Famous Atheist Changes His Mind (2 videos, 7 mins.)

LD:  When one of the world’s most renowned atheist philosophers—a man who debated God with CS Lewis at Oxford 50 years ago and was adamant that God could not possibly exist—when such a man does a complete U-turn and admits he was wrong, we have to sit up and think.

Such a man is Professor Antony Flew, a noted scholar who straddled the worlds of philosophy and science and who died at the age of 87 in 2010.

What makes his conversion even more compelling is that his is not a religious conversion in the sense of being “born again”, or of suddenly being touched by a vague and woolly “mysticism”. On the contrary, this distinguished philosopher’s conversion is based on startling new discoveries in biochemistry and DNA science that are impossible to ignore. These recent developments in science show that the unbelievable complexity of the physical world not only makes it unlikely, but also virtually impossible, that all this complexity should have arisen by mere chance and the hit-and-miss workings of evolution.

In other words, the only possible explanation for this “integrated complexity” is the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

VIDEO : 5.05 mins.

VIDEO : 2.09 mins.

Like this? Share it now.
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someonePrint this page

Lasha Darkmoon

Dr Lasha Darkmoon (b.1978) is an Anglo-American ex-academic with higher degrees in Classics whose political articles and poems have been translated into several languages. Most of her political essays can be found at The Occidental Observer and The TruthSeeker. Her own website, Darkmoon.me, is now within the top 1 percent of websites in the world according to the Alexa ranking system.

44 thoughts on “Famous Atheist Changes His Mind (2 videos, 7 mins.)

  1. The problem is religion. You only have to look at human embryology to see that something is going on. Call it God if you want, but it looks as thought there has been some extraordinary developments to create life.

    Religion is a perverted response, more about control than about understanding.

    1. John –

      “Religion is a perverted response, more about control than about understanding.”

      I agree….

      So is our modern use of “spirit” and the aboriginal use of “spirits”… which never have been, nor can be, proved.

    2. Religion is a perverted response, more about control than about understanding.

      Rubbish. It’s not religion, but your negative attitude to religion, that is the perverted response. Godlessness is a sickness you can keep to yourself; you don’t have to infect others with it.

      1. Well said, Sardonicus. Nihilism is the big sickness. Trouble is, those who have this sickness like to spread it around. Like some people suffering from AIDS like to pass it on to others and infect them.

      2. @ John Kirby

        Well said! My sincere apologies. The world would be a dull place if we if all agreed about everything.

  2. No argument of complexity can definitively prove God.
    What does definitively prove the existence of an intelligent god, is the fact that it’s the only conceivable scientifically viable theory which can explain existence. ‘God’ is a valid scientific concept, whereas ‘random’ isn’t.
    The mainstream notion of ‘random’ is a scientific fraud, because ‘random’ is not science, it’s anti-science.

    1. @ verito

      No argument of complexity can definitively prove God.

      You fail to understand Professor Antony Flew’s reasoning. It is flawless. He is not talking about complexity per se, he is talking about integrated complexity. This is when things hang together in such a way that the existence of an intelligent designer must be presupposed.

      Watches don’t make themselves; they entail the existence of a watchmaker.

    2. What we need is a definition of the word “God”.

      Not only is the word incapable of definition, it is, according to most people’s definitions, self-contradictory: the claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient contradicts the claim that He is beneficent. This is a serious problem.

      OK, Agreed. The universe is an intelligent system. Agreed. Nothing happens by accident. So?

      What conclusion follows? I don’t see that any conclusion follows. I don’t see that it proves the truth of Christianity. It could prove the truth of the religion of some guy on another planet for all we know.

      I think the real people talk about “God” so much is that it is easy to say. What else are you going to say? The “Intelligence of the Universe”? The “Humanly Inconceivable Cosmic Crap Game of Existence, Birth and Death”?

      To me, the whole question is a misstatement of the problem. That includes atheism and agnosticism, which are also meaningless: saying “I don’t believe in God” is like saying “I don’t believe in glibble”.

      It doesn’t bother me not to understand a word; what bothers me is the self-contradiction.

      Lastly, I sympathize with Christianity if it is interpreted in a certain way. That does not include feel-good “anti-fa” Marxist liberalism masquerading as “religion”. The last time I went to church (I’ll never go again), there was no mention of God or Jesus, none at all, but Nelson Mandela, lawdy, lawdy, yowsah boss!

      I’ve read the Bible, twice, including the apocryphal books of the New Testament. In one of these latter, Jesus is being teased by some other little boys, so he strikes them blind. Nice kid, huh?

      In the Old Testament, the prophet Ezra is walking along and he gets teased by some boys, so he curses them, and commands two she-bears (two, no less) to come out of a forest and they maul forty-two of the little boys (42, no more, no less, count them), to pieces. Nice guy, huh?

      To me, the Jews are the only race of people who ever invented a religion simply to justify their crimes.

      I believe that the prophet Isaiah says the Jews will have hard and perverted hearts until the world is destroyed.

      Which is what is exactly what is happening.

      Oh, but God has a plan for us. His ways are not our ways, we have free will, etc.

      OK, you bring back a religion that has something positive to offer and I’ll be all for it.

      But the Christians have to do it. I can’t.

