The Science Of God

My copy of the lively science magazine “New Scientist” just arrived. I was pleasantly surprised to see the current issue was devoted to God and the science of religion. Most especially, it seemed to be saying that secularists and atheists shouldn’t be too hasty in dismissing the notion of God as nonsensical.

Unfortunately, the tone of some of the pieces fell a little short of that admirable sentiment. On page 47 I got to a piece by Victor J. Stenger. He pointed out that a survey revealed that 93 percent of scientists don’t believe in a personal god. Well, so what? He is presumably trying to infer that these are the people who should really know; that scientists are the sole bearers of true wisdom and what they don’t know isn’t worth knowing!

He goes on to say that, if God really exists, there ought to be scientific evidence scattered around that we can pick up on. I agree with that. But only if the scientists are honest, competent and using right tools for the job, surely?

Pretty soon, he gets really foolish. He says that experiments on a world beyond matter will “prove” that God doesn’t exist. I really don’t see that reasoning: we know that there are information fields and forces beyond our immediate knowledge. That doesn’t prove there is no God.

So already, my enthusiasm is waning. Stenger is not somebody to light my intellectual fires!

He takes on the question of intercessory prayer – prayers on behalf of others. If we can prove intercessory prayer works, he says, then there must be a God. Still pretty weak reasoning in my view, but I let it pass. But then he drops up to the eyeballs in bull’s doo-doo; he claims there is no proof that intercessory prayer works.

Excuse me? Stenger is either bone deep lazy, stupid or dishonest. There are a number of robust studies that show the positive effects of intercessory prayer. He just conveniently side steps them.

I don’t care how many hundreds of studies failed to prove any effect. You can’t prove a negative, you can only fail to prove your hypothesis. Any number of reasons, such as bad observations, badly designed study, wrong protocols, can lead to a negative result in an experiment.

Plus our own dear old Bill Tiller has shown convincingly, with robust studies, that the experimenter’s intention influences the outcome of a test. Simply put: if you don’t want to find evidence of God, you won’t.

In fact the main study usually quoted, which purports to “prove” that prayer doesn’t work, was so bad it borders on a hoax.

This is a 2006 large medical study by Benson, Dusek, et. al., which found that long distance intercessory prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery. The study begun almost a decade ago involved more than 1,800 patients in six hospitals at a cost of $2.4 million. By the current scientific model this study was “rigorously designed”, it was said.

In fact it was a sham. The people who prayed were inexperienced and used an absurd “intellectualized” technique that no intercessory healers would dream of doing. The participants were given only the patients’ first names and the first initials of their last names. This is probably not a serious obstacle to an experienced healer but for an inexperienced person it might nullify their ability to connect and provide healing. Participants were instructed to include the phrase “for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications.”

It could never work done Benson’s way.

[Benson, Herbert, Dusek, Jeffery A., et. al., “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer,” American Heart Journal, Vol. 151, No. 4, April 2006, pp. 934-942.]

As I said, negative studies don’t prove much—often they are due to nothing more than incompetence or dishonesty of this sort.

Compare and contrast another study (1984) by Dr. Randolph Byrd, a Christian cardiologist. 393 patients, admitted to the coronary care unit at San Francisco General Hospital, over a 10 month period were randomly selected, by computer, to either a 201 patient control group or the 192 patients who were prayed for daily by 5-7 people in home prayer groups. This was a randomized, double-blind experiment in which neither the patients, nurses, nor doctors knew which group the patients were in.

Dr. Byrd discovered a definite pattern of obvious differences between the control group and those prayed for:

  1. None of those prayed for required endotracheal intubation compared with twelve in the control group requiring the insertion of an artificial airway in the throat.
  2. The prayed for group experienced fewer cases of pneumonia and cardiopulmonary arrests.
  3. Those prayed for were five times less likely to require antibiotics.
  4. The prayed for group were three times less likely to develop pulmonary edema, a condition where the lungs fill with fluid.
  5. Fewer patients in the prayed for group died!

