either dead or almost, all of these being verified by
medical instruments. There is logically no way they could've seen
their body and everyone, everything happening (from the outside at
that). This only proves that a second body (soul/spirit) does exist
and this is absolute truth.

The existence of a soul/spirit is not believed by atheists. They do
not believe it because the presence of a soul, if verified, will
naturally lead to the truth that God exists. The soul, being eternal,
and is constantly mentioned in the Holy Bible as true.

A person is eventually judged not on whether he/she was a Christian,
but on the goodness of his/her life. A Christian who lived an evil
life will not enter Heaven, but a non-Christian who lived a good life
will enter Heaven.

So it is wrong to say that only Christians will go to Heaven. Some
sects believe in that by taking the Bible too literally. That is a

2) No problem with the facts. All the people who recounted how they
saw their bodies (and every exact detail they gave), even though they
were declared dead (yes, with eyes closed for the nth time!) gave
their testimonies IMMEDIATELY after they woke up. They said this in
front of doctors, nurses, loved ones (so it's authentic, no way for
them to have gotten it from any other person). This is well-
documented, and has baffled researchers/scientists to this day. It is
still being studied.

Anyway, we're going out of topic. I'd like to continue the story of
the atheist (real-life):

So, he reported seeing his body from the outside, as an observer.
Lots of people trying to revive him, no heart beat on the med
instruments, etc. He wonders how he can be seeing his body, 'cause
he is atheist after all and expected to "just disappear" like a used-
up energy matter (etc.). To him, this was simply impossible.

Yet, if it was a dream, why could he see his body, his relatives,
etc. He remembered being unconscious from his room (as well as the
pain he felt at that time, before he became unconscious). And now
he's seeing his own body being declared dead.

Then, from behind him, some black, hooded figures appeared at the
door (outside the room). They told him to come to that spot. He
thought they were hospital staff, and went to them.

Almost immediately, he was dragged down a dark tunnel. It seemed
forever, then he landed beneath a dark room. He couldn't see
anything, but there were many beings n that room, and they were
kicking him, dragging him. He somehow could feel the pain, and they
were laughing, hitting him harder when they saw his pain. They were
sadistic. He couldn't fight them, so he remained in a fetal position
(his exact statement) to shield the blows. He was crying for help.

Suddenly, a voice told him "Pray to God". He ignored it at first.
Then a second call, "Pray to God." He was asking himself who this
being was. He, in desperation, tried to remember a prayer, any
prayer. He tried to recall "Our Lord's Prayer", but couldn't.

Then, a third plea, "Pray to God". He shouted "Jesus, pls. help me!
The dark beings cursed, and went away from him as a bright light
shielded him. This time, he saw a bright tunnel, and saw Jesus and
some angels. He was told this was not yet his time, that he he had a
mission to tell this, especially to skeptics. He reported not wanting
to go back, but wanting to stay, so serene and peaceful it was there.
The feeling of being loved was overwhelming. Then, he woke up, to
everybody's amazement.

All of the witnesses who passed through the bright light recounted
that they didn't want to go back to this world anymore. It was said
to be indescribable. A feeling of extreme peace and overwhelming
love, a perfect world.

The great scientist, Pascal, came to this conclusion:

If you decide to believe in God, then when your life passes away,and
God does exist, you still win.

If you decide not to believe in God, then your life passes away, and
God does exist, you lose everything.

TRUTH: It's more logical to believe in God than not to based on
above. If you were a gambler, it's a safer bet to believe in God.

On the Santa theory: To say to believe in God is like believing in
Santa Claus is not an accurate analogy, very flawed. Why? It is not
the same, because there are greater risks in not believing in God
than not believing in Santa.

Basically, if you choose to not believe in God, the risks of gaining
a bad after-life are greater than choosing not to believe (our
original point above). There is no such risk whatsoever with
believing in Santa or not. Whether you believe in Santa or not, you
will not have any possibility of a bad after-life.

Remember again that Pascal's Wager is all about taking risks, on
which option is riskier or better (see original post above again).
This refutes the analogy of Santa theory (an obvious favorite of
atheists) completely.

For your further information, Pascal is an agnostic, that's why he
needed logic to convince himself of the truth.

On the spirit/soul's existence:

There are actually three levels in existence: spiritual, mental and
physical state.

