Former Atheist Astrophysicist, Sarah Salviander, Coverts to Christianity


This is the personal testimony of former atheist Sarah Salviander, a research scientist in astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Texas, who converted to Christianity. Her testimony touches on her childhood, growing interest in the sciences and space, success in her field, and how over time the puzzle slotted together pushing her towards a transition to religious faith and theistic belief.

Salviander was born in the United States but brought up in an atheist household in Canada,

I was born in the U.S., but grew up in Canada. My parents were socialists and political activists who thought British Columbia would be a better place for us to live, since it had the only socialist government in North America at the time. My parents were also atheists, though they eschewed that label in favor of “agnostic.” They were kind, loving, and moral, but religion played no part in my life. Instead, my childhood revolved around education, particularly science. I remember how important it was to my parents that my brother and I did well in school.”

Salviander recounts how the popular entertainment series Star Wars made her fall in love with space and scientific exploration,

I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, a time when science fiction was enjoying a renaissance, thanks largely to the popularity of Star Wars. I remember how fascinated I was by the original Star Wars trilogy. It had almost nothing to do with science—it’s more properly characterized as space opera—but it got me thinking about space in a big way. I also loved the original Star Trek, which was more science fiction. The stoic and logical character of Mr. Spock was particularly appealing to me.”

She was also particularly fond of the well-known astronomer Carl Sagan’s space series Cosmos: “Popular science was also experiencing a renaissance at that time, which had a lot to do with Carl Sagan’s television show, Cosmos, which I adored. The combination of these influences led to such an intense wonder about outer space and the universe.” At the young age of just nine, Salviander knew she “would be a space scientist someday.”

She explains that Canada was already post-Christian by the 1970s and that she “grew up with no religion.” “In retrospect,” she continues,

it’s amazing that for the first 25 years of my life, I met only three people who identified as Christian. My view of Christianity was negative from an early age, and by the time I was in my twenties I was actively hostile toward Christianity. Looking back, I realized a lot of this was the unconscious absorption of the general hostility toward Christianity that is common in places like Canada and Europe; my hostility certainly wasn’t based on actually knowing anything about Christianity. I had come to believe that Christianity made people weak and foolish; I thought it was philosophically trivial. I was ignorant not only of the Bible, but also of the deep philosophy of Christianity and the scientific discoveries that shed new light on the origins of the universe and life on Earth.”

Salviander focused her energy on her studies and academic pursuits, “[I] became very dedicated to my physics and math courses. I joined campus clubs, started to make friends, and, for the first time in my life, I was meeting Christians.” These Christians she met, however, came across as “joyous and content. And, they were smart, too.”

She mentions her surprise when she discovered that her physics professors, whom she admired, were Christians, “Their personal example began to have an influence on me, and I found myself growing less hostile to Christianity.

Salviander prospered in her field, notably in the study of big bang cosmology,

I had joined a group in the Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences (CASS) that was researching evidence for the big bang. The cosmic background radiation—the leftover radiation from the big bang—provides the strongest evidence for the theory, but cosmologists need other, independent lines of evidence to confirm it. My group was studying deuterium abundances in the early universe. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen, and its abundance in the early universe is sensitive to the amount of ordinary mass contained in the entire universe. Believe it or not, this one measurement tells us whether the big bang model is correct.”

Salviander touches on her work that probably would not remotely interest 98% of people. But she could not conceal her fascination,

“… being astounded by this, blown away, completely and utterly awed. It seemed incredible to me that there was a way to find the answer to this question we had about the universe. In fact, it seems that every question we have about the universe is answerable.”

This opened up her mind to the possibility that God might exist,

There’s no reason it has to be this way, and it made me think of Einstein’s observation that the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it’s comprehensible. I started to sense an underlying order to the universe. Without knowing it, I was awakening to what Psalm 19 tells us so clearly, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

She picked up a copy of The Count of Monte Cristo, a book that entailed religious themes: “it’s more than just a revenge story, it’s a philosophically deep examination of forgiveness and God’s role in giving justice. I was surprised by this, and was starting to realize that the concept of God and religion was not as philosophically trivial as I had thought.”

Salviander soon came to the view that belief in God is unavoidable. She was,

walking across that beautiful La Jolla campus. I stopped in my tracks when it hit me—I believed in God! I was so happy; it was like a weight had been lifted from my heart. I realized that most of the pain I’d experienced in my life was of my own making, but that God had used it to make me wiser and more compassionate. It was a great relief to discover that there was a reason for suffering, and that it was because God was loving and just. God could not be perfectly just unless I—just like everyone else—was made to suffer for the bad things I’d done.

Despite her radical transformation from atheism to belief, Salviander felt she stagnated in her faith,

For a while I was content to be a theist and didn’t pursue religion any further. I spent another very enjoyable summer with CASS, and then during my last year at EOU I met a man I liked very much, a computer science student from Finland. He’d been in the special forces in the Finnish Defense Force, and was just about the most off-the-wall character I’d ever met. But he was also a man of strength, honor, and deep integrity, and I found myself overwhelmingly drawn to those qualities.

This man, like her, had grown up in an atheist home but later had “come to embrace God and Jesus Christ as his personal savior in his early twenties through an intensely personal experience.” A romantic period followed leading to the couple getting married,

I graduated with a degree in physics and math that year, and in the fall, I started graduate work in astrophysics at The University of Texas at Austin. My husband was a year behind me in his studies, so I moved to Austin by myself. The astrophysics program at UT was a much more rigorous and challenging environment than my little alma mater. The academic rigor, combined with the isolation I felt with my family and friends being so far away, left me feeling pretty discouraged.

One-day while browsing a local bookstore, Salviander came across a title called The Science of God authored by theJewish physicist Gerald Schroeder: “I was intrigued by the title, but something else compelled me to read it. Maybe it was the loneliness, and I was longing for a deeper connection with God. All I know is that what I read changed my life forever.”

She thought of Schroeder a unique individual,

“… he is an MIT-trained physicist and also an applied theologian. He understands modern science, has read the ancient and medieval biblical commentaries, and is capable of translating the Old Testament from the ancient Hebrew. He was thus able to give a scientific analysis of Genesis 1. His work proved to me that Genesis 1 was scientifically sound, and not just a “silly myth” as atheists believed. I realized that, remarkably, the Bible and science agree completely.”

Salviander explains that “Schroeder’s great work convinced me that Genesis is the inspired word of God. But something told me to keep going.

She then arrived at the gospels of the New Testament,

“I read the Gospels, and found the person of Jesus Christ to be extremely compelling. I felt as Einstein did when he said he was “enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.” And yet I struggled, because I did not feel one hundred percent convinced of the Gospels in my heart. I knew of the historical evidence for their truth. And, of course, I knew the Bible was reliable because of Genesis. Intellectually, I knew the Bible to be true, and as a person of intellect, I had to accept it as truth, even if I didn’t feel it. That’s what faith is. As C. S. Lewis said, it is accepting something you know to be true in spite of your emotions. So, I converted. I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior.”

Salviander still struggled with her faith saying that she “sometimes worried” about it. During this period, some things did not go well health-wise as she had a cancer diagnosis and an unpleasant course of treatment. Her husband also became ill: “Not long after, my husband fell ill with meningitis and encephalitis, and it was not clear if he would recover; we didn’t know if he would be paralyzed or worse. It took him about a month, but, thankfully, he did recover.”

Despite the good news of recovery, Salviander and her husband experienced a great tragedy, the loss of their child,

At that time, we were expecting our first child, a baby girl. All seemed well until about six months, when our baby stopped growing. We found out she had Trisomy 18, a fatal chromosomal abnormality. Our daughter, Ellinor, was stillborn soon after. It was the most devastating loss of our lives. For a while I despaired, and didn’t know how I could go on after the death of our daughter. But I finally had a clear vision of our little girl in the loving arms of her heavenly Father, and it was then that I had peace. I reflected that, after all these trials in one year, my husband and I were not only closer to each other, but also felt closer to God. My faith was real.

Salviander reflects back on her time as an atheist,

I don’t know how I would’ve coped with such trials when I was an atheist. When you’re twenty years old and healthy, and you have your family around you, you feel immortal. I never thought about my own death or the potential deaths of loved ones. But there comes a time when the feeling of immortality wanes, and you’re forced to confront the inevitability of not only your own annihilation, but that of your loved ones.”