      1. The only conclusion I can draw is as follows:

        Let’s say that the Intelligence of the Universe, or God, or Fate, or Providence, or the Humanly Inconceivable Cosmic Crap Game of Existence, Birth and Death had made me a cockroach instead of a human being (borrowing a gag from Kafka). What would be my duty to the universe as a cockroach?

        I think it would be to be the best cockroach I possibly can be, to fulfil my destiny as a cockroach, acting in accordance with my Universe-given instincts as a cockroach: to protect my mate, to protect the nest, my young, to forage for provender, defend the nest, and exterminate enemy cockroaches.

        Where I grew up there was a main street which served as the dividing line between two species of cockroach. Black ones on one side, brown ones on the other side.

        You never saw a brown cockroach on the black cockroach side of the street. I must assume that if one had ventured over onto the wrong side of the street (presumably staggering home after a night of over-indulgence of one sort or another) he would have been instantly killed.

        Ever try putting black ants on a red anthill, or vice-versa? Same thing.

        Segregation is the law of nature, and it is the law of the Bible (if you want to get Biblical on me).

        Slavery, segregation and apartheid were all Bible-based, and quite correctly so. The Bible does not advocate race-mixing. This is a fact, whether anybody likes it or not.

        The wages of sin (or race mixing) — or “species or variety mixing” in the case of cockroaches — is death.

        As the great boxer Cassius Clay (I refuse to call him by his idiotic Moslem name). said, “It is natural to want to be what God made you”. This is it in a nutshell. A nugget of profound wisdom.

        I do not, however, advocate slavery and would not give you a nickel for 10 of them. Sell them to the Jews; they’re probably in the market.

  3. I care less for arguments or proofs or assumptions or suppositions or postulations or speculations about God or the existence of God. The vast majority of people believe in God. But do they know Him? Can They feel Him, see Him, touch Him as John the Beloved so confidently asserted in 1John1 v1-3 or as Isaiah in the grand vision recorded in Chapter 6? For many God is just a blur, an inscrutable blotch on the screen of their minds. Christ came to rip the veil that obstructs man knowing God and He never founded a religion nor instructed His disciples to do so. Religion is actually the problem. It obfuscates rather than simplify things, mystifies rather than clarifies things. Now I know Christ is bigger than Church or Christianity or any sect or group. There are many paths to God and all the paths are one namely Christ or The Word or Cosmic Consciousness. Everyman must know God for himself or herself. God cannot be taught or pressed into one’s heart. Nobody breathes for you. You do so yourself. Thus since God is life and so necessary for the spiritual well being of the soul I believe He is closer to us than we know. Those who know whether Christian saints or Hindu, Sufi mystics say we are in God and God is in us. It’s more real and practical and healing than the ceaseless pining which religion tends to foster after an immobile God in heaven, a God who is cold, abstract and flat. As Martin Luther once said we must flee from the hidden God to Christ. Thing now however is that Jesus’ person and message has been wrapped up in religious folds which make it difficult to find him. I get angry that God should be so unknown and it makes me feel like justifying the arrogance of those who say He doesn’t exist. Try searching for God and see how mentally tortuous it is and you’d understand why some people under the guise of being His spokesmen make so much money from the gullible.

    1. @ Tahida
      A good post and obviously a cry from the heart. There is a short book by a prominent Thai Buddhist monk, Buddhadasa Bhikku, titled “No Religion”. It actually makes your point that the Buddha or Jesus Christ never set out to form a religion. And it is true that once a religion becomes “organised” and invents a theology it dies spiritually.
      It’s also true that organised religion nowadays is mainly empty ritual only interested in making money. Therefore may I suggest you meditate, pray, follow your heart and be your own “guru”. Easterners have a saying, “when the student is ready, the teacher appears.”

      1. The purpose of religion is to keep man from “God,” for once man has “God”, he needs nothing else. The idea behind religion is to divide man from “God” and then create intercessors to represent man to his “God(s)”. This is where the priest and church or temple comes into play. These are the middlemen between man and God who speak to God for man because they are incapable of doing so without the divine guidance of the priesthood. The magnificent structures these priests and their religions create, the churches and temples, are intended to impress man with a physical representation of “God’s” immensity and magnificence to which only the priests hold the key.

        No truly great teacher has ever set out to form a religion, as this is simply the perverted result of greedy men who see in religion the chance to manipulate others for personal gain and power. The Sufis say religion is a good start, but religion must be transcended if man is to progress on the spiritual path to enlightenment. This means one can find fundamental keys to universal truth about “God” and the universe in their religion. However man’s intercession invariably prevents the full truth from being discovered.

        Jesus and the Essene brotherhood sound very much like Sufis, as do other great mystics. “Sufi” is merely a name however. While enlightened people, have been referred to by various names of this sort throughout history, they all embrace and teach the same truths.

        The true teacher does not seek a large following, but teaches a small group of dedicated supplicants. The true teacher has no need, or desire, for the material gain of others, including his supplicants. The true teacher requires absolute obedience (submission) from his supplicants. This is because the supplicant is unaware of their own needs and often what is needed most are the very things a supplicant eschews. This is the very paradox that keeps man from progressing spiritually on his own.
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        This concept is alluded to in the following miniature tale:

        A man came to a teacher professing a sincere desire for enlightenment. The teacher replied that the man did not have the proper preparation to undertake the task and in any event could not apply himself to the necessary tasks. However the man insisted that he was not only capable, but willing to do whatever was required to be accepted as a student. He kept up his badgering until the master teacher finally relented.

