invisible spacer

Thanks for visiting.
Here is all you need to do to become saved.

Believe In Jesus Christ As Your Savior.
He has already done the work to earn your entry into heaven.


What If I Have Doubts?

Short Answer Version

Doubts are natural, don't let them intimidate you. If something is true, no amount of doubt can disprove it.

The good news is true, simple, and easy to believe. Jesus loved us so much, He took our place in death on the cross. Believe it, and no doubt can erase the presence of that fact in your heart.

It is OK to start examining your doubts in the light of truth-seeking.

Have fun.

Long Answer Version

Some doubts are normal and worth examining. If you have not yet decided to follow Jesus, you might have certain kinds of doubt, which we will spend most of this section exploring.

We will take a look at doubts from a wide variety of perspectives with sensitivity to readers, to help them learn to manage their doubts.

Doubts are not always based on logic or intelligence. Sometimes they are. But more often, they are based on fear, anxiety, depression, and many other uncomfortable mind frames.

Emotionally-based doubts require emotionally-based solutions. A good first step would be to give yourself space and time. Consider the positive elements of merely having a choice. Take the pressure off of yourself.

It might surprise you to know that faith and doubt about Jesus can coexist at the same time. According to the Bible (Mark 9:24) it doesn't have to be one or the other. You can say the same prayer as the man in that scripture verse, ''I believe, please help me overcome my unbelief.''

Be kind to yourself about struggling with doubt. God knows how to build your faith and ease your doubts. Look to God for that, even if you don't know whether He exists.

I have heard many personal accounts of people saying ''God, if you're real, then .......'' - That is a perfectly sincere and authentic way to start asking God for help.

When you either don't believe in Him or don't know what to believe, try the ''God if you're real'' approach. Nearly every time I heard people say they prayed that way the story ended with something positive happening in their lives.

Even if you have to pray in that manner, it couldn't hurt for you to ask God to give you peace of mind, to strengthen good doubts and remove doubts that could be injurious to you in the long run.

What is a good doubt, and what is a bad doubt? An example of a good doubt is after you do something you know is not good or right, you have a ''twinge of conscience''. You start to doubt the wisdom of the thing you were doing.

An example of a bad doubt is when you are overly skeptical about something that is very good for you.

To doubt a belief in the benevolent, almighty God is usually a bad doubt. It can eventually lead to a bad choice or outcome. This has been borne out in the lives of countless individuals I have known.

In a world where people and circumstances often let most of us down, we are almost programmed by it to doubt.

To start overcoming your doubts about Jesus, try to start saying No to that mindset of skepticism and mistrust about Him.

Pay attention to your thoughts and feelings. Watch out for inner feelings of sarcasm or anger when trying to have faith in Jesus. If you can't break those feelings off yourself, ask God to do so in His special way.

We do need to keep our guards up so we avoid being taken advantage of by unscrupulous people or situations. However, our guards should come down when we determine that it is safe. Jesus is the safest of all.

Be aware that it is easy to fall into the trap of misconstruing something that is not Jesus as being Jesus. For example, when I ask you to believe in Jesus, if you somehow hear that as an invitation to convert your beliefs to Christianity, you are off base. If you hear it as an invitation to do good deeds, read the Bible, go to church, learn Christian jargon, or anything other than to believe in the actual Jesus, you are on the wrong track. These ''misdirects'' are actually subtle forms of doubt. I'm not saying the things I listed are bad things to do, but just don't confuse them with having faith in the real Jesus.

Will you let your doubts push you around? You don’t have to let them do so. Pray for God’s help to be open-minded about Jesus. Ask Him to soften your heart toward the Savior of the world.

Is My Faith Real?

You might ask, “how do I know if my faith is real”? Jesus addressed this issue when He said that even faith as small as a mustard seed is enough. He was saying that faith is not difficult. You'll know you have real faith for salvation, because there is no such thing as fake faith. There may be misplaced faith, but faith in Jesus is never misplaced.

We all experience faith every day in some way. When it comes to the faith that brings you to Jesus, you even have a special gift to increase your faith according to the Bible. It says we are saved by grace (loving favor we did not deserve), through faith, and that not of ourselves. It is a gift from God.''

God gives us a gift of faith to believe in Jesus. None of us can boast about our own high level of saving faith. We are all equally able to believe in Jesus and be saved.

God gave you the ability to believe in Jesus. Your faith was a free gift from God. How could you stop that kind of faith from being real?

You might have heard the old adage, ''Some people say I'll believe it when I see it, but with Jesus you'll see it when you believe it.''

When it comes to becoming saved, believing means to have ''an assurance of things not seen''. Therefore, it is simply impossible to wait until after you have already seen it to believe.

On the other hand, if you go see a show by a talented illusionist, you will see things you thought were impossible. But, because it is a magic show, you can choose not to believe even what your eyes tell you.

The other old adage ''Seeing is believing'' is also impossible because once you see, you can still choose not to believe.

If you have not read the section of this site entitled ''What Does it Mean to Believe?'', and you need more understanding about what I am saying here, please read it.

Doubts can come from unrealistic expectations that result in disappointment. For example, if you thought that your life would suddenly be problem-free because you are saved by Jesus, and then big problems come, you could get disappointed and doubt Jesus. In your faith, try to leave room for things not turning out according to your expectations.

When Doubt Jumps to Conclusions

Be patient. You might be like a person who doubts because they lack the patience to wait for God to do something. God does not revolve his actions around your timetable. He takes His own sweet time. Don’t get set up for disappointment, that can lead to doubt based on an unrealistic expectation that your prayers will always be answered quickly, or in the way you imagined.

If you still have nagging doubts after applying the information above, it is time to ask yourself and God where those doubts are coming from. If a doubt is coming from a lie, then it shouldn’t be entertained. If it is coming from a someone who wishes you ill, it is not real. If it is coming from an emotion related to some identifiable circumstance, change your focus from the doubt to the circumstance and ask God to help you process it. Do so in prayer as you experience His presence.

All of the examples I just mentioned could either be naturally based or could come from a force that is intent on deceiving you into doubting. If that sounds a little far-fetched at this point, then wait until you are more knowledgeable and mature in your relationship with Jesus to tackle it. As you grow, you will learn you have been given authority over all the powers of darkness when you speak against them on His behalf. For now, realize that you have full authority over your thoughts, and can train yourself to think in a better way. An example of controlling your thoughts in this way is when you live with a ''parental'' voice that stems from the things your mother or father would often say when you were little. As an adult, sometimes we need to know when not to listen to messages spoken with the assumption a child is the recipient.

If faith is something we all have and can exercise at will, is it even possible to lose your faith? That is a question you’ll never have to worry about. The answer is “No”, you can’t lose your faith. You can only choose not to exercise it. Even if you do so, you do not lose your chance or ability to exercise it in the future. Feeling like you've lost your faith does not disqualify you from heaven. You can exercise it again at any time you wish.

There is no rule that says how often or for how long to exercise faith in Jesus as a condition of being saved. It doesn’t work like that. Faith is your “friend”. There is never a good or right reason to abandon it, no matter how we feel.

About the Next Pages

This section on Doubts was written under the assumption that the reader has already seen and understood the topic "Why Should I Believe in Jesus". If that is not true of you, I recommend you read it before going on.

Hopefully the "Why" topic and this first page of the Doubts section has helped alleviate your doubts, and strengthened your faith to the point where you can believe in Jesus as your Savior.

If that is the case, it has done its job, and the rest of the "Doubts" pages will probably not be as helpful at this point.

If you do decide to continue reading or come back later to read the rest, please understand that each coming page is intended to delve more deeply and confront more difficult doubts to a great extent. Some readers might find it their "cup of tea". To others, not so much.

I'm being sensitive to let readers know this up front, so they avoid feeling bogged down by the contents.


Next Page

The following links continue the topic we are in. They address more information to help dispel doubts about Jesus. Placing them in menu form helps you navigate faster from one section to another, and go back and forth easier.

Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments ..Back to the Beginning



Main Menu


What Does it Mean to Get Saved?


What Does it Mean to Believe?


Who is Jesus Christ?


What Does Savior Mean?


Who is Jesus?


What Earned My Entry to Heaven?


Why Should I Believe in Jesus?


What is the Meaning of Life?


Why Should I Believe in Jesus?



Home - Text Version


Home - Regular Graphics Version


Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.


What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?


What is the Gospel?


More About the Great "I AM"


Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?


Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?


More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus


What if I Have Doubts?


What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?



If, as a result of viewing this website, you decided to believe in Jesus as your Savior, please click here for next steps.







End of Page















































































































Please don't scroll down in areas like this.


It is much faster to use links and buttons provided in each page.


Thank you
























































































Thanks for visiting.
Here is all you need to do to become saved.

Believe In Jesus Christ As Your Savior.
He has already done the work to earn your entry into heaven.

What if I Have Doubts? (continued)

Commonly Heard Objections to Believing in Jesus





Short Answer Version

The good news of Jesus is simple, yet profound. Nevertheless, I have noticed that for of the objections people give to it, I can sense the underlying common features are doubt and its cousin from Missouri, skepticism.

Doubt is often an emotional response, not primarily a choice of the intellect. Skepticism is more cerebral, but is based on lack of trust, not lack of evidence.

We have, built within us by our Creator, the ability to turn the tables on our doubt, thereby making room for faith. God can bring faith to us where our natural human abilities appear to fail.

Long Answer Version

First, let me explain that what you will read in this section (Commonly Heard Objections to Believing in Jesus) is largely drawn from my personal recollections about the many discussions I have had with people. I am the one who has commonly heard these objections.

I chose this anecdotal approach because it is first-hand information. As you read about my interactions, know that I respect all kinds of people and listen carefully to them, taking what they have to say seriously.

My use of the word “argument” means a case being made for a declaration. Whenever we say something with the hope others will accept it, we are making a case, an argument for it. Argument is not used in the sense of bickering or becoming angry about something.

To a person giving reasons for not believing, the reasons usually seem to have some element of virtue. Objectors feel attached to their objections on the inside. These are human tendencies, but not necessarily the most wise.

I'm saying these things to help turn the light up so people can see some of the less valid issues behind their doubts.

We will be examining doubts from many directions here, but let's start with this insight. To overcome a personal objection against believing in Jesus might be less an intellectual issue, than one of personal growth and honesty.

We will cover intellectual points later, but for now I'd like to uncover some of the defenses that might need to come down in a person before they can be open to the things in life that are the best for them.

I have been involved in leading thousands of people to salvation by believing in Jesus Christ. During the process I have encountered many “reasons” that people give for politely resisting my help and instead deciding not to believe in Jesus.

Some of the arguments I hear are rather well-thought-out and persuasive, though imperfect. We will tackle those later in the next sections. Others are less analytical. Below are some examples.

One of the first objections I heard as a new believer and a teenager, was from a close friend when I told Him I had received Jesus as my personal Savior. He said, “My parents are Mormons, and I know all about that stuff, it’s a bunch of rubbish.”

I didn’t know enough to explain that believing in Jesus for salvation, as the Bible teaches, is not at all the same as Mormonism. But I did know that he was mistaken.

I knew my friend very well, and the argument he gave for rejecting Jesus as Savior was not the real reason. My friend, a teenager like me, had been adopted into a family that was overly strict and very religious in the Mormon tradition. My friend had suffered abandonment and was hurting and rebellious. He also wanted to continue to lead a fun, rebellious lifestyle like the one we lived as friends in the past. He didn’t realize that I was having a lot more fun as a follower of Jesus.

Most of the verbal ''come-backs'' we hear cannot support valid reasons not to believe in Jesus as Savior. In some circumstances, they are a sidestep, shifting the issue away from Jesus.

Several times, people have turned the issue toward emotions based on human-relationships. It is possible for people to use a ''misdirect'' intentionally to pivot away from the offer of salvation by faith in Jesus. Doing so might evoke a sympathetic response from me and others.

Nonetheless, they are not worth letting the person die and miss the chance to go to heaven. Sometimes I hear reasons like, ''Jesus doesn’t answer my prayers'', or ''Jesus has never done anything for me'', or ''I tried Jesus and it didn’t work.''

Can you see that most of these are not particularly good reasons for turning down the free gift of eternal life? Jesus is Lord and Savior, not our personal robot and magician.

People have tried to point out what seems to them like a contradiction as if it is an excuse not to believe. My answer to all those kinds of questions usually starts with, ''Can you consider that in some way you do not yet understand? Couldn't God be good and at the same time also allow the outcome you are concerned about?'' Inexplicably, nearly everyone then says ''No.'' Human inability to identify options and possibilities is common, but it does not have any argumentative weight, even though some people may think it does.

People try to point out what seems to them like a contradiction as an excuse. My answer to all those kinds of questions usually starts with, “Can you consider that in some way you do not yet understand? Couldn't God be good and at the same time also allow the outcome you are concerned about?“ Inexplicably, nearly everyone then says “No.” The inability to identify options and possibilities does not have any argumentative weight, even though some people may think it does.

Without being insensitive to the seriousness of this dilemma, I would suggest that a clear-thinking person could come up with at least five reasonable possibilities of how a good God could allow anything to happen that specific humans judge as unjust, hypocritical, or impossible. Try it sometime. We might not know exactly which possibility is correct, or if there is another reason that is the right one.

Other arguments I encounter often start with “How can a good God allow . . . .” This is another strongly-presented statement in which a person is using the force of emotion as if it were a compelling argument. The mere fact that we can think of reasonable possibilities that might answer the hard questions means that the question, “How can a good God allow . . . .” is never without a possible good answer. A section of this topic covers these kinds of issues, it is called "The What Abouts", and can be found in a link near the end of this text.

Another argument I hear a lot pertains to the concept of hypocrisy. People seem to think there is an unwritten law that says if someone is found to be hypocritical, it negates their credibility in all ways, and proves that whatever they believe in is false. This is totally inaccurate.

People sometimes tell me they won’t believe in Jesus because this church leader, or that evangelist was hypocritically doing something contrary to their teaching. The more heinous the act, the more people think they are right in rejecting Jesus. This is so illogical.

It was not Jesus, rather an opposing force to Jesus that tempted the person to do the terrible thing.

The New Testament says Jesus was “tempted in every way as a man, yet without sin.” Ironically, those who appeal to hypocrisy as an argument are not in touch with the fact that Jesus is the only human being that can rightfully claim a lifetime devoid of hypocrisy.

The lack of hypocrisy in Jesus is a stronger argument to believe in Him, than any argument not to believe by appealing to hypocrisy. Sadly, without clear knowledge about Jesus many erroneous decisions are made not to follow Him.

Along with the argument of hypocrisy can exist an underlying error. It is the assumption that once a person is saved, they are supposed to be miraculously perfect and without sin the rest of their lives.

That error is the only explanation I can imagine for why people say hypocrisy in believers is a reason not to accept Jesus, while they say nothing against the hypocrisy that infiltrates society at large.

Although the excuses people give for rejecting Jesus are often based on negative emotions, I also hear cases built around what would be considered positive emotions in our society.

For example, one couple I met was living together. We were having dinner with a larger group at a restaurant and found ourselves in a discussion about following Jesus. When the man got up to use the facilities, the woman told me that she doesn’t want to follow Jesus because she loved the man, and he would not follow Jesus or want her to do so. She said, “He’s the best thing that ever happened to me.”

I could see this woman was in love. Love is usually considered a positive emotion. Yet she was not aware that having Jesus as her Savior would be an even better thing that “ever happened to her”.

In my considered opinion, Jesus is the best thing that could ever happen to anyone. The woman in love did not have spiritual insight to recognize that her failure to choose Jesus was the worst decision she could ever make. Being in love with a person is not a good reason to miss going to heaven.

Another woman in the same restaurant said she had tried Jesus but has now turned to cocaine to fill the emotional gap for happiness in her life. She said, “Cocaine never lets me down. Jesus does.” Apparently, she felt the center of the universe was her need for good feelings.

Drugs can give people good feelings, and good feelings are positive emotions, right? I have too many friends who died of overdoses over the years or spent years in jail because of drugs. I can tell you drugs do let a person down.

God created good feelings. They are healthy much of the time. There is one way to know when they are not healthy, and that is when they influence a person to reject believing in Jesus as their Savior. Conversely, when the closer you draw near to Him, the better you feel, those good feelings are healthy.

Some of the real reasons people reject salvation are things they refuse to admit. For example, “being afraid my friends won’t like me if I get saved”, or “I don’t want to give up one of my favorite vices if I get saved”.

People should take some time to examine their inner thoughts and determine their true reasons for shying away from Jesus. Most of these reasons won’t stand up to a little honest probing. Perhaps doing so would lead to clarity.

A common phrase is "the haves and have nots". Anti-Christians accuse believers of feeling superior to others because they can boast that they have something the others don't. This is not a good argument for rejecting Jesus when you could be a "have" with very little effort.

The Bible explicitly says not to think of yourself as better than someone else. Jesus promised that if you don't "have", you can ask and believe. That is the solution to "the haves and have nots" argument.

Nonbelievers often dislike the idea of becoming saved because they think Christians are judgmental. Jesus strictly taught NOT to be judgmental. This is similar to the discussion earlier in this section about hypocrisy. Jesus taught strongly against hypocrisy. It is illogical to reject Jesus, the teacher of good, because people who say they follow him, do the opposite of good. Jesus is not to blame for the actions of those who don't do what He teaches them.

I have heard some doozies. One person said to me “I am too stupid to become a Christian”. Another told me, “I want to get my life together first before I get saved.” That is truly putting the cart before the horse, as they say.

Many times I have heard people say something like, “I was raised a Christian, but when I grew up it did not appeal to me.” If we probe that answer, we will find many holes in the logic:

Jesus is not an “it”. He is not the church people attended as children. He is the Supreme being. To everyone who gets to know Him intimately, He is the most appealing person ever to exist.

Similarly, many of the objections people give begin with "I was raised in the church. My parents are strong Christians." After hearing that dozens of times, it started occurring to me that young people tend to rebel from the way they were brought up to behave.


Here's a twist: I had a work colleague who told me she was a born-again Christian, and that her parents were satan worshippers. Rebellion can work both ways. It is a common part of the process of "leaving the nest".

That might be insightful to people who aren't in touch with why they have strong objections to Jesus. They might have applied the generational tendency to stretch their wings and fly in a dysfunctional way.

Upon serious reflection, and some maturation the call to believe in Jesus might start to seem worthy of revisiting.

The Emotional Side of Doubt

Doubt often boils down to common human emotions or sensations such as fear, anger, selfishness, happiness, romance, ambition, life dreams, lust, loneliness, poor self-image, grief, rejection, loyalty, pain, pride, judgmentalism, arrogance, or self-aggrandizement.

God invented human emotions, so they can't be all bad. In fact, many emotions are blessings. His desire is for people to discover the specialness of emotions that are good for us. For example, courage is the opposite emotion from fear. It is a very strong and positive emotion, when applied with wisdom. When emotions cause doubt, there are opposite emotions we can summon to cause faith.

When people doubt, perhaps they have something in their lives they enjoy, and are not ready to give up. Maybe they are set in their ways. They value their traditions too highly. They don't want to go against their families or other loved ones. I respect their right to think and feel however they want. However, sometimes exercising those rights is terribly not good for us or those around us.

Fear is a powerful force that seems to be coming from outside of us. In reality, we are generating it ourselves. Sometimes there is a valid reason to fear, like when hiking through an area known for poisonous snakes. That kind of fear helps you stay safe. There is an opposite kind of fear that is not so legitimate.

"Fear of the unknown" is a common phrase. If you don't know Jesus, it is possible to be afraid on that basis alone. Fear of the unknown is not usually your friend, especially when it hinders you from making Jesus your friend.

If you can trace your doubt back to fear, try to identify the fears involved and determine how valid they really are. Sometimes fears are based on outright lies! Sometimes they are valid and you are unfortunately misapplying them by doubting God.

Many times Jesus told us kindly not to fear. He said, “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

Jesus is the compassionate Great Physician, who delights in healing our emotional wounds when we turn to Him. He is the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort. He is safe, and not someone to be emotionally timid around.

Several people have expressed to me that their reason is fear. It has something to do with having gotten hurt feelings from something a church or Christian did or said to them. There are many versions of this common view, yet I can address them together. The answer is, “I’m deeply sorry that you were hurt. Don’t give up on Jesus just because human beings who associate themselves with His name have hurt you.”

I am not surprised that many people have been seriously hurt by believers in Jesus. I have been the recipient of similar hurtfulness. It is best to separate these imperfect humans and their insensitive behavior, from Jesus Christ and His wise, loving behavior. You might find there actually are unselfish, unhurtful people who believe in Jesus and want to be your friend.

Fear of getting hurt emotionally or physically is a very real thing. My hope is that people will not get confused and turn away the free gift of salvation because of fear. It is like rejecting a huge fortune out of fear that some temporary discomfort might be involved. Such an argument will always look unreasonable in hindsight to someone who has actually accepted the gift of a valuable fortune. The same is true with the free gift of salvation in Jesus. We need to be honest with ourselves about this. Jesus has never hurt you, even if it feels like He has due to misdirected logic.

To Know Him is to Love Him

We can know Jesus to some extent here on earth. In heaven we will definitely know Him better and experience the appeal of Him in full measure. Those who move on to discipleship and learn how to worship Him from the heart will find Him extremely appealing here on earth.

The Bible says “But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

That was a very insightful observation by the apostle Paul. When we receive the Holy Spirit and are born anew spiritually, it IS a second birth. We find ourselves able to understand spiritual things that we could never understand before.

This dynamic is clear when conversing with those who have not yet accepted Jesus as their Savior. I will say something that makes perfect sense to me, something that God has proven to me personally many times over. The listener is truly puzzled when I say these things.

You, the reader, have probably experienced this kind of puzzlement more than once while reading this information. If so, don’t be concerned. Take the step of believing in Jesus and soon, your spiritual “receptors” will be able to pick up spiritual truths much better.

What the Bible calls “the natural man” and “the spiritual man” is a set of word pictures that are also stated other ways as well, such as “the mind (way of thinking) of the Spirit” and “the mind of the flesh.” It says “We have the mind of Christ”, meaning we have the Holy Spirit living in us transforming us even to the point of thinking in ways we could never fathom before. The Holy Spirit is making believers into better people, more like Jesus.

God opens up the spiritual side of things to those who have a new spiritual nature. It is a new reality, a more real reality that we experience otherwise. This is especially understandable if you consider the spiritual reality of God’s kingdom lasts longer than our lifetimes and even than the earth itself.

It is not intended as a insult to say non-Christians are limited in understanding when confining their logic to the natural side of things.

In a sense, a believers grows to see not exactly supernatural things, but the OTHER natural side of things. God’s nature, His eternal reality. I have heard it said His kingdom manifested on earth is naturally supernatural.

I like to explain it in this way. Have you ever met someone who has absolutely no musical talent? That person is baffled by someone who is flowing with it.

The musical person is experiencing a side of reality that the untalented person cannot imagine. That does not make one person better than another.

Being born anew is like a person who was tone deaf, having no musical sense their whole lives, suddenly being given musical talent a little at a time until they are proficient at it.

That is an example from the natural world about what it means “the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them”.

When Believers Doubt

We are going to take a short detour here, and look out what believers can do when they experience feelings of doubt.

When it comes to believing in Jesus and a doubt comes to mind, do this: Set your mind on your friend, Lord, and Savior Jesus. It might take effort but give it your best try. Draw near to Him. Thank Him for His goodness and love. Prayer in relationship with God, does wonders to make the destructive doubts go away, and the good doubts clarified.

To a believer, a doubt that challenges the gift of salvation found in Jesus will inevitably be determined invalid with clear thinking, scriptural insight, and seeking the Lord for enlightenment. The way to salvation is “iron clad”. It is the truth that cannot be dismantled.

To believe in Jesus is to pass out of death into life, according to the Bible. It is to be given citizenship in heaven, starting the moment you believe.

Natural life can be hard whether or not you are saved. In fact, sometimes it can be harder after you are saved. At other times, it can be the opposite.

When blessings abound in your life because of your relationship with Jesus, you will see the hard times were all worth it.

After believing in Jesus, and growing in your new nature with His help, your faith will grow. You will learn to use it more powerfully.

Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit in your life. When you have doubts that pertain to things about God, exercise faith to squash those doubts. Take authority over your doubts and replace them with thoughts of faith. The Holy Spirit in you is the Comforter.

Here are few things the Bible tells believers about Doubt.

Eight days after His resurrection, Jesus appeared to eleven of the twelve disciples in a closed room, but the apostle Thomas was not with them at the time. Later Thomas came to see those eleven.

"The other disciples therefore said to him, We have seen the Lord. But Thomas replied, 'Unless I see in his hands the would marks of the nails, and put my finger into those wound marks, and thrust my hand into his spear would in his side, I will not believe.

And after eight more days, again his disciples were within the room, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in their midst, and said, 'Peace be to you. Then he said to Thomas, Reach your finger out. Put it here and behold my hands. Then reach out your hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing'. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus said to him, Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those that have not seen, and yet have believed." -John 20:26-29

Years later, James wrote: "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reprimand, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord?" James 1:5-8.

When your life feels like you are in a choppy ocean being tossed about, up and down, it might be as a result of doubts. Ask in faith without doubting that God will comfort you and help you get out of the trouble you find yourself in.

God knew that we would need His comfort in this world for its pains and difficulties. He promised to be our Helper. It might not happen in the way or time frame we expect, but it WILL happen if we learn not to doubt. God gives us the gift of faith, which is the both the opposite and the solution to doubt.

We have covered the subject of doubting from the perspective of a person who experiences doubts they would prefer not to encounter.

There are other kinds of doubts. On the Next Page is a section called “The What Abouts”. It explores some of the questions people ask that could lead to doubt on a thought level. After that is a section that gets a little more complicated and addresses major objections to believing in Jesus by philosophical, religious, and intellectual antagonists.

On the Next Page is a section called “The What Abouts”. It explores some of the questions people ask that could lead to doubt on a thought level. After that is a section that gets a little more complicated and addresses major objections to believing in Jesus by philosophical, religious, and intellectual antagonists.


Next Page

The following links continue the topic we are in. They address more information to help dispel doubts about Jesus. Placing them in menu form helps you navigate faster from one section to another, and go back and forth easier.

Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections .. The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments ..Back to the Beginning


Main Menu


What Does it Mean to Get Saved?


What Does it Mean to Believe?


Who is Jesus Christ?


What Does Savior Mean?


Who is Jesus?


What Earned My Entry to Heaven?


Why Should I Believe in Jesus?


What is the Meaning of Life?



Home - Text Version


Home - Regular Graphics Version


Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.


What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?


What is the Gospel?


More About the Great "I AM"


Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?


Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?


More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus


What if I Have Doubts?


What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?



If, as a result of viewing this website, you decided to believe in Jesus as your Savior, please click here for next steps.
















End of Page
























































































Please don't scroll down in areas like this.


It is much faster to use links and buttons provided in each page.


Thank you



to Menu
























































































Thanks for visiting.
Here is all you need to do to become saved.

Believe In Jesus Christ As Your Savior.
He has already done the work to earn your entry into heaven.

What if I Have Doubts? (continued)

The “What Abouts



Short Answer Version

The "What Abouts" are the questions some people struggling with doubt would like answered before they make a decision to believe in Jesus.

When you don't know Jesus, many things about life just don't make sense. Sometimes people just feel like screaming "Why doesn't God do something about it?"

Symbolically speaking, when we take our dark glasses of unbelief off, we can start to see that God has already done more than we can imagine about it. Often, it is not an unanswerable question that we face, but an unhealed hurt or sense of anger that is our true hurdle.

It takes a while to catch up with the ramifications of all this. But each person needs to seek the answers most fit to their emotions and sensibilities. These are the source of their struggles.

Long Answer Version

We would all like to know why God allows evil, injustice, pain, injury, early death, and the sea of human suffering. I do not say any of these things lightly.

God made provision to take all the hard questions away. When we are riddled with riddles when looking at all the things that don't make sense, Jesus made a way. He provided tools for us to use, both before and after we believe in Jesus for salvation.

Not all the questions magically disappear when a person receives Jesus into their heart as Lord and Savior. However, those who previously mistrusted Jesus, start trusting Him as they open up to Him. The answers start with understanding the personal aspects of Jesus. They can see His love and faithfulness to them, that they can see unfolding in their lives.

Jesus heals them, comforts them, delivers them, provides for them, and rescues them. Do you want all your "What Abouts" gone? Then, decide now to follow Jesus. Watch how things get better. See God do many expressions of love to and through you. It will show how involved He is in making things better for you and the world.

Why do you think I can say these things? Because God has come through for me thousands of times to fix the things that were my "What About" issues. He fixed my emotional pain by His healing and transformation emotionally, spiritually, and personally.

He fixed my money problems by providing for me and my family every day of my life. He healed us physically on numerous occasions. We never ran out of abundance. However, we did spend too many years worrying about it. "As if" God would forget to supply our true needs and wants.

I could write about His answering the "What Abouts" in my life and those of my loved ones with story after story of personal blessings, all true.

Rarely was my life "perfect", but since I met Jesus, it has come very close on more occasions than I could have ever hoped for before I knew Him. I can look at the "large bank account" of memories in which God proved to me repeatedly that He was working on my behalf. When I do, my perspective is very bright about what He will continue to do.

None of the blessings have to do with the fact that I am me. It is all because He is He. Believe and hang on. It will all fall into place.

Questions like "Why does God allow" (fill in the blank) have bounced around in the minds of people since civilization began. "What About" questions are even asked in the Bible. Some of the writers ask things like "Why does the way of the wicked prosper?" and "Why does God remain silent when the wicked man devours one more righteous than he?"

So far, nobody has come up with answers that fully satisfy the general populace. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why is there pain and suffering? Why is "man's inhumanity to man" so common?

One Sunday my wife and I along with a few others had lunch once with a famous radio personality who addressed this topic to us in a light-hearted way. I found it both profound and amusing. He said, “When I get to Heaven, I’m going to ask God the hard questions that begin with ‘Why’. I don’t know what His answer will be. But I know what my response to His answer will be. It will be ‘Oohh!’.”

What About All the Injustice in the World?

Regarding justice and injustice, let’s remember that it was God’s intention from the beginning that people would let Him be the highest judge. He knows how to undo injustice better than anyone. Because of that, we cannot look at even the most horrific injustice that happens on earth, and assume God is not doing something about it.

God created justice. If we can’t see what He is doing, it doesn’t mean He is doing nothing. Appearances can be misinterpreted.

When God said, “vengeance is mine, I will repay”, I think He meant “I, the Lord, will avenge injustice. It is not your job, and it is not your right to criticize how I do it or when I do it.” Like many things that God wants to do on earth, He can use people to carry out justice. If you are for justice and against injustice, then play your part by letting Him use you to do it.

Don’t think that God has refused to thoroughly obliterate injustice. He is doing it His way and His timing, which is much better than ours.

Jesus explained privately to his inner circle the parable of the wheat and tares (weeds) we read in Matthew 13:36-42. While telling them why the wicked go to Hell, He led with this. He said the angels gather “all things that offend” (sometimes translated “all stumbling blocks”), and cast them into the fire.

In my mind, one of the "things" that offend would include injustice itself. The injustice in the world both offends and is a stumbling block to those wanting to believe in Jesus.

Blaming God for injustice is sometimes a smokescreen. Most likely the injustices were caused by selfish humans disobeying God's repeated injuctions to practice justice.

It may seem like a handy come-back to blame God for allowing injustice, as if we humans have superior ethics and logic to stand in judgment over God.

In the end, God does not allow injustice at all. Humans are short-sighted, thinking about today and tomorrow. They often think that if they see bad things happen, that means God allowed it.

God has perfect vision. He operates in the big, long picture. When God said, "You shall not steal", it meant he was not allowing stealing. People still steal. But God is not allowing it.

Ironically, those who reject Jesus based on allowing injustice are doing injustice to themselves and to God. They are doing what God does not allow. They are also fabricating a lie about what it means for God to allow something.

I don't know why people think He is obligated to prevent injustice at every turn, rather than do so in His appointed time.

Some people have not yet heard that Isaiah attributed this statement to God: "For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done"

What About All the People Who Died Without Having the Chance to Hear the Good News about Believing in Jesus?

This question has come up dozens of times for me in conversations by people hesitant to believe in Jesus for their own salvation because they are not sure what happens to those who die without hearing the message of Jesus first.

In my opinion, it does not make sense for you to hesitate at the offer of salvation because some people might not have a chance to hear about it. You are having the chance right now!

This question about what happens to people who never hear the good news, is one that people ask as a rhetorical question, as if not knowing or understanding the answer proves there is no answer. That kind of logic fallacy and a similar one, called "begging the question" are well known for having no power to convince.

People think asking a question that is not easy to answer assumes that the inability of a person to rise to the challenge proves the question can't be answered. This method can be used as an underhanded tool to back the listener into a corner and make them feel as if they had lost, or at least to instill doubt in them. But it is only a question and can imply nothing. Such a question has no strength of argument, and no power to justify rejecting the love of Jesus and salvation. Many of the questions people ask thinking it justifies their right to reject Jesus are of this type.

Referring to Jesus, the Bible says things like “there is no other name given under heaven by which people must be saved.”

The word “name” in this passage should not be interpreted as meaning merely a specific word, spelling, pronunciation, or identification. This is because in the tradition of the Jewish culture, the word “name” stated in this way connoted the very essence of the person to which it referred.

The statement is about the person that we speak of in English as “Jesus”, the person Jesus, not just His word name. It is illogical that it would be a literal word name because there are so many spellings and pronunciations of Jesus around the world - the original probably being pronounced Yeshua in the time of Jesus.

Similarly, another passage commonly quoted was spoken by Jesus about Himself. “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no person comes to the Father but by me.” Both these verses speak of the exclusivity of Jesus as our Savior, not the exclusivity of certain people to be saved.

Jesus is the most inclusive person ever to exist. He loves and includes sinners in His ultimate solution to their sin, offered freely to them if they only believe.

The above passages are conveying that there is no other Savior. These passages neither say nor imply anything about people who did not hear the good news before they died.

People erroneously assume the passages imply something that they do not. There are other verses that might explain God’s intention for people who did not get a chance to hear about Jesus.

One passage indicates God designed the earth so the people could find Him who are outside the time frame or geography where they could hear the message. He created nature to be beautiful and fascinating so it would point people toward Him, prompting them to “feel after Him and find Him” as it is translated in Acts 17 of the New American Standard Version.

Who is the “Him” that they would find? The “Him” is Jesus. When anyone on earth “finds” Jesus, they find the Savior.


My point is not that the Bible says it is OK to avoid calling Him Jesus, but instead feel after Him and find Him on our own. Read the whole chapter of Acts 17 and this will be clear.

None of us fully knows the dynamics involved in identifying one person as saved and another as not saved. Only God knows, even among those who look, act, and talk like they are saved.

The same is true about people we assume are not saved. There is balance in the Bible saying "by their fruits you shall know them" and it also saying "judge not that you be not judged."

A person who behaves like a Christian, but does no good to others, shows no good fruit. You can notice that, but not judge their salvation by it.

I’d like to reiterate my point in a different way, ONLY GOD KNOWS WHO GETS INTO HEAVEN AND WHO DOESN’T.

We were told by Jesus not to judge each other. Because of that, what point is there to presuming who is saved and who isn’t? That is God's job.

Our job is to spread the good message, lead people to Jesus, and help them grow in their faith. If we do that, we can’t go wrong

There is a lot we don’t know. But there is one thing we should all know. That is how to give God “the benefit of the doubt”. This phrase means to trust that He has a good explanation for everything. It means that when we read scripture, we should be assuming God is to be praised, not criticized even when we see something we don’t understand or seems to rub us the wrong way. There is probably a good explanation in God’s mind. We should all know that God is just, right, true, and loving. We know He wills that no one would perish. We also know that people have the power not to follow God’s will, therefore some might not come to salvation. God, and only God, knows the final state of those who did not hear the good news before they died.

It would be unwise to presume we can usurp from Him the right to make determinations in that regard. This is particularly true if we appeal to our own lack of clarity as an excuse to reject the free gift of salvation. Give God the benefit of the doubt, and fully receive Jesus into your life as your personal Lord and Savior. You’ll be eternally grateful for your choice. In due time He will give you the clarity you now lack. Everyone can relate to feeling a strong pull within when we encounter something we can’t explain.

The strong desire to have our questions answered, should really be relinquished into God’s hands. When we do that, it actually frees us to grow in His image and become capable of understanding more. He answers our questions a bit at a time, as we are becoming mature enough to see the answers through His wisdom. A desire to have our questions answered should not become our reason for putting off believing in Jesus. It should be a positive force to get to know Him better.

What About the Issue of Pain?

C.S. Lewis did a good job of examining this issue in his book, "The Problem of Pain". He capsulized the skeptic's argument by saying, "If God were good, He would make His creatures perfectly happy, and if He were almighty He would be able to do what he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore, God lacks either goodness, or power, or both."

Lewis cites the following Bible verse as the center of his answer: "the sufferings of this present time are not to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us" (Rom. 8:18). Of course, that only applies to believers. As I like to say, "This lifetime, with all its potential pain, is only a split second compared to the rest of eternity". The answer to the problem of pain from a human perspective is therefore to believe in Jesus as your Savior. From that perspective we can reason that God is shortening the time of pain. Certain kinds of suffering can be seen as vital to His loving desire to prepare us to spend eternity with Him. Many scriptures attest to the value of suffering to mature and perfect us as God forms us into His likeness. At the same time, we can all see unexplainable pain that seems to have no relationship to our development into spiritual maturity. But we can't see behind the curtain where God is "working all things together for good" for us individually. It was by suffering that Jesus substituted Himself for us to earn our entry to Heaven, so we would never have to suffer again after this short lifetime. His pain and death on the cross were indeed the solution to suffering. Above, we talked about issues pertaining to Hell. I pointed out that God desires that no one should go there, a place that appears to be full of pain. I believe it was in the heart of Jesus to solve the problem of pain by dying to save people from that avoidable pain. Pain was created by God primarily for the purpose of keeping organisms, like you, me, and our animals, alive and healthy longer. Pain tells us to stop doing something that would cause even more pain or irreparable damage. We appreciate pain in the world when it takes the form of training for the Olympics, sports, body building, athletics, and boxing. We put ourselves through pain when we exercise, knowing that the soreness the next day is a good kind of pain. We all have an appreciation for pain in ourselves and others within certain boundaries.

