Nuclear physicist Hugh Siefken, on page 59 of Lee Strobel’s book entitled The Case for Faith, declares, “My faith can be summed up in this one paradox: I believe in science, and I believe in God.”  Strobel then remarks that Siefken “and many other scientists see no inherent conflict between their profession and their conclusion that a miracle-working God is responsible for creating and sustaining the universe.”

James Tour, a professor at Rice University’s Department of Chemistry and Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, states on page 111 of Strobel’s book, “Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith.  If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”

Paul Little, on page 8 of his book entitled Know Why You Believe, says, “[I]t is not possible to ‘prove’ God in the scientific method sense of the word.  But it can be said with equal emphasis that you can’t ‘prove’ Napoleon by the scientific method.”  However, there is more than ample evidence that God does exist.

Although science may not be able to prove the existence of God, perhaps mathematics can.  George H. Gallup, a famous American pollster, is quoted to have said, “I could prove God statistically.  Take the human body alone – the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”  [The Appendix at the end of this article provides additional mathematical support for the existence of God.]

Nathan Busenitz, an author of numerous articles and books, states on pages 46-47 of his book entitled Reasons We Believe,

If there is a God, and if the Bible describes Him accurately, then we would expect to find that the world operates according to fixed laws, exhibiting signs of both purpose and design.  “Everything we find in nature that points to harmony, design, purpose, and intelligence is consistent with the Christian presupposition that God exits and provides supporting evidence for it” [according to Ronald Nash, on page 142 of Faith and Reason].

Subsequently, on page 47 of the same book, Busenitz says,

A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than 50 years has changed his mind.  [This Oxford University professor] said scientific evidence has now convinced him that a super-intelligence is the only explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature. . . . If his newfound belief upsets people, . . . “that’s too bad” – but he’s always been determined to “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

Antony Flew, who previously had been referred to as the world’s most notorious atheist, states on page 88 of his book entitled There Is a God,

I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence.  I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God.  I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.

Another former atheist, John N. Clayton, an earth science teacher, on his web site “Does God Exist,” says that he was an atheist for many years before he came to believe in God through his studies in science.

And, Kenneth N. Taylor states on pages 21-22 of a publication entitled Is Christianity Credible?,

One who does not want to believe in the existence of God will probably find any evidence presented insufficient.  On the other hand, those who come wanting to find God will find ample evidence of His existence.

Some . . . are afraid to open their minds to the possibility of God, fearing that if they do they will be overwhelmed by the apparent evidence and yet somehow be wrong.  They forget that they are also in danger of being wrong when they close their eyes to the possibility of God and hold their present beliefs without adequate evidence and, in fact, in the

The preceding comments represent only a few of the numerous testimonies of intelligent people who have come to believe in the existence of God.  And there are many evidences of God’s existence, a number of which are presented in other articles on our web site, including the following, which you can access by clicking on each of the titles:

  • Is the Bible Reliable?:  If the Bible is inerrant, it provides considerable evidence that an Eternal Being (i.e., God) exists.
  • Origin of the Universe:  If evolution does not satisfactorily explain the origin of the universe, the existence of a Master Designer (i.e., God) does.
  • Origin of Humans:  If evolution does not satisfactorily explain the origin of humans, the existence of a Creator (i.e., God) does.
  • Was the Coming of Jesus Christ Prophesied?:  If the biblical prophesies about the coming Messiah were accurately fulfilled by Jesus Christ, there must be a Supreme Being (i.e., God) who knows the future.
  • Was Jesus Christ Really Resurrected from Death?:  If Jesus Christ was actually resurrected from death, there must be an Almighty Being (i.e., God) who can perform astounding miracles.


We have not attempted in this article to cite other proofs regarding the existence of God.  That would have resulted in a far longer article.  Instead, we hope that those who read this article will also read our other articles, especially those which we previously cited.  We believe that after people have read these articles with an open mind, they will concede that more faith is necessary to believe that creation – especially, that which pertains to all the more complex forms of life – is a result of pure chance than to believe that God created everything.

