While I don't necessarily think that scientific argument is the best basis by which to convince atheists for their need for God, I think alot of times it's the starting point for them, because they've allowed the arguments against his existence to convince them against their need for his forgiveness and relationship.

I work with an atheist. He respects my strong belief in God (not to mention relationship with Him) but is not conviced that he is...and as Hebrews 11:6 says - he that comes to God must believe that He IS!!

The closest I've come to convincing Him of the existence of God (as creator) is to look at how we are made. We have eyes that are made in just such a way as to decipher the objects that are before them. There are connections from those eyes to our brains to allow us to decide how we will react to what our eyes see (e.g. to move around an I-beam instead of running into it), We have a brain that takes the signal from our eyes and relates the message to our leg muscles to move around the object that is blocking us.

If there is not an almighty creator, you have to believe that a lot of mushy matter formed together in just such a way as to provide for these and literally a billion other more complex actions in our bodies and the bodies of animals and so on and so forth.

There is the placement of our planet at just the right distance from the sun so as to keep us warm and not broil us. The moon is just far enough away to keep us from having catastrophic waves (because it controls our gravity) that would wipe out humanity if it were only a little closer.

There's so many things that are just too right, and to think that it's all a pleasant accident is a little hard to swallow I would think.

So, I'm probably in for a really rough ride (perhaps I deserve it, poking my nose into your site and schtuff - but then again, evangelicals have a habit of doing it to ours) but what would I say to an atheist?

"Right on, sir/madam"

It seems to me that a lot of the arguments are... Well, not arguments.

TheWyatt, for example, says there is no 'missing link' in evolution and - forgive me if I have completely misread this - that the Bible trumps that theory anyway. First off, that's just wrong. There are missing links in the fossil record and the mere fact we have as many as we do is a - no pun intended (well, maybe a little) - miracle in itself. As for the validity of the Bible which is "without contradiction, about the same God" that's just something that I don't even know where to begin dissecting...

Pamela Mic asks if the atheist feels empty. Nope, not a jot. Quite fulfilled. The concept of Love as God is quite a new one on me and I must say quite a nice one.

Aaron talks about "a lot of mushy matter formed together in just such a way as to provide for these and literally a billion other more complex actions in our bodies and the bodies of animals and so on and so forth", and the crux of his argument is that things are just too perfect to be by accident. Well, yes, that's true! By accident these things all together would be quite miraculous indeed. However, these things didn't happen by accident. Natural selection, probability of one planet being just right for life, the eye's evolution etc. all do what God does , but in a more realistic fashion.

Like I say, I'm bound to get a lot of aggro and perhaps I deserve it. But maybe you need to hear the 'fool's' perspective.

Aaron, your point, if I am not mistaken, is that there is an intelligence behind it all. My point is that just because it looks that way does not mean it is.

You point towards the way our bodies react to the environment. The reason this happens is because of evolution. The organisms that reacted best to survive and adapt climates were the ones that reproduced and those offspring reproduced etc. etc. I hope I don't seem condescending in my explanation of evolution.

Now, without being armed with knowledge of natural selection, or rather survival of the fittest, an intelligence that created it that way would appear perfectly reasonable. But the theory of evolution puts paid to it.

Perhaps I haven't answered as fully as I could (it's late here in Plymouth 1:03am) but my underlying pint to your underlying point is that because it LOOKS designed does not mean in IS designed.

See, now we get to the nutmeat (to steal from Colbert) of the matter. You say that evolution is unproven and that there are no links. This is in fact false. There are links. Not every species and every mutation of every animal, yes, but to posit that such a thing could happen is absurd. Instead, what we have are snapshots of animals at different stages. Is it too much difficulty to draw a line and say that there was some change.

The eye argument. Every time, it's the eye argument. You are correct to ask what half developed eyes are like. It is a question, But evolution states there are no such things as half developed eyes or hearts. It is simply an eye that does the job required for the organism. Sure, the image is blurry, but it suffices for the animal to reproduce. The next generation may have a slightly sharper image and so on and so the eye evolves to become much better. The human eye is still evolving. Early man probably had pretty poor vision, but the hunters that saw that wooly mammoth that extra bit clearer were the ones that reproduced.

If you don't believe evolution exists, then I simply say bacteria. Here in the UK we have a nasty breed called MRSA which has a habit of not dying when conventional treatments are used. This breed didn't exist 20 years ago, but as the bacteria that survived the penicillin courses multiplied the subsequent generation was that bit better at resisting penicillin. When that generation was wiped out, the solitary survivors were the ones that could resist that extra bit and so and so forth until we have that bugger of MRSA.

As for my position being based on faith, well I strongly - and believe me it is strong - refute that. I quite happily point to over 150 years of scientific research into evolution and quite firmly assert it as fact.

Night all

What drives an athiest's need to prove me wrong? 

I have a feeling I won't be in this argument long, because as I mentioned elsewhere, this is a huge argument and a blog/bulletin board/etc. simply doesn't have the mechanism to have allow this discussion to have a winner (especially when neither side is *actually* planning on moving).  There are too many studies on both sides with their own conclusions.  