We all understand the good reason for pain because it has helped us many times in our lives. What we find difficult to understand is when pain appears to go haywire from its primary intended purpose. It is that kind of pain we call an affliction. Many people consider an affliction a form of evil. Sometimes it is just that, and when it is, we need to ascertain who did the afflicting before we go blaming God. Sometimes people bring afflictions on themselves by their wrong decisions, their unhealthy lifestyles, or their daredevil behaviors. I used the word "daredevil" purposefully because it shows the underlying belief in our society that the devil wants to afflict people. Sometimes we dare him to do that, and he does. Sometimes he does it without being dared. He is an afflicter. He loves to see us in pain. I am saying this to whittle away the blame people place on God for afflicting pain. If we cannot trace the cause of someone's pain to an identifiable responsible party, we sometimes irrationally point to God as the afflicter. It is wiser to point our fingers at God's enemy, rather than God Himself. The Bible indicates satan to be the one who initiated much of the potential for human suffering in the world. It was contrary to God's will and nature. But because of the entry of sin into the world, a fall of humanity and a cursed world resulted, according to the book of Genesis. People might think I am pointing fingers away from God when "the buck stops" at Him. Let's keep unraveling the truly serious issue of why God allows painful affliction and we will find where the "buck" truly stops. A book in the Bible called the book of Job, presents a long story about a prominent man named Job who loved and served God. God was pleased with how upright he was, so He blessed him with success and a large loving family. Then satan bragged to God that he could get Job to renounce God. God gave him temporary permission yet required that Job must not die. From that point, Job endured the most horrendous suffering imaginable and never renounced God. Job never asked, "Why would a good God allow this pain?" Even though his "friends", who were really his accusers, kept taunting him, putting the blame on him, and trying to make him quit believing, he stood his ground. Job did not curse God as his accusers recommended. Instead he blessed God and kept an attitude of worship and praise to God. Readers of Job often miss this as the main point - Blessing, Worshipping, and Praising God. Eventually God spoke powerfully to Job. God's main point was that because He was more wise and powerful than any other being, He has the right to allow suffering or to remove it. God restored Job to health, happiness, and wealth - all far beyond any he had ever known. What did God do for Job's accusers? He did nothing. This story has a moral. Do you think that moral is that we should refuse to believe because we can't fathom the answer to why He allows pain? Obviously not; it is the opposite. We should choose to believe even in the direst of circumstances, in the most extreme pain, in the deepest loss. In fact, we should bless, praise, and worship God for who He is. The New Testament says we should thank God for all things and in all things. Of course, this is humanly impossible in the old nature. But with the new nature that God builds within us, we are more than conquerors. The Bible says, "weeping may endure for the night, but joy comes in the morning." The right attitude toward pain is not a "stiff upper lip", even though many consider it a good attitude toward the problem of pain. The right attitude is trust in God through the good times and bad, through pleasure and pain. Be with your pain when it is there. Weep over it or mourn the loss of a pain free body. Joy is coming. Nonbelievers also have role models for explaining how to overcome the problem of pain. A soldier who puts himself on the battlefield to serve and protect his country, endures pain for the sake of his mission. His attitude is stellar when wounded, and he puts the safety of others ahead of his own. A president who gets shot and survives to fulfill the rest of his term, or one who serves three terms, most of which from a wheelchair - these attitudes are addressing the problem of pain by the presidents to their countries. People are inspired to be heroic in their own lives. They do much good for the world with that attitude toward pain. In a movie preview, I saw a character telling another who was in pain, "Pain is your rocket fuel." I might not endorse the movie, but you can be a believer or a nonbeliever and face the problem of pain with an answer of attitude.

Even with the best attitude toward personal physical pain, it is a very good thing to devote action toward recovering from it. I recently sprained my ankle less than a week into a 15 day vacation. My wife and I were taking a road trip through beautiful Croatia. Even though I "soldiered through" the rest of the trip, with all its walking and climbing, I still babied the ankle when I walked using a walking stick. I put ice on my ankle to reduce the swelling. Now that I am home, I am staying off my ankle, alternating heat and ice, and performing my due dilligence to foster healing. I asked a friend known to be gifted in praying for miraculous healing, who kindly prayed for my ankle. I pray myself for healing each day as well. I give the credit to God for healing me. I am becoming pain free. I am trying to be an answer to my pain, with God's strength and power.

Be the answer to the problem of pain to those around you, and your attitude will convey God's compassion toward the pain of this world. You don't need any special training or credentials to do so. Just love, listen, pray for, help, and serve those in pain.

If you are an emergency room surgeon, realize that you are doing something to stop the pain in the world. You are either knowingly or unknowingly an instrument in God's hands to fulfill that very purpose. If you are a humanitarian worker, consider that you might be God's answer to the problem of pain.

If you simply feed the poor or help those in need, you are being God's answer to the problem of pain. Even when you comfort your child who hurt themselves, you are God's answer.

I applaud the many people used by God in this way, like scientists who developed safe pain relievers, physical therapists, psychological therapists, doctors, nurses, and veterinarians. I would be remiss if I didn't mention believers who pray for those sick or in pain and sometimes see God heal them.

In my opinion everyone still bears in their identity the fact that mankind was created in the image of God. When we love from the heart, we are expressing that image. When we believe for better things, we are mirroring God's image. On the other hand, if someone just wants to criticize God for doing things on His own terms and not theirs, they are likely part of the problem of pain, not its answer.

I read in a Psychology Today article that physical pain gets much worse when our minds create stress and worry about it. This school of thought is on the leading edge of tackling the problem of pain. I found the article at this link. The article is titled "Embracing Pain" and is worth reading when you get a chance. This kind of work is another example of God using people to fight the problem of pain in the world. People who were once heartless and are now in tune with the presence of Jesus find their hearts growing large and compassionate toward the plight of pain and suffering. That is why most non-governmental aid programs were begun by believers. Most hospitals were started by believers. My hat goes off to you, as well as to the red cross, the peace corps, habitat for humanity, and many other organizations not necessarily Christ-focused. I applaud governments who effectively send aid to hurting people all over the world. Whether they know it or not, they are doing the work of Jesus to be His solution to the problem of pain. Wouldn't it be ironic if someone refused to accept Jesus as Savior because of their indignances toward the problem of pain, when His entire mission was to solve it, and He did? I have heard it said, "Jesus loves you so much that if you were the only person on earth who needed a Savior, He would have died just for you." Jesus didn't die so we could have lives of suffering. He took our suffering on Himself, so we could have eternal life. After we part this life, and enter heaven, He will wipe away every tear from our eyes, according to the Bible. It will be a life of joy inexpressible and full of glory.

After all the wisdom and profoundness written about the problem of pain, we must all admit pain can be unbearable. When it is happening, it cannot be soothed by the most eloquent words. If you are a person suffering great pain, such as I have been at various times of my life, know that pain is not a shameful thing. If you have received prayer for healing and it has not worked, it is not a reason to doubt God. The Bible does not promise that we will all be miraculously healed in this life. If we feel outraged about pain, that is not necessarily a sin. Pain and weeping may endure for the night. When joy comes in the morning, it can become easier to understand that the pain was never a valid reason to doubt God's goodness. When our minds turn to dark places, such as erroneously blaming God or even ourselves for the pain, that never helps solve the problem. It only exacerbates it, causing our own emotional pain. We need to remind ourselves that God is omniscient. He can see and feel all the pain happening throughout the world every second. Jesus felt the ultimate pain on the cross to set us free. God bears no resemblance to the character that bitter people envision He is. God is love. Let us "love not in word, but in deed and in truth", as the apostle John says. That is key to addressing the problem of pain.


What About the ''Contradictions'' in the Bible?

This excuse seems to be a perennial favorite: ''How can I believe the Bible, when there are so many contradictions?''

I have personally spent too much time trying to explain one-by-one why most of the scriptures people cite are not contradictions if they really understand the points being made in context to the rest of the Bible.

Throughout the Bible, we are told that God blesses people who love Him and live righteous lives. Since the Bible says that same thing hundreds of times in various ways, what scripture invalidates or contradicts that message? Even if you could find one, I would still choose to interpret the prevailing message as a teaching to follow God and pursue righteousness.

The same goes for the central issues about Jesus. He brought good news of eternal life to those who believe in Him. Show me a scripture in the New Testament that would contradict that fact. Where does it say He did not die for our sins or He did not resurrect?

We should focus on the main points. When we do, the arguments about scriptural contradictions looses their power.

But why do so many say there are a lot of contradictions? There is a story about the great comic actor of the 1900s W.C. Fields. When he was near death in the hospital, a younger friend visited Fields’ hospital room and was surprised to find him thumbing through a Bible. When he asked what he was doing with a Bible, Fields replied, ''I’m looking for loopholes, my boy, loopholes.''

People who do not want to face change or give up their favorite sins might look for any loopholes or excuses to dismiss the central messages of scripture. These messages lead a person away from sin and death and toward righteousness and life in Jesus.

I have not been immune to pondering the passages that appear to many unbelievers to be contradictions in the Bible. Once a person is saved, and learns the good things about the Bible, and sees their immense value, that person can recognize and appreciate the pervasive divine truth in the Bible.

Things appearing to be contradictions are of minor significance in the whole picture.

In addition, many of these apparent contradictions have potentially reasonable explanations. They can be considered resolvable paradoxes, rather than mistakes.

I have probably said elsewhere in this site that we should focus on the central issues, not the peripheral issues. The issues less crucial to salvation, to the good news and God's greatness are peripheral. These minor issues cause the major divisions, arguments, and distractions away from the central truths.

In this section on Doubts, we will see many false conceptions offered by detractors of the Bible. One is that if they can prove that a contradiction in scripture exists, it breaks the ''rule'' that the Bible is infallible, and therefore all its concepts should crumble into invalidity. The Bible never actually calls itself infallible. Many centuries after it was written, Bible teachers determined to use the word in a list of descriptive qualities about the Bible. They did not realize that the word would be subject to other definitions and interpretations than theirs. They used other words, like ''inerrant'', which held similar dangers. But these words are not rules. They are descriptions. The popularity of ''infallible'' and ''inerrant'' became strong around the beginning of the 20th century. Descriptions made centuries after the Bible was written can themselves be open to fallibility and errancy.'

My opinion is that the Bible contains its own credentials, perceivable in its power to change hearts and lives for the better, bring miracles, and feed us spiritually. It does not need fallible labels or ''rules'' by humans. It always supercedes them. The Bible always points to God, who is to be worshipped. He alone is infallible. The Bible is to be appreciated, not worshipped. God is expressed in and through the Bible. Any infallibility shining through the Bible is simply the infallibility of God. It is not merely the literary coherence of its pages. At the same time, an insightful knowledge of the Bible indicates it has greater thematic unity, coherence, and value than any other book in history.


What About the Issue of Hell?

One thing is sure, God does not SEND people to Hell. He sends people to Heaven. He rescues people from the paths to Hell, and grants them entrance to Heaven.

He doesn't will that anyone would go to Hell, and He does more than anyone else to warn people and teach them to avoid Hell.

Here is a little story regarding Hell: I used to have a phone number that was one digit off from a number that was called by many people each day. I kept getting calls from people who misdialed that number.

I came up with the idea to record an outgoing message on my answering machine that presented the good message of Jesus to all the people who misdialed. In that message I stated that receiving Jesus as their Savior would mean they could go to Heaven and not Hell.

One time I was listening to the incoming messages, and I heard someone say to another person in the room as he was about to end the call, “Hey. This guy on the answering machine is telling me I’m going to Hell”. It totally shocked me that he took it that way. My entire motivation was to help him go to Heaven and avoid Hell.

We have faith in Jesus to receive all the good things that God offers. Faith in Jesus does not need to flow out of the desire to avoid Hell. Instead, focus on the kingdom of God and your bright future.

It is not a requirement for salvation that you believe Hell exists. However, if you want your "what about" questions concerning Hell answered, it would be good for you to know about the issue before taking a stance.

I can recite many doctrines, scriptures, and theological premises for why people end up in Hell - - But let’s face it. If there is a Hell, it is someplace you don’t want to go.

Think about this: How sad would it be for a person to reject the offer to go to heaven because he thinks it is unfair that there is a Hell, and by so doing sends himself there?

People end up in Hell for reasons you and I probably don’t yet perfectly understand, but we can try to understand more.

The concept that we think about as Hell started out meaning something totally different in the Old Testament.

When fire was mentioned as associated with Sheol, it was not what Jesus described as Hell. For example, Deuteronomy 32:22, referred to the place called "Sheol". The fire was God's anger against living people who forsook Him, neglected Him, were unfaithful to Him, and sacrificed to demons and strange gods.

Sheol is the word for the place where souls reside after death. It is used in varying ways. Many uses of Sheol were to describe how God rescued people from a cruel death.

When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the word "Sheol" was replaced by "Hades", which is why the New Testament uses that word and differentiates it from eternal punishment.

For example, neither Sheol nor Hades could possibly be the lake of fire in the book of Revelation. This is because they are differentiated from the lake of fire when it says death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire - Revelation 20:14.

It appears likely that the Lake of Fire is one of the New Testament's word pictures for what we currently think of as Hell.

Daniel 12:1-3 includes the phrase: "And multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel likened Sheol to people sleeping in the dust of the earth, but later becoming conscious and facing their place in eternity.

When thinking of Hell on a timeline, the above passages seem to put the role of Hell for containing people far into the future. The Bible doesn't specifically say Hell is where people go right when they die. It is where they go "after" they die physically. How long after, we do not know.

The word that eventually surfaced as “Hell” started around 1380 A.D. It first appeared as Helle in the Wycliffe translation. Search engines will tell you the word appeared around 300 years later than history records the Wycliffe Bible. Either way, Hell was not used as a word to mean Gehenna until 1380 to 1700 A.D.

It was certainly not used to describe the biblical word "Gehenna" prior to that as far as we know.

Words pronounced "hell" were first used in Norse mythology. The female named Hel presided over a realm of the underworld also named Hel. She was apparently mentioned in poems from the 800s and 1,000s A.D. Mythologically she was a daughter of Loki.

"Hel" as a place was similar to the Hebrew Sheol. The word Hel made its way into old languages of Norway, Germany, Holland, and England. One verb meaning was "to cover or hide".

The word Jesus used was was much different than Sheol or the Norse hel. “Gehenna” was a literal place well known in Israel at the time of Jesus where trash was burned, and the flames apparently stayed lit for that purpose.

Gehenna was associated with great disgust and shame by the Jewish people of the time. It means the valley of Hinnom. In this valley more than 1,300 years before the time of Jesus, Canaanites sacrificed their children in the fire to the god Moloch.

When I was in Israel last year my daughter picked my wife and me up from the airport in Tel Aviv and drove to her home in Jerusalem. On the way, she calmly pointed out the window toward what looked to me as a suburb, and calmly told me, “That area is the valley of Hinnom.”

In His preaching Jesus was using this infamous fiery place as a word picture. We all know the literal valley of Hinnom is not Hell. Jesus was trying to express something else, something equally real.

In other passages He used different word pictures, some including the concept of fire, others not.

Jesus spoke figuratively to help people get the idea of something real and truly abhorrent. But it was indescribable humanly speaking by anything but figures of speech.

The Bible has many figurative statements to describe real things that the human mind is too limited to grasp, by translating them into familiar word pictures.

The clear intention behind scriptures about Hell is that it is the place Jesus does not want us to end up in.

According to the clear teaching of the Bible, it is not God’s will that anybody goes to Hell. Therefore, if people go to Hell, it is against His will.

Jesus was more than forthright about Hell. But He didn’t say the things that many people think He said. And He didn’t mention Hell as many times as people might imagine.

Below is one of only four statements Jesus gave about Hell in scripture using the word “Gehenna”. When you look closely at each one, you will see they are all saying basically the same thing in the end.

There is a Bible passage in which Jesus says in a nutshell, don’t fear those who can kill your body. Instead fear Him who has power to cast into Hell (Luke 12:4-5). The intent is to give God awesome respect and understand His great power, justice, and wisdom.

It is logical to fear that He is capable of doing what an almighty and righteous God could obviously do. Hell is real, according to Jesus, the final authority on the subject.

Jesus does not wish for anyone to go to Hell and He wants us to know it in serious terms to protect and rescue us. Out of love, Jesus wants people to avoid Hell at all costs.

The second use of the word “Hell” by Jesus was in saying that it was better to cut off parts of the body that cause a person to sin than to be cast into Hell with the parts intact. Jesus sometimes liked to say things in shocking or absurdly metaphorical ways to stress His points. That was His style of speaking.

We all know that body parts do not cause us to sin. Our minds make that decision (our body parts might persuade our brains at times, but that is a different story).

What was Jesus’ intent? I think it was to get listeners to stop allowing thoughts that could influence people to sin their way into Hell.

Again, the motivation is that Jesus does not want anyone to go to Hell, so we should do whatever it takes to avoid it.

The third thing Jesus said specifically using the word “Gehenna”, was when He told specific Pharisees that they go to great lengths to convert people, but then make them twice the sons of Hell as themselves.

That was strong language, but the intent was that He did not want either those Pharisees or their converts to go to Hell.

The fourth statement Jesus made in scripture was the question He asked of certain Scribes and Pharisees: How can they who have murder in their hearts escape Hell?

As history implies, those Pharisees were the ones Jesus referred to as having murder in their hearts. Note that Jesus put this in the form of a probing question, not a doctrine.

A similar statement to this is when Jesus said that it is better for a person to have a millstone hung around their neck and be cast into the sea than to cause one person to stumble. Both these statements are to motivate listeners to go to heaven, and not to do things that would lead others away from it and toward Hell.

Jesus was emotionally charged to warn people He saw were on the path that led to Hell. He used intense language to shock them into repenting so they would not end up in Hell.

Jesus particularly pointed to arrogance, pride, judgmental attitudes, and ethnic or class discrimination as traps to avoid. He was telling the clueless people that there was danger in the path they were on.

Some people today misinterpret the many indictments Jesus proclaimed toward a group of people from the sect of the Pharisees. His heart toward those specific Pharisees was to prevent them from seeing Hell. He did not hold a grudge against them. He was not competing with them.

When He told them they were “sons of Hell” He was not retaliating for their unkindness to Him. He was trying to save their lives and the lives of those they influenced. It was out of love.

He knew something they didn’t know. They were sending themselves to Hell by their decisions to justify their own sin.

Something most people don’t “get”, is that Jesus and his whole family were most likely from the sect of the Pharisees. He was not criticizing the beliefs or teachings. He was criticizing the things He saw in the hearts of specific people - things that would be very dangerous to them and others.