The beginning of the universe in the big bang impressed Salviander, especially since the idea was proposed by a priest,

Georges Lemaître was a Belgian priest and physicist who solved Einstein’s general relativity equations and discovered that, contrary to the prevailing philosophy of the last 2,500 years, the universe wasn’t necessarily eternal and static. He discovered in his solution the mathematical evidence for an expanding universe, and pursued it vigorously. For that reason he’s considered the father of the big bang (which he called “the hypothesis of the primeval atom”). Shortly before he died, he was told that his hypothesis had been vindicated by the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, the most important prediction of the hypothesis. This discovery also vindicated the very first words of the Bible after 2,500 years of doubt—there was a beginning. And that beginning meant the universe had a transcendent cause, for nothing in nature is its own cause. Atheists have been dismayed by this and forced to retreat to the idea of the Multiverse.”

The multiverse idea that is often used by atheists to explain away the difficulty of a beginning to the universe is far from achieving any consensus in cosmology,

It’s an interesting, but ultimately unscientific, idea. Science can only study what we can observe in this Universe. It cannot ever hope to study the Multiverse. Nevertheless, some atheists cling to the idea, because it’s the only serious alternative to God as the creative force behind the Universe and it’s a way to cope with mortality in the absence of God. The problem is, most proponents of the Multiverse haven’t seriously explored its logical implications. I think, when they do, their worldview leads to despair.”

Salviander concludes her testimony by saying that she does.

not believe we are locked in that sort of prison. But the only way we are free is if the universe and everything in it was created, not by some unconscious mechanism, but by a personal being—the God of the Bible. The only way our lives are unique, purposeful, and eternal is if a loving God created us.


    • Not sure if a study of “the stars” had an influence or not. However, Colin Nicholl’s new book (The Great Christ Comet) is filled with brilliant insights and a great read!

  1. I enjoyed the slideshow you linked and plan to share with my teens! It contains the best visual and verbal explanation of the TIME “harmonization” issue for me. Thank you for your testimony and work!

  2. Glad that you finally made it out of science. If existence outside the knowledge of God is science one more cloning is not necessary. I have made my conclusion this far; God is not a scientist

  3. Reblogged this on sweettowndavid and commented:
    Glad that you finally made it out of science. If existence outside the knowledge of God is science one more cloning is not necessary. I have made my conclusion this far; God is not a scientist

  4. What a thoroughly enjoyable and rational testimony.

    No background that pushed this person, no boyfriend that led her until she had made the conclusions hereself, no nagging family member nor death that seeemed it needed a comforting explanation.

    Yet still human while so intellectually thorough.
    I don’t suggest all have to have all the boxes ticked so thoroughly as this lady has, (“not many wise are called”) but It is deeply refreshing and stimulating to see someone like her that has been so rational and thorough. 🙂 (Y)

  5. Beautiful! Just beautiful! Thank you for sharing this story. I had tears sliding down my face as I read this!

  6. As someone who studied science in college and was constantly asked how I could both study science and be a devout Christian, I am thankful for those like yourself who step out and reinforce the idea that scientists can be, and are, Christians. We don’t have to leave our faith at the door when studying the marvelous and complex universe God has created, nor forego logic because we believe in a resurrected Saviour. Though my origin intent was to make a life out of my science degree in research, God had other ideas and my life is in a classroom. But, I can victoriously teach my students that any field has room for Christians, and are the better for it! Thank you for sharing your testimony. It will be shared with my students come the new year.

    • I love to hear of teachers that follow Christ and believe in the scripture. I started college about 1 year ago and was shocked to see how few students and even fewer teachers are believers. Christians in my school and from what I hear most schools everywhere in the US are mocked for our beliefs and portrayed as fools. Most of my professors teach that their either is no God or teach things that go against what the bible says, like evolution and the big bang etc… . Even my teachers that aren’t science related push these beliefs as things that are known to be true. If you don’t share their beliefs or say something contradictory to them, they try to make you out to be gullible or not receptive to new concepts outside of your out of date beliefs. I had a professor last semester that used to be a preacher and claims to be a believer, but says that the bible is not literal, but more like a good guide book. Not his words exactly but something like that. Its terrible that the people society and parents have trusted to teach the youth are so antichristian. They tell us to think for our selves but believing what the bible says is foolish. I have politely as possible pointed out to more than one that some of the “facts” they stated out have actually been proven wrong from recent discoveries, such as all dogs descended from wolves, or all stalagmites take million of years to form. Of course that mistake was an isolated incident that rarely occurs. They found another “fact” that is not wrong and goes against scripture, and science is ever changing, so that’s why they had not yet heard the new way the bible must be incorrect. But any ways glad to hear that God is using you to show people that people you can be educated and a believer, its a major confidence booster for me since I hope to be a physics teacher!! God bless you and stay true to your beliefs. You have no idea of the positive influence you have, and God see’s your loyalty.