I quoted this study in my book “Cancer Research Secrets” and pointed out that Dr. Larry Dossey, M.D. has referred to Dr. Byrd’s experiment, stating that “If the technique being studied had been a new drug or a surgical procedure instead of prayer, it would almost certainly have been heralded as some sort of breakthrough”

The real importance of this experiment is that it stands up to scientific scrutiny. Dr. William Nolan, who has actually written a book debunking faith healing, acknowledged honestly, “It sounds like this study will stand up to scrutiny…maybe we doctors ought to be writing on our order sheets, ‘pray 3 times a day.’ If it works, it works.”

So by paragraph 7 in Stenger’s piece, I knew he was a very poor scientist. But then he really lost it.

In paragraph 8 he decides to debunk near death experiences. Quite why he imagines that’s evidence for a god, I am not sure. But he says tests have been done on NDEs that show they are a delusion. Get this…

In NDEs people report floating above the operating table and watching everything below. So whether this is a real experience or a hallucination (I think he means an hallucination) can easily be tested by placing a secret message on a high shelf, out of sight of the patient and hospital staff. This has been tried and no-one reporting an NDE has yet to read the message (I think he meant has yet been able to read the message).

This is a ludicrous test. Point one: how many times have you failed to notice a written message, when you have been wide awake and at work? I gave up using post-it notes because I find I just don’t “see” them after a while. It is easy to overlook a written message and especially so if you are in a shocked state, such as being driven out of your body by anesthetic gas.

Point two: who says that exteriorized entities have to have the power of reading and language? We may know what’s going on in OR (theatre). An illiterate farmer knows what’s going on but may not be able to read or write. People who have experienced an NDE report hearing words spoken by the surgeon, etc. But that’s only memory, not necessarily linguistic competence. The person may be able to understand the words that were spoken only after coming round from the anesthetic!

So, I concluded that Stenger is very unscientific and probably just an anti-religious bigot. Like a lot of pretend scientists, he just cherry picks articles and papers that support his prejudices and beliefs. They jokingly call that being scientific!

I liken it to a doctor who has lots of scientifically-tested drugs on his desk. When the patient reports a problem, he says, “I think I’ll try the red one,” and then calls it medical science!

If you think I’m judging Stenger harshly, let me give you one final quote. He says, “If God is the creator of the universe, then we should find evidence for that in astronomy. We do not. The origin of our universe required no miracles…”


The fact that our universe, full of uncountable hundreds of trillions of suns, trillions of galaxies, quasars, dark clouds, nebulae and the whole damn thing, sprang into being from absolutely nothing (so the theory goes) was not a miracle?

I wonder what Stengler’s definition of a miracle really is?

(Victor J Stenger is emeritus professor of physics at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado in Boulder. His new book is called God and The Folly Of Faith)

34 thoughts on “The Science Of God

  1. unwanted children are unloved children. Unloved children become the mosty violent, unhappy and socially EXPENSIVE (billions of dollars are needed for their incarceration, etc).In an over-crowded world what is the purpoe?

  2. The awesome Universe does not speak to a ‘God’ in the sense God is commonly used but could, instead be a product of ‘The Light’, or Power that may have some of The God-like attributes given to the so-called Supreme Being. Even scripture dotes on ‘Light’ and perhaps what some worship is nothing (nothing a bad usage) more than Neutrons and other nuclear designations. Anyway, there would have to be regular and ongoing signs of miracles before I return to the mysticism of that big book so full of hate and violence that it should be banned. Go search: David’s Holocaust.

  3. My good physics professor, please define matter. I can see it or feel it, but what is it? How about that stuff we can’t see but know it’s there. What is it? And what is an electron? Yes, I know it can be measured, but what is it? Please define.
    My high school and college physics never defined these things. Light is a wave or is it a photon? Please define, not tell how to measure it.

    What is your interpretation of God? Your religions over the millennia have painted several graphic pictures of our Creator. These range from a dualistic loving, judgmental, vengeful God to a God who is pure love and therefore non-judgmental and without expectations; a monotheistic God. Which picture is your preference?

    I see God as the latter and more. I believe first that we feel God. That is if we are in touch with our own spirituality, if we feel rather than hear. If we are in-tuition which is to say that we introvert, go within, listen to that inner voice which is far beyond this material world. The infinite world of the spirit is where we hear or feel God. This is beyond, far beyond the ego mind, which is that part of the mind split from the real world. The ego mind controls your every moment; if you are out of touch, separated from God. Only the ego mind can produce fear, guilt, anger and all of the negative emotions. Ego judges, attacks and destroys relationships both human and divine. When we are unhappy the ego is in charge. It is your natural inheritance, your natural state of being to experience only peace, harmony, happiness and love.

    I believe that we experience God. To rise and greet a beautiful morning, view a sunset, walk a garden, watch children at play or creating something, fraternise with animals, watch the waves roll into a beach; all are to experience the creations of the creator. More than this every experience is relevant. Newton’s law of relativity certainly applies to experiencing God. You cannot know good if you have not experienced bad. You cannot know sickness if you have not experienced wellness, and so on.

    Most of all I have come to realise that God above all human experiences and endeavours is opportunity. Few who live in this material world ever look at life as opportunity. Indeed we are taught from an early age that life is about obligation. You are obliged to learn and obey the rules; obliged to go to church, to school, to work for a living. If you are working at something you do not enjoy; is that living? If we spend our lives in a state of obligation is that living? Where is the challenge? Where is the opportunity for creativeness; for co-creation with God?

    Look at all of the human parameters as opportunity and immediately your life will take on a new meaning with consequent spiritual and personal growth. Ask yourself not what you can get out of life? Rather what you can contribute to life? Especially in relationships; including with God. What have you done for God lately? What have you created? What have you nurtured? God created us in order that He/She could experience Him/Herself. What is God experiencing through you. God’s greatest gift is unconditional love; the next greatest gift is our free will. What you achieve with that free will comes under the law of cause and effect. The consequences of your life never entail coincidence, accident or luck. They are a direct result of your causes.

    You are a product (cause and effect) of your thoughts; every moment of every day. How high are you thinking today? Have you ever thought what your full potential might be? Some people have worked to their full potential; you know their names which include Albert Einstien, Marco Polo, Jesus, Buddha, Hari Krishna, Mahatma Gandhi, Edmund Hillary, Joseph Mandella, Mother Terisa. you have at least an equal potential; why do you settle for mediocrity? God promises you that there is nothing you cannot do, there is nothing you cannot be. Would you expect God to promise you less?

    Rise up out of your average mentality, in which you are entrapped, think your very highest ideals, your very highest aspirations and from today forward never accept anything less for yourself. That is God-work. We live in a very unsettled world, but most of all we live in a world starved of the real meaning of love. A world that has been failed by the Christian belief system, much of which is inadequate; testing even common sense, requiring us to believe in the most ludicrous miracles, of virgin birth, and raising the dead, by a priestly but mortal man; known as Jesus allegedly of Nazareth, and even that part is probably entirely false. Jesus was a great politician and certainly taught tolerance, forgiveness, and love, but all as a mortal man, not as some supernatural being sent by God.

    In the final analysis none of this matters! The only thing that does matter is whether or not you have grasped the opportunity to serve God as the real you, as an integral part of your Creator, teaching only forgiveness and love. For when you do these things you become the Christ. You become compassion. You fulfill your destiny.

    May you master for God all the rest of your days, Amen
    Reverend.Geoffrey Leigh,
    Universal Creation Foundation.

  5. The Fool is saying in his heart ‘There is no God.

    “Of course every house is built by someone but he who made all things is YHVH God”

    Isaiah: “Due to the abundance of Gods Dynamic Energy all things were created and aside from that , nothing was created.”
    what Isaiah was saying some thousand of years ago is What Einstein discovered more recently,
    How could Isaiah know that?
    Energy and matter are the same E+=MC squared
    Man can turn matter into energy (ie burning wood)
    but Gods natural forces can turn energy into matter (a tree)

    Isaiah also said the Earth is round and hung upon Nothing.
    How could he have known that?


    • “Hallowed are the Elohhim” – the Creators first manifestation in the flesh, the Designers and Makers
      of mankind (homo sapiens if you prefer).