        “Very well” said the teacher, “this is what you must do then: Dress in nothing but a loin cloth with a nose bag of walnuts around your neck. Go to the middle of town and offer the walnuts to passers by. But before you begin, find a young boy and employ him to slap you every time you offer a walnut.”

        The man cried out, “I cannot do that! Why I would be the laughing stock of the town!”

        The teacher replied, “You see, as I said, you cannot apply yourself to the required tasks.

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Here is another tale about man’s religious affairs:

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        A body of celestial beings who wanted to develop their influence upon the people of earth, commissioned an experienced and independent investigator to provide them with a feasibility report.

        When he returned he said:

        ‘Here is a complete analysis of the situation. To get through to mankind, you must promise happiness to those who are sad, and threaten to distress those who are happy. They are to be exposed to tension, anxiety, joy and repetition. Hypocrites must be induced to think they are honest and straightforward. You will sanctify self-indulgence, by making people enjoy suffering and then tell them that they are not enjoying it because it is a punishment.”

        “But this is terrible!” exclaimed the celestial ones. “We could never do that. To turn people into automata, to manipulate them . . .”

        “Now listen,” said the expert, “do you or do you not want to extend your territory? If you plan expansion in this field, you must remember that – for thousands of years – your competitors have been ahead of you. They are well established there, and they are successful. In fact there are only a very few, quite insignificant, exceptions . . . ” – Idris Shah “Reflections”

    2. @ Tahida
      @ Felix

      Good words of truth from both of you.

      Concerning Felix’s recommendation to become your own guru. It is easier than we have been lead to believe and I know from personal experience.

      Pray properly for the truth. Properly means to take the following simple steps. Be by yourself, pray out loud, and only use present tense verbs. Present tense verbs are a statement of faith/belief/knowingness that you already have what you are praying for. State, “I am one with God” which is a true statement. (Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within us.) Think about that oneness until you feel really good about being one with God. State, “I have the truth.” Say, “Thank you God for the truth.” No gift can be completely accepted without a thank you. End the prayer with, “For so it is.” Never use the word Amen which is a tribute to the Egyptian Sun God (this can be verified in an old Catholic dictionary) resulting in a nullification of your prayer. Everyday after your prayer, vocally give thanks to God for the truth. Praying once and being thankful repeatedly reenforces your faith/belief/knowingness.

      Read or reread the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You will realize things that you have overlooked your whole life and wonder how you missed them before. The teachings of Jesus becomes much more simple. As a bonus, you will be much better at ascertaining the difference between lies and the truth in other aspects of your life. You can expect many truthful thoughts to suddenly arrive in your mind when you might least expect it.

      It worked and works for me and, if it works for me, it can work for anyone. I have my fair share of faults.

      The worst thing that can happen is that it doesn’t work and the loss of a few minutes in your time.

      1. The Sufis did great damage to Islam and the world of Islam with their Sufism which involves drugs of all sorts and getting stoned. Many Muslims see Sufism as being very baneful and harmful and detrimental. Many Islamic scholars and holy men, very intelligent, very astute, very devout Muslims, were always opposed to Sufism. Sufism is NOT the great wonder its made out to be by Westerners looking for new and exotic “spiritual” journeys.

        The 60s Cultural Revolution was very much inspired by Sufism, and we see how destructive the Frankfurt School/Tavistock/Blavatsky/AleisterCrowley 60s Cultural Revolution was to the West. The West is now infused with the Sufi concepts of the 60s Cultural Revolution [ based to a very large degree on Sufism ]. It’s not working out too well for the West, I would say. Sufism is very conducive to Aldous Huxley’s SOMA. One can rightfully say NWO SOMA and Sufism are made for one another, the two go together perfectly well.

        Huxley did warn us about the NWO and NWO’s SOMA, but simultaneously he was pushing NWO SOMA to the Sufi-inspired beatniks and hippies of the 1960s. The NWO wants a population as stoned as possible, It’s much easier to control a stoned population. That’s why those who gave us the 60s Cultural Revolution with its NWO SOMA also included Sufism into the 60s Cultural matrix, Sufism is very much based on drugs and getting stoned — exactly what the NWO ruling class want, as many people as possible stoned and high, much easier for them to rule over a stoned population.

  4. What never ceases to amaze me is the utterly infantile behaviour and straw man arguments advanced by “famous” atheists in recent years. I refer, of course, to Richard Dawkins and his book “The God Delusion”. I actually wasted time in reading it. Absolute rubbish. Full of all the usual claptrap about religion being the cause of wars, while neglecting to mention the mass murders by atheists in the 20th century. When Dawkins was asked to give the full title of Darwin’s book, “The Origin Of Species” he couldn’t and said “Oh God”. Another posturing ape was Christopher Hitchens in his book “God is not Great”. Stephen Fry is yet another buffoon who likes to insult God. Hitchens was Jewish, as is Fry. Obviously doing their bit for our “Friends”, the Elders of Zion in undermining religion. It’s all there and I suggest that any commenter on this site, who is sceptical of God and dislikes “religion” read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. A rekindling of religion coupled with a spiritual revival are the only means which will thwart the designs of the Elders of Zion. Asymetrical warfare. While we are on this subject, many point to the Rothschilds as being the elders. To my mind it’s obvious the Rothschild’s are important, but are they the real elders? The elders are alleged to comprise 300 of the leading Jews in the world. Is it possible the Rothschilds are the front and behind them lurk even more insidious creatures operating in total secrecy?

  5. Verito on randomness … I hope you meant that within a limited context.

    Randomness is a sine qua non for the existence of free will, I also hope that this is self explanatory and it is once again neatly dealt within that Paulician dualism.

    It goes further and links into SW’s repeated claims that the world is thought-created or something like that, also mentioned in Buddhism, not to mention that it (randomness) is an absolutely inescapable conclusion of experimental quantum mechanics, in fact, QM came out of it and it seems that it is so fundamental to existence of matter that it wins the chicken-egg argument (not to mention that the chicken crossed the road on a random whim 🙂 ).

    It also occurs to me that it is a keystone building block of the physical world in metaphysical terms, namely, the world was created as a petri dish seeded with this bacterial culture of conscious sparks, acting independently, ie, randomly, ie, with will of their own and the Devil took up the challenge to see if he can corrupt it into self destruction non-existence, free will extinguished as Jew so fervently hopes for – so yes, contrary to Einstein’s typically trite, shallow thinking, God does play dice – and as per the apparent score, seems to be losing, as the corruption has run up the score against the Christ team.

    So, if we again indulge in that bit of reverse engineering, as alluring as it is inescapable, this game of dice may well be the only reason for the existence of the material sphere, a playing pitch for the grand experiment in free will, where the original proto-deity, Creator, split itself into mutually exclusive entities and is curious about the outcome of the process whose control and intervention into, it voluntarily abandoned to the diabolical offshoot, the wayward son, the Grand Meddler, whose lubricant to perdition is Jewry.

    The game is not over yet, though Hitler fumbled in his touchdown attempt.
    Because so long as even one spark functions independently, Devil hasn’t won.

  6. What about this? A Spirit created a universe and with simple live forms. Then some other totally nutty spirits discovered that universe image of the Spirit. These simpler spirits found the imaginary universe of the Spirit filled with pleasures and excitements and started to play in the universe. Then these/we nutty guys degraded to what we are today believing we are bodies and not spirits of our own, but, we are not the creators of this universe.

    1. Then some other totally nutty spirits

      And where did they come from, if not from A (?? as opposed to “The”? Whether consciously or sub, you anticipated the messy endpoints) Spirit?

      No escape … the most elegant, simplest, cleanest solution is Initial Duality whereby the Creator had a breakdown (ok, a She, I am ok with that, SW), Ms Jekyll and Dr Hyde.

    2. Working the Breakdown theme further, bloodhound lobro on the trail … and what caused it in the first place?
      The Creator, while in one piece, couldn’t come to grips with own existence, it was pointless and totally undefinable, whereas now, it is our job to come up with workable definition, the whole purpose of Creation.
      The Devil’s proposition is that it is indeed pointless and not worth pursuing further, shut down the inquiry.

      1. Or perhaps He is so thrilled, so generous, so merciful that He wants to share this with everyone! And Mr. I want heaven as well as earth, can’t abide his Daddy sharing what Satan considers his. (aka) Satan covets this earth, and the heavens too. Prime real estate, so we’ve all heard..
        But hey, I also hear, it all comes out in the deluge!

  7. It also strikes me that omnipotence is antithetical to omniscience, enclosed within the same vessel, they are an absurdity.

    What need for omniscience, or any science for that matter, if you are omnipotent?
    You can be totally stupid but because you are omnipotent, you change the rules on the fly to suit your momentary whim, science and wisdom are tits on bull for an omnipotent deity.

    In his stupidity, Jew goes for power, yet I think that the Devil is very smart and very powerful but not completely so, otherwise he’d deal himself out of the game.

    This doesn’t cover all the angles, I am aware of that, but because I got no gift for mysticism (not that I dismiss it by any means, just recognize my lack of talent and ability), I can only bulldoze reason so far, while cognizant of other ways to bell the Schrӧdinger’s cat.

    1. God cannot be omnipotent. If God has made the “laws” according to which the universe(s) function(s), then he cannot go against his own laws.

      God cannot be omniscient either. He cannot know the future because conscious beings have free will and can decide anything.

      So God is powerful but not omnipotent, God knows much but not everything. That leaves enough freedom for us humans to feel happy.

  8. I have never been religious as in followed organized religion and obeyed a strict set of rules. However, all of my life I have been a deist.
    The simplest answer I always give an atheist who states that “we all evolved from the primordial soup” I always reply, “Ok, so who added the ingredients?” This usually stumps them.
    It’s just simple madness to think that all living things simply came about through happen chance.
    And the more I understand about the ‘grand conspiracy’, that which is the ultimate control of a select few, over all, the more I see that the drive to destroy any concept in a GOD/CREATOR, will continue to grow as they push for totalitarianism.

    We most certainly came about through intelligent design. It’s something I will never deny, unless that is they find a lamborghini buried deep within the earth that came about because someone left a lump of metal in the ground, millions and millions of years ago.

