Question:
Theists: what evidence do you have for God?
Nowhere Man
2007-03-04 22:21:04 UTC
Well, I'm currently an atheist. However, I am an open minded atheist. I am willing to consider the existence of a God. What evidence do you have for a God?
Eighteen answers:
wd
2007-03-04 22:30:07 UTC
Experience. I have a real relationship with the Living God and we interact on a personal level everyday. The Bible written by over 40 writers covering many centuries of time yet with only one story line of Redemption. The detailed prophecies that have all proven accurate so far. Faith that says it makes more "sense" to believe that God created all that is rather than random chance to come together to make life, with all its detail, checks and balances, etc. The evidence of God in action (miracles) and the fact that He works in the lives of millions of people and has from the beginning of time.
Kall Me Kate
2007-03-04 22:29:28 UTC
I am an atheist as well. But I don't think God is about evidence. IT's about the big F: faith.

But, I've come to think of it this way:

You know about science? The big-bang, Heat Death of the Universe? Well, many "hard-core" atheists use it to disprove the bible, but how?

"On the first day, God created the earth..." Well, how long was that frist day? 24 hours? A week? A hundred years? Billions? LIke in Inherit the Wind.

The Big Bang theory: Particles hit each other so fast they made matter ( I might be a little ignorant about this). But who made the particles? Where did they come from?

Heat Death of the Universe: everything is constantly moving towards entropy. Chaos. The universe will eventually use all of it's energy and "die". Doesn't the bible talk about an apocolypse.



I guess it's how you read it. If the bible is written in metaphors so the simple minded people back then could understand, then I guess it's pretty acurate and believeable.



So.

Hope it helps

good day, my fellow open-minded-atheist.
Questioner
2007-03-08 16:40:01 UTC
Let me give you a simple argument called "The Cosmological Argument." The argument is simply this: The cosmos is here and must be explained as to how it got here. This argument is using the law of cause and effect, which states: Every effect must have a preceding and adequate cause (the cause must come first and be adequate). What do I mean by adequate? Well, the building didn’t collapse because a mosquito landed on it. The tsunami didn’t hit because someone threw a pebble into the ocean.



Now, when it comes to explaining the existence of the universe, you only get three possibilities: (1) the universe is eternal (it has always been here), (2) the universe created itself, or (3) something created the universe. There is no other possibility except to claim that the universe is simply an illusion and does not exist. So let’s examine these three possibilities to see which is the most reasonable.



First, is the universe eternal? Absolutely not. We know this is true because of the universally recognized second law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy decay or entropy). This law states that everything goes downhill from order to disorder, more usable energy to less. This law is the reason why heat flows from hot to cold and why this building will fall apart if it is not kept up with. If someone doesn’t believe in the second law of thermodynamics, just challenge them to live forever; even with this awesome machinery we have in our bodies, you will eventually wear out and die. We can see that the universe is running down and wearing out; the stars are burning up, the radioactive atoms are decaying, etc. As Psalm 102:26 says, the heavens “will wear out like a garment.” Given enough time, the universe will experience what some call a “heat death” where there is no more energy available for work (everything will just be low level heat energy); every part of the universe will be the same temperature, and no further work will be possible.



Eternal things obviously do not wear out because they would have had an infinite amount of time to come to their end. Since you cannot have an end without a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning. And everything that has a beginning has a cause. This building had a beginning, you had a beginning, therefore there must have been a preceding and adequate cause. The evolutionists know this and so they came up with the “big bang” theory from that “cosmic egg” (the universe exploded into existence). But there is still a major problem, you have to explain where that “cosmic egg” came from. As it has been said, “There must be a cosmic chicken.” Some scientists like Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov proposed the oscillating universe theory to avoid a beginning. This theory states that the universe acts like a yo-yo; it explodes and then gravity pulls it back in, and then the process repeats itself over and over. But the second law of Thermodynamics still refutes that idea, since each cycle would exhaust more and more usable energy. The universe is not eternal!



Ok, that brings us to the second possibility: Did the universe create itself? I think Hebrews 3:4 answers that pretty well, “...every house is built by someone...” Let’s say I walk into my livingroom and see a crayon drawing of our family on the wall. When I ask my daughter where it came from, will I accept her answer of, “It just appeared there; it came from nothing”? Her grandparents might, but I won’t. It is pretty clear that something cannot bring itself into existence. As R.C. Sproul has said, “It is impossible for something to create itself. The concept of self-creation is a contradiction in terms, a nonsense statement . . . It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power.” As it has been said, “Nothing scratched its head one day and decided to become something.” I’m sorry to have to drop this bombshell on you, but from nothing, comes nothing.



And now the third possibility: Did something create the universe? If the universe is not eternal and could not have created itself, then the only remaining alternative is that the universe was created by something or Someone. This would have to be a transcendent, eternal, self-existing being. I can find only one satisfactory explanation to our conundrum, and that is found in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”



Someone may argue, “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause; who created God?” The answer is, everything that has a beginning has a cause. God, unlike the universe, did not have a beginning. Time is linked to matter and space (as we can see from Einstein’s general relativity). If God created the universe, then He created time along with matter and space. If God created time, then He is outside of time and doesn’t need a beginning.