These are working within each other and are not separate. Science
cannot prove with "physical methods" the existence of a spirit/soul.

At the same time, it cannot be disproved by science either. As of
this time, science is "limited" by its very nature, in that it can
only work within the boundaries of the physical and mental state.

On why God's plan is a work of genius:

If you were God, and you saw that your creation, mankind, did not
acknowledge you or love you back despite all your love for them, what
would you do? What type of plan will you really make to show your
love and teach them truth?

God's genius and perfection is shown by His plan: His begotten Son
(begotten, not made), God the Son, Jesus Christ would become man
himself, one of us. He would be born to a virgin, Mother Mary, to
show that nothing is impossible to God's power.

He would teach the truth and establish a new way of life not just
for one race but for all races of men - Christianity.

Then, in order to pay the "countless debts of sin" that men and
women have been making, His only Son would have to make the ultimate
sacrifice: a suffering so great and death on a cross like a common

Jesus paid our debts in full with His blood. Even if each of us
suffered and died on a cross like him, our debts will still not be
paid. Our sins have been so great that only God Himself dying on that
cross will suffice. He did it out of pure love for us though He had
no obligation to. There is no love that can equal this.

Is there any person who can show a better plan than God's perfect
plan? The answer is no. No angel or human being can ever match God's
genius and wisdom. If you think you can, you're kidding yourself.

On Hell and Heaven:

There is a common misconception here. Hell is a place where the
souls there have decided to separate themselves from God, their
Creator. They despise and hate God, even unto death, though God still
loves them.

The fact that God can annihilate them but God choosing to spare
them, is proof of God's eternal goodness. He gives them a place to
exist. God does not force souls to love Him, for loving is always a
choice, free will. If not, it cannot be called love. God respects us
and gave us free will. We are not robots.

It is like a gangster you bring to a peaceful home or church.
Eventually, the gangster will seek to go out and seek the evil life,
danger, raping women, killing enemies, etc. Why? Because this has
become his nature, this is where he is content. Like a pig, even
though you dress it all up is still a pig. It sees mud and it rolls
all over the mud.

Similarly, if you bring an evil soul to Heaven, it's nature will
inevitably make that soul seek something else, it will choose Hell.

In the end, we will decide our eternity. We are all gifted with an
eternal soul, but where we spend that eternity is ultimately a
personal choice, a decision. There is no excuse, only choice.

Some have suggested it is more merciful for God to stop the evil
souls' suffering by erasing them from existence rather than letting
them burn in fire for eternity.

Logical, but flawed. There is a theological principle that God does
not destroy what He has already created. Consider Hell as "damage

Look at our modern-day prison system. There are prisoners there for
life, having to do hard labor every day. What are we to do wih them?
Would it be right and "merciful" to end all their lives and shoot
them one by one so their suffering ends? You be the judge.

Hell must be harsh, for it is an example of what rebellion against
God will lead to. It has to serve as a deterrent. The souls there are
free to blasphemize God all they want, cursing and gnashing their
teeth in anger. Even there, God allows free will and does not force


One thing that turns me off is when some Christian sects
(protestants) declare only Christians will go to Heaven.

1) How can this be, when at least 75% of people around the globe are
non-Christians? When I was desperately seeking for truth, this
troubled me a lot. Secondly, theology states no soul can enter heaven
with even a single stain of sin. One must be "pure".

In all my searching, only the theology of the Christian Catholic
Church has satisfied me. Listen well, for this is the answer:

The concept of either only Heaven or Hell is a concept made by

If you review your history, they were founded by a monk (Luther),
who was trained in the original church founded by Christ, the
Christian Catholic Church.

The Protestants have more than 1,000 different sects now. Obviously,
when one Church member found something "wrong", he branched out,
proclaimed his own theology and created a new sect. This is their
weakness, no unity. The Catholic Church has always been one, has
maintained its teachings, and traces its roots back to St. Peter, the
leader of Jesus Christ's apostles.

The Catholic Church teaches a middle ground, between Hell and
Heaven: Purgatory. This means your religion is not a basis on whether
you will go to heaven, purgatory or hell. This means both Christians
and non-Christians are judged after death, by the good things that
one has done, how he/she had loved and avoided sin.