      • The “fact” about wolves you claim have been proven wrong are inaccurate. The study showed that dogs and wolves had a common ancestor and that because of the inbreeding of dogs today they are not as close in relation to wolves. The study also shows that the common ancestor lived 32,000 years ago, 26,000 more than Christians believe the world has existed.. I have read synopsis’s about this study on many websites, all of the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE websites fail to mention the time table which is a critical pert of the study but contradicts their beliefs..

  7. Aloha James and Sarah. I read this after a friend shared it with me on Facebook. This was a real joy to read. Intriguing for me that Sarah accepted Genesis as true and then as a matter of logic decided that the Gospels must be true as well. My wife and I have had a similar experience with the Bible, but in the opposite order. We are both biologists who grew up essentially as pagans in Hawaii. We trained in and believed evolutionary theory. I accepted Jesus Christ in 2009 after realizing that He is the only real option. My wife, who holds a Master’s in Marine Science, went through a deliberate logical process to determine if Jesus is real, then accepted Him as well. We initially decided that Genesis must be solely metaphorical. But, after experiencing His miracles and the truth of God’s Word in other areas of the Bible, such as Proverbs, Psalms, the prophets, the Gospels and the epistles, we decided that we could not logically treat Genesis as anything but the literal record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth. We are so grateful to God for calling us out of darkness and saving us. Thank you, Sarah, for sharing your testimony. Praise His Holy Name! Marc.

  8. […] Sarah Salviander is a research scientist in astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Texas. Her parents were agnostic/atheist, she knew very few christians growing up, and by the time she went to university she was hostile to christianity. […]

  9. I believe that science is one of God’s best creations. We are told to study those things of which we have curiosity in order to understand how He made them. Fibonacci sequence is a perfect example.

  10. I so appreciated you sharing your testimony, especially as an astrophysicist. Sadly we have lost our ability to use logic, the ability to reason or think critically. You remind us that our faith, faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, is not rooted in mere emotion but is scientifically sound. Now more than ever, as the world grows darker, we need to be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks us for the reason for our hope, with gentleness and respect. We need to be prepared to know not only who and what we believe in, but why. All of creation testifies to the glory of God, science is a brilliant tool to help up learn about how awesome our amazing God is. Again… thank you for sharing. You should consider writing a blog providing some more amazing scientific discovers highlighting the glory of God’s creation.

  11. I find it amusing that Einstein is quoted in your post. While not an atheist per se his views on religion and God are quite contrary to the commonly understood theistic concept of God. His beliefs were quite in opposition to his Jewish upbringing. To the extent that many religious contemporaries of his time sent him what would today be considered hate mail. Make no mistake, Einstein was not an Abrahamic theist.

    • I agree, I believe he was probably a deist. Either way, he shows the exact opposite of the New Atheist’s challenge (science and religious belief, or belief in God, or a higher power are incompatible). He also had a very low opinion on atheism.

  12. Your mom’s Obit says “She was a member of the Baha’i faith and served on the local Spiritual Assembly.” which “Atheists” raised you?

    • You act as if she lied, yet she disclosed it in the very first paragraph:
      “My parents were also atheists, though they eschewed that label in favor of “agnostic.””

      Baha’i are basically peace seeking agnostics.

      You call yourself “Good and Godless”… Your careless malice reveals an oxymoron. I wish you God’s best🙏

    • The ranks of the Baha’i include atheists, agnostics, and all brands of spiritual “seekers” and even non-seekers. They are to Islam what Unitarian Universalists are to Christianity.

      So yes, it is possible that her parents could be both atheist/agnostic and still be members of the Baha’i faith.

      Moreover, I’ve known folks over the years who were atheists and yet were members of local churches, all to project a certain image.

  13. Ultimately, human existential concerns (death, finitude, freedom, responsibility, meaning and purpose) and the desire to nullify the mortal terror that comes when confronted with such existential realities, will cause many people to ignore reason and rational warrant for more comforting constructions of reality. Even those with a reasonable background in science. We are, after all, all still human – all too human.

    • I’ve seen a rocket launch, but I’m still not an astronaut. Seek TRUTH with all your heart; your eternity is worth some thorough care.

  14. This story reminds me of how one of my ex-girlfriends joined a cult. She was a smart person (with no religion) who was following a degree in physics. Made friends with a guy at Caltech who was also a physicist. He was a member of a weird, new-age religion called “Ramtha”. Well, she joined the cult, too, and currently lives in the NW where the cult is based. Smart people get suckered, too. That story and this one only prove we’re human.

  15. Mostly excellent … a great story of science meeting God … except she hugely missed the mark when she said “It was a great relief to discover that there was a reason for suffering, and that it was because God was loving and just. God could not be perfectly just unless I—just like everyone else—was made to suffer for the bad things I’d done.”

    God is perfectly just, but that doesn’t mean He punishes us for the bad things we’ve done. God rescues us from eternal damnation if we accept the gift He gave us through Jesus. Eternal punishment is what we deserve if we don’t accept that gift. Eternal reward is what we deserve if we do accept His gift. That is His perfect justice.

    The key concept she missed is: Jesus paid the price for our sins. We don’t get punished for them. That’s God’s gift. Sometimes God uses pain and suffering to teach us, or to accomplish another of His purposes. But He never makes us “suffer for the bad things” we’ve done. The overall reason for suffering is this: Our sinful nature let sin into the world through Adam. Without that, there would be no suffering.

    • I agree she was off on that subject, and that God doesn’t punish us or we would be in hell. We suffer to be made strong and closer to God “Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (Corinthians 12:9-10). I’m glad you brought that to the light. You said “Eternal punishment is what we deserve if we don’t accept that gift. Eternal reward is what we deserve if we do accept His gift. That is His perfect justice.”. According to the scripture we all deserve eternal punishment as payment for our sins even if we accept God’s gift of salvation, but through Gods grace and Jesus’s sacrifice, the debt has been paid for those who will accept that they are sinners and Jesus, the born of a virgin sinless son of God, died for their sake. I’m not sure of Sarah’s view on the subject because she also said “I realized that most of the pain I’d experienced in my life was of my own making, but that God had used it”. Also she is talking about a thought she had a long time ago hopefully she has a different view now, if not maybe she’ll read your comment and be enlightened, but I think her main point was to explain that science only supports the existence of God , and the bible can not be proven wrong through any science. This is what God used to bring her to Jesus, and when many scientist are faced with findings that back up the scripture, they look for any other possible solution, even if they have to ignore the scientific method to do so.

  16. Thankyou for your great testimony. I just have 1 question for you….Acts 19v2 “Have you received the Holy Spirit since you beleived?”
    This is the icing on the cake 😃

  17. Don’t be fooled by this. The Big Bang theory is on its final legs. Recent evidence in the cosmos as reported by top scientists puts us in a privileged position in the cosmos. See the movie, “The Principle”, now available on DVD and Blue Ray (theatrical run is over).

  18. I wonder why out of the hundreds of gods to choose from, this woman chose the christian god. most interesting. lastly, there is nothing scientifically sound about a sun being created after the earth or grass and vegetation growing without the sun. or the moon being a source of light and donkeys and snakes talking and so on. amazes me that so many of you can cherry pick a sacred text and not face the hundred if not thousands of contradictions in the text. I have read Schroders books and I love them but they have already been picked apart by many critics and have never been taken seriously in the scientific community even among scientist who are theist because his math is questionable at best. He seems like a great guy and he definitely knew seemed to know his stuff when he wasn’t trying to make his conclusions match his emotion. Certainty is really dangerous and the most honest thing anyone can say in regards to a god is I DON’T KNOW, there could be 2 gods, thirty gods, a god for every galaxy, we could be in a simulation, a animal like deity could of created all this and died in the process etc etc.