What is more absurd, to believe that God Created everything out of nothing or that nothing turned itself into everything? The fact is, we live in a Universe that is an effect. There must be a preceding and adequate cause for it. The only thing that makes sense is a Creator who is more powerful than anything we can imagine.
faithnJC
2007-03-04 22:46:22 UTC
Faith does play a major role, and believing the Bible. I read a book called The Case for Christ, written by a former atheist. The author is Lee Strobel. He used to be an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune and decided to do some investigating about the Word of God. He is now a Christian and I believe has other books as well. Maybe with you being an atheist, you can relate to some of the former convictions he had and learn how he has now found them to be wrong. I am glad you have an open mind. Since you do, I hope you go ahead and start praying to God, and ask him to let you know the Truth.
2007-03-04 22:31:52 UTC
That could take awhile, and not all of the evidence is objective. Try this: take a look at the theory of the early moments of the Big Bang. A good although slightly dated book on the subject would be "The First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg. http://www.amazon.com/First-Three-Minutes-Modern-Universe/dp/0465024378 In the first few microseconds after the explosion of the monoblock, many attributes of the universe that we think of as constant were, in fact, briefly variable. There was only a very narrow band for most of them to settle into for solid matter and life in this universe to be possible - yet somehow all of them did. This is a very low (although not zero) probability event. When low probability events happen, the intelligent observer suspect intelligent intervention. This has led to the formation of the Anthropic Principles, which are basically ways of trying to explain the evidence for intelligent intervention in the universe in ways that don't require an actual intelligence. As Martin Gardner once said, most of them could easily be referred to as the C)ompletely R)idiculous A)nthropic P)rinciples.



Anyway, that's a start. Even if you don't buy this, read the book. Weinberg is a WONDERFUL teacher.



Edit: White Russian - you do realize that you're arguing that there is no proof that God exists. That's not what he asked for. He asked for evidence - a very different thing. I quite agree with you that there is no proof that God exists, and I doubt there ever will be.
itry007
2007-03-04 22:44:16 UTC
Good for you. If you're open-minded, chances are the Creator will show itself to you. I was a committed athiest for 31 years. I was shocked at what happened when I opened my mind. It was a very physical thing. I'm sorry, I'm not going to tell you about it because I don't know if it would be beneficial to hear it. I wouldn't want you to develop any expectations. I really don't know if it would have happened to me if I had expected it. Eight years later I went on a spiritual journey by myself. I stayed in a Buddhist monastery for a month. I wanted it to happen again. I was gone for six months. It didn't happen. And I think it was because I expected it. A couple of months after I got back I was just having a bath and something very similar came over me at this time when I least expected it. I will tell you that I felt a strong spiritual presence that made me look up, and it was like, yes, there's no doubt. Then I had a few words with it and felt totally cradled and taken care of and full of quiet gratitude. The intensity of it lasted about eight minutes. Eight minutes of relaxed bliss. The next day things I had been struggling with were very easy to figure out. I wish I could tell you about my original awakening, but I honestly don't think it would be in your best interest. Just keep an open mind like you said you have.
2007-03-04 22:36:13 UTC
Sorry, I'm an athiest but I am talking anyway. Please don't report me. :) I thought I'd try to out do the thiests and answer. There is(are) the Bible(s). Jerusalem exists, as do the villages of the people described in the Bible(s). There is evidence that severe flooding occurred but we haven't found the ark. Without the sway of heirarchy and large social structures, we wouldn't have any wide spread religions. That wouldn't be good. Only a dozen people or so would have a chance at heaven. If the Bible speaks the truth, It's a good thing England, Rome, and others ravished the country sides slaughterring the pagans and spreading the good word.
2007-03-04 22:48:35 UTC
Hi KC Superstar. There is nothing anyone can do to convince you that God exists. God is the only one who can do that. He tells us in John 6:44:



"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."



God does not intend to save the whole world. When we read Matthew 13:14-15 we can see that God is preparing the unsaved of the world for judgment:



"And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which say ‘ Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; 15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."



If you are starting to have doubts try praying the sinners prayer, "Lord have mercy on me, for I am a sinner"
iamwhoiam
2007-03-04 22:27:22 UTC
We can only partially comprehend the notion of God's existence. To do so, we must use human concepts to speak of God: "without beginning or end"; "eternal"; "infinite", etc. The Bible says that He has always existed: " . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2). And, "Your throne is established from of old; Thou art from everlasting" (Psalm 93:2). Quite simply, God has no beginning and no end. So, where did God come from? He didn't. He always was.

To us, the notion of time is linear. One second follows the next, one minute is after another. We get older, not younger and we cannot repeat the minutes that have passed us by. We have all seen the time lines on charts: early time is on the left and later time is on the right. We see nations, people's lives, and plans mapped out on straight lines from left to right. We see a beginning and an end. But God is "beyond the chart." He has no beginning or end. He simply has always been.

Also, physics has shown that time is a property that is the result of the existence of matter. Time exists when matter exists. Time has even been called the fourth dimension. But God is not matter. In fact, God created matter. He created the universe. So, time began when God created the universe. Before that, God was simply existing and time had no meaning (except conceptually), no relation to Him. Therefore, to ask where God came from or to prove his existence is to ask a question that cannot really be applied to God in the first place. Because time has no meaning with God in relation to who He is, eternity is also not something that can be absolutely related to God. God is even beyond eternity.