  6. Excellent article, good doctor.
    I have a belief: All ideas on the table as dots which someday will be connected somehow.
    The only ideas not acceptable are those given in foul language or some other form as “I know it all”. AND, any idea volunteered that tries to “knock any other idea off the table”.
    Some ideas may not pertain today and can be put on a shelf under the table or left unconnected. As new ideas come in they can be connected to an existing idea’s dot which in turn can grow a bit in diameter. Time and technological advances will test each idea.
    I don’t pretend to agree with all of your approach. I am ecstatic to sense that you are on a similar search for truth and for telling others that I am. So what if our paths don’t cross. Your ideas are on the table. Stenger’s are eliminated.
    Thank you for taking time to read this comment and may you continue to go forward in new discoveries and helping us find our way towards other new discoveries.
    Glen Osborne
    Ladysmith, BC, Canada

  7. Yeah, and now it seems that the things we can see – the stars, galaxies, the water in the river, the stones in the street (and in some cases, at least, measure) – only make up about 4% (I think; it’s an astonishingly small amount) of the total matter?energy in the universe. There’s this stuff called “dark matter” and then there’s “dark energy” and also antimatter. Some observable galaxies are thought to be made of antimatter but just like our galaxy that’s made of matter, they’re held together by gravity (aw, shucks – can’t make an anti-gravity space drive using antimatter – but wouldn’t it be fun if you could).
    I’d like to hear what professor Kaku (s. his recent article in the WSJ, “No, You Still Can’to Faster Than Light”) thinks of all this. I;ve met him and heard him speak. He’s a delight.

  8. Sir, I forgot to ask if you have read “90 Minutes In Heaven” by Don Piper? If not get a copy and breeze through it.

  9. And a little more. Even the dumbest scientist would agree “the body electric” and that energy is indestructible. In which case when we pass over where spirit does all of our energy go? It is also well acknowledged that there is a spirit world after death. Makes you wonder if the Apes from which we are said to descend, have a spirit world too.
    I do not believe in religions. All were designed by men and subjugate women. They are poison and the opium of the people. Jesus the Christ was not religious, did not die on the cross, or for our sins. Further he was dark skinned, dark eyes, not fair hair and blue eyes as depicted in most churches. Spirituality is taught by the “Masters” not religion which is also the cause of most wars

  10. Regardless if the universe was created out of nothing, or out of something, it’s a most wondrous miracle. Only the complex nature of universe with all the creations in it, is a magnificent miracle. I guess the utmost cause of everything will remain undisclosed forever.

  11. Every human being will always have a GOD of some sort… they have to believe in something. The atheist rest they faith in Nature (Science). But what have they accomplished really? They have merely substituted Nature for God.

    I have seen and heard a lot of atheist objecting passionately against the existence of God, depending their faith in Nature with so much certainty, acting pretty much the same way an evangelist will passionately depend his religion.

  12. Stephen Hawking in “The Grand Design” says: “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

    So Stenger is no worse than one of the greatest thinkers of our age. Of course those who seek to prove God doesn’t exist are right – if you define “God” the way they do as something/soemone external to our universe.

    If you believe in God and believe that God is omnipresent and the force of creation then you should believe God is not like Richard Dawking’s flying teapot – a part of creation or separate from creation. God IS the force of Spontaneous Creation.

    Those who argue the point fail to see the smallness of their own thinking. God is everywhere and everything, including you and me. God is the force of Hawking’s Spontaneous Crreation.

    So the question is wrong. It is not “Does God exist?”. If we exist, God exists. The question is: “Is God (the Force of Spontaneousl Creation) self-aware?”.

    • The question you speak of my friend, is no more than the display of mans’ arrogance, and arrogance blinds the eye to reality.
      All of mans’ so called greatest achievements do not measure up to the ‘technology’ found in a single blade of grass from your front lawn.
      If a man fails to see the intellect of creation when he looks at his fellow man, and at the world around him,
      then that man is truly blind.
      Mankind is still filled with the ‘hunter killer’ instinct that was necessary (at that time) for him to survive on a hostile planet, and this instinct that once preserved him, now drives him to destruction.
      He needs to seek out his quiet inner peace where reason prevails. Only then can he progress beyond the ‘wood burner’ age, where illusion is replaced with reality.
      Mans’ daily pursuit involves nothing more and nothing less than feeding his overgrown ego.
      To acknowledge the existence of a god or a Creator would diminish a man’s self image, so he has to make a noise of denial.
      There are three kinds of men. Those who have reached the pinnacle of human endeavor only to discover ‘that’ which they had spent their lives denying- e.g. Einstein et al. The second kind are the vast majority that are too stupid to think for themselves and blindly follow any fool. The third kind are the pseudo-intellects that are biding their time and waiting for science to provide the proof they seek. In essence, they too are happy to be led around by the nose by some nonsensical science.
      I think it’s important for a person to place himself in a category – think about it, and move forward.
      A really useful question would be — “who am I, where do I come from, and where am I going”???
      Actually three questions.
      For tomorrow we die – or do we?

