This is a no brainer. All you need is two eyes that can see and a brain that can think

01.jpg If you look at a beautiful painting , you knowThere must have been a painter.”

car.jpg If you look at a motor vehicle of great workmanship, you know “there must have been a manufacturer”.

3.jpg If you look at a meticulously detailed sculpture, you knowThere must have been a sculptor.”

4.jpg If you look at a massive bridge spanning a large body of water, you knowThere must have been an engineer.”

5.jpg If you look at a tall building, you know, “There must have been a builder.”

computer.jpg If you look at a complex computer program, you know ‘There must have been a programmer.

old_book.jpg If you look at a well-written best-selling novel, you know, “There must have been an author.”

ts.jpg You look at the human body and creation on a whole and say to yourself, “This must have been the product of an accident. A long time ago absolutely nothing from absolutely nowhere exploded and not only created absolutely everything, but also created order and it all occurred as a random cosmic accident.

Of course not. You would not say that about the painting, the car, the sculpture, the bridge. the building, the computer program or the novel. In the same way that the painting is 100% proof that there must be a painter, creation is 100% proof that there is a creator. Paintings do not happen by themselves or by chance or by accident and neither did creation. That is why in Psalms 14:1, it says that the fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”.

Romans 1:20-22 says For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:21-22)

Now that doesnt prove who that God is but it does prove that there was a big intelligent creator and designer behind creation. Now many will ask the question, well who created God? Well if we keep going backwards, we have what we call an infinite regress i.e. B created A, C created B, D created C and on and on it goes. But at some point there must be something that stands outside of all of this and outside of time which is infinite. We as Christians call that ‘something’ God. Brian Johnson has answered this question very eloquently in an 8 minute audio file which you can listen to here.

Related website for further investigation:

Answers In Genesis

Related Post:

Is Christianity True? – An Introduction

Is Christianity True – Part 2: What can we know about this God?

Is Christianity True – Part 3: Facts about some of the other faiths

Is Christianity True – Part 4: The Bible

Comments
  1. Bad says:

    The infinite regress doesn’t work as you or Brian explain it. If there must be an end to the infinite regress somewhere, and that end must simply be an uncaused cause of complexity, then there’s no reason why the start of the universe couldn’t be that uncaused cause, and simply have complexity causing be part of its makeup, with no further explanation necessary.

    And you can’t even object to that state of affairs, because in your God argument, you ALREADY conceded that this was possible.

    Your series of analogies also makes no sense. All the things you list we know to be designed for far more reasons that merely that they are complex and meaningful to us (in fact, that they are meaningful to us is hardly a coincidence: we made these particular things that way!). They contain obvious evidence of their construction process, we have external evidence of these things, experience with them, even designer’s descriptions, journals, and signatures.

    We don’t find anything like this in nature itself, and whatever hypothetical designer would have been behind it would be so unlike any design process that we are familiar with that the analogy would be pretty well broken right off the bat.

    Put simply, what you are essentially appealing to is a question-begging premise: namely, that all things that appear designed to us are designed, and therefore nature was designed. But this is premature. We don’t know if nature was designed or not (and in fact, thinking that it is seems bizarre: basically arguing that nature is “unnatural” which makes no sense, since the only reference point we have for what is natural IS nature itself), and so we cannot beg that question prematurely.

  2. Alan Higgins says:

    You have confused me a bit so forgive me if i misunderstand. You ask ‘why the start of the universe couldn’t be that uncaused cause’ so the question begs where did that matter come from that started the universe or are you saying that the matter always existed?

    You say that we dont find anything in nature like descriptions, journals, and signatures but DNA is just one example of a ‘signature’. The human eye by itself is more complex than any camera and I find it unbelievable that you can say that there is no design in nature

  3. Bad says:

    You ask ‘why the start of the universe couldn’t be that uncaused cause’ so the question begs where did that matter come from that started the universe or are you saying that the matter always existed?

    The problem is that you’ve already given up your right to ask this question. You already argued that there will be one thing for which this question makes no sense: an uncaused first cause, the “origin” of, or the nature of its existence, we have no need to explain. If so, then we can most simply just specify that this first cause is the origin of the universe itself, end of story.

    Also, “begging the question” does not mean “makes me want to ask the question.” What is means is that you already assumed your desired conclusion in the premises of the argument, and thus the conclusion is fallacious/unwarranted.

    And DNA is not a “signature” in any sense (it doesn’t contain communicative messages and is basically just stored chains of chemical causality) and merely asserting that something is complex and thus must have been designed is again just begging the question (i.e. assuming that all complex things must have been designed).

    Again: citing examples of things that humans have designed TO BE complex and functional, and then extrapolating this to nature gets things precisely backwards. Complexity is something we find in nature, and we, being one of those complex things, can go on to create complex things ourselves (though rarely AS complex). None of that demonstrates that complexity itself requires or implies design.

    And the eye is an extremely poor example given that it is not only one of the easiest features to explain a step-by-step evolution process for, but most of the steps are preserved in some fashion or another in living animals (and, as a bonus: preserved in just the order we’d expect).

  4. Alan Higgins says:

    Ok you say that I am ‘assuming that all complex things must have been designed’, so let’s keep this really simple. Do you think it is at all possible that ANY of the examples that I cited could have been existed by random chance or could have evolved and if not, why not?

  5. paarsurrey says:

    Hi

    Jesus was true; but “Christianity” has been invented by Paul at Rome. Paul only used Jesus name as a cover to promote his own theological philosophy that Jesus had died on Cross. Jesus never died a cursed death on Cross.

    Thanks

    http://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/

    I am an Ahmadi a peaceful Muslim

  6. Alan Higgins says:

    And where did you get this information from?

  7. paarsurrey says:

    Hi Alan Higgins!

    There are several sources. First of all GodAllahYHWH revealed it on the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 that Jesus did not die on Cross but he died in exile in India after the incident of Crucifixion; and that the SecondComming of Jesus has happened in the form of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908.
    I will appreciate if you visit my blog for further queries in this connection. I will be happy to answer your charitable posts.

    Thanks

    I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

  8. Joseph Rhoda says:

    Hi ,

    Just a quick line to introduce an interesting and dynamic view of the Christian faith. Below is a copy of a post on my blog based on Who Owns Intellectual Property? I recently published a book titled Upgrade your Talents. This might throw more light on the theme “Is Christianity True? (“Does God exist?”)

    Who Owns Intellectual Property?
    Recently, I came across the post titled above published by Jim Heskett on April 4, 2008 on the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge blog. However the post had closed to comments. Interesting responses were received from readers and commentators. Although the above question was not answered explicitly, the executive summary concluded that Intellectual Property was essential for the promotion of creativity and innovation as it acts as an assurance for reward and profit for the creator. It further highlights the need for Intellectual Property to reflect the changing dynamics in global society and the possibility of flexibility by a creator (and owner of IP rights) in enforcing Intellectual Property rights for the overall benefit of the wider society. James Heskett is a Baker Foundation Professor, Emeritus at Harvard Business School.

    From the same blog, writing under the Harvard Business School Alumni Bulletin series a post published on May 14, 2008 by Julia Hanna and titled “Getting Down to the Business of Creativity” made the following observations “But if creativity is integral to business, and to entrepreneurship in particular, how exactly does it occur? Where does this unicorn-like creature come from, and what exotic conditions will help it thrive in captivity? Three professors in Harvard Business School’s Entrepreneurial Management unit who focus on the study of creativity recognize the romantic allure of believing it’s a rare quality bestowed on a chosen few, but all agree that notion has been debunked long ago, and rightfully so.”

    I agree to a certain extent with the above executive summary. However, to examine the above question from the perspective of the origin of creativity and who owns the intellectual property on human creativity and innovation, I would confidently state it is owned by Almighty God. Although this view might not be shared by many, I believe I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Almighty God owns the Intellectual Property rights of the ability of members of the human race to be creative and innovative. And in agreement with both posts, He has deposited this ability in all human beings (not just a selected few) and allowed the human race to use this creative ability for both individual and communal benefits.

    However, the ownership by Almighty God of the Intellectual Property Rights of various talents exhibited by members of the human race covers only the positive and beneficial creative and innovative abilities. This creative and innovative ability was licensed by Almighty God to the human race in exchange for royalty payments to Him. However, the human race acquired a negative and destructive creative and innovative ability through the act of piracy and counterfeiting.

    Counterfeiting Almighty God’s Intellectual Property rights brought death (and other consequences) into the human race. Persistent infringement of Almighty God’s IP rights will lead to legal action and prosecution. A conviction at prosecution could have disastrous effects; as counterfeits and pirated products are normally destroyed.

    However, like any IP rights owner, Almighty God has innovated and ensured an adequate and enhanced protection of His IP rights to remove the effects of counterfeiting and piracy. He is making an offer of Upgrade for the talents of every member of the human race to enable them avoid a conviction at prosecution. Almighty God has secured a Divine Patent and issued a Divine Registered Trade mark as a basis for an Upgrade for the creative and innovative abilities of the human race.

    He is offering a Divine Franchise Agreement for all members of the human race in exchange for royalty payments of worship and an intimate relationship.

    Want to know more? Want to accept an Upgrade for your Talents? Want to avoid a possible conviction on prosecution? Get your copy of Upgrade your Talents Now!

