Five Indisputable Proofs of God?

If there is no God I welcome any atheist to reasonable answers or explain the following points.  I am not ignorant or closed minded.   These are personal conclusions that I have arrived at through logical considerations of truth.  I invite you to challenge these ideas if they are different from your own.

Five proofs for God:

1.  Creation

Our existence demands an explanation.  Because we are here we must have been created.  There is no other reasonable alternative.  Though I understand this argument is circular in nature.  It is no different from the atheist assumption that we evolved because we now exists.  The creation explanation is superior to evolution because there is no scientific example that can be currently observed where a lesser state of matter or energy changes itself into a more complex state of matter.

It is only logical to assume that we were created by a higher source or power.

2.  Clothing

Giorgio Armani and Giani Versace have the fall of man to thank for their success in clothing the elite of society.  Apart from covering ourselves from elements of cold and heat a world-view without God has no explanation of clothing.    No other creatures of the earth attempt to cloth themselves to the level that humans do.  Genesis 3 gives the most logical explanation of the need for clothes.  Having been created in perfection man sinned and realized his nakedness.  I challenge atheist thinkers to give a logical explanation of clothing that does not include God.

3.  Changed Lives

An overwhelming majority of the world believes in God.  Inside of that majority are millions of examples of people whose lives have been dramatically changed by the Loving hand of God.  The unexplainable medical miracles as a result of prayer.  The reformed addicts who were given grace to conquer their addiction.  The hope found in God that transforms our lives and gives us a purpose and meaning beyond ourselves.  Explain this.  Certainly if the change of God was minimal in effect than it could be dismissed.  But the expanse of the effects of God can not be casually dismissed.  And I submit it as proof of God.

4.  The God tendency

At man’s core there is a natural belief that God exists.  Religion has been a natural part of every culture ever encountered.  If there is no God how do you explain the tendency of people groups who have never interacted with each other to come to similar conclusions of a Deity’s existence.  For this reason you will not find a casual atheist.  There is an enormous amount of mental energy that is spent suppressing the natural tendency to have faith in God.    Atheist must constantly surround themselves with anti-God propaganda or their inner-nature will lead them back to an understanding of God.

The death bed experience of even famous atheist has demonstrated the God tendency.

5.  An inner sense of morality

Most people,atheist included, agree that stealing and killing are wrong.  Unlike animals people around the world have an inner sense of what is right and wrong.  I have never met an atheist who accepts the notion that an unprovoked cold blooded killing is acceptable.  We universally believe that taking another’s life is wrong.  What is the origin of this universal morality?  When God said he made man in his own image.  It is this image, though broken through the fall, that stirs each of us  with passionate hate towards unprovoked killing.

Where did that sense of morality come from?   God.

I would like to open an honest dialogue in the comments section.

These thoughts perpetually verify God to me.  They are not five all-inclusive reasons for faith in God.  But they at least begin the conversation.  My mind is open to your thoughts.


Leading Atheist Stumped

“The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity.” -Richard Dawkins
To start a week of apologetics here at Don’t Step on a Tomato I invite you to watch Richard Dawkins “explain” the fact there is no current evidence of positive Evolutionary mutations.

Richard Dawkins is a famous atheist and author of The God Delusion.  His “explanation” to this question leaves him speechless, literally.

Check back each day this week for more videos and articles on Apologetics!

Apologetics Week on DSOAT

This past Sunday I was privileged to hear my former boss, Dan Burrell, preach.  Beyond a personal friend and mentor Dan is a thinking Christ-follower who is passionate and gifted at impacting this generation with a world view that is Biblical.  There are few people who have enriched my life the way Dan has.  He is a teacher, preacher, administrator, mentor, and educator who has had a fruitful ministry as a Father, Pastor, and Professor.  It’s difficult to succeed at just one of these and Dan has been outstanding at all of them.  You can visit Dan’s blog at I am excited for Dan as he has recently accepted a position as the executive pastor at Life Fellowship Church.

Life Fellowship’s Senior pastor Dr. Bobby Conway is known as the one minute apologist.  He has a you tube channel and some graphically cool videos on apologetics.  Not sure he has the one minute thing down yet but the graphics are sweet!  Having visited Life Fellowship I was inspired to spend a week of blog articles dedicated to apologetics.

I invite you to stick around for videos and articles on apologetics and to watch some of Dr. Conway’s videos here.

