In passing he talked about how modern science has been trying to claim that life came forth from the primeval ooze spontaneously. Although they cannot duplicate it in the lab, they believe it. Although they cannot prove it, they believe it. In the lack of all evidence ,they believe it. They believe in the miracle of life as an accident. Then the pastor used a phrase that caught my attention. He said they believe in miracles without the Miracle Giver.
Think about it. Science concedes that there is not enough time for evolution to have taken place, yet they still believe. They cannot duplicate the process, yet they believe. Ultimately they come back to faith in some basics. Their faith is rooted in denying a creator.
Christians believe that life came into being. They can’t explain it in a laboratory either but they still can explain how it happened. They propose that there was a Creator. They have faith in the existence of something that cannot be proven in a lab.
Both ultimately rely on faith. Which one is more rational?
(Isaiah 1:18 KJV) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.I submit that the problem non-believers have is not the lack of reason but an unwillingness to admit the second part of the verse. They refuse to admit that they are sinners and need a savior.
Is the problem pride or probability?
homo unius libri
I've always said that the reason people are atheists is because they just can't imagine anyone wiser than themselves.ReplyDelete
I would say that sums it up well. Conceit is common.Delete
Grace and peace.