    1. Masha Allah. Great! The youtube piece is very much enlightening! Thanks for the timely interference.

  9. Asking God a question is the pinnacle of human “intelligence”…at least in this life.

    Questioning God is the pinnacle of human vanity and stupidity.

  10. I known it all along. Walk outside the front door; can’t miss the design.

    Here is something I cannot quite describe. I don’t know what to make of it, other then it strikes the oddest chord within me. Somehow it seems to sum up the situation in verse guaranteed to make one’s skin crawl.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVpPlWlHMrA

    Ostensibly the original rhyme originated during the London plague of 1665. The “Ring around the Rosie” was originally “Ring-a-ring of roses”, referring to the bright red “bubos”, swollen lymph nodes, around a victim’s neck. The cultural plague, from which we we presently suffer, is every bit as virulent and deadly as its biological counterpart that gave rise to this charming little rhyme.

  11. @ Admin

    This is an on-topic 3,000 words story from the 1930’s that easily holds the reader’s attention. This post is the first time that this story has been out on the internet. It is more detailed than the videos. If it is too long and you want to delete it, no problem. This is your house that I visit.

    ——————————

    Science Proves There Is a Creator God

    Transcribed and edited by Ungenius

    Introduction: Most of the information below is excerpted from a story written by a person involved in the story. The story used fictional names for the participants. The author of the story is now in their mid-nineties and unfortunately is unable to verify with memory the story he wrote down many, many years ago. Based on the age of the author and the mentioning of the Periodic Table only having 86 elements, deductively it most probably happened in the late 1930’s before 1939 which was when the 87th element of the Periodic Table was discovered. The author, now retired, was a successful American business owner that included the story in a pamphlet enclosed in every order fulfilled by his business which is how I came into possession of it. Since the author has retired, the story is no longer included with orders from the business with the ridiculous excuse that the author, in his mid-nineties, cannot currently confirm it even though it was confirmed by the author for decades before his retirement.

    The story is a profound illustration of the proof that God exists.

    Bracketed text indicates my insertions.

    ——————————

    It happened right in the middle of the third lecture of the visiting speaker at the University. The famed physicist, Dr. I. J. Fronby [pseudonym] was lecturing on Nucloesynthesis In Stellar Processes. He had surprised his audience by stating that he believed in special creation, and his arguments were impressive and convincing.

    Evidently stirred by such statements a young man jumped to his feet and called out, “Dr. Fronby, who am I?”

    The students were amused, but the speaker knew what was behind the question. The young man was not a victim of amnesia. Nor was he asking that Dr. Fronby display powers of extrasensory perception, demonstrating his skill by divulging names and addresses at will. He was giving the first in a series of questions asked by so many these days – Who am I? Where did I come from? What’s the purpose in my being here? Where am I going? And how do I get there?

    No doubt, this young man knew who his father and mother were. He knew where his home was. He wasn’t lost. At least he wasn’t lost in regard to his whereabouts on earth or as to where and to whom he belonged. But still he was lost.

    Dr. Fronby answered, “If you will come to my room in the Mayfair Hotel this evening after dinner, I’ll be glad to speak with you on your question.”

    At 7:37 there were four students at his door.

    “Good evening Dr. Fronby, I’m Steve Wilson. I guess you know,” Steve hesitated, “I’m the one who interrupted your lecture. My friends here are Betty Lidman, Susan Lindenberg, and John McFadden [All pseudonyms]. I hope you don’t mind us ganging up on you in this way. Several others wanted to come too, but we promised them a report.”

    “Of course I don’t mind,” Dr. Fronby answered. “Come right on in. I’m glad you’re here – all of you. There is safety in numbers, they say. And we can have a much better discussion this way.”

    After they had briefly exchanged generalities and were seated, Steve spoke up again. “We appreciate the valuable time you’re giving us Doctor, and we’d like you to go right ahead and give us what you have in answer to my question.”

    “Well, you posed a mighty important question. If man evolved from a glob of protoplasm, which evolved from lifeless matter, I cannot give you any further light as to who you are. But – if the Bible account is correct – that all life came by special creation of Almighty God – that same Bible has some astounding statements as to who you really are.

    I’ll not go into any discussion here against Darwinism nor in favor of the creation doctrine. I believe the Bible account of creation is true. I’m going to speak to you from that premise.”

    “But I don’t believe the Bible any longer,” Steve spoke up. “I was raised in a religious home, and had the Bible preached to me and read to me constantly. But if what some scientists say is true, I can’t any longer believe it as the Word of God.”

    “I’m not asking you to believe it. I’m simply stating that I believe it. And I’d like to show you what I’ve found there concerning who you really are. If you are merely a product of chance and evolution, you are nobody of any importance whatever – but the Bible tells another story.”

    “Dr. Fronby,” it was John McFadden speaking this time, “I’ve only been inside a church about three times. But sir, I’m an honest atheist. I don’t believe the Bible and I can’t believe there is a God. How can a person of your stature hold the position that the Bible records are dependable? I mean, from the scholastic point of view and without any proof – ”

    [The story at this point is excerpted simply because it is not pertinent to the primary issue of whether God exists or not. Basically, this excluded portion is Dr. Fronby speaking of his research credentials while pointing out the lack of research credentials of the students.]

    John looked rather dazed. “All right, Doctor. Go ahead. If you’ve made that kind of research, I’d like to know what you’ve found in answer to Steve’s question.”