  19. Regarding your comments about atheists retreating to the multiverse concept, I recall reading the comments of a microbiologist remarking about the irreducible complexity of RNA and DNA. When asked why he could see that truth and yet he still proclaimed to be an atheist, his response was very telling. He said, ” I choose to believe the impossible rather than acknowledge the unthinkable”…

  20. So thrilled with your testimony and happy for you. We’ve followed Institute for Creation Research ( now in Dallas) for 40-some years and have been greatly blessed. ( ICR. Org ) This is our heavenly Father’s world. -Praying God’s sweetest blessings on your testimony. Dianne Lindner

  21. If we are all in the pursuit of the truth, then please allow me to probe without any dire consequences. All your kind comments and charitable forms of a good human nature is always appreciated.

    1) “I stopped in my tracks when it hit me—I believed in God! I was so happy; it was like a weight had been lifted from my heart.”

    There’s no explanation for this statement other than she found a deep philosophical explanation of forgiveness. Forgiveness, I think, can be found with or without a God.

    2) “Intellectually, I knew the Bible to be true, and as a person of intellect, I had to accept it as truth, even if I didn’t feel it. That’s what faith is.”

    This statement makes her whole story not lend itself for criticism due to “faith”. How could you ever really know this is truth? It’s a lot more difficult to actually find a concrete explanation, it’s easier to put your faith in a little black box and never truly understand how it works.

    3) “The Multiverse idea posits that there is a huge number—possibly an infinite number—of parallel universes. It’s an interesting, but ultimately unscientific, idea.”

    If we want to start being very critical of postulates, then please realize that the existence of a god is of the same flavor. You can’t ever actually prove the existence of an omnipotent god that lives somewhere above us.

    4) “This discovery also vindicated the very first words of the Bible after 2,500 years of doubt—there was a beginning. And that beginning meant the universe had a transcendent cause, for nothing in nature is its own cause. Atheists have been dismayed by this and forced to retreat to the idea of the Multiverse.”

    I do not feel dismayed by not knowing what is the reasoning for the big bang, rather, it intrigues me fully. If we are in agreement with the big bang, then shouldn’t we agree with the evidence that states evolution and not a seven day creation?

  22. A wonderful witness, and I’m glad she’s found the Way. But let me suggest, gently, that she reconsider her perspective on the multiverse. It is not what atheists believe it to be. Quite the opposite.

  23. A true scientist will keep searching for answers from nature, not the super natural. It’s a cope out to say god did it. Which god, the christian god, the jewish god, or one of the other 3000 gods you don’t have faith in like, Jupiter, Zeus, Appolo, Thor, Osiris, all but forgotten. How can you square a religion where the Father condemns, the Son forgives, but wait, they are one and the same. Really. You don’t present yourself as adhering to scientific standard, then pass yourself of as a convert from science to finding Jesus. We are all atheist, you have dismissed all other gods before your current incarnation, I also dismiss yours.

  24. Of all those that the Father gave Him, He will lose none.
    Some through the fire
    Some through the flood
    Some through great trials
    But all through his blood

  25. If Sarah and I are wrong, what have we lost? I’m comfortable and have hope and don’t fear the endless repetitions of meaningless, trial-filled lives in other universes. But if we are right and Victor and Spitirus are wrong, God will still exist, but they will suffer endless hell in their desired separation from Him. I’ll get what I hope for but don’t deserve, they’ll get what they are trying to avoid but what we all deserve.
    This argument hasn’t changed the minds of many who think hell is not as bad as giving up their god-complex. Only the Spirit of God can change such hearts, I’m asking Him to do that.

    • Going along with Reasonably Faithless’s. Your comment is a restatement of Pascal’s Wager. While I’m sure Pascal was referring to the Christian god the same logic could be used against the whole pantheon of gods that people have put their faith in through the centuries. Why not also believe in Allah of Islam or Shiva of Hinduism or even the Phoenitian deity Ba`al? Would you not be risking an eternity in some kind of hell were you to not believe in one of them and upon your death one of the other gods turned out to be the true god?

      I believe Occam’s razor is particularly suited to quick solution to the question of the existence of a god. It is far more complex a thing that an omnipresent omniscient god exists. To say such a personal god exists also calls into question the very creation of the god itself. It is a far simpler propositon that gods are a creation of human creative imagination. Using Occam’s razor between belief and non-belief the latter definitely has fewer assumptions and in fact really has no assumptions about existence. Just that we exist. That is the only assumption needed for non-belief.

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s