We have also not attempted to discuss the fact that there is no conclusive evidence supporting the belief by atheists that a Supreme Being (i.e., God) does not exist.  Those who assert that there is no God base their belief on their assumption that there must be scientific evidence that God does exist.  They are unwilling to accept the possibility that God can be proven logically, as we inferred above, or that He can be proven by many miraculous experiences witnessed and/or personally experienced by multitudes of people throughout the centuries, a number of which are recorded in the Bible.

So, why is anyone willing to believe that a nebulous force called “nature” created the universe, including all forms of life, but they are not willing to believe that God is the Creator?  There are undoubtedly a number of reasons why people do not believe in God., but many, if not most, of these people have not spent much time investigating the reasons to believe that God exists.  Instead, they apparently accept the viewpoints of atheists and/or agnostics with little or no questioning of the validity of those viewpoints.

We believe that many of the people who do not objectively consider the evidence that God exists have shallow reasons for not doing so.  Several of the most significant of these reasons are essentially the same as the reasons why people reject Jesus Christ, which are discussed in our article entitled “Why Do People Reject Jesus Christ?” [Note: To access that article, click on its title.]

In any case, people who choose not to believe that God exists have nothing to gain, but much to lose.  By being unwilling to believe that God exists, a person can expect, at best, that he (or she) will cease to exist when his (or her) mortal body dies.  In contrast, the Bible indicates that the worst that can happen is that the unbeliever’s spirit will spend eternity in a place of never-ending punishment that is called “eternal hell.”  On the positive side, the Bible offers assurance of eternal salvation to those who not only believe in God but also trust in Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, as their Savior.  [For more information regarding how to receive everlasting salvation, click on What Must a Person Do to Be Assured of Salvation?”]


Excerpts from Mathematics: Is God Silent? 

By James D. Nickel

Page 206:  In his preface to Mathematics and the Physical World, [Morris Kline, a mathematician] reflects:

[A] study of mathematics and its contributions to the sciences exposes a deep question.  Mathematics is man-made.  The concepts, the broad ideas, the logical standards and methods of reasoning, and the ideals which have been steadfastly pursued for over two thousand years were fashioned by human beings.  Yet with this product of his fallible mind man has surveyed spaces too vast for his imagination to encompass; he has predicted and shown how to control radio waves which none of our senses can perceive, and he has discovered particles too small to be seen with the most powerful microscope.  Cold symbols and formulas completely at the disposition of man have enabled him to secure a portentous grip on the universe.  Some explanation of this marvelous power is called for.

Page 206:  Kline is not alone in this acute cry for an explanation.  Richard Courant . . . formerly head of the mathematics department at the . . . world’s center for mathematics . . . remarks, “That mathematics, an emanation of the human mind, should serve so effectively for the description and understanding of the physical world is a challenging fact that has rightly attracted the concern of philosophers.”

Page 207:  Eugene Wigner . . . won the Nobel Prize in physics for his research in quantum mechanics. . . . [H]e presented his thesis, “The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and . . . there is no rational explanation for it.”

Page 209:  Richard W. Hamming . . ., university professor, tried to explain the mystery proposed by Dr. Wigner.  He introduced his treatise, “We must begin somewhere and sometime to explain the phenomenon that the world seems to be organized in a logical pattern that parallels much of mathematics.”  [H]e came to this conclusion, “From all of this I am forced to conclude both that mathematics is unreasonably effective and that all of the explanations I have given when added together simply are not enough to explain what I set out to account for.”

Page 209:  [Dr. Remo J. Ruffini, physicist at Princeton University, said:]  “How a mathematical structure can correspond to nature is a mystery.”