On the cross, Jesus asked the Father to forgive the people who were among those responsible for His execution and not hold it to their account. It shows that, even then, His love was strong for the people who hurt and harassed Him during His ministry years.

He did not want to see them, or anyone else, punished. If you are wondering why I would say Jesus was probably raised a Pharisee it is this. It is likely that only three sects of Judaism existed at the time of Christ: The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Sadduccees did not believe in life after death. Jesus and his relatives did, according to the New Testament. So he was not a Sadducee. The Essenes lived communally mostly in and around the Dead Sea in New Testament times.

Jesus was well known in the synagogue at Nazareth, which was unlikely made up of Essenes. So he was not an Essene.

The Pharisees taught that people will keep living after physical death. His hearers were already familiar with the concept of Sheol because the Pharisees taught about it. John the Baptist used language similar to Jesus for Hell, in Matthew Chapter 3.


There are many other passages in the New Testament that people interpret as referring to Hell. For example, perhaps the most famous verse of the Bible, John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only born son that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Words, like “perish”, and “condemnation” are often associated with Hell by readers of the New Testament. But for John 3:16, people rarely notice that the statement goes on to explain that God sent His son, not to condemn, but to save.

John wrote that a state of condemnation was already present among people, and not by God's doing. Jesus came to deliver them from it. Obviously, that does not mean He takes any pleasure from it.

The point of the passage is “Then, the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” If we can get our minds onto that message, and picture ourselves in Heaven shining forth, we can avoid getting hung up on the statements about Hell.

Jesus is the Savior who saves people from going to Hell, not the instigator of sending them to Hell. Believers shall NOT perish but shall experience everlasting life.

One term people associate with Hell in scripture is the “lake of fire”. The Bible says it was prepared for the devil and his fallen angels.

Is it possible that those evil characters, rather than God, are responsible for deceiving and sending people to Hell?

If you have an adamant desire to reject salvation based on the issue of Hell, is it possible that you are one of those people being deceived?

Ezekiel wrote, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live.

What about the wicked, will Jesus ever send them to Hell? I would say “Yes by a technicality”. The reason is that they already lived a life devoid of Jesus by their decisions.

One scripture passage says all judgment has been put in the hands of Jesus. Another tells us in a parable that He will send out His angels to gather the wicked and cast them into the furnace of fire.

Because of these statements, we must conclude that Jesus follows through in sending the wicked to their doom.

The point of the latter passage is “Then, the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” If we can get our minds onto that message, and picture ourselves in Heaven shining forth, we can avoid getting hung up on the statements about Hell.

The separation of the wicked from the righteous is a two-sided coin. The wicked will be removed and the righteous will shine in Heaven.

You might ask, “Will I be among the wicked or the righteous? The answer is that if you have faith in Jesus as your Savior, that faith makes you righteous in God’s eyes.

When Jesus substituted Himself for you on the cross, He not only took on your unrighteousness, but also substituted His righteousness onto you, so you would be counted among the righteous people who will shine like the sun on the day depicted in Jesus’ parable.

It is clear that the wicked go into the “fiery furnace”, which is a word picture, not a literal furnace. Hitler goes into the fire. Jozef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin Dada, Leopold II, Mao Dze Dong and others responsible for mass genocide go into the furnace.

Most people would probably not fault God for putting into Hell these people obviously deserving it. Many other wicked people will be thrown in, which is not hard to understand.

Sometimes the real objection people hold about Hell is “how can God do something that I don’t like and that I can’t figure out?” That question itself displays an attitude that Jesus was particularly concerned could send people to Hell.

It is arrogance and self-exaltation. God does not report to, or answer to, any of us. We all ultimately answer to Him. None of us has the credentials, intelligence, or track record to judge Him.

We all need a wake-up call from time to time. We all need to be told the truth in love. Some of us have lost dear ones who, to our knowledge, did not believe in Jesus as their Savior. That is not a good reason to reject the idea of Hell. My own father died without any outward indication He believed in Jesus. It pains me to think of Him going to Hell. But it does not hinder me from following Jesus on my way to Heaven.

We, in our individualism, will not be able to stop God from doing what He, in His infinite wisdom, feels is best. And there is no reason to assume a wrongful intent on His part, ever.

God made right and wrong, good and bad. God does not owe us an explanation that will fit in our human brains. But that doesn’t bother me because Jesus is my salvation. That does fit in my brain.

After all the statements Jesus made indicating He does not want people to go to Hell, there is one question some skeptics still ask. That is, “If Jesus doesn’t want people to go to Hell, then why does He allow them to do so?”

That question is asked out of a wrong assumption. They assume that since God is all powerful and does not want anyone to go to Hell, He is obligated to send everyone to Heaven and keep them all out of Hell. That has some sense of human logic to it. But my answer is that because He IS all powerful, He can do whatever He determines is best for His eternal kingdom, including to deny certain people the right to enter it.

Few of us would reject our society as being real or loving because they don’t let all the hardened criminals out of prison. It is illogical to criticize God for similar sound judgment.

Peter emphasized God’s patient love and His desire that no one would perish but that all would come to repentance. Search the scriptures yourself. Read all about it. Then make your own decision. Those writers were far more authoritative than me on the subject. They were the messengers.

True love hopes the best for others. It wishes that people would listen, believe, and make it to Heaven. When a believer tells a nonbeliever about Jesus, it is an act of love, not a statement that the nonbeliever is going to Hell.

The heart of the message is like "a hurricane is coming, so here is how to avoid disaster". It is not "you're going to be destroyed by a hurricane." When people react negatively to the good news of how to rescued by Jesus, the phrase "don't shoot the messenger" applies.

What About Hypocrisy and Evil Deeds Among Christians?

Let's talk about hypocrisy first. I say this kindly: hypocrisy has always been a rampant non-virtue in many parts of the earth. Those who accuse Christians of hypocrisy need to be aware that the only person in history immune from all kinds of hypocrisy was Jesus.

Why is our culture so quick to use the word "hypocrit" as a flaming accusation against those practicing it, but only when they are Christians? I suspect it is because Jesus was so outspoken and prolific in accusing certain groups of religious people of hypocrisy.

Jesus was so vehement, it would sound to our generation, as if He thought hypocrisy was an uncommon thing. But, His reason ran very deep in the culture's history. Countless times the same attitudes brought Israel into ruin.

Jesus could see it all coming. He prophesied as much, predicting that the Jerusalem temple would be so ravaged that one stone would not lay upon another. Thirty-six years later, in 70 AD, the Romans attacked the land and destroyed the temple.

When Jesus accused the leaders of hypocrisy, He was speaking the words of Almighty God, who had spent 4,000 years bearing with the sin and hypocrisy among generations of people. He had called them to be a holy and chosen people who follow truth.

It is logical to understand why Jesus was so adamant, when you understand His primary mission and heart was toward the people of Israel. The hypocritical religious leaders and their adherents had turned away from their purpose. It was to lead people into loving prudent relationships with God and others. Jesus was trying to turn people back to God by calling out their hypocrisy, and showing their spiritual blindness. We would have no excuse for accusations of hypocrisy in this manner, when we are actually practicing hypocrisy.

When it comes to all the perceived sin in Christians, and especially among their fallen leaders. Nobody could argue that the sin does not exist in people. However, this is no reason to oppose the offer of salvation. To do so is a case of this old saying: "throwing out the baby with the bath water". Yes, there is dirt in the bathtub of Christianity. But the purpose of the bath is to clean the dirt away. God is busy doing that all over the world, every day. That is why Jesus died on the cross - not only to forgive sins, but to provide power to combat sin miraculously and supernaturally in the lives of those who turn from it and turn to Him.

We should not expect Christians to have no sin in their lives. That doesn't mean we condone sin, especially in ourselves. If a non-Christian is livid about all the sin in Christians, they should turn their focus on all the sin in themselves that needs to be cleansed and removed. As Jesus said, "He that is without sin, cast the first stone".

What is the right attitude to take toward all the child molesting priests, the TV evangelists trying to get rich, those who blatantly practice infidelity, the church leaders who mismanage money, the murderers who kill in the name of Christ, and the committers of all the other sins perpetrated in Jesus' name? Is it to turn the other cheek? Maybe. Jesus did not appear to be turning the other cheek when He blasted the leaders of His culture. But we must see the bigger picture. Jesus did not sin in the process. He took vocal action. It was not out of His own anger, but out of compassion for the people in Israel who had been led away from the truth. To people who get angrily easily, that looks like Jesus getting angry and wanting to pick a fight. But nothing could be further from the truth. If any person ever had the right to point out the hypcrisy and sin of the corrupt leaders, it was the Jesus, the second person of the Trinity. He had stood on a mountain overlooking Jerusalem and wept for them because He knew what was coming.

Jesus did turn the other cheek when later the same leaders beat, whipped, and crucified Him. He even had compassion on them when He spoke during His torturous punishment, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

The hypocrits in the church today "know not what they do". Neither do the vocal detractors who turn people away from Jesus on the basis of sin among His followers. Those who condemn Christianity for it's members' hypocrisy are blind to their own sin in doing so.

Jesus taught humility in love. That should be our right attitude. It is the correct answer to the heartbreaking sins we see in too many Christians. It is also the right answer to the sins we see in ourselves when our blindness is removed.


Next Page

The following links continue the topic we are in. They address more information to help dispel doubts about Jesus. Placing them in menu form helps you navigate faster from one section to another, and go back and forth easier.

Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections .. The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments ..Back to the Beginning




Main Menu


What Does it Mean to Get Saved?


What Does it Mean to Believe?


Who is Jesus Christ?


What Does Savior Mean?


Who is Jesus?


What Earned My Entry to Heaven?


Why Should I Believe in Jesus?


What is the Meaning of Life?



Home - Text Version


Home - Regular Graphics Version


Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.


What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?


What is the Gospel?


More About the Great "I AM"


Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?


Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?


More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus


What if I Have Doubts?


What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?



If, as a result of viewing this website, you decided to believe in Jesus as your Savior, please click here for next steps.





End of Page






















































































Please don't scroll down in areas like this.


It is much faster to use links and buttons provided in each page.


Thank you



to Menu





















































































Thanks for visiting.
Here is all you need to do to become saved.

Believe In Jesus Christ As Your Savior.
He has already done the work to earn your entry into heaven.




What if I Have Doubts? (continued) Intellectual Pursuits Against Following Jesus


Short Answer Version

God gave us each an intellect. He wants us to use and develop it. It is unhealthy to exalt human intellect over God's intellect. Doing so leads to error and delusions of grandeur.

To use intellectual pursuits for the purpose of driving people away from God is a profound blunder. He also gave us the ability to reason.

The prophet Isaiah wrote, “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. "

God gave us the ability to reason, so we could reason together with Him and become saved. We can grow into better people, enjoying eternal life.

Long Answer Version

As I mentioned some people have developed well-thought-out responses opposing those who believe in Jesus. We will examine some of them, hopefully with a positive, friendly approach.

Please also allow me to offer a suggestion to consider about the concept of proving something to be true or a fact. When someone says a fact has been proven, it usually means the person has merely been convinced by means acceptable to that person.

Being convinced does not necessarily indicate truth, fact, or knowing. My objective is to sharpen the ability of readers to know, prove, and discover pure fact.

We hear expressions like “hard proof”. What is “hard proof”? Who determines it? Is it possible that the listener determines whether to consider it hard proof based on his or her own criteria? Yes. In light of this, people attempting to persuade us will come as close to “hard proof” as they can.

If you have ever been in love with someone, you know that no hard proof is necessary. In fact, it would be fruitlessly unromantic to reduce it to an intellectual issue. I look at Salvation and the existence of Creator God in much the same way. Those who fall in love with God need no hard intellectual proof. Conversely, nobody can prove it to them that God does not exist.

One day at the end of a church service I met a man who introduced his early-teenage son to me and told me about his keen interest in science. After chatting with the young man for a while about the subject, I gave him a challenge.

I pointed to my wrist watch and showed him that as long as we had been talking, I had been wearing it inside out. I asked him to try and figure out scientifically why. He tried for several minutes with one theory after another, and after a while I had to let him off the hook. I told him that a few minutes before we had started talking, my three-year-old daughter had run up to me. With a grin she turned my watch band inside out, giggled, and left.

I asked him why he thought I would have left it that way. He couldn’t figure that out either. I answered that some things cannot be determined scientifically. This was a matter of the heart.

I had left the watchband inside out because of the love I felt for my sweet little girl. As I recall, I left it inside out the rest of the day.





I am pro-science. However, I am anti-misuse of science. Misuse of science, as it relates to this writing, pertains to going beyond the boundaries of science to make points that the actual science does not make, except perhaps theoretically.

Proper use of science publicly can result in many good societal results, like curing cancer, eradicating smallpox, or launching satellites. Even when it makes corporations a lot of honest money, it could be good science.

The mistake our generation often makes is to take science, which developed as an adjunct to viewing reality, and turn it into the exclusive center of determining reality. I consider this a form of science misuse.

I am anti-abuse of science. Misuse and abuse are different things. There are many kinds of science abuses. Some are for dishonest personal gain, others for undeserved notoriety and prestige. Usually abuse of science takes place by non-scientists trying to capitalize on sincere science.

Science is a discipline that is technically supposed to confine itself to the natural, physical order of things.

There are many scientists who respect the boundaries, even scientists who follow Jesus and maintain the intelligently erected wall between science and spirituality.

If God is not directly physically observable or empirically testable in the natural order to which science is confined, how can disputing His existence or attributes be a proper use of science?

God is not physically observable or empirically testable in the naturalistic order to which science is confined. Therefore, how can disputing His existence or attributes be a proper use of science? At the very least, a scientific research report that cross into issues of divinity should acknowledge and identify the author's bias. This is not to say only athiest scientists should disclose bias. God-believing scientists should do so as well.

The mistake our generation often makes is to take science, which developed as an adjunct to viewing reality, and turn it into the exclusive center of determining reality. Science is a discipline that is technically supposed to confine itself to the natural, physical order of things.

God is not directly observable or empirically testable in the naturalistic order to which science is currently confined. Therefore, how can disputing His existence or attributes be a proper use of science? At the very least, scientific research that crosses into issues of divinity should acknowledge and identify the author's biases, which are non-scientific. This is not to say only athiest scientists should do this. God-believing scientists should do so as well.

Scientists try using scientific means to arrive at conclusions such as "God does not exist". In fact they have developed a huge and impressive arsenal of theories and arguments they can rattle off. Most explanations of this type would ordinarily take a deep understanding of physics, cosmology, statistics and other disciplines to follow. The end result of each attempt is that they cannot truthfully say they know in the scientifically natural sense that God exists or does not exist. Because they do not know, they cannot validate their opinions or conclusions about it to a listener.

Many scientists who are not followers of God, as He appears in the Bible, read the Old Testament and fail to notice it is primarily about the spiritual history of humanity. It is about people following God spiritually. In contrast, it is also about previously spiritual followers, who start to think they know more than God, and go their own way, rather than following Him.

This cycle repeats itself countless times throughout the Old Testament history. In that context, to follow God always produces spiritual blessing. Straying from God tends to produce strife and ends in societal destruction, if history is any indication.

Scientists who are not familiar with this spiritual history go into the study of biblical narratives with a heavy blindfold on, a serious limp, and foggy thinking. They can also exude bad attitudes toward spiritual things that they are as yet incapable of understanding. This can result in vindictiveness toward followers of Almighty God, and their perspectives.

As a side note, I noticed that a particularly common method that experts use to convince people of things, is what I call "blinding them with brilliance".

Some of the scientists and other intelligent people trying to convince others may employ a technique of quickly going from one brilliant flash of knowledge to another so many times that it leaves their hearers' heads spinning.

Of course they do it in a logical flow of thoughts, one intelligently leading into another. They can keep this up for so long during a presentation, that I find myself completely impressed by them as smart people. This leads the audience to want to be impressed by the points they are trying to make - whether they understand them or not and whether they are valid or not.

I have seen this approach applied by outspoken atheist scientists. On the road to capture all the possible ramifications are many fascinating bits of information.

However, they ultimately prove nothing more than the premise that God is not the best scientific theory. Of course it is no surprise to hear that they can't disprove our supernatural God's existence with natural science, even though when they are finished, they sometimes apparently think they have just finished doing so.

In the blaze of brilliant arguments against the existence of God from modern experts, I have seen many logic fallacies emerge. One is that they focus on disproving what they consider commonly-thought attributes of God. These attributes are often from non-Christian sources, such as Aristotle or other ancient philosophers, who had an inadequate knowledge of divinity.

To disprove an erroneously conceived attribute of God, should not be taken as a valid argument against the existence of the one true God of the Bible.

Personally, I consider the tactic of blinding with brilliance to be a logic fallacy, or very close to one. It is similar to a ''Fallacy of Many Questions''.

Our salvation decision does not depend on provable facts about God's existence. For proof of God, it is only relevant that we know God. To someone who knows God in their inner being, which is the only place knowledge of God can be experientially assessed, God proves Himself to exist.

Jesus is the gateway to knowing God. In the Gospel of Matthew 11:27, Jesus says "Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Jesus also famously said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -John 14:6

Most people who appeal to science to defend their unbelief don’t realize that modern science stems from the groundbreaking work of people who strongly followed Jesus as Lord of their lives. This century’s science is based on ideas from spiritual thinkers of the past like Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon. (The two Bacons lived in different centuries and were not known to be related to one another).

Roger Bacon was a monk who introduced what we now call “empirical” thinking. It was an early basis for what we know as the Scientific Method. Francis Bacon, was instrumental in formulating and refining the Scientific Method. Many of Francis Bacon's philosophical ideas were focused on addressing social issues in order to change antiquated systems. His objective was to improve humankind intelligently using a humanitarian focus, as Jesus influenced people to do. These groundbreaking scientists, who were believers in Jesus loved science, but never considered it applicable to whether a person could be saved by having faith in Jesus. They did, however, consider belief in our Creator a natural course of reasoning, that could not be ruled out by science.

Thinkers from the 1600s to the 1800s laid the foundations for science we use today. Many of them were believers in Jesus. The following list of groundbreaking scientists who were Christians is almost identical to the scientists my generation learned about in high school and college: Sir Isaac Newton invented calculus, laws of motion, and universal gravitation. By inventing the first reflecting telescope, he discovered that sunlight was made of all the colors of the rainbow. René Descarte had a series of dreams that led to new ideas about the Scientific Method, and Analytical Geometry, which was his invention. He attributed these ideas to a spirit sent by God in dreams. Analytical Geometry revealed how to solve previously unsolvable geometry problems, by using corresponding algebra. It is now indespensible in today's science and mathematics. Robert Boyle defined the the word 'element', as we now use it in science. He theorized the existence of compounds and the physics of gases.

Blaise Pascal was the grandfather of computing. In the mid 1600s, he invented the first mechanical calculator, the hydraulic press, and co-founded probability theory. Antoine Lavoisier discovered that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. He was a founder of modern chemistry. Michael Faraday discovered magnetic induction, which was the scientific basis for motors and generators we use today. He discovered how to liquify gas to room temperature, and is famous for his invention, the Faraday cage. Allessandro Volta invented the electric battery. The word 'Volt' was named after him. Carl Friedrich Gauss developed Gauss's Laws of physical science, still the standard.