Purgatory is mentioned in the Bible: The New Jerusalem Bible, 1
Corinthians 3:10-15 and 2 Maccabees 12: 38-45

Purgatory is a place where souls are purged, suffering temporarily
(unlike hell which is eternal). The souls are cleansed of any sin,
for it is necessary (only souls without sin can enter heaven).

The more truths one knows, the higher the punishment if that person
sins (compared to those who know less). The punishment for a
Christian will be harder than pagans. Because a Christian is blessed
with more truths and graces, it is naturally justified that the
standards of being good and avoiding sin is higher.

A pagan who does not know much about God, or about His Divine Son,
Jesus Christ, is given more leniency. In God's wisdom, each pagan has
an innate knowledge of basic good and evil. This is called "natural

This is what makes them know instinctively, that killing a person in
cold blood without reason is inherently wrong even without being a
Christian or having knowledge of Christian teachings on sin.

Not all souls will pass even purgatory. Say a person kills a million
Jews, etc. Only God can really judge perfectly.

There are probably millions of souls in hell. Assume that if even
less than 1% of people who lived thousands of years ago, combined
with those who have died within modern times sinned so horribly as to
not even pass purgatory, then that's less than 1% of billions of
previously living people. That would still amount to millions (there
are more than 7 billion people alive in the world as of now).

Yes, one can assume then, that the majority of people in the world
will enter purgatory, Christian or otherwise. This means majority
will indeed enter heaven eventually. But note that the pains of
purgatory are more painful than earthly sufferings (depending on the
level of sins, for purgatory has different levels also).

It is a common misconception on hell. The Protestants claim only
Christans will go to heaven. This is a major flaw.

Nowhere in the Bible does it directly say that non-believers will go to
hell. The Catholic theology des more justice when it claims that both
Christians and non-Christians (that would include atheists, agnostics)
can go to heaven.

It's a lot more logical and just. The majority of people around
the world are not Christians, and God will not condemn the majority
of people He created.

For most people (Christians and non-Christians), most of us will have
to be purged at purgatory first. Which means most people, majority,
will enter heaven eventually, after purgatory.

Ex. Between a Christian murderer (believes in God) and a strong atheist
(out of ignorance, etc. but is a good citizen, has a good heart, helps
others, etc.), who do you think is more worthy to enter heaven?

Faith is not enough. Good works, the over-all goodness of a person
can justify heaven.


1) Prayers for the dead are proof of purgatory because there would be
no need for prayers if indeed those souls are either only in heaven or hell
(as protestants/fundamentalists claim). The verse 2 Maccabees 12: 38-45
is to be interpreted therefore, that the souls do need prayer. It means
they are in a place that is neither heaven nor hell - purgatory.

2) To enter heaven, a soul must be perfect, no sins are allowed there.
Since no man/woman is without sin (specified in the Bible), how will any
soul enter in this case? Answer - purgatory.

3) Purgatory enables even non-Christians to enter heaven. The Protestant
claim that only Christians can enter heaven has done a lot to turn away
many people who otherwise would've been Christians.

4)Buey, here's a major reason that many Protestants are converting to
the Catholic faith:

The Protestants have more than 1,000 sects now (Mormon, Baptist),
each with significantly different teachings. Why? A member finds
(by his interpretation) that his/her current sects teaching has a flaw.
He/she decides to start another sect and detach from the current sect.

The new sect is started, then some member does the same thing
(multiply by many times, and you get the point).

This was prophecied by Jesus Himself, the Protestant movement. Most
Protestant theology is originally from the Catholic Church. Luther modified
what "he thought" were errors and presto, you've got new Protestant

The Catholic Church has always been one. The Popes can trace
ancestry back to the first Pope, St. Peter himself. It is one in
teaching and substance.

Why I know my Christian Catholic faith is the true one:

We do not fear science, for science only actually supports the
truths of the Christian religion, mainly the facts in the Holy Bible.

I've given some proofs that give the Christian religion the
'advantage" over other religions.

I do not speculate, as I've said before. It has taken me years of
research, scouting the world religions, while being scientific and
objective as possible (yes, I know what you're thinking, it can be

1) that only Jesus Christ (on whom Christianity was born) rose from
the dead, recorded in the Bible as being seen and talked to by many
people. No other religion's founder has risen from death.

He did appear to many people (beyond Mother Mary and the 12
apostles), this is documented in the Bible. Many of these converted
to Christianity. If Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity
will never be born.

