There Is Proof God Exists But Atheists Don’t Like It

There is proof God exists but Atheists don’t like it. They want proof on their terms and its their way of the highway. It’s not a matter of both sides not having proof of Gods existence or non existence because truth be told, Christians do have proof of Gods existence it’s just the Atheists don’t want to accept that proof. It is not a matter of the intellect in accepting Gods existence it all boils down to the will.

Have you ever been in a discussion with someone over some trivial thing? You prove to them, and show them the visible proof that they were in the wrong, but they still remain adamant they are right even after the fact that you have provided the proof. It’s odd, not everyone would react In such a way in a situation like that but the truth is that there are those who do. And atheists who reject the proof are only further proof of someone who just doesn’t WANT to believe in God because it means they have to drop their evil ways.

So what is the proof? It’s right out your front door, its all around you, you yourself are the visible proof. Imagine standing looking at an ancient pillar built two thousand years ago. Nobody knows who built it, but all looking at it would certainly agree that their is an author behind it. They assume all this before they investigate it further as to who built it. It’s intuitive, and its also intuitive to look at creation the same way. No architecture ever came into being by chance, it always had someone behind it.

Atheists would agree though that they can’t prove it happened by chance and I’ve yet to see a book written perfectly just come about by chance. Likewise I struggle to look at the trees, the sun, the sky, the birds and assume it was all by chance. It’s like looking at a book with no name on it and claiming it came about by chance, its an act of insanity, the denial of proof, logic and reason and just doesn’t work.

Categories: Miscellaneous | Tags: , , ,

Post navigation

12 thoughts on “There Is Proof God Exists But Atheists Don’t Like It

  1. Zac

    I don’t even know what to say, I thought people had passed being this stupid

  2. Req

    Let’s play along and say it was created by something. How is that proof of your favourite God? It’s no more proof of the Christian god as it is aliens from another planet.

    You find a dead person and say that’s proof of murder. And you point to the murderer. What you need evidence linking the dead person to your suspect. Like a fingerprint on a murder weapon. You might claim you have God’s fingerprint, which would be the Bible. But the problem is you can’t prove that God turned up to the station to register his prints. So really they could be anyone’s prints.

    Back to the basis of this analogy is that there isn’t even any evidence that the dead person was murdered. As far as we can see they died of natural causes.

    Get it?

    • Hi, the post I wrote is dealing only with there being a creator. For an atheist this is the first hurdle over which he must climb and for that reason I decided to begin there. I will do a post someday in which I will address your comment after the fact for which an atheist has agreed God created, but for now it doesn’t warrant a response due to the fact that it goes off topic. I invite you to follow the blog and stick around. Thanks for your comment.

      Domestic Monk

  3. Req

    I don’t think it goes off topic because you assume the creator straight away. You have identified your god as the creator in question. You say there is proof that god exists. But you cannot determine if it was Jehovah or Allah or Unkulunkulu or aliens or a cosmic wind. Maybe you should change your question. You must first prove the universe is a creation.

    We accept that creations require a creator. However we do not define the universe as being “a creation”. Just like the common creationist argument says that a building must have had a builder. But what you’re calling a building is just a cave. There was no builder.

    • Hello again, it certainly does go off the topic because the topic of my post deals with first and foremost ” is there a creator?” But you decided to speak about which God is it? But that’s the next topic for when we get over the first hurdle of “is there a creator to begin with?” I hope I have clarified myself. If you want to talk about anything in my post above and discuss that, then you are welcome to do so as long as it is in relation to there being a creator and not a “which one is it?” Which isn’t relevant for now.

      Again thank you for your comments and interest in my blog post.

  4. Req

    The fourth word in your title is “God”. The fourth word in your article is “God”.

    Is your article called “Proof That Unkulunkulu Exists But Atheists Don’t Like It”? Is it called “Proof That a Creator Exists But Atheists Don’t Like It”? If you have not defined *your god* as the topic of your post then you must admit that your are first aguing the case for any and all possible creators.

    Like I said, maybe you should change your original question.

    Thanks by the way for allowing my comments, I hope you take it in the right way that I intend, purely as a discussion 🙂

    • Of course, even if I did make reference to Jesus Christ, the discussion is not on whether the Christian God is true or not as of yet, but simply did God create? Did a supernatural uncreated being create? That is the first hurdle atheists must get over before getting into anything else. You are however wanting to play a game of semantics and digress from my post into whether or not the Christian God is true or not. Now I think that’s a very interesting topic but its not on the table of discussion as of now.

      I am only too happy to welcome you and your comments on the blog but I must stress that I am becoming increasingly bored by the lack of discussion and focus on semantics and desire to take the discussion elsewhere other than the desired debate/discussion at present. Now if your next response is one that continues along this line that your not off topic, I will have to call it a day because I am a busy man and don’t have time for this fruitless exchange of words.

  5. Req

    Very well, I shall put aside any mention of any god. I am only too happy to go along with your point now in order to help you understand why we as non-believers don’t accept this point.