In the 1800s George Washington Carver improved the economy greatly by discovering that peanut farming replenished the soil, while cotton crops depleted it. Florence Nightingale was a scientist who is credited with adding 20 years to then-current life expectancies. Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) codified the the first two laws of thermodynamics, and discovered absolute zero temperature. Samuel Morse was an inventor of the single-wire telegraph and he patented it. He developed the Morse code.

In the 1900s and 2000s, famous scientists following Jesus or at least believing in God have been many. Georges Lemaître discovered that the universe is expanding. He discovered Hubble's Law, and developed what we call the 'Big Bang Theory'. Perhaps the most famous is Albert Einstein. Francis Collins invented positional cloning, and was Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute during the Genome Project. Ernest Walton proved Einstein's theory that energy equals the product of mass times the velocity of light squared (E=mc^2). Christian Anfinsen, Manfred Eigen, and D.H.R Barton are (or were) three unique Nobel Prize winners for Chemistry. Werner Archer, Nobel Prize Winner for Physiology/Medicine. Sir John Eccles: Nobel Prize winner for Neurochemistry, Ulrich Becker: professor at MIT, Steven Bernasek, Conyers Herring, and John Fornaess: all professors at Princeton University.

Primary source:

Science-minded people should be interested in truth as a guiding value of science. Those who propogate that good scientists cannot believe in Creator God, either ignore or dance around the facts presented above. These facts comprise clear evidence that many prominent and acclaimed scientists, both now and throughout history, have believed in God the Creator. Their belief did not weaken their scientific accomplishments or acclaim.


Enlightenment Glowed Then Dimmed

John Locke was one of the earliest and foremost proponents of 'Enlightenment' thinking as he defined it. He was a philosopher born in 1632, who was a Christian with an intense interest in faith and knowing God. Philosophers like Locke led society into a time historically called the enlightenment period. 'Enlightenment' thinking included a belief that reason is the primary source of authority and legitimacy that people should use. This was intended to counter many kinds of dangerous superstitions and ignorance prevalent at the time. John Locke never intended to promote a kind of reason that would pit human reason against divine reason. He was touting reason because it was created by God. He was strongly against atheism. Enlightenment thinking evolved toward a less friendly view of God than Locke or Francis Bacon intended. In a sense, the later philosophers hijacked the term "enlightenment" and redefined it into what I call spiritual "endarkenment". It exalts human intelligence over everything else. It was an assault against God's light in the world.

Christians knew 'enlightenment' to be based on the light which emanates from Jesus, the light of the world. Jesus taught us to use reason fostered by this kind of light. He was a master at reasoning, both logically and spiritually, with great wisdom. The original call to reason of the early enlightenment thinkers was meant to overcome the darkness of misfortune that plagued society. Reason was proposed out of love and concern for people from a godly perspective. Somehow, the idea of reason warped into a call toward poorly applied, slanted reasoning and short-sighted group-think. The proponents overly-venerated science non-Christian philosophy in an attempt to edge God out of the picture. As a believer, I do not think it is out-of-the-question that forces of spiritual darkness were behind this.

In a future section on Philosophy, we will explore a view termed "naturalism". It was an offspring of enlightenment thinking. It attempted to move society and science even farther from God. Unhealthy biases wound their way further into the scientific realm we see today.

Science That Clearly Demonstrates Validity

Science has a phrase, "quod erat demonstrandum" or Q.E.D. It is a means to indicate when a theory's premise has been demonstrated as having validity.

Q.E.D. is based on the desire to identify that the proof or the argument is complete. It requires evidence within a controlled environment leading to an outcome that would be expected to provide a sound validation of the theory.

The presence of Q.E.D. includes a way to help determine if unbiased science is being applied. Stated another way, the absence of Q.E.D. is a good way to help uncover science misuse when the issue of creation or God's existence is involved.

If there was no Q.E.D. behind a seemingly authoritative scientific statement, it deserves further investigation in the future. Therefore, we should reserve judgement in the present.

Q.E.D. is helpful to determine validation only when tested within a controlled, unbiased, rigorous test environment. Once Q.E.D. has been demonstrated, it fulfills academic rules on which people should mentally base scientific judgment. It does not determine ultimate truth or reality. When science is not involved, Q.E.D. is a poor measuring stick of truth.

When no Q.E.D. is present, but a large group of people, even "experts" adopt a common, but premature scientific conclusion involving groupthink, that conclusion should invite scrutiny, in my opinion.

It is dangerous when faulty science results in a theory becoming accepted mainly on "groupthink", which is a psychological term.

Groupthink happens when a group of people reach a consensus without proper reasoning or rigor. Often it arises out of a common desire not to upset the balance of a group of people.

Consensus reached with proper reasoning and rigor is not groupthink. However, when it comes to science, ideologies, political positions, religious beliefs, or philosophies: consensus can still have some of the characteristics of groupthink. I feel safe in recommending that it is OK to hold the same opinions as someone else. Humorously and spiritually, I can add "especially if that person is God". Anyone of lesser veracity might prove to one degree or another questionable.

Therefore, a person without a relationship with God has no sure anchor for absolute truth, in my experience. God does not always let us in on the absolute truth about things, but at least He can be trusted when He does.

Despite all the good things about science, many of the statements scientists accept as facts are not proven. If experts proclaim an assertion as an established fact, keep an open mind to the possibility it is not true at all, however "established" or pervasive the opinions might be.

The word "fact" has many possible meanings. A primary meaning in some dictionaries for "fact", is "something you know to be true".

When you know something to be true it does not make it a fact in the mind of someone who knows a conflicting thing to be true.

Other meanings of the word "fact" include a thing that a group of people consider to be true, a statement, a piece of information, something in a book, or in computer science a datum is a fact. The plural of datum is data. Therefore, "data" is defined as facts.

Let's say you asked me for directions to a nearby post office, and you followed my directions finding them to lead you very quickly to a post office. That experience would validate that I told you a set of facts, in the most actual definition.

You can know that it is a fact because you mailed your letter. Still, you decided correctly to know. Because the letter is gone, you can say you know on grounds that are irrefutable in your opinion.

Here is my point. A correct decision to know, apart from proof, can lead to irrefutible evidence to your mind. Many times, I have shown people how to believe in Jesus for salvation, and they responded, "I can't because I don't first know that it is true." It is as if there is an unwritten law that says, "don't do anything unless you first know it is true."

Ironically, when it comes to having fun, the same people can be energized by trying new things because they hope for a thrill doing what they don't yet know to be true.

Why be rigid in the matter of salvation in Jesus, when it comes to believing without first knowing? Do you see the folly of thinking you must first know before you can believe and be saved?

Knowing is a decision. It is what a person considers. People might consider many things as known facts, that are later proven to be false. They might have seemed irrefutable at the time, but someone did find a way to refute them.

Science Can Replace Itself

Long ago it was considered a solid fact that a grain of sand was the smallest item known to man. Afterward, for centuries all the world’s greatest minds taught as fact that the atom was the smallest particle on earth.

Later scientists discovered the proton, neutron, and electron, which were each a fraction of the atom’s size. Since then, they have discovered the smaller atomic particles “gluons” and even-smaller “quarks”, which are held together by the gluons, named after the word “glue”.

Quantum physics theorizes smaller particles still. However, the prevailing view first theorized in 1964 is that quarks are the smallest. Scientists often call quarks "the building blocks of the universe". I find the phrase a bit comforting when spoken by any scientist who might envision a Builder.

What do people say when faced with a new scientific finding that negates previous discoveries in the manner just described? It is common to hear them state that older levels of scientific expertise were inaccurate because they were from a less-developed body of knowledge. Let me tell you why this is not a good answer.

Today’s scientific expertise is from a less-developed body of knowledge than that which will exist a hundred years from now.

Some of today's best science could easily be considered inadequate and superceded when future standards exist.

Current scientific “facts” are just as susceptible to being replaced in the future as those of the past are now. So today's facts are just as likely to be wrong as those of yesterday.

In 1927 Georges Lemaître postulated that the observable expansion of the universe could be traced back to a single point of origin. Stephen Hawking, one of the 21st century’s most brilliant physicists and cosmologists, was keenly aware of Lemaître’s theory. We now popularly call it “The Big Bang”. By some accounts, the Pope was responsible for stating that this theory was in line with the Bible's view on creation.

In response, Lemaître stated that his theory did not envision God as the power behind our universe's expansion from a single point.

For many years, Hawking was a proponent of the Big Bang theory and wrote many papers on it. Near the end of his life, he developed a different theory.

Although the “Big Bang” could be traced back using scientific theory, Dr. Hawking theorized that tracing it does not necessarily lead to a single point, but more likely to a concave-shaped phenomenon.

He theorized that the lines of expansion originated in a small area of recirculating elements near the beginning in a semi-circle sphere, rather than a point.

In Hawking’s mind a boundary based on string theory and the holographic principle would provide the semi-circle beginning point. We know that this theory is popular but likely to remain untestable. If this could be validated in the future, it would improve on Lemaître's theory.


Upon first reading the article about this, my uneducated impression was that Dr. Hawking was proposing an alternative twist ending to Lemaître’s work.

I don't have the credentials to suggest Dr. Hawking's theory was intended as an alternative to creation.

Even if Dr. Hawking's theory could refute Lemaître's explanation, it would not shatter the possibility that God could be the creator of the process described.

Lemaître's work was incapable of proving or disproving God. But it is possible that his original theory was more correct than Hawking's exercise in quantum mechanics and string theory, which is brilliant yet untestable.

If God is Creator, He could have performed the details of any new theory by having used a divinely intelligent creative process to do so.

When scientists continue expanding the number of billions of years the earth has existed, or the that man has been evolving, it does not make it less possible for God to have created it all.

When we see massive amount of details theorized and explored about evolution, it does not diminish the possibility that God could have created any or all them. On another note, an example of some atheists grasping for straws (or perhaps stars) is the stated existence of many universes to be proof of non-creation. Many universes could exist, but it does not decrease the possibility that God created them all.

Astrophyisicits have not found any evidence of multiple universes. However, misuse of science has broadly planted the idea that they have.

A team of scientists from the UK, Canada, and the US, announced they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background.

They think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes.

Note that they "think" the marks "could be" bruises. This is very far from either evidence or fact. An online scientific journal said: "If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist."

Of course until their theory does "turn out to be correct", there is no fact to be found or implied.

Unfortunately, due to misuse of science the concept has turned into "evidence" in the minds of the scientific community on the basis of what could as easily be mere conjecture.

The headline in an online journal about these circular shapes is misleading. It says "Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist".

I do not doubt the expertise of the team of researchers, only that their discovery was turned into sensationalistic "evidence" by others. It is not evidence of anything currently identifiable.

The other multiple universe theory relates to quantum mechanics. It was formed in 1954 by Hugh Everett as a grad student at Princeton.

The two theories are contradictory to each other. Hugh Everett's theory claims that parallel worlds constantly branch off from each other, moment by moment. The other theory that multiple physical universes exist outside of each other is not based on quantum mechanics.

Neither of these theories is testable, and therefore they cannot be substantiated by science.

String theory was first formulated in 1968 by Gabriele Veneziano. It shows it would be mathematically conceivable that the universe can be explained in terms of very small strings that vibrate in 10 or 11 dimensions. This theory lent support to Everett's multi-verse concept, but did not prove anything.

I'm sure you are aware that the science fiction images of multi-verses are pure fiction, and zero science. Movies and TV shows by Marvel and DC are prime examples. They make for intriguing entertainment, but have no substance.

Nobody can prove multi-verses either exist or do not exist. At the same time, there is no logic to seeing multiple universes as a challenge to belief in God.

If God could create one universe with a big bang or holographic principles, He could do so with many universes.

Hawking's Atheism

Dr. Hawking said, “We are each free to believe what we want and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God.”

At first glance it may seem that Hawking implied his choice to be an atheist was based on the simplicity or non-complexity he perceived it would take to exercise faith in God. Hawking was probably not promoting atheism on the grounds of simplicity. He was not known to avoid complexity in his work or life.

We should sensitively take Dr. Hawking's decision not to believe in a knowable God as a personal statement, not an academic one.

Understandably, his courage in the face of severe debilitating physical ailments might have played a part in his choice not to believe in God.

Dr. Hawking was diagnosed with ALS, (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis) also called Lou Gehrig's disease.

I will never forget the old movie about Lou Gehrig and his gut-jerking story. It starred Gary Cooper. The movie made my eyes well up with tears. ALS was unknown and without a name when the star baseball player contracted it.

Dr. Hawking's heroic life in the face of ALS should be an inspiration to us all. That does not mean he was correct not to believe in God.

Simplicity is the very foundation of the news about Jesus. It is simple: Believe in Jesus Christ as Your Savior. To me, nothing is easier than that.

I love that Dr. Hawking said, “We are each free to believe what we want ". To that I add, we are free to believe in Jesus.

It has been written that Stephen Hawking was very enamored with the laws of the universe to the point of considering them possibly God, but a God no one could have a personal relationship with. That is to me a very sad thing to hear - - Dr. Hawking was so close.


Design Can Seem Obvious


Dr. Hawking saw the complex laws and consistent functionalities of the universe and was captivated by the wonder. I am also captivated in the same way. For me, it is simple, if not obvious, to see it as a result of God's design. If you consider that every contraption of humanity on earth bears evidence of design, it appears logical that the laws and functions of the universe were creatively and ingeniously designed.

We see a 3-D printer, a tractor, a high-end automobile, and millions of other things created by human intelligent design. Why is it a stretch to think the vastly more complex functionality in the universe was not designed?

Noting that many human designs were modeled after complex functions observed in nature - it is not a giant leap to see a sophisticated natural process designed by a super-genious Architect, as believers picture God to be. Personally, I cannot fathom how they could exist by chance.

When it comes to when God created humans, there is one question I have not heard adequately addressed. If, as science declares, homo sapiens existed for 200 to 300 thousand years, why can no evidence of historical writing be found prior to 5,000 years ago?

The oldest coherent fragment of historical writing has been placed at 2,600 BC. Humans intelligent and developed enough to record history cannot be claimed prior to about 5,000 years ago based on archeology.

The Bible's dating of humankind's emergence calculates to at least 6,000 years ago. Some scientists give this general dating to the start of what they call the neolithic period. That is the time they consider that cultural and technological attributes in humanity took a giant leap.

No evidence of agricultural knowledge or its application is apparent on earth before the neolithic period. Pottery and art seems to have begun before then. Dating of the beginning of the neolithic period varies widely among scientists, from 6,000 to 13,000 years BC depending primarily on locale.

In the recorded history within the Bible, it dates the existence of that first man, to be about 6,000 to 7,500 years ago (4,000 to 5,500 BC) depending on the language the ancient text was written in and the calendar involved. The recorded genealogies and life spans in scripture provide the basis for these calculations.

It seems to be beyond coincidence that the beginning of the neolithic period and the formation of Adam occurred in about the same time frame.

Adherents to both young earth and old earth theories can find it useful that mankind, at the level of intelligence and innate ability we recognize today, appears credible to have started in the time period the Bible claims.

Nobody alive today knows for certain because none were present in the beginning to see if a man named Adam had an ancestor or not. I say this to bring into focus that anyone can claim to know things about the prehistoric past, but none of it is empirical.

Something happened. Scientists have called the emergence of fully human people like you and me a 'revolution', as if the people were responsible. I prefer to call it creation, in which God was the responsible party.

Some scientists say the earliest tools were dated around 1.76 million years ago. Other scientists consider the first tools to date to half a million years ago. We now know that at least 10 species use tools, including crows, dolphins, elephants, sea otters, octopusses, chimpanzees, macaques, fegus, and orangutans, according to sources like

On another topic, it is considered by scientists that the human body is home to about 100 trillion cells. Single cell organisms, such as bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes (such as yeast and algae) live in the body. Some of these microbes are good for us, some are bad, and some are neutral in that regard. Cells considered human number far less than single cell organisms at home in the human body.

This is scientifically accepted. I'm telling you this because I want to point out an example of science misuse that is untrue but based on the information above, and suggest that the true findings actually lead to knowledge of a miraculous process unexplainable by science.

Some of the microbes are good for us, some are bad, and some are neutral in that regard. Cells considered human number far less than single cell organisms at home in the human body. Many single cell organisms work alongside bodily functions of human cells. They do so in a positive, productive way. Human cells depend on microbes and microbes depend on human cells.

About 10,000 species of microbes were identified in a five year study. Microbes in the human body contain about 8 million genes, which is more than 300 times the number of human genes in the body. Scientists traced the non-human genes to identify that the microbes came from non-human animals. Some scientists theorize that because so many microbes exist in people, that these microbes are human. But microbes are not human. They are separate single-cell organisms.

The main error of these scientists is failing to realize that a person is not the composition of his or her bodily structure. The human body contains about 60% water. Water is not considered human. But our bodies rely on water to survive. They also rely on microbes, and microbes rely on the body.

The misleading headlines I read were, "Microbes maketh man . . . People are not just people. They are an awful lot of microbes, too." This article in The Economist later said:"The biological Robespierres believe these should count, too; that humans are not single organisms, but superorganisms made up of lots of smaller organisms working together." Then the article went on to say the microbes tell us more about human evolution than our own DNA does! I find these statements wildly ludicrous.

My point here is that it is unwise wise to turn these sensationalized illogical misconceptions pertaining to scientific findings into misleading groupthink. The same is true of any other inconclusive statements made by scientists, that are manipulated to sound conclusive. In this instance the false information appears to be intended to sell magazines. On a positive note, scientists state that microbes that are passed on within a newborn baby are only from the mother. The father's microbes are completely absent.

There is no continuity between microbial properties and genetic human DNA. But the microbes are not just along for the ride. A complex functionality happens in the mothers birth canal just before the baby enters. The body causes the microbes to increase and "change".

Johns Hopkins University article titled, "Baby's First Bacteria" explains how Dr. Noel Mueller, sees these changes. "Most maternal microbes are passed to the baby through the walls of the birth canal. If a birth takes place by caeserean section, the baby is born with very few microbes in comparison. “You’re essentially free of microbes in the intrauterine environment, and then your first microbial exposure happens at birth,” Mueller explains. “Those microbes teach your immune system and body what’s friend and what’s foe and participate in metabolism and generation of nutrients.”

These microbes form a vibrant intestinal community known as the gut micro biome. Mueller believes that early imbalances in the composition of this microbial ecosystem could have serious health consequences as we age." Dr. Mueller gave a delightful explanation of what some might call a miraculous process, in which single cell organisms are brought by the mother's innate bodily functions into the place where they can bathe the infant in protective and friendly microbes that produce health in the child and throughout its life.

I like to think God could have orchestrated the interdependence between the microbes and the formation of babies, the health of intestinal tracts, and other interdependent symbiotic relationships between the single cell organisms and the multi-cell organisms we call humans.

There are many similar inexplicable interspecies dependencies in nature. I tend to perceive them as being full of wonder, and evidence that God exists. Unbiased science can be very fascinating, challenging, and insightful in a way we can apply to our spiritual thinking. For example, it is known by scientists that polar bears have clear strands of fur that transfer sun rays to their black skin. It is similar to passive solar heating fed by fiber optics. A polar bear's fur only looks white because it is densely clustered. It is really clear, like fiber optics.

Spiritually, we can be astounded by such complex functionality, attribute it to a greatly intelligent designer, and as a result glorify the Creator. Wonderful functionality is not exactly proof of God as the Creator. However, it is good evidence. In reality proof comes by a person accepting the evidence. This means it is a human choice to see something as proven. Since human choice is fallible, there is a faint glow of possibility that we could be wrong in accepting specific evidence as proof.

God does not want us to wait for proof that He loves us, and sent His Son to die in our place so we could be saved. He just wants us to believe. It is not a double standard if a believer says science crosses the line when used as evidence against God, while simultaneously observing that many scientific discoveries could point to a highly intelligent and proficient designer. Why is this so? Because, while the scientific mindset is bounded to operate within the natural arena, non-science has no such boundary. It can be supported by the findings of science.

Billions of intelligent people can see how there could be evidence of creation in nearly every aspect of nature. Believers in God, do not cross any lines by appealing to scientific findings as possible evidence of God. Believing in Jesus does not come with restrictions as to how we can think about science. If we believe God created and orchestrated nature itself, then science can inspire and astound us by the intricacy and beauty of it all.

Sometimes I find myself in awe merely because my aesthetic sense is stimulated by the beauty of nature's breathtaking designs. It seems that whoever created my aesthetic sense, also created the aesthetically pleasing scenes of nature. To a believer possessing spiritual and intuitive insight, all of nature appears as evidence of God. It could be a sad fact that to a hardened nonbeliever, nothing in nature is evidence of creation, no matter how convincing it appears to others.

I spent the last two weeks on vacation in Iceland, one of the most beautiful, almost heavenly countries on earth. A week before that, I was visiting Hawaii, also considered a paradise on earth. It is very fresh in my memory the miraculous beauty of nature that to the ears of my heart screams the glory and magnificence of God. It is illogical to look at a beautiful painting and give praise to the paint while assuming no painter exists.

One well known astrophysicist has presented a large number of studies mixing science and logic to make very keenly devised arguments in favor of believing. He has computed the probability of life on this planet occurring by chance to be so infinitesimal as to be considered by open- minded people irrefutable evidence of creation. His name is Dr. Hugh Ross who leads the organization, "Reasons To Believe", which is found at That website is a good place to start if you want to examine issues around cosmology.

A prominent scientist who managed the well-known Genome Project wrote a book about how DNA discoveries involving the origins of humans are most likely evidence of creation. In my mind the complexity and functionality of double helix DNA to store 6.4 billion letters (base pairs) in a single human cell is barely imaginable, even when you consider it to the be the result of advanced design. It is incomprehensible to me when people conclude it came into being by accident. A cell is about 100 micrometers in diameter. One strand of DNA from one cell, when stretched out is 3 feet long. Multiply that by 37.2 trillion cells in the human body. Inference, such as used in statistics, is not proof, but it can help provide insight leading to truth.

These examples of inference suggest evidence of God's design ability that is far more intelligent, capable, and personal than any of us can fully appreciate. At the same time, I wouldn't use them in a way that assumes God's existence is scientifically proven. Even if people are convinced by skillful scientific expertise, God wants their faith. He wants their hearts. He wants relationship. God stands outside of science, even good science. The human intellect and its ability to discern is beyond science as well. Our minds can identify bias, and make decisions that filter it out. The mind can also extract the bias, examine the remaining scientific data, and see if perhaps they might logically have value without the bias.

If you are a scientist, or aspire to become one, I encourage you. The world needs more good scientists. Please strive to be immune from group-think, especially anti-God bias. For non-scientists, if you ever choose not to believe in Jesus because experts would disagree, you are misplacing your trust. Sometimes I find that expertise is given too high a role in the non-expert’s mind to justify a belief. I can attest that experts make statements which greater experts in the subject can contradict or find lacking. In my job I was considered a nationwide expert, but I always knew that others were far more knowledgeable experts than I.

For several years my job title was Technical Specialist/Scientist. I don't know if the word “Scientist” in a job title should mean anything significant. I do know first hand that we should not place our trust in worldly experts when it comes to our eternal salvation. We should place our trust in Jesus, “the author and finisher of our faith”.

As with all the other issues in the website, I gladly admit bias toward the existence of God, and the offer of salvation to all who believe in Jesus as their Savior. "My hope is built on nothing less, than Jesus' blood and righteousness", says the old hymn. Something "less" is the age-old discussion about how the world and mankind began. We don't build our hope on it.

First, we note that pointing is not an earthshaking event. Science will continue to point. Second, we note that pointing is not the same as proving. As long as science points to things that challenge biblical issues, the discussion must exit the realm of science and enter the zones of biblical studies, linguistics, etymology, literary style, faith, art, and doctrines.

I think the Genesis account of creation bears the earmarks of oral tradition. I might be the only one with this opinion, but please humor me. Before there was writing, people used spoken words to pass down information from generation to generation. It would make sense that an older generation would form important information into easy-to- remember stories to pass on to their offspring. This is interesting to consider as an explanation for the styles of the biblical creation accounts.

Science has no right to impose anything on a believer, and there is a variety of ways to reconcile scientific theories or findings with the Bible. Two main interpretive points of view prevail on how to reconcile the creation account of the origins of the universe with science. One is that there were literally six 24 hour days in which God created everything. Another is that in Genesis, the word “day” could just as easily be interpreted as “aeon”, or an indistinguishably long period of time.

These two views are generally called the "young earth" and "old earth views". Neither view is a prerequisite for becoming saved, or being a "good Christian". Neither view is particularly scientific. The young earth view is generally based on one possible interpretation of the Bible. The sentiment of its most adamant proponents is that God designed the appearance of age into the universe, but it is only six thousand or so years old.

However, for the old earth view, the idea is that the first two chapters of Genesis reflect a literary device when using the word for “day”. Therefore, each day could be thousands or millions of years long. The same word could be translated "Aeon", or so I have heard.

The old earth view reconciles with modern science much better than the new earth view. Neither view is outside the boundaries of sound Bible interpretation, or possibility, because "for God, all things are possible".

In the end, either interpretation might be correct. Or, another might surprise us. We might need to wait to see in the end, what God shows us in heaven about how it all took place. I am content for that to happen. In the mean time, if I want to hold either of the popular views, I may.

Some people are certain that the biblical idea of the first man being formed from the dust of the ground is in conflict with an evolutionary DNA mapping for homo sapiens. DNA is widely accepted as changeable over generations and can give insight into human family origins. Some DNA changes might take place much more rapidly than previously thought. Much recent scientific work has confirmed the discovery that DNA changes shape, becomes healthier or less healthy, based on the kind of thinking we entertain.

We have known for a long time that thoughts of faith in God and other optimistic elements of life, can promote longer, healthier lives. Now, we are seeing how this works. Our bodies and brains seem to get more healthy due to resultant changes in DNA caused by our thoughts and resultant attitudes. Several studies support this. One is called "Local and Nonlocal Effects of Coherent Heart Frequencies on Conformational Changes of DNA". The studies indicate we are not at the mercy of our inherited genetics because we can change them with our mental outlook.

God has the ability to design an advanced functionality into humans, and surprise us by showing progress takes a shorter time than previously considered. Negative genetic changes are referred to as "non-useful variations". Positive changes are called "useful variations". Non-useful variations can be observed in forms such as birth defects or genetically-based diseases. There is much evidence that useful variations exist.

It is important to note that zero credible support exists to validate that useful-variations were ever responsible for filling the "gap" between one species and another. There is a modern theory of how "useful-variations" can exist based on what they call "recombination". Thousands of similar theories, "breakthroughs" or changes in scientific discovery have come and gone in this arena. There may be thousands more before we know enough to get excited about any of them.

No matter how positive these scientists may seem, they are mistakenly holding up the new theories against the yardstick of believing in God and creation. Why do scientists bother to do this? Progress in science cannot possibly be applied to disprove God or divine creation. Yet, large fortunes are spent on the effort anyway.

I concede that the biblical explanation of people formed out of the dust of the earth could appear simplistic. But it does appear to address the carbon-based elements found in the human body. With that in mind, it reflects an unexpected possible connection between an ancient creation story detail and current science.

As for the story of Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs, scientists in the mid 1900s would have had a much greater sense of skepticism before science discovered cloning. God is much bigger than most people think, even if simplistically told stories for all ages exist in the Bible.

The issue of DNA versus biblical narrative really does not challenge the belief that God created man in His image, both male and female. It does not challenge the integrity or credibility of the Bible. Nobody is capable of going back in time to verify through direct observation how the earth, the universe, or mankind originated. But you and I can each believe that God is our Creator as we wait until we enjoy His presence in Heaven to find out the details. Would you like to get to Heaven to find out? Or would you prefer to stand on the merits of unprovable scientific bias to support your unbelief? If you do that, you may not ever know the details.

My job is not to prove or disprove anything, but to tell people they can have lives of greater meaning for eternity by believing in Jesus as their Savior. If people need to examine the findings of science or any other discipline to feel confident in their decisions, it is just fine. I value personal freedom of choice.

I can guarantee you that no science, logic, or other mindset will result in findings that prevent you from finding Jesus spiritually in this lifetime and becoming saved. It is also impossible that any argument based on science will ever truly prevail against God as Creator.

Evolving Theories

When it comes to Darwinian evolution, it is NOT a valid issue for deciding whether to believe in Jesus and thereby become saved for eternity. It has no bearing on the salvation decision. If you question these statements, read on.

We will NOT be examining two sides of an argument, and choosing which is correct. Only by some form of faith, can anyone say for certain that any case is correct, because no mortal today was alive to observe creation when it happened. Nevertheless, we will look at the subject because it can help people become more understanding.

As we discussed above, there Bible experts who see the earth and universe as very old. Others see the earth and universe as relatively new.

You can lean toward either view and be saved, without casting doubt on scripture or God as Creator. It is also permissible to believe in Jesus without taking a stand on the issue at all, but simply believe, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Micro evolution, also called "evolution within a species", does not challenge the concept of creation or design under the new-earth scenario. In my mind, if God could design something as observably complicated as the heavens and the earth, He could do it in six days or in six billion years. The issue here is that God is Almighty. He can do anything. To me, the ability to design evolutionary progress within a species is a greater testimony to the magnificence of God's creative ability than most suppose. He could have even sped up or slowed down the micro evolution process at will during the last 6,000 years, after creating the earth in six literal days.

Then there is macro evolution, "the evolution from one species to another". Here are some seriously lacking , as-yet-unresolved shortcomings: The only record we have of species thought to exist prior to human history, are fossils. The number of species we know about, based on fossils, is less than 1% of all species that have ever lived on earth, according to paleontologists. Of those, no convincing evidence of one species evolving into another exists. The best that science can come up with are observations that might suggest the possibility of macro evolution.

It is commonly known that the biggest problem to overcome, with macro evolution, involves gaps in the fossil record. No fossils have been identified as "transitional" species. Scientists have discovered only fossils that fit within the definition of species: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

Darwin theorized that the gaps could be explained by long periods of extinction among unknown, theoretical species in-between known species. In this Darwinian theory, one or many transitional species must have existed, one after another, between an ancestor species and a possibly descendant species.

To Darwin, it would have required extinction of each in-between species before a future surviving species appears. There is no convincing evidence in the fossil record of even a single species between one known species and another, even to this day. Therefore, the scientific basis for macro-evolution remains unsound.

Darwin's explanation was imaginative, yet not credible. Much work has been done in paleontology since Darwin to explore the fossil record in greater detail.

Everett Claire Olson of chair of UCLA's Department of Biology is one of the pioneers. He stated the problem of missing "links" has been reduced, however it has become more complicated and it is still a matter of interpretation as to whether Darwin's theory has been supported by the newer evidence.

Dr. Olson's statement was far from reassuring. Despite the enormous support macro evolution has developed, it takes at least as much faith to believe in macro evolution as it does to believe in God, in my opinion.

Since Darwin first presented his theory, two full lifetimes have passed. Many new generations of school children, were taught that "Darwin's theory has been proven." I was one of them. During those years, many people refused to believe in Jesus because of this as-yet-unsubstantiated theory of macro evolution. The theory itself says nothing about Jesus, nor does it even question creation.

Darwin lived before DNA was studied. Today, scientists place a great deal of stock in the similarities of DNA code between different species. I can imagine an alternative explanation to seeing the same DNA code in one species as resides in another. I have completed a lot of computer programming in my career. All programmers understand that lines of code, which they have creatively written for one application can often be used in designing another. It is a very efficient method because they have already tested the code and know it works.

It was not a stretch for me to see how the Creator could use exactly the same coding for multiple species. It is an intelligent thing to do. If you start with the idea of God as Creator, it is a suitable explanation for why so many exact matches of DNA code exist between different species.

Charles Darwin's theories were inspired in childhood by his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, a man of great influence in his time. He wrote his theories about evolution out in poetry, apparently to avoid scrutiny for his unorthodox ideas. Eventually, Erasmus Darwin did write a book proposing that adaptation results in new species.

Charles Darwin later found a kindred spirit in Alfred Russel Wallace, who had come to many of Darwin's beliefs independently at the same time. They eventually collaborated, resulting in Darwin's book.


I must mention that I have great respect for the quality of Charles Darwin's work and knowledge during his time. He was not a bitter man. He had a seemingly unquenchable fascination and curiosity about nature. He was a foremost biologist of his time, and had a knack for assimilating vast stores of observational data into theories using creative problem solving. Where he could not prove an element of his theory, he at least persuasively made a case that it was not impossible. I admire him as a communicator and scientist. "Darwin" is not a bad word. The man was sincere, and in his mind, well-intentioned. But, his theories went against the long-held belief in a literal six day creation, and therefore against the Christian norm of his day.

In the final statement of Darwin's book*, he wrote "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

In this statement I see a glimmer of divine creation subtly entertained and known to be understood by readers, when he used the word "breathe" just as the Bible does. The publisher used quotes from Francis Bacon and William Whewell on the title page to help advertise the book. Bacon wrote something profound. He told us not to "think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy, but rather let men endeaver an endless progress or proficience in both." That message is printed on the original Title Page of his book today.

If most Darwinists would have taken that statement seriously, the world would be a different place. I do not claim to be a proponent of Darwin or Darwinism. I am a proponent of God. And I can tell you this. I would much rather see printed on my currency “In God We Trust”, than “In Darwin We Trust.”

Next Page

The following links continue the topic we are in. They address more information to help dispel doubts about Jesus. Placing them in menu form helps you navigate faster from one section to another, and go back and forth easier.

Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections .. The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments ..Back to the Beginning



Main Menu


What Does it Mean to Get Saved?


What Does it Mean to Believe?


Who is Jesus Christ?


What Does Savior Mean?


Who is Jesus?


What Earned My Entry to Heaven?


Why Should I Believe in Jesus?


What is the Meaning of Life?



Home - Text Version


Home - Regular Graphics Version


Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.


What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?


What is the Gospel?


More About the Great "I AM"


Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?


Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?


More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus


What if I Have Doubts?


What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?





End of Page






















































































Please don't scroll down in areas like this.


It is much faster to use links and buttons provided in each page.


Thank you



to Menu






































































































How To Be Saved logo

..Believe imgText as Graphic

What if I have Doubts?

(continued) - Intellectual, Philosophical, and Cultural Issues




Short Answer Version

Some people think that a philosophy like existentialism, humanism, naturalism, or post-modernism somehow trumps believing in Jesus. Others claim devotion to another set of spiritual principles that they might not call a religion.

A large number of people consider themselves set in beliefs of their family or country. These are all complex pursuits requiring insight to examine.

The shortest, truest, and best answer when considering all the philosophical and cultural issues is "Jesus is better".

Long Answer Version

No human has the ability to prove conclusively the premises of a philosophy or religion.

No philosophy represents a good argument against believing in Jesus to be saved. However, many seem to offer precepts that make the philosophy seem on the surface to be a good replacement for believing in Jesus. But nothing can compete or compare with faith in Jesus as Savior.

One or more religion teaches that if you become a believer in Jesus, you will be excluded from salvation. If you consider yourself part of such a group, please dismiss that part of your teaching as untrue. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No person comes to the Father except through Me."

The tenets of any philosophy require faith to accept. Philosophies vary greatly in their views. If a philosophy tries to exert influence on its readers to disbelieve in Jesus as Savior or to choose either atheism or agnosticism, that philosophy should be considered at best untenable and dangerous.

Many philosophies make their end-goal the achievement of an individual’s personal happiness here on earth. Some do this in a way conducive to self-gratification on a short-term basis. Others are more altruistic and look beyond the individual to the corporate happiness of a culture or the entire human race.

Philosophies can be multi-faceted and exploratory. They can be profound, helpful, hurtful, creative, well-structured, disarrayed, self-refuting, illogical, or confusing. Both noble and ignoble motivations are represented in the vast number of philosophies.


One currently ubiquitous branch of philosophy is called naturalism. It has been around for centuries. It currently asserts that the scientific method relates to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are based on natural causes. This even includes social occurences, learned morality, and intelligence.

A specialized form of naturalism became a school of thought in the legal profession in the 1700s. It was based on a moral code superceding rules and positions of human authority. The moral code seen in nature was considered to transcend observable nature. Therefore, the concept of ''the laws of nature'' began as being or coming from a higher power than nature.

Naturalism in art began in the early 1800s. It was a move toward focusing art solely on the physically observable.

In Philosophy

Naturalism as a philosophy began in the mid 1800s. It did not at first deny the existence of God. The atheist movement had been growing and undoubtedly influenced naturalism. Without allowing for God to exist in the naturalistic ideology, the laws of nature were recognized, yet defied explanation.

Nature can be explained to the extent it can be observed, but the complex functions that keep it operating, balancing, and changing can only be theorized. Therefore, the thing that replaces God in naturalism is ''chance''. This is merely a word for likelihood or probability.

These laws of nature seem to take on many of the functions believers ascribe to God.

Statistical probabilities were at the center of the equation, as if the laws of probability wrote themselves. A naturalist also considers the laws of mathematics, physics, and nature to be devoid of the genius of design and creation.

To me, the idea that it all exists and is maintained in momentum and equilibrium by chance is unfathomable. I'm not saying that God constantly focuses on holding every little thing in balance. It is more plausible to my mind that He created self-perpetuating systems that do it by His design. They demonstrate and fulfill the laws of nature God created. However, some scriptures can be easily interpreted that God is the one controlling it all. Those who favor that perspective have a perfect right to do so.

In Science

Some people attribute naturalism as a mixture of philosophy and science to Robert Boyle, who lived in the 1600s. He never used the word ''naturalism'', but he did invent the word ''chemistry'', and is known as the father of chemistry. Many naturalists like to think of him as the father of naturalism as well. He was a strong believer in Jesus and the Bible his entire life.