  13. Bravo, Doc, well said! Mr. Stengler might be interested to know that Carl Sagan was a man of deep faith, as was Albert Einstein, both of whom acknowledged that what they were deeply involved in studying, ‘science’, was so full of miracles and beauty of design and construction and wisdom, that no authentic observer or student could deny the involvement of a being of far greater power, knowledge, and wisdom; God, by whatever name one chooses to use (paraphrased).
    Perhaps Mr. Stengler might fit right in at the FDA, with that agency’s knack for ignoring truth and wisdom.

  14. Doctor Mumby, I think your story is dead on right and should be the way to start to get into this problem. I find each person has to arrive at his or her final ideal of a religion, so that makes it a 7 billion religion that fits youf life story and experiences alone. Keep up the very good work you are doing in the books you have written. First class! Neale Ensign

  15. I’ve often wondered about people commenting or referring to “God” without defining what is meant by the term. Do they mean “the man sitting on the cloud” (or the woman – because women give birth – to the universe); or do they mean something else ? It makes a difference when you have an idea of what you are believing in – whether it is the truth, or not. My own idealology sees “God” as the forces behind the universe – and I’m unsure whether that means intelligence as we know it.
    I hadn’t realised that Bill Tiller had done work in relation to intention influencing the results of experiments – a phenomenon known as the Rosenthal Effect – and I would be grateful for some references to his work in that regard.
    Scientists with closed minds are not scientists – the word science somes from the Latin meaning knowledge, and therefore a Scientist is someone who seeks knowledge – the truth. There are too many who call themselves scientists when they are not – in fact I call them skeptics (with a “k”) – because they have a programmed thought bias – sceptics (with a “c”) I call those who have a true mind open to any possibility that might present itself, and who is prepared to look further without excluding any possibility. Look what happened when the editor of a well known magazine, for whom my respect went out the window, took a magician with him to “investigate” the late Dr Jacques Benveniste and his automated experiments on a “homeopathic” effect – (and he had (or showed) no idea about the Rosenthal Effect), despite the fact that the experiments had been independently repeated and verified.
    Well done Prof. Keith

  16. I’m pleased to see you haven’t fallen into the trap of these new atheists too, Dr Keith.

    Please see a debate with William Lane Craig against anybody, but the one against Hitchens is good. If one is truly honest with themselves one will have to admit that the case for the existence of a creator is much stronger than the negation at this point in human knowledge.

  17. In modern debate contests, teams accumulate material regarding a subject, then go to contest and are assigned to be either for or against the proposition. The one who provides the most convincing argument is counted as having proven his position. Unfortunately, being able to convince people does not make one right, as can be demonstrated repeatedly throughout history.

    The original meaning of proving something was to test it to see what was true. Modern courts have adopted the focus on being convincing as proof, and the same philosophy is invading the realms of science, leading to questionable conclusions in many areas of science and medicine.

    As we look at the results of modern medicine, politics, and justice we see the dangers involved with such an approach.

  18. The question of God is not a very useful question to ask at this time since we need
    to first illuminate the science that applies to spiritual and psychic phenomena first. The question of God will be answered in stages as we go. There is a science that applies to spiritual and psychic phenomena, and that is quantum physics. It is the first total or non-local theory that we have ever developed. All the science that has ever been developed up to this point have been local theories, including Newtonian physics, general theory of relativity etc. Non-local theories have totally different tenets or principles governing them. If I can take some generalized liberities (so please scientists, bear with me), the tenets of a total or non-local theory are as follows:
    -everything is connected to everything else
    -there are no exceptions
    -you can never break that connection
    -the nature of the connection is such that it lies beyond time and space. That is, it lies beyond the traditional four dimensional universe we call the physical world. It is much more intimately connected to such concepts as the fabric of space, or vacuum, in physics terminology.
    These rules apply of course to sub-atomic particles, and on the surface appear to resonate with spiritual and psychic phenomona as well.
    It turns out from scientists both medical and physics, that this phenomona applies to all macro objects as well, and the human body appears to generate quantum effects as well specifically, the non-local quantum effect, which is characterized by the concepts of entanglement and coherence. These properties appear to arise from the micro or nano-tubules of the neurons, and they are capable of generating coherent quantum waves(technically called fields). These studies clearly indicate that the firing of the neurons continuously generates these waves, implying of course that the entire content of your mind now lies beyond time and space thru the property of coherence. Once you believe that your personality and your memories actually lie beyond time and space as well as in your physical brain, you are now in a much better position to understand the question.
    Since I have already gone on too long I will quit here, but with one caveat, all the science and logic used to argue this questions are irrelevant unless they are based on total or non-local theories, hence virtually all of the arguments are totally irrelevant to questions at hand.
    When the emerging new quantum theory of the body is completed over the new 20 or so years, these questions will be much more interesting.