2) This is the same Bible, whose historical data has been proven
accurate and this has never been refuted. Archaeology backs it up.
Compare the Bible with other religion's books and you will see they
do not simply have the historical credibility, accuracy the Bible
uniquely has.

Now, this adds credibilty to the Holy Bible. The miracles were
stated to have occurred, and the Bible's historical accuracy so far
makes it so that its statements must be believed rather than doubted.

It is mpossible then, not to love God as God is the creator of love,
and the ability to love and be loved comes only from Him. Do you love
your children? Then, where do you think that "ability" comes from?

Peace to all.....

GOD Bless,
Alex C

"Faith is higher than reason. Reason is useless....unless you believe."
- St. Francis of Assisi

"Before one can comprehend the mystical, one must first understand
the physical."
- St. Thomas Aquinas

"The way to wisdom is truth."



Since it is from the New Testament that we gain our primary
knowledge of Jesus, it is fitting to ask whether this literature is
sound and historically accurate. Critics often describe the Gospels
as pious legend, having no historical competence, and designed only
for propaganda purposes. But while it is acknowledged that the
Gospels are not biography in the strict sense according to 20th
century definitions,[1] the following facts give immense weight to
the historical accuracy of the New Testament.

Archaeologists studying ancient civilizations by uncovering ruins
and examining artifacts, are with increasing success confirming the
accuracy of the Biblical texts. Sir William Ramsey's vindication of
Luke's writings is a classic example.[2] The findings of archaeology
have in fact reversed the opinions of a number of former skeptics.
Among these is the scholar Dr. William F. Albright, who writes:

"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools
of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after
discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details."[3]

Recent archaeological discoveries include both the Pool of Bethesda
(John 5:1f) and "The Pavement" (John 19:13). Their existence was
doubted just a few decades ago. Confirmation of the accuracy of the
setting of Jacob's well has also been found (John 4).[4] Such
findings have caused many scholars to reverse earlier skeptical
opinions on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. Its author has
demonstrated an obvious intimate knowledge of the Jerusalem of
Jesus' time, just as we would expect from the Apostle John. Such
detail would not have been accessible to a writer of a later
generation, since Jerusalem was demolished under Titus' Roman army in
70 A.D.
Also, the recent recovery of a Roman census similar to the one in
Luke 2:1f, and the historical confirmation of his "synchronism"[5]
in Luke 3:1f, underscores the care Luke took in writing his Gospel
(Luke 1:1-4).

[Read more about archaeological discoveries that confirm the Bible's

Critics of Luke's Gospel often retreat into non-verifiable and
subjective opinions, but they have not overthrown Luke's historical
confirmations.[6] By extension, the other two "Synoptic"[7] Gospels
of Matthew and Mark, painting essentially similar portraits of
Jesus' ministry, are also trustworthy accounts of his life.

Additionally, outside the Bible, Jesus is also mentioned by his near-
contemporaries. Extra-Biblical and secular writers (many hostile)
point to Jesus' existence, including the Roman writings of Tacitus,
Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus
and the Talmud. Gary Habermas has cited a total of 39 ancient extra-
Biblical sources, including 17 non-Christian, that witness from
outside the New Testament to over 100 details of Jesus' life, death,
and resurrection.[8]

There are also characteristics within the texts themselves which
mark the four Gospels as sober history and neither legend nor
fictional propaganda. Consider that the Gospel writers set the
leading disciples in very poor light (Matthew 14:30, Mark 9:33f,
Luke 22:54f). Notice as well that they included hard words by Jesus,
which in fact repelled many hearers (Matthew 21:28f, Luke 9:23f,
John 8:39f).

One distinction of the four Gospels is that their famed treasure of
good news lies not nakedly on the surface, but hidden behind both
challenge (Mark 8:34f, John 12:25f)[9] and threat (Matthew 25:31f).
Such characteristics would have been counter-productive to
propagandists. Their presence in the Gospels demonstrates the
willingness of the evangelists to tell the truth, however
embarrassing or inconvenient.

Some express concern that the Bible may have been altered down
through the centuries. It is to this matter that Textual Critics
address themselves. They have discovered entire manuscripts and parts
of others, one portion dating to the beginning of the 2nd Century.
The New Testament has far better textual support than do the works of
Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, or Tacitus,[10] whose contents no one
seriously questions. In addition, the New Testament documents have
always been both public, and widely-disseminated. Thus it would be
impossible for any party to have materially changed their contents,
just as the Declaration of Independence, for example, as a public
document, could not have been privately altered without raising
notice and creating public furor. Sir Frederic Kenyon, former
Director of the British Museum, comments:

"The interval between the dates of the original composition and the
earliest extant evidence [i.e. our oldest manuscripts] becomes so
small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that
the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were
written has now been removed."[11]

In conclusion, it is not necessary that the New Testament be treated
with "kid gloves" and backed up by special pleading. Simply allow it
to be subject to the very same historical-critical standards that
Classical historians apply to secular literature. When equal
treatment is permitted its course, the Gospels fully pass the test.[12]
NEXT -- How do we know that Christ really rose from the dead?


N.T. Wright of Oxford University writes that the four canonical
Gospels do fit into the broad genre of Hellenistic biography. See
N.T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1992), p. 73f.

Sir William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House reprint; 1949 from 1894
lectures). Intent on discrediting Luke's writings, in the last
century this hostile scholar traveled across the Mediterranean to
that end. But he was astonished to discover that his archaeological
findings confirmed the full accuracy of the customs, locations, and
the governing titles (e.g. "magistrates" Acts 16:35; "proconsul" Acts
18:12) Luke had mentioned. These varied widely from region to
region. Ramsey concluded, "Great historians are the rarest of
writers...[I regard Luke] among the historians of the first rank"
(pp. 3-4). [up]

W.F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible (Revell,
1935), p. 127. [up]

Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (New York:
Doubleday, 1966), p. XLII. [up]

"Synchronism" means the tying together of unrelated events into a
single timeline. [up]

A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament
(Oxford, 1963). Sherwin-White is a renowned Oxford historian who
writes, "It is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have
been growing in confidence, the 20th century study of the Gospel
narratives, starting from no-less-promising material, has taken so
gloomy a turn in the developments of form criticism... That the
degree of confirmation in Graeco-Roman terms is less for the Gospels
than for [The Book of] Acts is due... to the differences in their
regional setting. As soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit in
Jerusalem [e.g., Herod and Pontius Pilate] confirmation begins. For
Acts [authored by Luke], the confirmation of historicity is
overwhelming." (p. 107f) [up]

"Synoptic" means to describe Jesus in a similar way (syn = together;
optos = sight). [up]

Gary Habermas, The Verdict of History (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1988), p. 169. [up]

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Image, 1959), p. 157. [up]

The closest we get to the original documents of each of the
mentioned secular Classical writers is between 900 and 1300 years.
By contrast, the "John Rylands Fragment" of the New Testament,
containing John 18:31-33, has been dated as early as 115 A.D. Entire
manuscripts of the New Testament can be dated to within 300 years of
its completion. Virtually complete New Testament books as well as
extensive fragments, can be dated to within 100 years of its close.
Nearly the entire New Testament can be found in quotations by the
early Christian writers. See Frederick Fyvie Bruce, The New
Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downer's Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1972), p. 14f. [up]

Frederick Fyvie Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They
Reliable? (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p. 20. [up]

Military historian C. Sanders lists three tests in his Introduction
to Research in English Literary History (New York: Macmillan, 1952),
p. 143f. And seven factors are cited by Behan McCullagh as criteria
for valid analysis of historical documents.[a] Using these sets of
standards, John Warwick Montgomery[b] and William Lane Craig[c]
respectively, roundly vindicate the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life,
death, and resurrection. Renowned Oxford Classical historian Michael
Grant, writes, "If we apply the same criteria that we would apply to
other ancient literary sources, the evidence is firm and plausible
enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found
empty."[d] And Paul Meier writes, "If all the evidence is weighed
carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the
canons of historical research, to conclude that [Jesus' tomb] was
actually empty... And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered
in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove
this statement."[e] [up]
[Also read the facts about "The Jesus Seminar" criticisms.]

a. C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge
University Press, 1984), p. 19f.
b. John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Bethany, 1965).
c. William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" in M. Wilkins
and J.P. Moreland, editors, Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 1995), p. 141f.
d. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels
(Scribners, 1977), p. 176.
e. Paul Meier, "The Empty Tomb as History," Christianity Today
(March 28, 1975), p. 5.