The various schools of thought that arose later calling themselves ''naturalism'', were largely based on his work. They eventually veered from His spirituality. There is a very good You-Tube video entitled ''Robert Boyle - Man of Science, Man of Faith''

Naturalism entered the realm of modern science in the 1800s. Scientific Naturalism was popular among academics around 1830.

In 1837 Charles Darwin made it a pursuit to examine scientific naturalism carefully, and did so for several years. During much of that time he considered himself a naturalist, as was the trend. But then he found it lacking. The areas that Darwin felt were inconceivable became some of the the kindling for writing his famous book and publishing it in 1859.

Starting in the introduction, and repeatedly throughout the book, he differentiated his views from those of the scientific naturalists. Scientific naturalists believed in the opposite of evolution when they said all domesticated animals would fully revert back to aboriginal animals in the wild. Darwin countered with his knowledge that many domesticated animals would not survive in those environments.

Naturalists believed that each species descended from other species through genetics. The existence of genes and chromosomes was newly being theorized in the same historical period. The first gene was not discovered until about seven years after Darwin's book was published.

Over the course of many years, most scientific naturalists gradually went along with Darwin's theories and deserted the original premises of scientific naturalism. Their main thrust remained atheistic, not allowing for divine creation.

In Literature

This worldview was adopted as an approach to literature. First postulated by Hippolyte Adolphe Taine of France, who between 1858 and 1864 wrote a four volume History of English Literature, and a book of essays on literary critique and history.

Taine's critical theory was first adopted by French novelists such as Emile Zola. Zola, wrote dozens of fictional works that incorporated naturalism, thereby veering from the norm and proving successful. Zola later organized his thoughts and constituency to enter the arena of philosophy. He is now called the founder of naturalism as a philosophy.

Although, the philosophy emerged sometime in the late 1800s, it became so popular among literary scholars that it spread quickly, even into an unlikely place: literary analysis of the Bible.

This is ironic because the Bible is filled with the supernatural. How can a naturalistic approach extract any intended meaning conveyed by a book that is primarily about God and the supernatural?

Such strength did the power of suggestion possess, that an invasion of naturalism swept through western culture. It created waves of peer pressure, crowd psychology, mass suggestion, and anti God bias.

When naturalism spread, it infected the colleges and universities of the early 20th century, even the Christian ones. Today sadly, many of the most prestigious theological seminaries base their studies of the Bible on naturalism, through literary criticism.

Naturalism claims to be based on the scientific method. In fact, it is counter to scientific procedures because it makes a statement about the existence or non existence of God.

Naturalism is a philosophy of prejudicial bias. It is based on applying presuppositions that are largely indefensible. In so doing, it is failing to address quite a few red flags.

In my opinion, it is a relatively weak philosophy, but still has a sway on the public largely due to the desire not to ''swim against the current''. Even today, many have assimilated the precepts of naturalism without even knowing where they originated.

An ancient Chinese school of thought, contained a word many translate as ''naturalism''. It bore little resemblance to later naturalism. It did, however, bear some resemblances to the ancient greek philosophies. Zou Yan was the founder, and his teachings were part of the Yin-yang school of thought. It had a strongly spiritual component.


Positive Versus Negative Philosophies

I prefer philosophies with goodness at the center, goodness of life, of future hope, of morals, of ethics, of loving others. Human goodness and happiness are nice things, and they are good endeavors to pursue. Although they are good, they are not the best, which is relationship with God. But put the two together, and you have a winning pair.

I disfavor philosophies that lead people to hopelessness, emptiness, anarchy, depression, or anxiety. Most of them, tend to exclude Jesus if that tells you anything. Here are some examples:

The philosophy nihilism can be capsulized as ''life is meaningless, so reject all moral principles, including most religion''. Existentialism holds that humans are without purpose in a world that makes no sense; therefure, they must fill in their need for purpose as best they can. But they know in the end it will all be meaningless.

Postmodernism believes human consciousness cannot identify reality with objectivity; truth does not exist; science, technology, and logic cannot be trusted, being instruments of established power; neither reasoning nor human nature are consistent among humans; people can't know anything for certain; no theory of the natural world can be valid.

Some of thes philophies gained rather large followings when were introduced. Today, not so much. Postmodernism is the newest, and it has lost much of its thrust since it was introduced in the late 1900s. Relatively speaking, a tiny percentage of the populace holds to them today.

I hope you don't mind that I mentioned these negative, intellectual philosophies. Even though most well adjusted people currently reject them due to the sheer hopelessness factor, I can see an element of truth in them for some people.

However, it does not apply to those who believe in Jesus: The apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Ephesus that prior to believing in Jesus, they were without Christ, ''having no hope and without God in the world''. Shortly before telling them this, he prayed that the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of God would enlighten the eyes of their understanding, that they may know what is the hope of God's calling and what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints. The message of Jesus instills hope.

No philosophy is better than Jesus. None can replace in your life what Jesus can provide. He alone is the way to heaven.


The Best Alternative To Any Philosophy

Believing in Jesus is not a philosophy. It is not a religion. It is not a set of principles. It is a relationship with God, and the way to eternal life. No other manner of living can touch that.

The wisdom Jesus portrayed in His teachings far exceeds that of any philosopher. Relationship with Him allows us to tap into His wisdom.

He understood that a person’s eternal well being could be jeopardized by the philosophical pursuit of temporary happiness.

Even if you strongly hold to a religion like Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or Buddhism, you can have faith in Jesus to save you and it will happen. If you do make a decision contrary to the teachings of another religion, you might face opposition from its people. But I guarantee you will not face opposition from the Creator of the universe either now, or when you see Him face to face in Heaven.

We should treat people of all religions with honor. Being a follower of Jesus is a much higher honor than any religion. It is a deep friendship with the most brilliant, loving, and wise person of all time.

People who try to make this personal relationship into a religion rob themselves and others of the true value that can only be found in friendship with God.

If someone from a different religion or philosophy tries to dissuade you from following Jesus or to persuade you to adopt their preferred religion and add a flavor of Jesus mentality on as an extra, don’t go there. Jesus is not a religion or a mentality. He is not a belief. He is a person. It is about relationship, not religion, not a set of teachings.

I have studied major world religions and found they probably have more in common with each other than people would like to admit. Each believes in God. Each has a set of virtues for people to grow in.

The set of virtues is very similar among the world religions. They all have their versions of Heaven, and most also have a version of Hell. They all try and help you avoid evil, and live good lives. At their core, each attempts to work toward the betterment of mankind and the followers of the religion. They work against evil and in favor of God. Most present wisdom and insight in their writings.

You will see that following Jesus is so much better than any religion on earth, and He puts His virtues into us by His Holy Spirit. He gives us power to resist temptation and live clean, happy lives. This power is far more practical and effective than will power.

There is no reason to hold animosity toward any of the major religions. The right thing to do, as I have stated repeatedly, is to move your focus to believing in Jesus as Savior.

If someone says to believe in Jesus but to call Him a name specific to a foreign religion, such as Allah, Vishnu, Krishna, Buddha, Baha, or Maitreya, do not listen to them. It is an attempt to pull you away from Jesus. The same is true in reverse. Don’t call any of those ''deities'' Jesus or YHWH.

Believing in Jesus may clash with other religions, but it should not be out of animosity by the believer. In certain places people know that if they believe in Jesus, it will mean someone will be hired to kill them. Others know their family will cut them off. These are admittedly very strong inducements not to follow Jesus.

Persecution in anti Christian, atheistic countries today is prevalent. We all need to the count the cost to our mortal selves when we believe in Jesus. We should also see that the eternal future of each believer weighs more.

The first followers of Jesus lived in peril and persecution. Many were martyred. Many were rejected by friends and family. But each had experienced an encounter with Jesus that made it seem like they would be denying reality itself if they were to disavow belief in Jesus. The truth is they would have been denying the eternal reality, and therefore persecution was a small price to pay.

Jesus IS God and salvation IS by grace through faith in Jesus. Believers who encourage others to meet Jesus need to make sure the listener understands who the other person in the relationship truly is. New believers would be wise not to allow themselves to be influenced away from true beliefs by people teaching beliefs contrary to salvation in Jesus.

Spiritual enemies of Jesus want nothing more than to keep people from getting saved and becoming effective followers. They use all kinds of strategies including influencing ideologies negative to Jesus as Savior. These enemies are not people.

If we encourage relationship with Jesus, we need to make sure the listener understands who the other person in the relationship truly is. New believers would be wise not to allow themselves to be influenced away from true beliefs by people teaching beliefs contrary to salvation in Jesus.

Spiritual enemies of Jesus want nothing more than to keep people from getting saved and becoming effective followers. They use all kinds of strategies including influencing ideologies negative to Jesus as Savior. These enemies are not people.

The Bible tells us not to consider people our enemies. The real enemies are the spirits influencing the thoughts and feelings that steer people away from finding Heaven.

We live in a world where there are deterrents all around us to believing. The more poignant issues involve the state of the world today, the increasing presence of ungodly values disguised as good, and the subtle pressure by peers, media, family, and others to avoid choosing Jesus as our personal Savior.

These forces war against the plans of God to bring us out of the negativity around us and into the light, the kingdom in our midst, the kingdom yet to come, and freedom from all the negativities of our world.

If we have are eyes opened to these threats to our eternal happiness, we won't be fooled by them so easily.

Here are a few of the threats: Otherwise noble movements that exclude Jesus, popular notions that lead people away from Jesus, escapism, relativism, vengefulness, zealotry, paranoia, greed, distrust, disinterest, and fatalism.

A strong deterrent is to make idolatries out of obsessions with success, wealth, partying, and the objects associated with them. None of these things are automatically wrong by themselves. The obsession is wrong because neither you nor God are in control of your actions when you worship as idols non Jesus things.

A major deterrent is definition creep. Important concepts that lead us to Jesus are being redefined, diluted, made fun of, or considered obsolete. A few examples are the words, ''sin'', ''righteousness'', ''holy'', ''the fear of God'', and ''the universe.'' Somehow the universe God created is being turned into a replacement for God when people are ashamed of using the words ''God'' or ''Jesus'' in a sentence.

Of course it has for many decades been the practice of unbelievers to turn profound Biblical truths into swear words. Even the word for making love, which God created to be a wonderful thing, is now the ''grand daddy of all cuss words.'' People don't know they are defaming God by using the word. Bringing light to this issue is not meant to embarrass anyone, but to get to the root of one of the biggest deterrents against believing in Jesus as Savior today.

Too many people refuse to become saved for reasons pertaining to pleasures that are only sinful when employed outside of their prescribed context.

The answer to this and all the deterrents that exist, is to understand that God has a way of helping us deal with these things by virtue of His presence in our hearts when we believe in Jesus. A tool He has given us is repentance, and is most powerful when light shines on the roots of our sins.

Jesus is our Savior, and can save us from being susceptible to all the deterrents. One reason is that most or all of the deterrents had their origin in and are perpetuated by the war strategy of satan.

When Jesus comes into our lives He gives us ''authority over all the power of the enemy.'' By our prayers, He will break the power of the enemy and his clever deterrents in our lives over and over.

My main point about all the philosophies, religions, and paradigms of this age or any other, is that none of them are as good as relationship with Almighty God through Jesus Christ our Savior. None present wisdom as pure as that of Jesus. None have the signs and wonders, miracles and healings such as those that accompany faith in Jesus. None present salvation by grace (God’s undeserved favor and unmerited, unconditional love), through faith alone, faith itself being the gift of God and no human could boast about achieving it. Like night and day, the difference is great between knowing Jesus and practicing all the world’s religions and philosophies. Jesus is better.

Every people group on earth has a wide variety of personalities. This includes every religion group. Some are good, some are bad. It is wrong to stereotype a whole people group around the bad people in that group. But that is the reason there is so much conflict between religions. People are doing wrong by blaming or accusing a whole group.

This might surprise you. Jesus is in every major world religion somewhere. The Koran gave more praise to Jesus than to Mohammed. He is their awaited messiah. The Jewish scriptures testify over and over of a deliverer, prophesying in precise detail about Jesus. Some day they will recognize Him as their messiah according to the Bible. Even Hinduism and Buddhism have a place for Jesus, although it is not the place He deserves.

Perhaps we should start praying that these lines will become more blurred in the hearts of the true God lovers in other religions, so the light of heaven breaks through the fading blur and they recognize Jesus as their true King and Savior. In other words, let us pray that God will soften their hearts to the real Jesus.


Next Page

The following links continue the topic we are in. They address more information to help dispel doubts about Jesus. Placing them in menu form helps you navigate faster from one section to another, and go back and forth easier.

Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections .. The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments ..Back to the Beginning



Main Menu


What Does it Mean to Get Saved?


What Does it Mean to Believe?


Who is Jesus Christ?


What Does Savior Mean?


Who is Jesus?


What Earned My Entry to Heaven?


Why Should I Believe in Jesus?


What is the Meaning of Life?



Home - Text Version


Home - Regular Graphics Version


Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.


What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?


What is the Gospel?


More About the Great "I AM"


Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?


Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?


More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus


What if I Have Doubts?


What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?








End of Page
























































































Please don't scroll down in areas like this.


It is much faster to use links and buttons provided in each page.


Thank you



to Menu






















































































Thanks for visiting.
Here is all you need to do to become saved.

Believe In Jesus Christ As Your Savior.
He has already done the work to earn your entry into heaven.


What if I Have Doubts? (continued) Intellectual, Skeptical, and Antagonistic Arguments

Short Answer Version

Skepticism, distrust, apprehension, and reluctance toward believing in Jesus are understandable human responses. We can understand them, but they are not warranted. In fact, they are dangerous long-term to the person entertaining the thoughts.

Many people have adopted these hard-hearted characteristics and have chosen to close their minds and hearts to God's love. Some are energized by a motivation to dissuade people from believing in God and trusting in Jesus. At this point they become dangerous to others long-term because their misconceptions poison others into closing themselves off from a better life.

Long Answer Version

People who hold contempt for even the idea of God can be very strong in their convictions. We need to be aware of their devices and motives. We don't want the doubts of other people to prevent us from believing in Jesus, who is the always the best option.

Many people take on the common skepticism of their culture about many things. Ironically, these people are the most likely kind of skeptics to listen to reason about Jesus. After all, there is much in this world that warrants skepticism, and Jesus offers real help, wisdom, and guidance. God helps us avoid unwarranted negativity that can hold people back from experiencing the good things of God.

Those who build intellectual cases, arguments, and teachings for this purpose tend to have chinks in their armor. They are on the wrong side of the debate, and will ultimately be proven incorrect in their convictions.

In the meantime, we need to be aware of their devices and motives. It will help us not to succumb to their influence. We don't want the doubts of other people to prevent us from believing in Jesus, who is the always the best option.

Some people take on the common skepticism of their culture about many things. These people are the most likely kind of skeptics to listen to reason.

When properly applying reason to the negativity that holds people back, they can move forward in considering Jesus.

Then there are those with a strong stance against God and the Bible out of bias, prejudice, or misguidance. They often want to discredit Jesus as the one true Savior. The most common of these are atheists or those entrenched in anti-christian belief systems.

Their statements sometimes prompt me to think, "What is driving these hard-hearted people so strongly?" This is particularly true knowing that believers in Jesus produce so much good to benefit humankind.

Somewhere inside nearly every skeptic is a seeker. The things I say are based on a desire to show them and other seekers the recognizable errors of most vocal detractors opposing salvation in Jesus.

I learned long ago that such people are unlikely to heed even the most salient points about God, during a discussion. They might, however, walk away with a few new ideas that could lead to heart-searching and grow with time into something beautiful, maybe even heaven.

My audience is people who have hearts of openness to spiritual truth, or at least those who might consider it. The statements I make below could help you filter out the empty arguments of the "talking heads" who would like to prevent you from meeting Jesus.

We will be examining some atheistic arguments. I will be referring to logic fallacies to identify how easy it is to see through false reasoning. Later, the final web page in this section on Doubt is devoted to bringing the reader up to speed on the tools of recognizing logic fallacies.

If you are not familiar with this discipline, the subject of logic fallacies can be very eye-opening to help you come out ahead in various life experiences you might encounter.

My hope is that you would see the love in what I am about to say. I am not trying to discredit people, only the faulty arguments and wrong behaviors that tend to prevent others from being saved. I do this out of love for seekers like you.

Some Christians feel the Bible says they should have a ready argument against any objectors to their beliefs. I'm not sure this is what Peter meant when he rightly said, "Always be ready to give an answer to every man who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, with gentleness and fear."

In my opinion, Peter was referring to people who inquired about Jesus, and at some level sincerely wanted to find a reason to believe.

In all my life, I have never successfully argued anyone into the arms of Jesus. I have, however loved people into those arms.

Many scholarly unbelieving experts have contrived complex logic models to indicate reasons for their lack of belief. Perhaps the most renown is Bertrand Russell who, in 1927, presented the five reasons he was not a Christian in front of the National Secular Society.

We will spend time below debunking Russell's points because most of today's anti-Jesus biases grew out of Russell's foundational teachings.

I have read the full transcript of "Five Reasons I am Not a Christian" presented at the Battersea Town Hall on Sunday March 6, 1927. I also listened to Russell's original presentation recited by a British actor who made me feel like I was right there in the room during the presentation.

The text was shortened into a pamphlet, which presented only the more persuasive points. Recently, most of what I see on the internet are shortened, watered-down versions of the original.

It is not difficult to dismantle Russell's five reasons. They were actually rebuttals to early 20th century statements that were based on faulty premises.

Russell was addressing five points made by the Catholic church in an attempt to prove God exists. This was the first time the church officially attempted to offer such proof.

It has been suggested that religious authorities were trying to fulfill an assignment under deadline, if I understand the background correctly. The contrast between these Catholic authors and today's writers, including modern Catholic scholars, could be due to growth in the last century in knowledge, debate, and presentation skills.

Approximately a century after Russell's presentation, it is easy to recognize that the early 1900s work of the Catholic scholars was weak from our vantage point today.

This in turn serves to weaken Russell's rebuttals. In retrospect it seems that Russell’s “Five Reasons I am Not a Christian”, should more aptly have been titled, “Why I Don’t Want to Be Like the People in 1927 England Who Are the Face of Christianity to Me.”

I say this because he was framing his points around exposure to Christians who, by our standards, were not the epitome of spiritually mature believers.

Russell lived in a society and time many have considered almost devoid of faith and the power of God within the church compared to today's more life-breathing churches. His arguments are therefore not for today or for our culture.

What is more important to keep in mind is that Russell was making a case against the life of a Christian as he understood it, not against accepting Jesus Christ and knowing Him personally by faith. The difference is huge.

Throughout his presentation Russell side-stepped the issue of why he did not believe in Jesus for salvation. Instead he focused mainly on implying that his disdain for Christians was credible support for atheism.

It is similar to the logic-fallacy Guilt by Association. It is childish. It is as if Russell was saying, "If you who believe in God don't treat me nicely, then God can't be real."

In response, Christians are not Jesus. Therefore, atheism is not the logical response to distaste for Christians.

Unfortunately, we encounter the same flawed argument today when people still try to demean Jesus by discrediting those who claim to be His followers. We can currently see a pervasive media bias to that effect.