Eternity is a term that we finite creatures use to express the concept of something that has no end -- and/or no beginning. Since God has no beginning or end, He has no beginning. This is because He is outside of time.
alvarezplayer83
2007-03-04 22:38:25 UTC
well lets see from my own personal experiences: ive been bitten by a brown recluse,had cancer,was supposed to die at 15 from a disease (cant remember wwhat the doctors said it was)got stuck out in 2 hurricans , almost went to a party with a friend who wrecked his car and was seriously injured but something told me not to go,almost died from a lung infection,and the list continues but you get the idea. God has allways been there for me even when it seems like he isnt. there was a time when i got mad and cused out God,some really bad things happened that theres no need for me to say cuz you wouldnt believe me......but thats just me..its really up to you to find the answer but its not allways easy.
fra59e
2007-03-04 22:30:57 UTC
Acceptance of the proposition that gods exist, or that unicorns and leprechauns exist, must be made without evidence, because if you ask for evidence you are not excercising faith.



Faith is not the outcome of examining evidence; it is the consequence of a free choice to accept a proposition without evidence.
Esther
2007-03-04 22:24:07 UTC
KC, my evidence will not convince you. But God can convince you. If you truly are seeking, know that God Himself promises if you seek, you shall find. And God never says anything idly. Take some time and read the bible. Pray to God, tell Him how ardently you want to know the truth. He never will turn away someone who truly wishes to know Him. God bless you and may He reveal to you the way, the truth and the life.
farina m
2007-03-04 22:26:13 UTC
it is a lot of work to prove that God is exist to someone who's still searching for Him. one or two sentences wont work. i would say discussion or debating will show you that God exists, or at least it'll work. and since you're open-minded about it, i can see there's no problem about it. but for me personally i believe that God exists in every thing i do for everyday in every minute



edit: i can see two thumbs down...must be the work of atheists
Contemplative Monkey
2007-03-04 22:27:14 UTC
There are three kinds of answers to this question, ranging in their level of sophistication:



(1) FALSE DEDUCTION: For example, recent archaeological finds confirm that the Biblical count of the Temple of Salomon may be correct. (Ergo, they will say, the Bible is the sacred word of God.) This is the least sophisticated proof of God, because it relies on a blatant logical fallacy that fundies never learned to analyze.



(2) FALSE ABDUCTION: This is the watchmaker argument.



(3) THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE PROBLEM: I haven't figured out how to respond this yet, but it basically says that the validity of science itself has no supporting external validation, so faith and science are equal in the market place of ideas. (I'm over-simplifying, but that's basically it.) This is otherwise known as the "faith" argument.
wordman
2007-03-04 22:31:06 UTC
Your question infers that you have no evidence that there is no GOD... so why do you label yourself an atheist?
2007-03-04 22:23:32 UTC
Then you aren't an atheist...you're agnostic. LOL



-Aztec276
Alley C
2007-03-06 10:18:59 UTC
Look all around you, its everywhere
BeHappy
2007-03-05 00:03:17 UTC
Science proofs the existence of God





We live in a time where the schools and colleges teach our children, that we are descendents of monkyes and frogs and that there is no proof for the excistence of a Creator. When we were, in kindergarten they taught us that a frog, turning into a prince was a nurseryfairytale, but when we got to college they told us that a, frog turning into a prince was science! So our children think that the Evolution Theory is a fact and that science supports it, while in reality, this is not the case. The Evolution Theory is not proven, that's why we still call it a 'Theory'. We will proof with one singel cell, that there is a Almighty Creator, Insha'Allah.



Your body contains more than 100.000.000.000.000 cells, some so small that 1.000.000 of them brought together would fit on the tip of a needle. Despite this tiny size, however, the cell is considered by the scientific community as the most complex structure man has ever come across. W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that, 'The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man'. (W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson, Page 298 and 299). Charles Darwin said, 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down'. (Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, 6th edition, NYU, 1988, p154). So let us look at the odds and let us reason if the 'Evolution Theory' is a fact or a hoax.





Koran 13:16. Say, 'Allah is the Creator of all things, He is the One, the Supreme and Irresistible'.





Is there a chance?

Its a common fact among the scientists, that a cell is more complex than New York City. Some scientists compared the cell with the Space Station of Nasa. Suppose, you are walking in the desert and some stones in the sand, spell your name. Would you think that it is done by chance? No, we don't think like that. So, if i ask you, 'Is it possible that New York comes into existence by chance?' You would surely say, 'No, that's not possible'. Because we all know that all those traffic lights, the streets, the buildings, the windows, the water supplies etc. need to be done by someone. But a cell is more complex than New York City. If a few letters cannot come in the sand, by chance, then how can New York City come into existence by chance? This is the logic we use, this is the reason that there must be a Creator.



The footsteps in the sand are proof enough, that somebody walked there. We don't need to see the person, we know that he walked there, because of his footsteps. Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?



So go outside and look at the world around you, all the animals, all the plants and trees, all that water and other things around the world. Who is the builder of that? Think about it.







One second of energy from the sun is 13.000.000× the average amount of electricity used each year in the United States. The total amount of fossil fuel used by humans since the start of civilization is equivalent to less than 30 days of sunshine. It is only a small sun among billions in the universe. The fact that it has been perfectly placed 93,000,000 miles from the earth, is only one of an ever growing number of parameters we are discovering as being necessary for the maintenance of life on the earth as we know it. Did you know if the polar ice would melt it is estimated that the sea level would rise high enough to reach the 20th floor of the Empire State Building?



The earth rotates on its axis 1.000 miles an hour at the equator, if it turned at 100 miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would likely burn up our vegetation each long day, while in the long night any surviving sprout might well freeze. Again, the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this eternal fire warms us just enough and not too much! If the sun gave off only one half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would roast.



The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees gives us our seasons, if the earth had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon were, say, only 50,000 miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides might be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains could soon be eroded away.



