Gilbert K. Chesterton Quotes

Why is it any more reasonable to believe that God has always been than it is to say that matter has always been?

How does a cosmos without a bearded, bathrobed God in the sky pull off all the things that a bearded, bathrobed guy in the sky was supposed to have pulled off? If there was no God who said 'Let there be light,' where did we get all that light?

Atheistic evolutionists believe that nothing created everything - a scientific impossibility. It couldn't happen. So they redefine the word 'nothing' to mean 'something,' so that in their unthinking minds, they can justify their foolishness.

If I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist?

Although God believers don't need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true.

If you say that there was no first cause (a Creator), then you are stuck with the unscientific and thoughtless belief that nothing created everything. So, what is it that you believe? Is it that something created everything? Then you are not an atheist, because you believe in a Creator.

The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.

To believe in God is impossible not to believe in Him is absurd.

God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator.

Only an unscientific ignoramus would hold to the thought that nothing created everything.

The burden of proof is on those who don't believe that "Genesis" was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.

There is no theory of a God, of an author of Nature, of an origin of the Universe, which is not utterly repugnant to my faculties. . .

There Is No God. This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity. The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit co-eternal with the universe remains unshaken.

I asked the whole frame of the world about my God; and he answered, I am not He, but He made me.

I stick my finger into existence and it smells of nothing.

The lack of understanding of something is not evidence for God. It's evidence of a lack of understanding.

It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being.

i cannot be called upon to know a negative or to prove a negative. if there is a god and you prove it, that's fine. but you don't tell me you can't know that there isn't. i would say yes i know there isn't because i have been given no evidence.

On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth.

If God created everything, he's got a serious quality control problem.

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

If there be a God and one has never sought him, it will be small consolation to remember that one could not get proof of his existence.

A prevalent fallacy is the assumption that a proof of an afterlife would also be a proof of the existence of a deity. This is far from being the case. If, as I hold, there is no good reason to believe that a god either created or presides over this world, there is equally no good reason to believe that a god created or presides over the next world, on the unlikely supposition that such a thing exists.

Darwinian evolution is unscientific, unobservable, unbelievable, but understandable in a world that hates God.

If life can emerge just from naturalistic circumstances, then God is out of a job.