    Kind Regards

    Joseph

  9. Bad says:

    Ok you say that I am ‘assuming that all complex things must have been designed’, so let’s keep this really simple. Do you think it is at all possible that ANY of the examples that I cited could have been existed by random chance or could have evolved and if not, why not?

    None of them evolved, they were all designed, and none of them, being inorganic objects, could have evolved on their own.

    The problem is that this doesn’t imply what you want it to. Again: when what we want to know whether complex natural features, like human beings (who can design things) were designed or could have come about via some natural process, we can’t start the argument simply assuming that all complex natural features must have been designed. That’s simply assuming your desired conclusion.

    What we have to do is go out and look: if life on earth evolved, then clearly not all complex things need to be designed. If it didn’t, then you have a much stronger case that they do. But pointing to a bunch of things very obviously made by human beings (obviously in far more ways than merely being complex) doesn’t tell us much of anything. It isn’t a substitute for going out and looking.

    Those who have gone out and looked have brought back lots of evidence that complex and functional things can evolve without any evidence of design being necessary. This further undermines your analogy.

    And worse, what it demonstrates is that design is a subset RESULT of evolution, rather than being itself a good explanation for how designers (humans) came to be.

  10. Alan Higgins says:

    You say ‘None of them evolved, they were all designed, and none of them, being inorganic objects, could have evolved on their own.’

    So you are basically saying that an inorganic object which is MUCH MORE simpler than an organic object, but you say none of them could have evolved on their own and was OBVIOUSLY made by humans

    You then go on to say ‘we can’t start the argument simply assuming that all complex natural features must have been designed. That’s simply assuming your desired conclusion.’ but then you have more or less made a presupossition when you say ‘Those who have gone out and looked have brought back lots of evidence that complex and functional things can evolve without any evidence of design being necessary.’

    Can you tell me an example of evidence of an organic being that have evolved without design without your presupposition?

    • Alan, there is quite a number of things wrong with your last statement here.

      You ask for;
      “A example of evidence of a organic being that has evolved without design.” This is a ridiculously one sided way of posing your argument.

      Let me paraphrase this argument so you can see exactly how wrong it is to phrase you’re question like that.

      “God exists because everything complex needs a creator”
      You list off a dozen things that you specifically picked because they were made by men. Paintings etc.

      “Bad” then notes that all of your examples are human created objects that were complex, and that you illogically jump to the conclusion that since those things you picked were complex, and they were created by people, everything that is complex must be created… this is ridiculous.

      Allow me to use the argument that you used to “prove” that something that is complex is created, to also “prove” that my basketball is, in fact, a piece of fruit.

      Apples are round and brightly colored, and we KNOW that they are a fruit.

      Oranges are round, and brightly colored and we KNOW that they are a fruit.

      Tomatoes are round and brightly colored, and we KNOW that they are a fruit. (at least people should, many people mistakenly think they are a vegetable)

      The basketball is ALSO round and ALSO brightly colored, HENCE it MUST be a fruit. “It is so obvious.”

      If you look carefully, this is the exact same “logical” argument you gave. You try to show that because something has the trait “complex” and because you choose to provide examples of complex things purely created by people. Anything complex must also have been created by people. Ridiculous.

      You want a example of something complex not made by something intelligent?

      What about the Sun? The sun is really, really complex, it involves nuclear fission, and masses of pressure to create a spinning ball of fire and radiation, generating light travelling in all directions. This is obviously just my understanding of it, go to wikipedia or any science book for a better description. My point is, this Sun is hundreds of times more complex than any of your examples and no one says that the sun was DESIGNED because there is absolutely no data showing someone came along and made it. That is just one example of a complex thing without a designer.

      I predict that you want to say that the explanation why the sun is there is because you know god created the universe and everything in it… you can’t. This whole thing is a debate on whether God could exist.

      If you try and say that GOD MADE IT, and because of the fact that it was made, then that means that God must exist to make it… that is just a fantastically retarded circular logic.

      Your arguments for God make no sense. Please provide a less flawed one.

  11. Alan Higgins says:

    You have totaly missed the point. I am not saying that just because something has the same shape it must come from the same ‘family’, I am talking about the design. So going back to your basketball, if the basket ball had written on it ‘The Harlem Globe Trotters’, you would instantly know that there was some intelligent design behind the writing and that the ink didnt accidently put the letters on the ball and also in the right order as well.

    You are right when you say the ‘Sun is hundreds of times more complex than any of your examples and no one says that the sun was DESIGNED” because I will say that God designed it. The sun is the correct distance from teh earth. If it was further, we would freeze and if it was closer we would burn up. That points to not only a creator but a sustainer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s