If the earth’s crust had been only ten feet thicker, the metallic elements in the crust would have combined with all the free oxygen in the atmosphere, ruling out the possibility of all animal life. On the other hand, if the oceans were merely a few feet deeper, they would absorb so much carbon dioxide from the air that plants could not exist.



The physical size of the earth is just right to support life as we know it. If the earth were as small as the moon, its gravity would only be 1/6 its present force and unable to hold either atmosphere or water. If its diameter were doubled, the force of gravity would be doubled and the atmosphere would be so compressed that its pressure would be increased from 15 to 30 pounds per square inch. This would seriously affect all life. If our earth were increased to the size of the sun, while retaining its present density, gravity would be increased some 150 times. This would increase atmospheric pressure to over a ton per square inch. Life would be virtually impossible under such conditions.



The moon is 240,000 miles away, and the tides twice a day are usually a gentle reminder of its presence. Tides of the ocean run as high as fifty feet in some places, and even the crust of the earth is twice a day bent outward several inches by the moon's attraction. The moon is about 239,000 miles away from earth. If it were only 50,000 miles away the tides, which are now harmless, would completely submerge the continents twice a day. The earth would crack with the turmoil and the tides in the air would create daily hurricanes.



Though the moon is only relatively close to earth, its surface temperature varies each fifteen lunar days from a high of 214 degrees Fahrenheit above zero, to a low of 243 degrees Fahrenheit below zero!



The atmosphere of the earth serves a protective blanket to shield us from deadly radiation. If the radiation reached the earth, it would be impossible for humankind to exist. In addition, our atmosphere is just dense enough to protect the earth from some 20.000.000 meteors that enter it daily. These meteors, which travel at speeds of about thirty miles per second, would otherwise strike the earth with such impact that all life would be endangered.



The famous scientist Dr. Richard Brennan said, 'The term used in science for this energy is the solar constant, which is defined as 1.99 calories of energy per minute per square centimeter. If Earth received much more or less than 2 calories per minute per square centimeter, the water of the oceans would be vapor or ice, leaving the planet with no liquid water or reasonable substitute in which life could evolve. It is only because Earth is 93.000.000 miles away from a Sun that produces 5.600.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 (5,600 million, million, million, million) calories per minute that life is possible'. (Richard Brennan, 1997, Pages 244 and 245).



Even more difficult to solve is the mystery of the eels. These amazing creatures migrate at maturity from ponds and rivers everywhere (Those from Europe cross thousands of miles of ocean) all bound for the same abysmal deeps near Bermuda. There they breed and die. The little ones, with no apparent means of knowing anything except that they are in a wilderness of water, nevertheless, start back and find their way not only to the very shore from which their parents came, but thence to the selfsame rivers, lakes or little ponds. No American eel has ever been caught in Europe, no European eel in American waters. Nature has even delayed the maturity of the European eel by a year or more to make up for its longer journey. Where does the directing impulse originate?



Could I convince you that I dropped 50 play marbles onto the ground and they by chance fell into ten rows of five play marbles? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten play marbles would fall by accident into a straight line are mind boggling, let alone ten rows of five.



Neutrons are and must be 0.138% more massive than protons. If neutrons were an additional 0.1% more massive, there wouldn't be enough of them to make heavy elements necessary for life. If neutrons were 0.1% less massive, protons would more rapidly decay into neutrons and all the stars in the universe would have collapsed.



The number of electrons must be equal to the number of protons. If the number of protons and electrons aren't balanced, galaxies, stars and planets would have never formed because electromagnetic forces would have overcome gravitational forces.



The rate of expansion of the universe is how it must be to support life. If the universe expanded more quickly, matter would disperse and not form into galaxies, stars or planets. If the universe expanded too slowly, matter would clump too much and the universe would collapse in a super-dense lump.



There must be one sun (or parent star) to support life. If more than one sun in planetary system, tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits. If no sun in planetary system, heat produced would be insufficient for life.



The distance from the earth to the sun is just as it must be to support life. If the earth was farther from the sun, the planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle. If the earth was closer to the sun, the planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle.



The atmosphere has the correct mixture of gases: 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .93% Argon, .035% carbon dioxide and .035% other gases. If the atmosphere had 25% oxygen or more, spontaneous fires would break out because oxygen is flammable. If the atmosphere had 15% oxygen or less, air breathing creatures would suffocate. If the atmosphere had more carbon dioxide, the earth may become warmer (greenhouse effect). If the atmosphere had less carbon dioxide, plants would starve.



The surface gravity escape velocity is as it must be to support life. If just a few percent stronger, the atmosphere would retain methane and ammonia (molecular weights 16 and 17). If just a few percent weaker, the planet's atmosphere would lose too much water (molecular weight 18).



Tilt of earth's axis (23.5 degrees) gives us our moderate seasons. If the tilt was greater-for example, Uranus has a 98 degree tilt- such a tilt on earth would cause periodic continental flooding and long periods of darkness. If the earth's tilt was less - for example, Venus has no tilt -the lack of tilt would cause equatorial areas to grow hotter and the ice caps to expand.



If no close moon, the earth would wobble, as does Mars, causing vast irregularities of tilt, thus extreme variations in climate.



Rate of earth's rotation is correct. If 1/10th the present rate, plant life would burn during the day and freeze at night. If faster, wind velocities would rise to catastrophic levels. For example, Jupiter has a 10 hour rotation period and thousand mph winds.



Thickness of the earth's crust is correct. If the crust was thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust. If the crust was thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great.