    Did a creator create the universe? We don’t view the universe as a creation, so when you compare it to a book or a building or a painting it doesn’t work for us. I’ll try and illustrate how:

    A building is intended to be a building. It has plans. The building turns out exactly as the blueprints were illustrated. If we take humans as an example, we dig and find older examples of humans, they only date so far. We find earlier examples of humans, they had slightly different sized limbs and heads, spines were shaped slightly differently, but we know they were early versions of us. We go back further, and older examples change and change ever so slightly more. This tells us we have adapted. Our features had changed and we continue to change. This means the originial blueprints (if there was a creator) didn’t look like us. Now as a former Catholic, I believed that a creator guided the design of man through this process. Now as an atheist I have no reason to believe that even a creator set this in motion.

    Do you see where your building analogy doesn’t work? Now if you are to dismiss changes in man and all the evidence of evolution then I don’t know what else to say. If you believe Adam were literally the first version of man and he looked as we look today then your creation idea works. But then you dismiss all the evidence we have found, so again, I don’t know what to tell you.

    So I’ll summarise to what I stated in an earlier post. If you posit that a creation must have a creator, then I agree. I just don’t agree that the universe _is_ a creation. It came about by chance, yes. How? Well I don’t know. And I’m ok with that. We’re working to find out.

    • Req, telling me you do not view it as a creation does not mean it ceases to be a creation. It is not possible for something to come from nothing. Nothing cannot produce something.

      I agree with the theory of evolution that man has adapted to his enviroment over the years to be a very plausible one. Unfortunately Req you don’t give us any sort of proof that such an adaptation was not guided by Gods hand. Simply saying “now as an atheist I have no reason to believe that even a creator set this in motion” does not mean a creator did not set this in motion.

      You then posit that the universe came about by chance but then proceed to tell us that you don’t know, your working on it. Well that’s just not good enough Req. you seem to believe in chance but without any proof that the universe came about by chance and yet are refusing to believe in God because you claim there is lack of proof but are quite willing to believe it all came about by chance without any proof. It looks like you have faith in chance over God.

      Remember, something cannot come from nothing therefore the building analogy still stands. Every book has an author, every sculpted piece of stone a sculptor, and every planet and all material that is in it a creator. Nobody looking at a note in the garbage bin with ” I love you” written on it would not assume an author. If they did then they would be acting crazy. It’s no different with the world around us. Right now we have spiritually disabled beings denying its author and making the mad claim it all came about from nothing and by chance.

      I think your comment has persuaded me even more of my own faith than it has persuaded me of atheism right now Req.

      God bless and I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy your comments. I am no amazing mind when it comes to these debates but its good fun nonetheless.

  6. Req

    You’re right. It it is fun when you find someone willing to debate. I don’t aim to change your mind on your faith. I just want to show you why I don’t see things the same way that you do.

    About something coming from nothing – why do you not apply that to a creator? Who created the creator? And if the creator could have always been there – then why not the universe with the right ingredients for everything in it?

    Secondly, you don’t like the idea that we’re working on finding out more about the universe’s beginnings? So therefore “God did it”? Neil DeGrasse Tyson once stated that god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance. It’s ok to say “we don’t know”. People assumed that a god or gods were the answer to many things we now know the answer to. So when is “working on the answer” never good enough? Until we find the answer, it’s ok to say we don’t know, rather than fill it in with god.

    Let me turn your first line on its head: “telling me you view it as a creation does not mean it is a creation.” If everything must be created – then who created the creator?

  7. Req

    Another issue with your original point is that you always point to nice things like trees and birds and the sun as having a creator. Not tornadoes, parasitic worms and cancer. Surely they must have the same creator? Someone must have painted the painting, then someone must have designed the Filarial worm that causes disability in humans.

    • We can’t apply this to the creator because both philosophers and theologians agree that anything that exists outside of space and time ( God ) its beginning does not need to be explained because it does not have one. However If something came into existence at a specific point in space and time, then it needs a cause because it has a beginning.

      I think your misrepresenting me with regards to studying the beginning of the universe. Nothing wrong with this study, but the fact that you claim it is all from chance and came from nothing without proof other than “we are working on it” just proves that you have your faith in chance rather than God or a creator at present. It may be ok to say we don’t know yet with regards to any study but arriving to conclusions such as “chance” when there’s no proof it came from chance is an act of faith in ones own theories and shows that you are the one filling things in with “chance”.

      But Christians do have proof that God exists and its all around us. The trees, the sky, the seas, the animals and so on. Everything within space and time has had a beginning and needs a cause. Everything outside space and time ( God ) has no beginning and therefore needs no cause.

      Earthquakes are just part of the worlds geological make up since the fall, God didnt create earthquakes, cancer etc, we through our pollution of the earth create these things for ourselves and nature rebels albeit from within such as cancer which is from eating the wrong kind of food, abusing too much of it and so on or it comes from without such as earthquakes. But all this talk is steering away from the original topic now and getting into the “if God is good why did he create these things”? But we are not engaged in this discussion and I won’t be entertaining it further. Right now we are simply discussing what’s in my post, did God create? Is there a creator? That’s our focal point of discussion not “is God a good or bad creator” so lets stick to the subject.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: