Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



Being the Church

A principled (and practical) guide to tithing

Twice every Sunday the offering plate comes your way. What do you do? Do you chip in whatever you have in your wallet, do you have a cheque already written out, or will you send an e-transfer later in the week? Do you abide by whatever tithing tradition your parents instilled in you, or look around to see what everyone else does, or do you have your own rationale of how to give?

How we tithe is an intensely practical question for everyone, but perhaps one that you’ve not given much thought. Here are some biblical principles for tithing, followed by some practical suggestions, from my experience as a deacon and as a manager of a personal household budget, of how to apply these biblical principles in our offerings.

1. God owns everything

The first principle that we need to recognize when we consider tithing is the fact that everything ultimately belongs to God and not to us. As the Creator and Sustainer of all things and the Redeemer of His people, God not only is the ultimate owner of everything, but we owe Him everything. Like the servants in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-39), we are merely temporary stewards of the blessings that God has given us.

The tithe – 10% – is a reminder of that fact. Abram offered the first recorded tithe in Genesis 14, when he gave a tenth of the spoils from the defeat of Chedorlaomer to Melchizedek, the priest of God Most High. Jacob also vowed to give God a tenth of everything (Gen. 28:22). This voluntary tithe was enshrined in God’s law in Numbers 18:21-24, when God commanded the Israelites to give a tithe every year to support the Levites and the tabernacle.

The disposition of our heart should not be “how little of my hard-earned money do I have to part with” but “how much of God’s blessings am I able to give back to Him?”

2. Our heart (not just the %) matters

We see cheerful and abundant giving throughout Scripture, whether it was the Israelites giving overabundantly for the construction of the temple (Ex. 35:20-36:7), the early Church freely sharing their possessions (Acts 4:32-37), and later congregations collecting for needy churches (Rom. 15:25-28, 1 Cor. 16:1-4, 2 Cor. 8:1-5, 2 Cor. 9:1-15).

It is entirely possible to give large sums of money to the LORD but without the right motivation. In Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira sold a piece of property and gave some of the proceeds to the disciples. And yet they wound up dead because of their dishonesty. Instead, in 2 Corinthians 9:7, Paul famously reminds believers that

“each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

While it may be relatively easy to change our giving patterns, changing our heart from being a reluctant, to a cheerful, giver may be far harder. Yet we serve a God who delights more in a pure heart than external sacrifice, and we need to recognize that our giving should come from gratitude over God’s grace delivering us from our guilt. So we must set our hearts in the right direction when we give.

3. First fruits

The Bible also speaks to when we give. Men like Abel gave “the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions” (Gen. 4:4) Throughout the books of the law, God commands the people of Israel to bring to Him the first fruits – not their last fruits – of their field and their flocks. Calling upon His people to bring their first fruits was a way that God set the priorities of His people: give to Me first and provide for yourselves after.

This practice also fostered a trust in God’s people that He would provide if His people obeyed Him and gave their first fruits to Him. In the days of Malachi, when the people of Judah were robbing God of their tithes and contributions (possibly because they thought that they were too poor to afford to tithe), God calls the people to:

“Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need” (Malachi 3:10).

Questions to consider

With these general biblical principles established, here are some more practical suggestions of how we can live out these principles in our tithing.

A. How much should I give?
This is everyone’s biggest question as well as the one that will impact our lifestyle the most. And the usual Christian response is to tithe (to give 10% of our income).

But, interestingly, most Israelites were commanded to give more than a 10% tithe. God also commanded a second tithe every year to fund ceremonial feasts and festivals (Deut. 14:22-27). And every three years, the people were to give a third tithe that was to go not only to the Levite but also the poor (Deut. 14:28-29). They were also to provide for the poor in other ways that would have a financial cost, such as allowing the poor to glean the droppings and corners of the field (Lev. 19:9). So, in reality, the Israelites arguably tithed as much as 23.33% annually. (I say “arguably” because some theologians like John Calvin thought that the tithe to the poor every three years was simply a further explanation of how to spend the first tithe to the priests and Levites.)

We live in a different time period today. The civil and ceremonial law apply differently to the Church today. We don’t support one thirteenth of the population of the Church with our tithes (as the twelve tribes had to support the tribe of Levi in the Old Testament). We don’t have a calendar of feasts and festivals that require another tithe. Various institutions of society, such as the government, do a lot of the work of providing for the poor (through the taxes we pay). And so that strict command to give away 10% (or 20% or 23.33%) of our income may not bind us today.

But I still think that a 10% tithe is a good minimum for us all to strive to give. Even if you’re a student working a part-time job, an unemployed man collecting EI, or a retiree living off a pension, aim to give at least 10% back to the LORD. In Mark 12:41-44, Jesus watched many rich people putting large sums of money into the temple treasury. We have no idea what percentage of their regular income they brought. Perhaps some brought 5%, thinking that the sheer amount of money that they gave was more important than the relative percentage of the income they gave. Perhaps some brought exactly 10%, giving just as much as the law required, no more and no less. And perhaps some brought 15%, priding themselves on exceeding the demands of the law. But then a poor widow comes in and gives two small copper coins. Jesus says to His disciples:

“Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

In other words, the widow gave 100%.