The water vapor level in the atmosphere is as it should be. If the water vapor level was greater, runaway greenhouse effect would develop. If water vapor level was less, rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land.



The atmosphere of the earth serves a protective blanket to shield us from deadly radiation. If the radiation reached the earth, it would be impossible for humankind to exist. In addition, our atmosphere is just dense enough to protect the earth from some 20.000.000 meteors that enter it daily. These meteors, which travel at speeds of about thirty miles per second, would otherwise strike the earth with such impact that all life would be endangered.



Dust in our atmosphere is necessary to help form rain drops. Scientific investigation has shown that if there were no dust in the air, not a drop of rain or snowflake would fall on the earth, and no clouds or fog would form.



If planet earth were some what larger, oh perhaps 9,500 miles in diameter instead of 8,000 , it would double the weight of air. With twice as much as oxygen, the amount of water would be greatly increased, so much so that the entire surface of the planet would be covered with an ocean. If earth were some what lighter that it is, its gravitational pull would be less, so that it would not be able to hold as much air as we now have. The lighter gases would escape first and heavier gases, like carbon dioxide, would remain, so the combination of gases in the air would be affected as well as its volume and density thus life as we know it would no longer be possible on earth. Condition on earth would then be quite similar as those on the moon.



Color of the sun is correct. If the sun was more red, the photosynthetic response would be insufficient. If the sun was more blue, the photosynthetic response would be insufficient. Is all this done by chance?



Dividing DNA has a very special way of dividing and combining. The ladder literally unhooks and rehooks. When cells divide, the DNA ladder splits down the middle. There are then two single vertical strands, each with half of the rungs. Both now duplicate themselves instantly and there are now two complete ladders, where a moment before there was but one! Each new strip has exactly the same sequence that the original strip of DNA had. This process of division can occur at the amazing rate of 1000 base pairs per second! If DNA did not divide this quickly, it could take 10,000 years for you to grow from that first cell to a newborn infant.



Human cells can divide more than 50 times before dying. When they do die, they are immediately replaced. Every minute 3.000.000.000 cells die in your body and are immediately replaced. The human body has about 1.000.000.000.000 cells. In the nucleus of each cell are 46 chromosomes. In the chromosomes of each cell are about 10.000.000.000 of those DNA ladders. Without your DNA, you could not live. Without its own DNA, nothing else on earth could live. If you were to put all the coded DNA instructions from just ONE single human cell into English, it would fill many large volumes, each volume the size of an unabridged dictionary! If a few letters in sand cannot form your name by chance, then how can such big dictionaries come by chance? This is what you have to ask yourself.



Sir Fred Hoyle, a mathematician and astronomer, said, 'The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (Evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'. (Nature magazine, November 12, 1981). The reason why Fred Hoyle compared it to a Boeing 747, is because a Boeing 747 is a collection of 4.500.000 million non flying parts, arranged in an intricate design such that it can fly. A typical cell contains several billion non living molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA all arranged in intricate design. According to Dr. Micheal Denton a typical cell contains 10.000.000.000.000 atoms. Its life depends on the integrated activity of ten or even hundreds of thousands of different proteins.



Suppose we are standing at an airport, watching a big jet coming in for a landing. I say to you, 'A lot of people think that plane is the result of someone's carefully designed plans, but I know better. There was really no intelligence at work on it at all. In some strange way the metal just came out of the ground, and fashioned itself into flat sheets. And then these metal sheets slowly began to grow together and formed the body and wings and tail. Then after a long while the engines slowly grew in place, and one day some people came along and discovered the plane, all finished and ready to fly'. You would probably consider me a lunatic and move farther into the crowd to escape my senseless chatter. Why? You know that where there is a design there must be a designer, and having seen other products of the human mind just like the plane in question, you are positive that it was planned by human intelligence and built by human skill.



Dr. Dawkins said, 'There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called primitive amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1.000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas'. (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, Pages 116 and 117).



George Sim Johnson said, 'Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces'. (George Sim Johnson 'Did Darwin Get it Right?' October 1999).



Let me ask you again. Can your name be written on the beach by chance? If not, then how can DNA come into existence which is better organised than all the volumes of the Britannica Encyclopedia (100.000 pages)? Or how can New York come into existence by chance? So the only logical explanation is Creation, because chance would not succed, as we will see below.



The world famous scientist Stephen Hawking has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one sceond after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (0.000.000.000.000.000.01%) the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. Dr. John Leslie said, 'If the rate of expansion were decreased by only one part in a million when the Big Bang was a second old, the universe would have recollapsed before temperatures fell below 10,000 degrees (i.e. before it could cool off enough for life to be able to form)'. (Leslie 1989, Page 29). British physicist P.C. Daves also estimated that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100, life could never have developed. So who calculated all this so perfect? Can you say that this is just luck and chance? Honestly?



This is the reason why Dr. Edwin Conklin said, 'The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop'. (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University).



Before we are going to work with numbers, i will show you how i write them, because the real numbers go beyound our imaginations. If i write 10^9, that means a 1 followed by 9 zeros. We call it a billion and we write it down like 1.000.000.000. So if i write 10^200, i mean a 1 followed by 200 zeros and 10^16 is a 1 followed by 16 zeros.



Now let us look at molecules. A single drop of blood has 35,000,000 red blood cells. A single red blood cell has 280,000,000 hemoglobin molecules, each molecule having 10,000 atoms. Molecules are so small that ¼ teaspoon of water has 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 of them. Dr. De Nouy provides another illustration for arriving at a single molecule of high dissymmetry through chance action and normal thermic agitation. He assumes 500.000.000.000.000 (Trillion) shakings per second plus a liquid material volume equal to the size of the earth. For one molecule it would require '10^243 billions of years'.