Beyond Comfort by Faith

There are those days that getting out of bed is about the last thing I want to do.  If you’ve ever had a day like that perhaps you  can relate to this video.  

Grandma Nooma: the other side

So is the traditional church style exempt from generational examination?  Here we go.

After the article Nooma Grandma was posted I received a barrage of emails with a similar theme:  The progressive/modern/postmodern/emergent style churches are not the only ones guilty of limited age connection.  I agree.

Churches who have bucked and at times criticized the emergent, postmodern, or progressive movements have seen success in retaining an older demographic.  How have they faired among the youth?

Not much better than the former has with the older generation.  Go to a self proclaimed “Old Fashion” church and what will you see?   Is there a vibrant community of all-aged worshippers?  Unfortunately many times there is not.

Now I mistakenly did not qualifying in the article Nooma Grandma and I will not repeat that mistake.  So here is the qualifier:  Not every church that considers itself traditional has failed at reaching 20 and 30 somethings.  (Not every progressive church has failed in the mature member category.)

However there must be some admission that traditional models have struggled to reach younger generations.  The amount of 20 and 30 somethings in traditional churches is dropping.  Some would be quick to blame the young generation for abandoning the faith.  But you have to wonder, has the traditional church abandoned a generation?

Has traditionalism, dare I say fundamentalism, had short comings in its abilities to reach a generation that interacts socially through entirely new medias? Are the internet, Facebook, and TV only instruments of the world and the Devil or can they be used for the kingdom?  ( I know my Dad’s years on television were helpful to many)

Truly the problem runs both ways.  Regardless of the predominant style/methodology of your church, concessions should be made to accommodate all members or potential members of the body of Christ.  As a church leader or member you have the opportunity to accommodate or separate.  Too often traditional Churches have raced to the later.

At times accommodating is considered sinful.  Some churches refuse to change graphics, update the auditorium, talk to people because they have buckles on their shoes (true story) but, love suffers long and is kind, it is not easily provoked and does not think evil.

I am not talking about sacrificing doctrine, forgetting the old paths, becoming theologically liberal.   I am talking about style and methodology. Whether traditional or contemporary every church has a style.  And that style must be constructed to be Biblically appropriate while crossing generational barriers.

Grandma can be cool with Nooma if grandma will watch with an open mind.

Do you feel your church has succeeded in bridging the age gap?  Any ideas on how this can be done?


Am I the only one surprised that it is currently fashionable to wear jeans with holes in them? I find myself unusually fixated with the idea that society has accepted this absurd notion of fashion. Could we get a more real life example of the children’s tale “The emperor’s new clothes”?
Really!? Holes in the clothing before you ever wear them? Clothes you buy new but look old? It’s not that I have a moral objection to them. There were people in the Bible with holes in their clothes. Just remember they were poor people. Yeah that’s right, Poor. I went there. In the ultimate quest for fashionable originality we have reduced ourselves to the appearance of poverty. We all look cool but we all look poor.
Do I have a pair of these jeans with holes? Absolutely! I have several and I am wearing a pair as I write this. I like jeans with holes in them. I won’t in 3 years. At that time I will be wearing tight jeans reflecting on how ridiculous the holes in these jeans were. The holey jeans will be as ridiculous as the baggy jeans that were so popular in the 90’s. Because let’s be honest holes are out and tight jeans are in. AAAHHG! It’s tough to keep up.

Fashion changes. Styles change. And unfortunately I feel the current generation is all too familiar with this change. You can’t keep a computer, pair of jeans, or shoes for more than a few years. Updating is constantly with us. My fear is that we are too quick to update our religion as well.
I find an incessant need within some members of the church to be at the cutting edge of the newest and coolest movement, wave, or modern thing. Don’t get me wrong, I am glad they are searching. I’m just afraid for some that Jesus is not enough. He needs a side of whatever-is-cool-right-now.
I believe in change. Progress demands us to change. But are all these new ideas progress in the church? Or is it new for the sake of new? (or perhaps new for the sake of selling a book or album) Are we so used to changing the style in our jeans that we have to spice up our God too? Hey, I’m just asking. While progress may dictate change the message of Jesus needs neither progress nor change. It cannot be improved upon. It won’t get more exciting and it cannot be more relevant.
I hope that your search for Jesus continues with sincerity, relevance, and novelty. But if your theology changes for the same reasons as your jeans I suspect sooner or later you will find some holes.