    “Gladly. But before presenting the positive, maybe I should first make this observation. We have been taught that life on earth arose in ages past by natural chemical and physical processes according to known laws of science. You know, such casual statements sound good on the surface. They really do.

    Years ago, when I was in high school, we were taught that the single celled creatures were very simple in structure. It was therefore considered a fairly simple thing for nature to spontaneously produce the first cell. Today we are discovering how very wrong we were. Now we know that a single cell is very complex – extremely so, in fact. And the ingredient of life in them is the most baffling of all.

    How could such a complex structure just happen? Can you crete a living thing? Can the most brilliant man or team of men now living create a living thing? And if they are one day able to do so, it will simply prove the fact that it took great brilliance and knowledge to perform the feat. It wouldn’t be by accident, without intelligent direction. And yet, we must believe, because a few men have said we must, that a multiplicity of dead things can by chance assemble and organize themselves in precisely the right manner – and, again by chance, manufacture and intricate cell wall and surround themselves with it, and, finally and most unlikely of all, can create within itself and within the cell wall the miraculous ingredient of life. Why, the whole idea is preposterous!

    In addition, remember, we are asked to believe – all without proof, mind you – that of itself this one-celled creature received the ability to take in oxygen and food, and give off wastes and carbon dioxide – and also to reproduce in duplicate, dividing or budding to become two cells, each with unbroken cell walls.

    Here’s the proof which shows the utter impossibility if the first living cell coming about this way. The protein molecules which go to make up a cell each contain thousands of atoms of half a dozen different elements. Think how impossible it would be for the right number of atoms of the right 6 elements to come together accidentally. In the supposed churning of the prehistoric seas the right number of atoms of each of the 6 right elements would have to accidentally come together at the same time, at the same place, omitting from their number all atoms from all the other 86 elements in nature. Also, these thousands of atoms of 6 different elements would have had to come together in the right sequence and order if they were to form a protein molecule!

    Let’s restate that: To believe in chance or spontaneous creation one must believe that the right number of atoms of the right 6 elements came together accidentally (thousands of them) at the right time, at the right place, in exactly the right sequence, omitting from their number all atoms from all other 86 elements in nature, to form one protein molecule.

    The eminent scientist, Charles-Eugene Guye [October 15, 1866 – July 15, 1942, Swiss physicist] once calculated the probability of the accidental or spontaneous creation of a single protein molecule on earth. He said that it might happen once in 10 to 243rd power years. That’s the figure 10 followed by 243 zeros! That’s millions of billions of years for the possible forming of one molecule! But you’d still have a dead molecule.

    Then consider the fact that there are millions of protein molecules in the most simple cell. These millions of molecules and other par tiles of the cell would also need to be formed at the same place and at the time. The odds against that happening accidentally would be a number I doubt the entire world could contain! Bit then you’d still have dead proteins in a dead cell.

    How can people devise fantastic stories from odds like that, then ridicule those of us who believe in an unseen Being far greater than man – a Being who is our creator? It takes infinitely more faith to believe, as the Darwinists do, in a miracle of spontaneous creation by chance. In that case dead matter is the creator of living things. So even the Darwinists believe in a creator. But their supposed creator is dead, the same as the idols of the pagans. Maybe that’s why they say their god is dead. Perhaps they are really teaching or preaching a neopaganism.

    And who crated matter in the first place? It didn’t just happen either. Even the most agnostic of all scientists knows that ‘For every effect there must be a cause.’ And the building blocks of matter, the atoms, who is the cause behind each of them? You’ve studied the structure of the atom, and know that each atom has a dense center, the nucleus, which has a positive charge. And around the nucleus whirl the particles called electrons, which have negative charges of electricity. One amazing thing about the electrons of the atom is that they whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second! The only known reason why these electrons do not fly off into space is that opposite charges of electricity attract each other. Therefore, the positive charges in the protons in the nucleus attract the negative charges in the electrons. Thus the protons and electrons pull at each other, thereby keeping the electrons from dispersing.

    Did you ever ask yourself where the electrical charge came from to hold the atoms together in this precise way? And did you ever ask yourself what force causes these electrons to orbit the nucleus of the atom at such unthinkable speeds?

    Also consider this phenomena in the atom: The nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. The neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral. But the protons have positive charges. Another law of electricity is that like charges repel each other. Being that all of the protons on the nucleus are positively charged they should repel each other and scatter into space. But there is a force, not yet understood, which holds them in the center. The electrons whirling about the circumference if the atom also pull on the protons to break the nucleus apart. But an unseen binding force keeps the protons in the nucleus of the atom. Now, we have discovered this binding force, and its properties have been worked out mathematically, but we still do not know what it is. And if science some day should discover what it is, would you know who or what put that binding force there?

    The Bible has the answer. It says that Christ, the Son of God, our Creator, ‘was before all things , and by Him all things are held together.’ (Colossians 1:12-17) [Also see John 1:1-4, 1John 1:1-3] By His wisdom and power He created all things, and by that same power He put all things together and keeps them together.