While we may not be called to give every cent that we earn to the Church, in The Ministry of Mercy, Timothy Keller calls Christians to give “sacrificially, until their lifestyle is lowered.” Following the call in Galatians 6:2 to bear one another’s burdens, he suggests that “we must give so that we feel the burden of the needy ourselves.” In support of this, he quotes Jonathan Edwards, who said,

“If we be never obliged to relieve others’ burdens, but when we can do it without burdening ourselves, then how do we bear our neighbor’s burdens, when we bear no burdens at all?”

Keller’s book is a real challenge to Christians to give more than just 10%.

Those more well off could and should give more. In 1 Corinthians 16:2, Paul commands the Corinthians “to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper.” Those whom God has prospered are in a position to give more than those who are struggling. To use an example, those of us who earn the median family income in Canada of $98,390 and tithe 10% would give away almost $10,000. Those who earn double that – nearly $200,000 – and still give 10% would give $20,000. The rate of giving is equal. And the richer family gives away more. But who feels the impact of that tithe more?

The average family.

They might have to give up a vacation, live in a smaller house, or pass on enrolling their children in organized sports. The comparatively richer family probably doesn’t have to give up these things and could give far more before they really began feeling it.

B. Tithing pre-tax or post-tax?
If you do decide to give a certain percentage of your income regularly to the Church (say, 10%), some might ask, “should that 10% be pre-tax or post-tax?” Our response to this question may reveal where God and His Church are on our priority list.

Most of us don’t get the full amount of our paycheque. Even before our earnings are deposited into our bank account or we pick up our paycheque, the government takes its share, roughly about 25% of our salary through income taxes, CCP contributions, and EI premiums. If we give 10% of our take-home paycheque, what are we implicitly saying? That the government is entitled to its share first and in full and God gets a tithe of our second fruits (and a lesser amount to boot).

So consider giving of your income pre-tax, before the government claims its share.

C. Tithing at the beginning or end of the month?
Perhaps this isn’t a significant question in your mind, but again it may reveal your heart. If you write a monthly cheque or pre-authorize any bank withdrawals to the Church on the last day of the month, what does that say about your priorities? Are your priorities to make sure that you have enough money to pay your rent, your grocery bill, and your credit card statement and then give some of whatever is left over to the Church? Might this be how you implicitly think about giving?

And so, consider determining, as soon as you get your paycheque, what you are going to give back to God and His Church, giving to God of your first fruits rather than your leftovers.

D. Can I let the offering bag pass me by?
This is another question that many people would raise an eyebrow at. As long as I give my 10%, who cares when I give it?

As a deacon, I saw some people would wave away the offering bag during a service, implying that they had nothing to give that service. Others would write a few (though substantial) cheques a few times a year but give little during the remainer of the year. When December rolled around, we would often collect three or four times our usually monthly donations in a single month, suggesting that some people only gave at the end of the year.

A handful of people in the congregation gave much smaller amounts every week. We as deacons often thought to ourselves that we’d save a whole lot of time if we didn’t have to count as much cash, or input a lot of small cheques, from these frequent givers. But this attitude of giving a little bit every week again reflects a heart that always has giving back to the LORD written on it.

And again, there are Scriptural and confessional hints that we shouldn’t let the offering bag pass us by each Sunday. As already quoted in part, 1 Corinthians 16:2, says, “on the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up , as he may prosper.” Based in part on this passage, Lord’s Day 38 of the Heidelberg Catechism, speaking of what God’s will for us is in the Fourth Commandment, says

“that the gospel ministry and schools for it be maintained, and that, especially on the festive day of rest, I diligently… bring Christian offerings for the poor.”

In the Old Testament, there are also a few warnings against appearing before the LORD empty-handed, even if these passages are not strictly related to tithing (Ex. 23:15, 34:20; Deut. 16:16).

So don’t let the offering bag pass you by. Even if the total amount that you give in a year doesn’t change, give often.

E. How can my tithing go the furthest?
Finally, we can be good stewards of our money by taking advantage of charitable tax advantages. Our federal and provincial governments give significant tax credits (typically 40-50%) to encourage charitable donations. That means that you can get up to 40-50% of your donations back on your tax return every year. If you are the average Canadian family earning $98,390, tithing 10%, and giving away almost $10,000, that could mean a return of $4,000-5,000. We are called to give taxes to whom taxes are due (Romans 13:6-7, Mark 12:13-17, Matthew 17:24-27), but if there are organizations that spend their money more efficiently or that labor more in the Kingdom of God than the government (and I’m sure we can think of many such organizations), making use of our charitable receipts is good stewardship. Through these tax benefits we can give even more generously to the most effective and godly organizations around us.

The key to getting that tax credit is that your donations need to bear your name so that your church can issue a tax receipt. So write cheques or donate cash in envelopes with your name on it. Cash tossed in the collection bag won’t get you a tax receipt, but I’ve heard of some churches allowing congregation members to buy “tokens” through cheque or directed cash so that they can get a tax receipt. This allows parents and children to still donate via the offering plate while taking full advantage of charitable tax receipts.