If someone doesn't want to change their opinion, they won't. 

You're right Angie.  :)  (See I changed my mind).  There are definitely people who change their mind.  However I've also been around long enough to find that people actually go to other boards to ask "How do I refute this argument?".  At that point, they are looking for any excuse.  

The reason it's hard to answer this question for me, is that it's dependent on the individual.

BTW, The Wyatt, it's Ravi Zacharias.  You can find his online home at http://www.rzim.org.  Or his podcasts "Just Thinking" or "Let My People Think" which you can find various places.  I'm in the middle of "Jesus Among Other Gods".  Great stuff.

Af'ernoon all. I've just woken up (lazy student stereotypes are unfortunately true :)) and discovered a lot of activity on this comment thread. Healthy debate for the win, I say.

First, I agree we should skip evolution as I'll probably make a little blog of my own that answers the creationism/evolution debate, so if you have an issue you want to raise, please wait and raise it there. Aaron, TheWyatt I'll address those concerns there.

Second, Angie asks if I believe Jesus existed. Simply no. Was there a man at the time called Jesus? Very likely. Did he claim to be the messiah? Agai, likely - it wasn't uncommon for people to do such things (Life of Brian is more factual than meets the eye). For example, there was a guy named Apolonius of Tyana who did many things Jesus of the Bible did, but was labelled a magician retroactively. My reason for not believing in the existence of Jesus is simply that outside of the Bible there is no evidence to account for his existing (Yes, there was a Jewish scholar - whose name escapes me unfortunately - who spoke of a man fitting Jesus of the Bible's actions but he wrote long after Jesus of the Bible's death, as did many other sources) . Even if the Bible could be taken as historically accurate the conflicts between the Gospels as to Jesus' life suggest that it cannot be taken 100% as true. Take into account that the Bible was written after Jesus of the Bible's death and subsequently altered, mistranslated and edited over the passage of time, as a historical document it simply holds little water. (I have more to say on this, so that's probably another entry...)

So, yeah, off for a shower and some revision methinks. 

I use the Ten Commandments.  It was relevent then, and it still holds true today.  This is the standard in which we will be judged by God.  Since we can't keep the commandments (God's Law), we need a Savior. We want to be saved from Gods wrath.  Jesus is that Savior.  

I can't go round and round debating about evolution, and why the people in the Bible murdered, committed adultry, incest, sodomy etc.  The purpose of those sins being brought to light was to show that no matter what you've done, where you may be in life, you STILL can be saved. The gift of salvation has been given.  You just have to accept it, repent, and believe. Trust in the Savior.

The Christian faith stands by the fact that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.  (John 14:6)  The way I see it, if athiest are right, no harm done, I'll just decompose, and life goes on.  Other 'religions'  want you to believe in SOME god, since I choose Jesus, I'm covered that way. 
Now, if there's a 1 in  5 MILLION chance that the Bible is right, I'd rather be in that 1 percentage, rather than risk my eternal salvation.

I try to show the atheist that his world view is not consistent. He has to use "Borrowed Capital" from the Christian world view, things such as morals, reason, natural laws, etc. Things that a chance world does not allow for. It may also depend on where the person is and how well I knew them. There may be an area I know they are interested in that I could use as a stepping stone to show them how their worldview is bankrupt and inconsistent. Not in a mean way. I like to ask questions to get them to think and come up with the answers themselves. It also helps me learn as well for I was once and atheist myself.

AtheistExtrodinaire, hello. I have enjoyed your comments. I was not able to read ever entry by everyone so hopefully I am not repeating something someone said. First, I was wondering if you could name for me 5 transitional forms. Second, you mentioned MRSA and how it has adapted. How does that prove evolution? I think every Christian believe in micro-evolution or adaptation. But I do not see year a changing from one thing to another. Third, how do you know that your mind corresponds to reality since you are here by chance and so is everything else? How do you know your reason works correctly. 

Aaron, hey, hey.

1. Transitional forms are something that are ony applied in hindsight to evolution having happened, as every species is in transition. You asked for five, I'll do you one better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

2. MRSA and bacteria prove evolution because ALL evolutionary process start with micro-evolution. It was this step by step adaptation billions of billions of years ago that led single cell organisms to become multi cell organisms. It was these changes that led fish to slowly grow legs and walk on to water. Yes, everyone can agree to adaptation and micro-evolution, and by doing so you have agreed to evolution.

3. I am not here by chance, as you say. Very few things are done by chance in evolutionary terms if anything. We are all here by process of natural selection that began right from the first bacteria, to the early mammals, to the first time out simian ancestors climbed down from the trees. How do I know my reason works correctly? No one can be sure their reason works carefully. The only thing anyone can be sure of is existing: 'I think, therefore I am' as Descartes said. I have an indication that my reason works correctly because of empiracle evidence around us which bear out what I believe to be correct. On a side note, how do you know your reason works correctly?