    The Bible has something further to say about what we know as matter. Consider this fact about matter. The electrons and protons of the atom are not really solids as we understand a solid. They are positive and negative charges of electricity. And when the neutrons in the nucleus of the atom are smashed their scattered parts also become electrons and protons (besides a multitude of other kinds of particles, the number of which utterly baffle scientists). So really, the atom is an electrical phenomenon!

    It’s no wonder that the apostle Paul was able to say through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that, ‘Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.’ (Hebrews 11:3)

    And just as we found that it would be impossible for dead matter to form itself into a living cell, it would also be impossible for the atom to form itself. And to do this billions of times over and come up with the same approximate ingredients each time for a given element would be further impossible without intelligent supervision. Man may boast of what he has made or can make, but can he begin from absolute nothingness and form the various atoms needed for his creation?

    [Ernest Holmes in the “Science of Mind” asserts that God did not start with absolute nothing. God used Himself as the only resource available making everything a part of God which makes complete sense.]

    Self-willed man, you see, is in a dilemma. To believe in a God who has created us is to acknowledge Someone to whom we are accountable. The Bible speaks clearly – all too clearly – of a day of reckoning, of judgement (Hebrews 9:27). So man (civilized and uncivilized) has created his own gods, to give his conscience freedom to allow him to live as he pleases. But to wish and to rationalize our Creator God out of existence does not put him out of existence.

    The last half of the first chapter of Romans, in the New Testament part of the Bible, tells what happens when men ‘do not like to retain God in their knowledge.’ You should read that.

    So much more could be said in elaboration, but let’s find out what the Bible has to say about who we really are.”

    “Dr. Fronby,” it was John again who spoke, “I have a question I’d like to ask. What you’ve told us here has really got me thinking. But, if there is a God, and He created everything, who made God?”

    Dr. Fronby smiled as he answered, “John, I can remember asking my mother the very same question. I don’t remember getting a satisfactory answer. But here is the answer.

    For some good reason, known only to God, He has chosen to reveal nothing about Himself previous to his acts of creation. And nowhere in the Bible does God endeavor to prove His existence. He seemingly feels there is no need for further proof. His great creative works testify to the fact of His existence. The more you study the universe, in its every aspect, the more overwhelming is its testimony to its Creator.

    Besides creation the Bible gives proof upon proof of God’s existence, in numerous ways.”

    But why didn’t God reveal something about how He came to be?” John persisted. “If He does exist why hasn’t He explained His existence? Maybe I could believe if He would explain His own beginning.”

    In answer Dr. Fronby questioned, “Is there any need for an artist to prove to anyone that he lives, or has lived? No, his work is proof enough. Christ told of one man who thought his brothers would believe about God, about heaven and hell, if someone were sent to then from the dead. The answer was that these brothers had ample proof already. If they wouldn’t accept the proof they already had they wouldn’t believe a man raised from the dead.” [Luke 16:19-31]

    “But why is God so secretive about His beginnings?” It was Steve who now questioned.

    “Steve, if God had a beginning, and if He had explained to us the cause of His beginning, that wouldn’t satisfy us. We’d then be bothered about finding out what caused the cause that caused God. To our present finite minds God is unknowable in regard to an infinite number of matters, and this includes the matter of His existence. We can’t even understand the tiny atom – do we then think we could understand the God of the atom?

    Christ was giving final words of information to the apostle Peter, as to what he would be doing in the future, when Peter asked Him, ‘Well, what about John, what will he be doing?’ Jesus answered him, ‘What John will do is none of your business, I want you concerned only about what you are to do.’ (John 21:20-22) I believe that’s God’s attitude toward our insistence that he make a full disclosure of Himself. He’s given plenty of proof that He is, and He wants us concerned now mainly with our relationship with Him and with our fellowman. What He has chosen not to reveal is none of our business.

    The important thing for us to be concerned about now is not how or when God came to be; the important thing is that He is, and that He is our God! The fact that true science refutes the theory that living matter and life evolved from dead inanimate matter leaves us with only one acceptable alternative. This alternative is special creation by God. And with Him we are eternally involved.”

    [The story ends at this point, but the author continued the pamphlet with his own perspective of what people should be doing with their life which is not pertinent to the primary issue of whether God exists or not so it is not included here.]

      1. Felix, and for tough guys like us, there’s always the direct approach.
        (aka) absolutely beautifully brutal honesty!
        Srila Prabupada did not soft soap anything..

        “So people, they sometimes say, “Can you show me God? Have you seen God?” These questions sometimes we meet. So the answer is here. Yes, you can see God. Everyone can see God. I am also seeing God. But there must be the qualification. Just like God is there… Suppose a motorcar is there, something is wrong there. Everyone is seeing. But one engineer or mechanic, he sees differently. Therefore we have to go there. “What is the wrong in this car? It is not running.” He immediately touches some machine part; it runs. So these rascals, they do not know that “How I can see God if I have not the qualification?” The machine has gone wrong, I am seeing the machine. And the engineer, the mechanic, he is also seeing the machine. But his seeing and my seeing is different. He’s qualified to see. Therefore when the machine has gone wrong, immediately he touches some part, it runs. So if for a machine we require so much qualification, and we want to see God without any qualification? Just see the fun. Without any qualification. Rascal, they are so rascal, so fool, that they want to see God with their nuisance qualification.”

  12. Looking into this – Flew’s views – heartened to read the suggestion, although he never accepted much of the specifics of Christian thinking, was happily befriended by Christians. The furore against his change of tone by certain strident atheists, wasn’t so gracious. Said he’d gone nuts. I don’t write this to go, “nah, nah, look at (them)” but again note, how we should all watch it. How to be strong as a bull about something while not straw manning it? Flews’s short review of ‘The God Delusion’ is all about this. Not questioning opposing evidence and wrestling with ideas but what he says is Dawkins; ‘scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form’. Why can we so easily tend towards this? Is it personal, emotional, projection or impatient irritation – anger even? Or is there some need to not engage more… in case? I tend to think, having been wrong about big things here and there, isn’t unhelpful. Not being on a more established side, and somewhat mockable – more fuel for openness.

    As a ‘convinced of God’ – I don’t consider atheists, certainly agnostics, to be so surprising. Probably not smart enough to sufficiently weigh and conclude deep philosophy/science, or one to stare at creation and go – ‘screams Creator’. Can’t speak for other ‘faiths’ but certainly a lot of Jesus peep, wouldn’t convince me so much, with some deconstructed theologically – for me – worse than atheist claims. Sites generally and vehemently ‘no-Jesus’ are the best platform to witness Christ and a learning zone. Don’t look for comments back but concerned might not be moderated through. But hey, as if I was ‘that’ powerful. Oh there’s hope. But also sadness. The hallmark of this internet of Truthing should be diversity and guts. Darkmoon a bit of lion on this score. Whatever your roar.

  13. @Ungenius, I take your words to heart. From an earlier post you referred to Ernest Holmes’ ‘Science of Mind’. I have downloaded a copy. He belongs to the New thought group just as Neville Goddard and Joseph Murphy. Thanks for your painstaking advice.

    1. @ Tahida

      Thanks for the reply.

      A little personal background on Ernest Holmes might be helpful. Ernest Holmes died before I knew of his primary book. He wrote more than one book and I have a couple of them. I was fortunate to be associated with a fellow that was a personal friend of Holmes and he revealed things about him that I doubt was documented anywhere.

      Ernest Holmes wrote his primary book, The Science of Mind, after he had investigated all of the world’s significant religions. Holmes was doing the investigation looking for the truth. His basic assumptions were that everything that each religion had in common was probably the truth and what they did not have in common was most likely decoration by man and not the truth. He wrote the book to document what he had discovered since he figured that he wasn’t the only one looking for the truth in religions. Holmes settled on the teachings of Jesus, not Christianity, as being most truthful. The last half of his primary book was dedicated to the teachings of Jesus.

      Holmes concentrated on prayer. What it is. Why it is. How it works. How to perform prayer properly for results. After absorbing his book, I performed my first properly executed prayer that produced perfect results. I met my perfect wife 48-hours later and we have been married for 36-years. Based on my previous failed marriages along with numerous failed relationships, the event was not a coincidence. Needless to say, I have executed many prayers properly since then.

      A religion formed around Holmes’ book which was not his intention. Holmes never endorsed the religious movement, but he did not fight it either. Basically he just watched and did not get involved. Holmes did not even push his own book. For theses reasons, I’m not sure I would lump Holmes in with any New Thought or New Age group/movement. He was just a guy that was looking for basic spiritual truth, determined enough to take the time to do lots of research, and wrote a book about what he discovered.

      I did spend about a year associating with a Science of Mind group. It did attract a few New Agers and New Thought people that seemed intent on diluting and modifying the basics of what Holmes had written. For that reason I went my own way. Apparently, Holmes demonstrated that he was a smart fellow by avoiding involvement.

      The book, The Science of Mind, is not particularly easy to read because of the way he presents his work. I found that I did better understanding what he was writing by just reading a chapter, they are short, and thinking about what he had to say a few days before continuing. Obviously, it took me a while to finish the first half of the book, but it was definitely worth the effort, at least for me.

      Please note that reading The Science of Mind is not a replacement for reading and contemplating what Jesus said and did as recorded in the Gospels even though it is compatible with the teachings of Jesus.

  14. Interesting…. In the Renaissance they said as above so below. They also believed that the universe reflected harmony both in the macrocosm and microcosm. I have been studying the brain biochemistry too in my battle with the vaccines mandates where the aluminum adjuvant or A+3, (or however you write that A has three positives). So aluminum goes into the brain from injection and messes up about 200 complex biological processes including DNA and RNA transcription which seem to operate biochemically on the negative side. When it comes to the role of water, which is far too complex for me to understand, it really is harmonics as opposed to chaos. Aluminum polarizes the water in the wrong way and disturbs the biochemical harmony creating chaos. Just small amounts of aluminum in the range of micrograms are enough to alter the epigenetic pattern- if the DNA is like a library of books the gene expression is what books are opened and what ones stay closed. That’s called up regulating and down regulating. In the U.S. at day 1 with the hepatitis B vaccine adjuvanted with aluminum some books are closed to never be reopened, potential and destiny are altered permanently. Some born to sweet delight, some to endless night. It’s as if our brain is like a symphony with multiple synchronized reactions, exchanges of electrons, in perfect harmony. But then the switches are turned off and what was the stage of life goes dark.

  15. There is no god,never has been and never will be,do not worry and World War III will be beautiful and bright….the New World Order of the global,wondering “you know who” is in command.

Comments are closed.