He also grossly misinterpreted passages to mean Jesus was sinning, when He clearly was not. We, however, can see through these errors, even though the implication was presented with fervor.

In short, these are the five reasons Russell gave, which I will later deal with:

1. I don't know who or what caused God, and I believe everything must have a first cause.

2. Chance is prevalent, and we can't see God in chance.

3. It is incorrect to say "Everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different we could not manage to live in it."

4. The existence of right and wrong, morality, and goodness in humans does not prove God exists.

5. The idea is wrong that the need for justice proves God's existence.

Russell also presented his believe that Creationists have no proof, and proof is what matters. Darwinist evidence therefore, constituted better proof.

Russell did not believe God existed. He then started from that line of reasoning. That is the fallacy of arguing from an unsupported presupposition.

Russell attempted to annul our human right to believe in a first cause for all created things while also believing there was no first cause for the Creator.

He assumed that everybody saw the logic in his statement his father told him, “if God made me, who made God?” In reality, Russell did nothing more than ask a question. Apparently, he thought the question proved something. Russell did not provide any credible support beyond that.

This logic-fallacy is identified as "begging the question." It also happens to be a rhetorical question without substance". It is both unsound and manipulative.

A question can never prove anything - not even one that seems impossible to answer.

Russell did not believe that what we call the laws of nature were created by God, but rather that they happen by chance and statistical probability. That was his second of five arguments as to why he was not a Christian.

He would be hard-pressed to explain why there is so much consistency in these accidental occurrences that we can trace thousands of them that happen the same throughout the earth over millennia and give a name to each type.

Russell did not live in a time of space exploration, but today we see the same overwhelming consistency identified as "laws of the universe".

His third reason, which he called, "The Argument From Design", is actually a true statement. However, it has no bearing on believing or not believing in God. He was right to disagree with the concept that he had heard believers held. Those believers held an unjustifiable concept. Most true believers in Jesus today do not agree that "if the world was ever so little different we could not manage to live in it."

This is called the fallacy of unwarranted assumptions. It is in the category of presumptive fallacies. The premise implied that if some Christians believe in the erroneous argument, then to disagree with it is to disprove design.

Russell's fourth reason is a similar fallacy type. He tried to refute Immanuel Kant's theory that the goodness in people reflects the goodness in God. To do so he went on to use convoluted logic, referring back to his first argument for support, as if it had been proven. It was a presumptive logic fallacy.

Reason number five is an unwarranted assumption fallacy as well, assuming that if a debater discounts an unproven or unsubstantiated argument, he has proven his own opposing point. But to discount an opposing point proves nothing.

Next Page

The following links continue the topic we are in. They address more information to help dispel doubts about Jesus. Placing them in menu form helps you navigate faster from one section to another, and go back and forth easier.

Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections .. The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments ..Back To Beginning



Main Menu


What Does it Mean to Get Saved?


What Does it Mean to Believe?


Who is Jesus Christ?


What Does Savior Mean?


Who is Jesus?


What Earned My Entry to Heaven?


Why Should I Believe in Jesus?


What is the Meaning of Life?



Home - Text Version


Home - Regular Graphics Version


Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.


What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?


What is the Gospel?


More About the Great "I AM"


Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?


Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?


More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus


What if I Have Doubts?


What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?






End of Page
























































































Please don't scroll down in areas like this.


It is much faster to use links and buttons provided in each page.


Thank you



to Menu






















































































Thanks for visiting.
Here is all you need to do to become saved.

Believe In Jesus Christ As Your Savior.
He has already done the work to earn your entry into heaven.




What if I Have Doubts? Intellectual, Skeptical, and Antagonistic Arguments(continued)

Rather than prove anything, Russell's five reasons showed how weak he was in identifying conflicts that were apparent paradoxes in his day. He immediately wrote them off as impossibilities rather than investigate them more deeply.

People have found solutions to many supposed paradoxes. It can take a long time to discover a solution. The fact that a paradox exists and has not yet been resolved, proves nothing about the issues, and therefore rejection of it disproves nothing.

The link below should lead to a story about how to resolve a paradox that Bertrand Russell felt was unresolvable. It shared aspects of the first cause argument. Take a look at: Resolving_Paradoxes under the section "Existence Paradoxes".

Russell was a master at using many tactics that seemed like good arguments but were not. For example he would make a statement people already accepted as true (whether it was or not). Then he would follow it with a statement such as “if that is true, then you must accept that . . .” then he would state an untruth that did not flow well logically from the first statement.

He used a version of this when he said: "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause." However, he was not trying to prove that God had a cause, as you might think if you isolated that statement. Rather his point was that there could be no such thing as an eternal, omnipotent God the way the Bible presents Him, because the concept would present an unsolved paradox to those who believed everything must have a cause.

Elsewhere, he admitted that some real things "emerge from chance", thereby contradicting himself. In saying this, he revealed that he didn't really believe every thing has a first cause. Therefore, by default it could be inferred that by Russell's inadvertant admission, God need not have a first cause.

Later as I was listening to the speech, I noticed I was hearing many rapid-fire scathing negative opinions. Russell did not give people time to separate logic from unsupported criticisms. This tactic is a form of the Fallacy of Many Questions in the field of logic. Russell included several other fallacies, such as: Abusive Fallacies, and Relevance Fallacies.

Most of the criticism was toward people, not God. Few people today would consider it above-board to create his various logic puzzles around presuppositions, false assumptions, and flimsy arguments.

Russell was an atheist. Many of my points in this section on doubt show how many people give the reason for not believing in Jesus, is due to someone other than Jesus that they don't like.

Russell's belittlement of the morality of Jesus seen in the New Testament was imperceptive, twisted, and judgmental. It indicated poor interpretive skills for biblical accounts and was caustically presumptuous.

He twisted Jesus' words, took them out of context, and had an overall poor understanding of the Bible. I felt sorry for him in his apparent vindictive bitterness toward God and Christians.

Some intellectual arguments against Jesus are predicated on assuming that the existence of God has been disproven. For example, they ask "How can there be a Son of God if there is no God?".

This kind of logic is so full of holes that the simplest of thinkers could deflate it. The answer is that the existence of God has not been disproven, nor can it ever be. Therefore, the basis of the argument is nonexistent. It is a fallacy of begging the question.

Other arguments against Jesus are based on the vast amount of time that has passed since He walked the earth. Somehow, the assumption is that with the passing of time, historical accounts become less trustworthy. This concept is not without merit when it comes to human revisionist history. But to revise history correctly, one must possess sound documentation contradicting the popular version, thereby superceding it.

No sound documentation exists negating the historicity of Jesus as the Bible depicts Him. Scholarly attempts to question the historical existence of Jesus exhibit anti-Christ bias for which no sound case can be made. The "scholars" and "experts" negate their own arguments with their skeptical biases.

There is a huge amount of archeological evidence to support the historical trustworthiness of the Bible and of Christian history.

Support has been mounting each decade with new digs and artifacts uncovered. The evidence of historical integrity for the chain of manuscripts of the New Testament is compelling as scholars trace it through the ages. The same is true of the Old Testament and the Dead Sea scrolls.

Jesus is the most prominent figure in all of history. More exploration has been done to document His historical and literary authenticity than for any other person. The argument based on assuming that length of time in the past obscures historicity could not possibly be supported when it comes to Jesus.

I think there will never be an end to people who picture themselves as clever, trying to argue against the existence of God and the deity of Christ. The best they can hope for is to present something that stumps us. To stump a person, or even a society, is not valid evidence or proof of anything.

To think you have won an argument by stumping someone is like pulling their pants down, thinking they will never be able to pull them back up.

Please also allow me to offer a suggestion to consider about the concept of proving something to be true or a fact. When someone says a fact has been proven, it usually means the person has been convinced by means acceptable to that person.

Being convinced does not necessarily indicate truth, fact, or knowing. Nevertheless, our society encourage us to hold a concept to be factual if a large number and wide variety of evidences point to it.

I am not critical of this practice, and at the same time, I want to point out it is not an absolute measuring stick. It is indeed possible to know, prove, or correctly find something factual. My objective is to sharpen, not dullen the ability of readers to know, prove, and discover fact that they can feel certain about.






End of Page


























































































Please don't scroll down in areas like this.


It is much faster to use links and buttons provided in each page.


Thank you



to Menu






















































































Thanks for visiting.
Here is all you need to do to become saved.

Believe In Jesus Christ As Your Savior.
He has already done the work to earn your entry into heaven.

What if I Have Doubts? (continued)

Taking the Power Out of Our Doubts


In this section we will wrap up our discussion on what to do if we have doubts. We will explore in a bit more depth some of the vital issues we have been mentioning.

Short Answer Version

Hopefully, these pages on "What if I Have Doubts?" have effectively addressed many of the concerns that cause doubt to prevent people from believing.

Nearly every argument by detractors of Jesus can be severely weakened by identifying their fallacies of logic and misuses of science.

Many of the emotional issues causing hesitancy to believe can be addressed by stripping the discussion of every fear, by using the calming influence of the true meaning of the good news. The Bible says "perfect loves casts out all fear." The gospel conveys perfect love.

Long Answer Version

We can take the power away from our doubts by confronting them with logic, reasoning, positive emotions, spiritual openness, and most importantly: discovery.

Be willing to apply the tools we have provided for confronting your doubts. Seek and you will discover Jesus! Let His discovered presence strip away arguments and doubts.

Please keep in mind that the laws or rules of logic were discovered within the limits of human intelligence. As such they are amazingly insightful. Yet, they are limited compared to the intellect and ways of God.

Isaiah chapter 55 explains it better than I ever could. You might want to read it when you get a chance. The rules of human logic are nonetheless fine tools for combatting erroneous human claims about God, as well as many other forms of deception.

They also help in discerning the level of understandable truth in teachings that appear spiritual and godly. But God thinks in levels so high above human limitations, that we require His help and presence to rise above human logic, not contradicting it, but superceding it with better, expanded wisdom. Fortunately, James in the Bible gives this explanation of how to access the wisdom of God:

''If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.  But let him ask in faith, with no doubting'' James also tells us in chapter 3 verses 13 - 18 the difference between earthly selfish wisdom and God-given wisdom. The latter is what God gives liberally.


Applying Wisdom To Defuse Faulty Logic

You have seen us refer to logic fallacies quite a bit so far in this section.

When our doubts are influenced by the muddy messages we have been exposed to, we can clean up our thinking by learning to identify invalid arguments. In our minds we can negate them and replace them with truer concepts.

I spent decades not understanding how powerful it is to be aware of "cheating" in the debaters. When a person cheats in this way, they tip you off that they are doing something not good. When you notice repeated logic fallacies, it is a "red flag" to be a little wary about the speaker's point.

When examining an argument, it is a good idea to understand these abuses. Wikipedia is a good starting point. If you want to take a deeper dive into the subject, check out their list at:


Logic fallacies are so common, even the valid side of an argument might contain some. I have caught myself unwittingly using them. The point might not be a fallacy, but my tactic of expression is. For example, I sometimes find myself using a rhetorical question supporting something I know to be true.

Not all rules of logic are absolute. If something is true, and you use a fallacy in support of it, the rule says the proposed conclusion is false. However, it is entirely possible to have a true conclusion, but unintentionally use a fallacious argument for it. So that rule has exceptions.

Convoluted logic is common today, due in part to the media. Assumptions and presuppositions based on popular ways of thinking yet lacking in substance are also abundant.

One fallacy I mentioned above is the Fallacy of Many Questions (plurium interrogationum). It involves complex questioning, loaded questions, and other fallacies rolled into one.

I mentioned arguments against Jesus that attempt to appeal to a separate topic than believing in Jesus for salvation. This is called a Red Herring Fallacy. Such arguments attempt to prove some unrelated point, to infer an implication back to the real issue, one which usually does not truly apply.

There is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. It can be used by a person claiming to be an expert, or by citing "experts".

One related trick of persuasion is the portrayal of lofty attitudes. I watched a movie in which several seemingly authoritative people one after another explained the newer discoveries in quantum physics, which I found fascinating.

At the very end, they let on that they had been laying out a case against God’s existence because the conclusion to the mysteries of quantum physics was “who knows?”

I don’t know if these people were even scientists, but their expert-like personalities made them seem quite erudite, persuasive, and believable. That is, until they most ignorantly tried to suggest quantum physics proves God does not exist.

Talk about surprise endings! More can be said about quantum physics to support belief of God's creative and intelligent abilities than to deny them.

When we apply the logic fallacy test to the many statements within a formal argument against Jesus our Savior, and rule out all that fail the fallacy test, what points are we left with to consider? Very few if any. The arguments lose most of their weight.

I have sometimes talked to people who live in places and are surrounded by people where nothing exciting appears to be happening with God. They think that nothing exciting is happening anywhere else, nor has it ever happened before, nor ever will. They are hindered by their surroundings, their era, and lack of exposure to the real thing. They have lived their entire lives surrounded by spiritually empty or non-vocal people.

It is sad, but a little amusing that they look at me as if I am from another planet. A person blind to Jesus might argue against Jesus based on lack of exposure to people who encounter God personally. At other times, it is more an indication that they just need to meet the right people.

Just as the laws of nature were created by God, and therefore God is above them, human logic was created by God, and He is above it. I have pointed to the use and misuse of logic in learning how to spot errors in the arguments of those denying Jesus Christ as Savior.

I am not doing that because I exalt human logic or its principles. I simply find it useful in exposing ineffective attempts at dissuading people from Jesus and His salvation.

What many people call "common sense" can sometimes be profound, but at other times it can be uninformed because it does not take into account the many complexities of an issue.

Human logic itself has many areas where it is not absolute and is therefore inferior to God’s way of thinking. Many people have exalted human logic far beyond even God in their minds. They exalt human abilities in general.

Determining the most logical assumption for situations is possible, yet often quite elusive. This is because real life has too many variables to fit neatly in any logic model. But I greatly appreciate the discipline of logic and encourage people to become familiar with it. I have grown in analyzing complex systems because of it.

I find it amazing how my way of being logical differs from the many other approaches people have developed. Sometimes multiple angles are valid and can be equally enlightening. To combine them helps us derive a better vantage point. That is why it is good to consider several perspectives.

When it comes to comparing the teachings of other religions as if they were arguments against Jesus, it is pointless to explore. We can defend our relationship with Jesus and the truth He brings, but to attack another person’s spiritual beliefs is not conducive to openness about our main message.

When we say that believing in Jesus is better than following a particular religion, we are not putting the religion down. We are not arguing. We are not saying that believers in Jesus are better than believers in other religions. Rather, we are trying to help.

We hope to help the listener find something we think is better, which is a relationship with Jesus, not a religion. My focus on relationship with Jesus is based on its primary importance in the life of each believer, no matter what else they have yet to grasp.

A common obstruction in peoples’ minds to believing in Jesus is their lack of long-term perspective.

It is not easy to see how long eternity is and how short earthly life is. I had an insightful friend who said, “This life is the womb of eternity.”

You have probably heard the saying a person “can’t see the forest for the trees.” Many people cannot conceive of eternity because their focus is on the things that block its view.

The Bible depicts this physical life as a vapor: “For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away.” I may have mentioned that this life is like a split second compared to the rest of eternity.

If we really grasp the opportunity to do, in this short life, something that will affect us, and others, positively forever after, we will jump at the opportunity, regardless of the many talking heads telling us not to.

Creation Comes From a Creator

Mostly all we have discussed has been about Jesus, His way to Salvation, and why it is unwise to doubt Him as who He claims to be. Now, let's take a final few moments to discuss creation apart from our earlier discussion of science.

I am very intrigued by the many facts and stories about nature that indicate to my heart extremely advanced design and intelligence. Conversely I have not noticed any brain possessed by "the universe" or "mother nature" that could possibly perform these astounding things.

Anatomical evolution (of any living species) has no recognizable guiding intelligence within itself. Evolution is merely a term describing a specific kind of theorized and observed process. Why attribute to it the qualities of some secret being or force?

I just watched an episode on TV about a study of the Veerie Bird. In it the Veerie bird is documented to have a means of reliably forecasting the severity of the next hurricane season months in advance. They do this to ascertain when to fly South for the winter.

The show is called "The Hidden Science of Everything", and looks at a number of puzzling relationships between seemingly unrelated things. The episode on Benford's Law was one of the better ones.

The BBC's series Planet Earth features dozens of similar phenomena. The episodes having to do mostly with nature, detailing nature's interdependence unexplainable by human reasoning are my favorites.

Our society almost worships the presence of genius in a human, and highly regards abilities far beyond the norm. Is it possible that even the greatest human ability had as its origin a higher genius, the Creator, God? I ask myself, "how could human genius exist if it was not so?" It is understandable that creation can be considered logical by the human mind and heart.

There are many books, articles, movies, and other media eloquently presenting the subjects we are very informally addressing here. I suggest a seeker or new believer starts with the books by Lee Strobel, such as “The Case for Faith”.

When Doubt Is A Feeling

Identifying the sense of doubt within us and exploring what it really boils down to, is the starting point.

Feelings are processes within us. They can be learned, such as from the reactions and responses of others. Before I was saved, I was influenced by many different people. In my teenage years, the friends I wanted to be like were generally in disfavor of following Jesus. The school systems were teaching as if Jesus was not important. My father adhered to a religion that taught Jesus was no more than a good man.

These experiences shaped my opinions in a strong emotional way. Somehow I adopted these experiences in a way that seemed to be forming my identity. I took it as an affront to who I thought I was when people said and did religious things.

Of course, being emotionally insecure already, I reacted to the "affronts" by moving toward fear and anger about the issue. Of course, it came out in a general distrust of Christians. That is just my little example of how people can be warped by hard-to-discern emotional doubts about Jesus.

Each of us has many such emotionally impacting transactions in our past. To overcome emotional-based doubts about Jesus takes the willingness to apply open-mindedness to see where we might have been unwittingly shaped in wrong directions. It could have been by others, or by our own decisions.

The best way to do this is through prayer. God is very kind and can lead us into truth that untangles our doubts in this way.

Whether the obstacles to believing in Jesus come from faulty logic, deep emotions like fear or anger, or sins like self-exalting pride or haughtiness, all arguments break down when fully examined, especially in a prayerful attitude.


So I would like to leave you with this quote coming from the mouth of Jesus:

“I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him.” (Luke 11: 9-13)


(End of section "What If I Have Doubts)


Links to Additional Sections Within "What If I Have Doubts":

Common Objections .. The What Abouts

Intellectual Arguments ..Back



Main Menu


What Does it Mean to Get Saved?


What Does it Mean to Believe?


Who is Jesus Christ?


What Does Savior Mean?


Who is Jesus?


What Earned My Entry to Heaven?


Why Should I Believe in Jesus?


What is the Meaning of Life?



Home - Text Version


Home - Regular Graphics Version


Here is another menu with lots of great information that might help you decide to become a follower of Jesus.


What Does it Mean to Follow Jesus?


What is the Gospel?


More About the Great "I AM"


Will it Help if I try to Turn Away from Sin?


Do I Need to Do Something Extra to be Saved?


More Evidence - Prophecies of Jesus


What if I Have Doubts?


What Do I Do After Deciding to Believe in Jesus?



End of Page