Page 210:  [In response to one of his friends, Albert Einstein said:]

You find it surprising that I think of the comprehensibility of the world . . . as a miracle or an eternal mystery.  But surely, a priori, one should expect the world to be chaotic, not to be grasped by thought in any way. . . . Even if the axioms of [Newton’s gravitational] theory are posited by man, the success of such a procedure supposes in the objective world a high degree of order which we are in no way entitled to expect a priori.  Therein lies the “miracle” which becomes more and more evident as our knowledge develops. . . . And here is the weak point of positivists [true knowledge is that which can only be verified by the senses or experience – J.N.] and of professional atheists, who feel happy because they think that they have not only pre-empted the world of the divine, but also of the miraculous.  Curiously, we have to be resigned to recognizing the “miracle” without having any legitimate way of getting any further.

Page 210:  To Einstein, there is no “legitimate” way to get around recognizing the miracle. . . . Stanley L. Jaki exposes the obvious by remarking that Einstein “perceived that such a train of thought was not only a road of science but it also came dangerously close to turning at the end into a way to God.”  Dr. Ruffini is another scientist who openly admitted . . . that the mystery of mathematical effectiveness can be solved by positing the biblical God.

Page 211:  Morris Kline summarizes the attitude of most mathematicians today, “Many mathematicians are happy to accept the remarkable applicability of mathematics but confess that they are unable to explain it.”

Page 211:  Most mathematicians today would rather hide in the dark closet of pragmatism than come out into the bright light of biblical revelation.

Page 211:  The structure of the honeycomb is a series of interlocking regular hexagonal prisms.  Through differential calculus, one can determine that this design is the most efficient possible.  It wastes no space at all and is the most effective structure for strength against collapsing.

Page 211:  Creation is revelatory of God’s attributes.  According to Kepler, when one contemplates God’s created order, he “immediately takes hold of God.”  What is made reflects something about the maker.  In the case of the honeycomb, we see the wisdom of the infinite Creator.

Page 217:  We have seen that not only is mathematics useful in helping man to fulfill the dominion mandate of Scripture (Genesis 1:26-28), it also uniquely reveals certain attributes of the Creator God.

Page 217:  Mathematics serves as a unique method of describing the arrangement of God’s good creation.  In this arrangement, we see God’s great and gracious concern to bless man.  Over and above the mathematical formulae describing matter, motion, and forces, there is a message conveyed through the loving touch of personality.  Through the manifold works of God, from the variegated rainbow to the delicate rose, the language of God’s goodness reaches our hearts.

Page 217:  We must expect that humanistic mathematicians will miss the whole point of the place of mathematics in the purposes of God.  Not willing to submit their lives to their Maker, they are guiltily blind to the glory of God reflected in the unique mirror of mathematics.

Page 217:  [S]cientists and applied mathematicians must make biblical assumptions about the physical world that are contrary to their voiced humanistic presuppositions.  In the words of Albert Einstein, “Don’t listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds.”  He continues:  “Without the belief that it is possible to grasp the reality with our theoretical constructions, without the belief in the inner harmony of our world, there could be no science.”

Page 218:  In essence, unbelieving scientists can do science only because they operate secretly on Christian premises while denying that faith.  What they do in their scientific work expresses a biblical faith that contradicts their profession of unbelief.

Page 218:  Cornelius Van Til is direct and to the point:

Sinners use the principle of Chance back of all things and the idea of exhaustive rationalization as the legitimate aim of science.  If the universe were actually what these men assume it to be according to their principle, there would be no science.  Science is possible and actual only because the non-believer’s principle is not true and the believer’s principle is true.  Only because God has created the universe and does control it by His providence, is there such a thing as science at all.

Page 222:  According to Max Caspar’s understanding of Kepler’s epistemology, “The fact that the world and man’s mind are images of God in their manner, makes knowledge possible, a knowledge which not only is certain but also carries sense and value in itself.”

Page 222:  Henry Morris . . ., a pioneer in the field of creation science, observes:

The more intensively and thoroughly man probes the universe – whether the submicroscopic universe of the atomic nucleus or the tremendous metagalactic universe of astronomy – the more amazingly intricate and grand are God’s reservoirs of power revealed to be.