So according to Dr. De Nouy it would take



001.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.

000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.

000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.

000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.

000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 000.000.000.000.



Years before 1 molecule could come into existence by chance, (That's a 1 followed by 243 zeros). The earth is not more than 4.6 billion years old, so how is that possible? De Nouy continued, 'Even if this molecule did somehow arise by chance, it is still only one single molecule. Hundreds of millions are needed, requiring compound probability calculations for each successive molecule'. His logical conclusion is that 'It is totally impossible to account scientifically for all phenomena pertaining to life'. (Cited in Evan Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution Nutley, NJ Craig Press, 1971, Page 23).



So is this not proof enough for the existence of God? To those who still think, that there is a chance, i want to quote Dr. J. P. Moreland for them, when he said, 'If the mass of a proton were increased by 0.2% hydrogen would be unstable and life would not have formed'. (1987, Page 53). Just a small thing like that, and we were not here. How can all this have been done by chance?



That's why Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, sait, 'The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability'. (241 H. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, 158, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co, Nashville, 1991, p. 304). Even the Evolutionists agree with this calculations. But they say, 'A chance is a chance'.



Its more likely that you throw a stone with your arm and it lands on the other side of the moon, than that life came into existence in dirty water. They agree with that and they still call this a chance, but we know better.



According to Evolutionists, the life has emerged by chance in dirty water. A single living cell may contain 100.000.000.000 atoms, but each atom will be arranged in a specific order. If university trained scientists, working in multimillion dollar equipped and stocked laboratories, cannot make DNA and RNA, how can random action of sand and dirty water produce it in the beginning?



Dr. Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2.000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium. The number that was found was 1 over 10^40.000. (Robert Shapiro, Origins, A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, New York, Summit Books, 1986. Page 127). This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1! So if you wrote a 3 followed by 39.999 zeros, then you had the number of how many attempts would fail to create one bacterium and 1 attemt would succeed. Can we call this chance? Its not logical to call this chance as you will agree with me.



David J. Rodabough, Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of Missouri, estimated the more realistic chance that life would spontaneously generate (Even on 10^23 planets) as only one chance in 10^2.999.940 (This is a 1 followed by 2.999.940 zeros). (David J. Rodabough, 'The Queen of Science Examines the King of Fools', Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1975, Page. 12). I showed you a one followed by 40.000 zeros, think about the calculations of David J. Rodabough.



Dr. Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, gave a far more realistic 'Probability' for a single bacterium. He calculated the odds of a single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary were 1 chance in 10^100.000.000.000. [Cited in Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator Beyond Time and Space, Costa Mesa, CATWFT, 1996, Page 61]. This is a 1 followed by 100.000.000.000 zeros! This number is so large it would require a library of approximately 100,000 books just to write it out!



What are the odds of you winning the lottery every week for 80 years straight without missing once? The chances are 1 chance in 10^22.120 (A one followed by 29.120 zeros behind it). What are the odds of 1 bacterium coming into existence by chance? 10^100.000.000.000 according to Harold Morowitz. So the chance that you win the lottery, every week for the next 80 years by chance, is 2.420.796× greater than the chance that 1 bacterium comes into inxistence by chance.





Koran 7:40. To those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of heaven, nor will they enter the garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle, Such is Our reward for those in sin.





Emile Borel said, 'If anything is ten to the 50th power (A 1 followed by 50 Zeros) or less chance, it will never happen, even cosmically, in the whole universe'. (Emile Borel, Nobel Prize Winner, Probabilities and Life. New York Dover 1962. Ch. 1 to 3). So what about 100.000.000.000 zeros? What about that number brothers and sisters? As you see, this scientists have different calculations, but all of this calculations proof that live cannot come into existence by chance. Life is too complex for chance.



Here's an amazing illustration to help us with all these large numbers. Fill the state of Texas with silver dollars two feet deep. Having only one dollar marked with the letter X, ask a blind man to find the marked dollar with one try. He would have one chance out of 1017 chances to find it, (one with 17 zeros behind it). Now imagine the odds for forming a simple cell, one with 40,000 zeros? You would have to fill an area the size of our sun with quarters and find one with the mark while being blindfolded, and on just the first try! So, how can someone reject the existence of his Creator? Now, we all know that there must be a Creator, which is God.





Koran 6:39. Those who reject our sings are deaf and dumb, in the midst of darkness profound. Whom Allah willeth, He leaveth to wander. Whom He willeth, He placeth on the way that is straight.

Koran 8:23. If Allah had found in them any good, He would indeed have made them listen. As it is, if He had made them listen, they would but have turned back and declined Faith.



How is it possible that with all our laboratories and all our scientific knowledge we cannot create a cell, and chance did it? Its not logical to think like that. A past president of the New York Scientific Society cited this example as a reason why he believes there is a God, 'Take ten identical coins and mark them one to ten. Place them in your pocket, and then take one out. There is one chance in ten that you will get number one. Now replace it and take another. The chances that number two will follow number one are not one in ten, but one in one hundred. With each coin drawn the chances that it will follow in the right order are multiplied by ten, so that the chance of all ten following in sequence is one chance in ten billion. I cannot accept the reality which we see as the result of mere chance'.



The psychist, Dr. Robert Millikan said, 'To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist'. (Physicist, Nobel Prize Winner).



Dr. A. Cressy Morrison said, 'There is not one chance in billions that life on our planet is an accident'. (Dr. A. Cressy Morrison, former president of the New York Academy of Sciences, Reader's Digest, Dec. 1946).



According to Emile Borel, an expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power. So how is that possible? Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case, these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes'. (Inheritance and Evolution, Meteksan Publishing 1984, Page 64).



Sir Fred Hoyle similarly dismisses the notion that life could have started by random processes, 'Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve the Rubik cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body’s 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance'.



To give you another example, an American physiologist, Dr. Andrew Conway Ivy writes, 'It is many times more absurd to believe that this causal chain came from nothing, and was due to chance, than it would be to believe that you could get a map of the world by spilling a glass of water on the floor'. (In the book, 'The Evidence of God', See page 293).



Hugh Ross estimates that the chances of ONE planet in the universe developing life is one in ten to the 282nd power (10^282) (million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion).



The Nobel Prize Winner, Francis Crick said, 'An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going'. (Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, Page 88).



Every day, more and more scientists become believers in God. Charles Townes said, 'Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe'. (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in physics, 'Science Finds God', 20 July, 1998).



Dr. Michael Denton, in his book 'Evolution, A Theory in Crisis' describes the intricate organization of nerve cells in the brain. He says, 'There are 10.000.000.000 nerve cells in the brain. Each of the 10.000.000.000 cells sprouts between 10,000 to 100,000 fibers to contact other nerve cells in the brain, creating approximately 1,000.000.000.000.000 connections, or, 10 to the 15th power. It is hard to imagine the multitude that 10^15 represents (A 1 followed by 15 zeros). Take half of the United States, which is 1.000.000 square miles, and imagine it being covered by forest, with 10,000 trees per square mile. On each of the 10,000 trees, which are on each of the one million square miles, there are 100,000 leaves. That's how many connections are crammed inside your brain. And they're not just haphazardly thrown together. They form an incredibly intricate network system that has no parallel in the industrial world.



That's why Dr. Isaac Asimov said, 'And in man is a three pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe'. Fred Hoyle wrote in the November 19, 1981 issue of New Scientist, that there are 2,000 complex enzymes required for a living organism, yet not a single one of these could have been formed on earth by shuffling processes in even 20.000.000.000 years!



As you will agree with me, it doesn't make sence to say that this perfect creation come into existence by chance. Isaac Newton said, 'Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance. The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being'. (Isaac Newton, regarded as the greatest scientist ever).



So proof for the existence of God is there, like Allah says in the Qur'an. We muslims believe in God, like a blind man believes in the sun. Not because he sees the sun, but because he feels it. Allah's signs are there, Allah's guidens is in our hearts and the straight path is in front of us. So how come, some people reject the existence of God and believe in just a theory which is not proven en will never be proven? Dr. Watson said, 'Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible'. (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University).



Dr. George Gallup said, 'I could prove God statistically, take the human body alone, the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity'. (George Gallup, the famous statistician). Look at your eyes, ears, nose and hands. Who designed this? If your nose was turned 180 degrees around, you would drown in a small rainfall. So, praise be to Allah, the best of Creators!



Thomas Edison said, 'No one can study chemistry and see the wonderful way in which certain elements combine with the nicety of the most delicate machine ever invented, and not come to the inevitable conclusion that there is a Big Engineer who is running this universe'.



How well did Stephen Hawking spoke, when he said, 'The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist, Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn'tcombine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on'. (Stephen Hawking, considered the best known scientist since Albert Einstein, Austin, American Statesmen, October 19, 1997). There must be a Creator, we bear wittnes to that.



Allan Sandage said, 'The world is too complicated in all parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception? The more one learns of biochemistry the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some type of organizing principle an architect'. (Scientist Allan Sandage).





Is the monkey theory proven?





Its just a theory, its not proven. The evolution theory even contradicts the fossils that we have found. Dogs don't have kittens, cows don't have lambs, and pigs don't produce rabbits. Birds produce birds. Fish produce fish. Each species brings forth after its own kind. That's no theory. That's a fact. Why then should we believe that man originates from another species? Those who believe in evolution think that everything came into existence by chance, and they do not believe in God. We as Muslims, reject that and believe that the first human being was Adam and then his wife, Eve, peace be upon them.



We can ask the evolutionists, which was first? The chicken or the egg? We can also ask them, which came first? The males or females? The male needs the female to reproduce, and female needs the male to reproduce. One cannot carry on life without the other. Which then came first according to the evolutionary theory? If the males came before the females, how did the males of each species appear without the females? They cannot answer that. There must be a Creator, as we have proven above. There is no chance that life could have been developed by chance. Like Dr. James Coppedge said, 'Chance renders evolution impossible'. (Dr. James Coppedge).



They have used many onlogical arguments, to proof their views. They captured a black man from africa and they put him in a cage in a zoo, because they wanted to proof that we are ancestors of monkeys. They said that this man was a monkey. This man commited suicide because of what they did to him. This gives you an idea, to which extremes they go, to proof this theory. They also think that black people are not fully transformed and are half monkeys. This is not true, all human beings are brothers of each other. We cannot answer all their lies here, if you want to see what the fossil archif says about Darwinism, then read the books of Harun Yahya, may Allah guide him.



Click here to read many books online: Darwinism refuted





Scientists about the Evolution Theory

Dr. Johnathan Wells said, 'I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum. I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it'sso implausible when you look at the evidence'. (Dr. Johnathan Wells, author of the book, 'Icons of Evolution').



Nils Heribert Nilson said, 'My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief'. (Dr. Nils Heribert Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University).



Newton Tahmisian said, 'Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact'. (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission).



Robert A said, 'The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do'. (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)



Karl Popper said, 'I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme'. (Karl Popper, called by Nobel Prize winner Peter Medawar, 'Incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived).



Dr. Edward F. Blick said, 'The fossil gap appears to be a very serious crises for the theory of evolution'.



Dr. Niles Eldredge is the chairman and curator of invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City said, 'One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong'. (Stephen Jay Gould, 'The Return of Hopeful Monsters', Natural History, June and July, 1977. Page. 22 to 24).



Wolfgang Smith said, 'A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp, moreover, for the most part these 'Experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully'. (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician).



Louis Bounoure said, 'Evolution is a fairy tale for grown ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless'. (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research).



Ambrose Flemming said, 'The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination'. (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of UK).



Michael Denton said, 'The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century'. (Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution, Theory in Crisis).



Dr. Ethredge said, 'Ninety percent of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view'. (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)



Dr. Louist T said, 'Evolution is faith, a religion'. (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University).



John Ambrose said, 'Evolution is baseless and quite incredible'. (Dr. John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in 'The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought').



Dr. David Berlinsky said, 'There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist, denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict'.



Colin Patterson said, 'The only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of special creation'. (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils).





The four scholars about the existence of God

Abu Hanifah

Imam Abu Hanifa organized a meeting with Atheists to discuss the existence of Allah. On purpose, Imam Abu Hanifa joined the gathering late which lead the Atheists to believe that Imam Abu Hanifa had no argument. Finally when he arrive he told them, 'I came to cross the river and no boats were there to take me across then a tree fell down and formed planks of wood all by itself and I waited and the rest of the boat was formed right before my eyes and that's why I am late'. Of course they didn't believe him and told him it couldn't just happen like that. Imam Abu Hanifa replied, 'Then how can the universe form all by itself?'.





Imam Shafi

Imam Shafi was asked what the proofs are of the existance of God and he replied, 'The leaves of Toot (berries) are all but one. Each leaf tastes exactly the same. Insects, honey bees, cows, goats, and deer live off of it. After eating these the insects produce silk; bees produce honey; deer give musk (a special kind of scent), cows and goats deliver off-springs. Is this not clear evidence that one kind of leaf has so many qualities, and who created these qualities? It is the Creator who we call Allah. Who is the Inventor and the Creator."





Ahmad ibn Hanbal

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal reflected on the question in the following way. He said, 'There is an incredibly strong fort, it has no doors, there is no way to get in. In fact, there is not even a hole in it. From outside it glows like the moon and from inside it shimmers like gold. It is sealed from all sides, matter of fact it is air tight. Suddenly one of its doors breaks down, a living thing with eyes and ears, a beautiful looking animal appears yelling and wandering all over. So is not there a creator who made it possible for life to take place in this secured and closed fort? And is not this Creator better than humans? This Creator has no limit'. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was referring to an egg which is closed from all sides but Allah The Creator puts life in it and a chick pops out.





Imam Malik

Once Khalifa Haroon Rasheed asked Imam Malik, 'What is the evidence pointing to the existence of Allah?' Imam Malik replied, 'Difference in languages, difference in pitches of voice, difference in singing are proof that Allah exists!'.





Conclusion

This is suficient prove that God does exist, because not even an atom can come into being by chance. So who Created it? The only answer is Allah, the Almighty Creator of the heavens and the earth. There is no doubt about this. There can be only one God, because God is the strongest. There cannot be 2 or 3 strongest. So if another being is stronger than you, then you cannot be God. This is what Islam teaches, and this is the truth, accept Islam and all your sins will fall away from the day you accept Islam. You will be born again like a baby, without sins.



Now we have proven that God exists, we have to show you that all the other religions beside Islam are not on the truth and only Islam is the straight path to the Gardens of Paradise. There are thousands of Contradictions in the Bible, we can proof that by quoting a few.









2 Kings 8:26. Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.





2 Kings 25:8. And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem: and he burnt the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire.

Jeremiah 52:12. Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem, and burned the house of the LORD, and the king's house; and all the houses of Jerusalem, and all the houses of the great men, burned he with fire.





2 Kings 25:19. And out of the city he took an officer that was set over the men of war, and 5 men of them that were in the king's presence, which were found in the city, and the principal scribe of the host, which mustered the people of the land, and threescore men of the people of the land that were found in the city.

Jeremiah 52:25. He took also out of the city an eunuch, which had the charge of the men of war; and 7 men of them that were near the king's person, which were found in the city; and the principal scribe of the host, who mustered the people of the land; and threescore men of the people of the land, that were found in the midst of the city.





Some brothers and sisters will say that this are only a few number changings, they don't change the message of the Bible. OK, i agree with you. But a book that claimes to be from God, must be free from every kind of Contradictions. Let me give you another three examples.





Exodus 33:20. Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see me and live.

Exodus 33:11. And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.





1 Samuel 15 : 29. The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent, for He is not a man, that he should repent.

Genesis 6 : 6. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.





Ezekiel 18:20. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 5:9. I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.





I can give you many other examples, but even if there was 1 contradictions in a book, it cannot be from God, because God is free from errors.







And say, 'Truth has arrived and falsehood perished, for falsehood is bound to perish'.

[Qur'an 17:81].


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...