Excellent article. The conclusion is so true and accurate. If only atheists realised how much weaker their faith is compared to ours. There's really no contest.

Truly amazing article. Thank you.

Can I ask a question about Annie?

Is it really true that because of Annie's death that Darwin left his faith or that it further support his faith in evolution. Can you please respond with an answer please.

"Nihil nove sub sole." From Charles Darwin to Philip Pullma, atheists still use the same logical fallacies against God.

"Our faith is based on God’s Word, and no human being will ever be able to prove whether or not God exists (Hebrews 11:6), as that would then make him/her superior to God."

I propose it is not the proving of the existence of God we need to do, the proving has already been done. God has already proven his existence, and consequently we need to learn to run with it.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Respectfully, Is not the foundational truth of revelation the Creation? If God did not give us His word, we would still be guilty. Thus, it's not due to lack of proof that God exists that we walk in faith, but due to our lack of trust in the further revealed evidence we have been given.

The things we struggle with are the nature of sin, the existence of hidden heavenly realms, and the promise of eternal life beyond the grave that are difficult. Thus the Word is increased clarity and a continued revelation of truth to us, and to reject it is further evidence of a hardness of heart toward the continuing revelation of truth. As Jesus said in John 3:12, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"

Consider Hebrews 6:4-6; For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance,...

The rejection of further revelation found in the Scripture is to reject the fulness of revelation beyond nature. Thus Darwin reveals a hardness of heart to build a fortress to embattle the truth. Apart from a direct intervention from God, Darwin could not, nor any other man see the truth.

Lastly, we can consider the witnesses; The Creation, the Word, and those who trusted in it;

Hebrews 12:1-2 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

The proof of God should be the easy part for us, to act in accordance with the truth, THAT is the hard part.

Reading this article kind of makes me think that ultimately a person can argue anything they want, especially if they WANT to.

I think this is the problem, that all of the designs in nature should be enough to infer a designer, to any reasonable mind that properly considers why the inference is so strong. It strikes me that Darwin could grasp the strength of the inference, and yet rejected it anyway.

This makes me conclude that people are not ultimately making intellectual decisions, but emotional decisions. If you want for something to be true, in a way it kind of becomes true, and you can build a house of cards.

Ultimately The Lord has left it down to freewill, but ultimately everyone will stand before God, no matter what they believe.

Intellectually, it's a problem, in that we cant prove God exists, despite our desire to, all we can do is show how strong the case for God is, in the face of a massive torrent of opposing desire. It's a shame, but if a person willfully WANTS to reject reality, they will.

In concern of the no.3

People like Darwin may have thought that God is some kind of servants of humans. They think that God must be lovely the way we wanted it.

No, He is real and He has his own mind. His love is the Love, we are the ones that need to fix our perceptions accordingly.

Michael M

I disagree with you, I think that God could reveal one or two things about Him to people. Just because you could understand the first thing about Him doesn't mean you are bigger than him, it might just mean that you potentially could become part of the kingdom of God.

Seek knowledge, seek understanding, in the beginning Wisdom was with God and through Wisdom God sets the world. Why shouldn't we aim to be Godly wise?

Michael M, when I said we can't prove God exists, I am speaking technically. We can't empirically show that God is there, in the same manner that I could prove my existence by turning up at a certain time in a certain place. Usually by the term, "proof" we don't just mean a settled matter, we mean that something is displayed to be beyond argument, logically and scientifically.

So for example, it is proven that there is a sun. To a mentally ill or affected person, below average intelligence (no insult intended whatsoever), then to such a person, that person may well believe the sun is a figment of their imagination but in a logical and scientific sense, it is unquestionably true.

Proof, or facts, are incontrovertible - which means that they can't be rationally rebutted or refuted because they are not only obviously true, but they can be displayed at any time, to be true.

If I say, "God show yourself", a proof would be that He would show Himself, every time, 100%, like if I ask you to show yourself, you will show yourself.

Technically speaking, God could prove His existence by turning up at a certain time and place, to be witnessed and recorded, but He does not want to do that, instead we live by faith not by sight.

If God was proven to exist, atheists would believe in God, because CHOICE of belief is logically removed. Nobody disbelieves in gravity because of the proven effects of it, so CHOICE is logically removed. You can disbelieve in reality, but normal rational people will not.

Atheists are normal, rational people - they are not mentally ill or retarded, so in a rational sense, they will not disbelieve in anything that is clearly proven.

That is why I say we must make the case for God. Don't get me wrong, I believe the case for God is all but proven. But ultimately, God wants us to accept Him by faith, not sight. And if He were proven, we would be robots, we don't need to believe in the proven. We don't open our curtains in the morning with the belief the sky will be there, it simply is there. God is also there, we just can't prove He is.

Hello- I'm a young-earth creationist Christian and I have been studying creation vs. evolution issue. To me- the unresolved issue that keeps coming up for me is why don't God just show Himself so that everyone will believe?