    • Others might want to read

      Consciousness Beyond Life
      Pim van Lommel

      Talks about NDE, Quantum Physics, Non-local Consciousness (Endless Consciousness), etc.

    • Dave, you just put it in the right context. I agree totally. I see God as a “CREATING FORCE” behind all things. And I think “He ” used on our planet the following elements: earth, wind , fire, love, and the sixth element he shows us every day: beauty.

  19. He who knows not, And knows not that he knows not, Is a fool-shun him.
    He who knows not,And knows he knows not, Is a child-teach him.
    He who knows,And knows not he knows, Is asleep- wake him.
    He who knows, And knows that he knows,Is wise-follow him.
    Lead on prof KSM
    from A Persian Proverb

  20. Without wanting to really get into this discussion, your take on Stenger is right on. While we ought never to critizise for fear of sitting in the same boat, I must say that anyone who has never even heard of the power of prayer, intercessory or otherwise, really should not offer any wisdom on the existence of a GOD. Whatever we may call that power, be it God, or all there is, or the source or the CreatorGod as the Pleiadians call “it” it’s power in the universe is undeniable. Where the problem lies are the dogmatic religions that have badgered humanity for eons, that have created the prisons of the mind and the wars that have plagued humanity as long as it has been around, and that is not the 5,000 years so many people think. Just food for thought.

  21. Someone should send Victor J. Stenger the book “a Case for a Creator” by Strobel. His book is all scientifically based and has turned many a “sKeptic” into a believer in creation by design. Actually it’s a good read for both believers and non believers.

  22. The best proof I’ve heard for God is that a single cell is so complex, that the odds of it’s coming into existence by random chance is 1 out of 10 to the 40,000th power – 1 followed by 40,000 zeros – absolutely impossible,

  23. I have no qualifications nor more than a layperson’s knowledge of medicine, science or religion.

    However a casual Googler can easily find seemingly plausible criticisms of the Byrd study and validity of the Benson study, in stark contrast to the tone of this article. Read Gary Posner MD’s article that casts serious doubt on the accuracy and relevance of the Byrd study. Also notice the alternate way of presenting the statistics. As one example, Prof Scott-Mumby talks of “five times less likely to require antibiotics” (based on a sample size of 20), while Dr Posner interprets the very same statistic as “7 percent less antibiotics” (based on a sample size of 393).

    There are many energies and forces in our physical world that do not have a religious connection and for which we are yet to identify or define. Examples are clairvoyance, mind reading, ESP, metal bending, water divining.

    So even if intercessory prayer did have a positive effect, then there could any number of possible explanations. It is a football field leap of (Christian?) faith to disregard the more mundane possibilities in favour of a benevolent superbeing. I am aware Prof Scott-Mumby’s article does not explicitly make this connection, but Dr Byrd certainly does in his findings.

    What about the cases where intercessory prayer did not help or even save the patient? Are we to conclude that God is indeed fallible and that there are limits to his enormous powers? Of course it could be that the relative inexperience of some pray-ers may not have had the punch of more seasoned performers, but again are we to believe that our glorious protector can only or will only respond to the highest calibre prayer requests? Or maybe the power is in the pray-er and has nothing to do with a non-existent greater being after all.

  24. I never ever try to prove to someone that there is a God. If that person wants to know if there is a God, all he has to do is ask God to show him. And just watch and see what happens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *