1) A miracle (from the Latin mirari, to wonder), at a first and very rough approximation, is an event that is not explicable by natural causes alone. A reported miracle excites wonder because it appears to require, as its cause, something beyond the reach of human action and natural causes. 2) David Hume (Hume 1748/2000; cf. Voltaire 1764/1901: 272) famously defined a miracle as “a violation of the laws of nature.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/
Atheists disparage faith and bluntly reject the resurrection of Jesus, life from non-life is impossible. They claim it is never observed today and that miracles do not happen. They reject the entire Bible because it lists many miracles.
However, to propose their theory of how life began without God, they must contradict their position. They do this when they claim in the beginning life came from non-life by accident, luck, chance and time. This in spite of the fact that life proceeding from non-life has never been observed by scientists. Nor have the most intelligent scientists been able to create life from non-life. Therefore, their position contradicts what is observed one hundred percent of the time. What they are claiming violates nature and exceeds nature’s productive power as we know it. These events would qualify by definition as miracles.
The above comparison displays the factual evidence that is observed and accepted as fact by theists (1) in our natural universe and the contradictions atheists (2) must embrace as happening by faith to propose a Godless universe.
1) A firm belief in something for which there is no proof: complete trust – http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
2) Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Heb 11:1
In claiming the opposite of what is observed one hundred percent of the time in our universe, atheists have no proof, no observable evidence to support their position other than the fact that advanced life exists. But the fact that advanced life exists does nothing to prove it came about by accident, luck, chance and time. Their entire theory that column (2) actually happened rests on blind faith
On the other hand, theists fully accept column (1) and how things happen in our natural universe. There are NO GAPS in the causes for the effects listed, therefore, this is not a God of the gaps argument. This is an argument based on what we do know, not what we do not know. Claiming the contradiction in column (2) to what is actually observed in science, atheists reject the observable, tested and verified evidence along with one of the most fundamental principals in science.
Principal of Uniformity “The Present is the Key to the Past”
There is a well-known principal in science that tells us “the present is the key to the past” in the search for causes. Under observation today we observe the same causes for the listed effects 100 percent of the time. Therefore the principal of uniformity tells us that it is extremely reasonable to believe that the cause for these effects was the same in the past in our natural world. This is why it is called the “key to the past” in science. Science must rely on past observations of how things work to perform scientific investigation. If we ignore the scientific principal of uniformity, we are ignoring the evidence, common sense, reason and logic. We are ignoring one of the most fundamental tools of science.
If the causes for the effects I have listed were a complete contradiction to what is observed today, what else has changed from the past? How often do causes for effects change? How would science even be possible and the results it offers be trusted if causes can randomly change over time?
“All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.” Paul Davies, Fields; theoretical physics, quantum physics, astrophysics, cosmology and astrobiology. Taking Science on Faith, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=0
This principal also tells us if something can happen today by natural forces, canyon, snowflake, crystal formation, etc., it could have happened in the past by natural forces. It also tells us if something today requires intelligence, (messages, complex design, information) it did in the past too. Proponents of Intelligent Design utilize the principal of uniformity in their search for “causes”.
“In short, is not our belief in the need for intelligence to produce the various information codes of living things based on the scientific principle of uniformity—”the present is the key to the past”? And since we did not observe the origin of living things, does it not follow that our speculations about these past events are entirely dependent on the trustworthiness of the principle of uniformity? But in view of the fact that our experience uniformly indicates the need for intelligence to create such information, is not the belief in a non-intelligent natural cause of living things contrary to the principle of uniformity on which scientific understanding of the past depends?” Dr. Norman L. Geisler http://ncse.com/cej/4/3/scientific-basis-creation-principle-uniformity
“[The] first postulate of the Principle of Uniformity, namely, that the laws of nature are invariant with time, is not peculiar to that principle or to geology, but is a common denominator of all science. In fact, instead of being an assumption or an ad hoc hypothesis, it is simply a succinct summation of the totality of all experimental and observational evidence.” Marion King Hubbert ‘Critique of the Principle of Uniformity’, in C. C. Albritton (ed.), Uniformity and Simplicity (1967)
“Science operates on the assumptions that natural causes explain natural phenomena, that evidence from the natural world can inform us about those causes, and that these causes are consistent.” http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions
Combining the observable evidence listed in column (1) with the Principle of Uniformity, it is very reasonable to believe that life cannot come from non-life by accident luck chance and time.
On the other hand, if God does exist as much of the evidence suggests, miracles with a miracle worker cannot be ruled out. The miracle of first life had to come from another source, not our natural world. God is a logical conclusion.
Atheists have no eyewitnesses to the miracle they claim of life from non-life in the beginning. Christianity has many eyewitnesses to the resurrection, life from non-life and many other miracles.
And you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses (Acts 3:15, emphasis added).
There were multiple eyewitnesses, including all of the disciples, who were very familiar with what Jesus looked like. In the next five verses, which many critics accept as being written within three to five years of the resurrection, the apostle Paul lists the eyewitnesses:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me (1 Cor. 15:3-8).
“If we are looking honestly at any event in ancient history, we are going to have to trust the ancient written record and the supporting archeology. We need to evaluate them as we would any other set of witnesses. The Biblical eyewitnesses DO measure up under these standards. They clearly wrote within close proximity to the life of Jesus, their testimony is supported externally by the archeological evidence, they have a reliable track record (also supported by the archeology) and they are without ulterior motive. While many would argue that we have to account for the life of Jesus purely OUTSIDE the Biblical record in order to be confident that we have the unbiased truth, we need to remember that the Bible itself is a reliable and trustworthy eyewitness account.” Jim Wallace, Cold Case Homicide Detective, former atheist, www.pleaseconvinceme.com
“How do we explain the fact that this movement spread like wildfire with Jesus as the Messiah, even though Jesus had been crucified? The answer has to be, it can only be, because He was raised from the dead.” N.T. Wright, Professor of NT studies, Oxford, video documentary, The Search Continues, www.johnankerburg.org
“Are these men (Jesus and the disciples), who helped to transform the moral structure of society, consummate liars or deluded madmen? These alternatives are harder to believe than the fact of the resurrection, and there is no shred of evidence to support them.” Paul Little, Know Why You Believe, Wheaton, IL, Scripture Press.
He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe (John 19:35, emphasis added).
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us (1 John 1:1-2, emphasis added).
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty (2 Peter 1:16, emphasis added).
Christians have scientific support for the biggest miracle in the Bible.
The biggest miracle in the Bible is the very first verse.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1
If it is true as the scientific evidence indicates, all of the other miracles are at least believable. The evidence for the Big Bang confirms that the universe (time, space, matter, energy and the natural laws) had a beginning and thus supports the biggest miracle in the Bible. The universe came into being just as Genisis 1:1 tells us.
Since something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence, the cause of the universe must be outside of and seperate from our universe. Anything outside of the natural universe would be by definition super-natural. This is where God would reside making God a reasonable conclusion as the cause for the universe, first life, intelligence, information and everything within it.
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the Earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces you cannot hope to discover… that there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” Robert Jastrow, agnostic astronomer who sat at the Hubble telescope stated this in an interview. “A “Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982 (emphasis added).
“A universe that came from nothing in the big bang will disappear into nothing at the big crunch. Its glorious few zillion years of existence not even a memory.” British astrophysicist, Paul Davies. www.thinkexist.com(emphasis added)
“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University, newscientist.com, January 11, 2012, Magazine issue 2847 (Conclusion arrived at after a study of the multiverse, cyclic universe and static state (cosmic egg) theories. Vilenkin’s study refuted scientists who originally claimed all three theories eliminated the need for a beginning and thus a Creator.)
In the end if you embrace atheism, faith is required, contrary to what some may have told you. Based on a comprehensive review of all of the evidence, I believe atheism requires a lot more faith than Christianity. It is worth your time to set aside what atheists may claim and take an honest and close look at the evidence HERE.
Think about it. If you place your faith in Jesus you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If nothing else, choosing Jesus just makes better common sense especially since the evidence suggests that Jesus is exactly who he claimed to be.