Charlie Trotter Quotes

What are the chances there is a God, really?

Did God create man, or did man create God? Either way, the decision needs to be reviewed.

What is the origin of God?

It is true that you can't prove a negative. However, the existence of God is provable in the same way a building is positive proof that there was a builder.

My view is that science only has something to say about a very particular notion of God, which goes by the name of 'god of the gaps'.

I believe any question that man can ask has a reasonable answer-at least an answer that is as consistent with God's existence as it is in opposition to God's existence.

The purpose of this study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective.

While a case can be made for intelligent design, I can't figure out why some Christians are so thrilled about that possibility. First of all, it doesn't prove there's a God. If anything, intelligent design lends support to some form of pantheism that defines God as immanent within nature.

It is possible to demonstrate God's existence, although not a priori, yet a posteriori from some work of His more surely known to us.

As a scientist, I don't believe science will ever discover whether God exists. Nor do I believe religion will ever prove it.

If you really could fit God in a file, you wouldn't need to believe in God, you know, you'd just go get the file like a box of corn flakes off the shelf.

I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us.

It is now widely believed that God is a conservative.

I think, if you can prove the existence of God, it can only be proven through love.

I know God is real.

I believe in a kind of God. I think all scientists, in a way, believe in a certain God, in a certain order of nature.

Except for a God who sits down after the universe begins, all other gods conflict with the assumptions of science.

The most compelling evidence for God's existence is Christ. If God does not exist, then Christ was the biggest fool who ever lived.

You just don't get funding to go out and find God. Even if you did, you'd have to first define what you mean by 'God.'

I believe that the question of the existence of God is an impenetrable mystery and beyond human comprehension.

If you can define what God is, I can tell you whether I believe in it.

Theologians have a great problem because they're seeking to speak about God. Since God is the ground of everything that is, there's a sense in which every human inquiry is grist to the theological mill. Obviously, no theologian can know everything.

Scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist.

The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand. If someone wants to place the word 'God' on those collections of words, it's OK with me.