Conclusion

However you decide to give to your local church, consider both where your heart is and what your hands are doing. As James 2:18 says, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

That includes our tithing.



News

Saturday Selections – Mar. 29, 2025

Propaganda techniques (10 minutes)

This 1948 or 1949 movie highlights seven different propaganda techniques, and to be forewarned about them is to be forearmed. This could be great for a high school English class. Click the title above for the full 10-minute color presentation, or watch a 7-minute B&W abridgment below.

News or narrative – when the truth-tellers can't be trusted

What with images and video that can be faked so quickly and so skillfully, the biggest problem with our news consumption might be the speed at which we imbibe. When we just hit headlines, or read whoever the algorithm puts in front of us, we can't know if they are trustworthy – we can't know that this is true. So... slow down.

The slippery slope of theistic Darwinism

Howard Van Till was a physics professor at Calvin College who used to be "the pre-eminent example of an evangelical Christian scientist in the 1990s who defended Darwinian evolution."

Until he stopped being Christian.

Or even a theist.

Doctor Google, influencer moms, and the local Church

"I recently saw some Christian influencers offer a course on marriage, though they had been married for less than two years. They had paltry experience and undoubtedly little wisdom, but they did have a big platform. And many were eager to learn from them. God has carefully constructed his church so that, as much as we may benefit from those who are far off, we are likely to find the greatest and most credible help nearby. Your church has many seasoned saints who have spent their whole lives following the Lord and whose godliness is on display each and every time the church gathers."
- Tim Challies

A mid-life assessment

A pastor's wife discovers with age comes new:

"...temptations to impatience, ungraciousness, pride. This had surprised me then, but I now see this is true not just in ministry. I used to imagine I’d have to fight the same besetting sins my whole life, and while some old struggles still remain, I’ve found I need to also be vigilant for new ones."

Rend Collective: Build Your Kingdom Here

A song and a prayer.


Today's Devotional

April 2 - The psalm of the cross

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” - Psalm 22:1a

Scripture reading: Psalm 22:1-8

These are words we all know. And we especially know them because they became the words our Lord and Saviour cried out when he hung upon the cursed cross as the ultimate sacrifice for all of our sins.

We may well wonder how David’s experience >

Today's Manna Podcast

Manna Podcast banner: Manna Daily Scripture Meditations and open Bible with jar logo

Psalm 1 Two ways to live: Meditations from the Psalms

Serving #800 of Manna, prepared by Rev. Cody Swaving, is called "Psalm 1 Two ways to live" (Meditations from the Psalms) and is based on John 10:10; Psalm 1.















Red heart icon with + sign.
Science - Creation/Evolution

How does the world explain the origin of life?

or, highlighting the problems with a Naturalistic explanation  *****  Naturalism can be defined best by what it doesn’t believe: in the Supernatural; it denies the existence of God. That means that all naturalists are left with to explain all that exists, why we exist, and how we came to be is Nature and natural laws. And that presents them with a problem. Nature cannot provide us with an explanation for abiogenesis – life coming from non-life. You don’t have to take my word for it – this is also acknowledged as a foundational problem by many scientists, sometimes explicitly, and sometimes only by the irrational arguments they’ll offer as an alternative to acknowledging God. In what follows I’m going to share both the publicly acknowledged problems with naturalistic abiogenesis, as well as some of the theories the world has proposed to address those problems. Both are revealing. The RNA problem In paleontologist Peter Ward’s book Life As We Do Not Know It, he addresses how RNA (or ribonucleic acid) – because it is simpler than DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) – is theorized as an evolutionary step in the development of DNA. But, Ward notes: Amazingly, one of the major criticisms of RNA life…the hypothesized last common ancestor of all DNA life, is that it probably did not exist because it would have been impossible to build RNA through natural chemical processes. Paul Davies notes: .… ”without a trained organic chemist on hand to supervise, nature would be struggling to make RNA from a dilute soup under any plausible prebiotic condition.” Or, as organic chemist Clemens Richert wrote in the Dec 12, 2018 edition of Nature Communications: Experimentalists in the field of prebiotic chemistry strive to re-enact what may have happened when life arose from inanimate material. How often human intervention was needed to obtain a specific result in their studies is worth reporting. When Diego Maradona was asked about having used his hand to score a goal in the quarter-finals of the 1986 soccer World Cup, he initially claimed that there had been divine intervention, and the term “Hand of God Goal” was coined. – There had been manual intervention, and there had been an understandable interest of the player not to admit it. – Organic chemists, if not all experimentalists in the field of prebiotic chemistry, are faced with a similar dilemma. We do our best to perform experiments that we believe re-enact possible steps of prebiotic evolution, but we know that we need to intervene manually to obtain meaningful results. Further, the ideal experiment does not involve any human intervention. He also frankly said: Understandably, this has drawn the ire of those who feel that no or only minimal intervention is allowed for a process to be called prebiotically plausible. After all, it is not easy to see what replaced the flasks, pipettes and stir bars of a chemistry lab during prebiotic evolution, let alone the hands of the chemist who performed the manipulations. (And yes, most of us are not comfortable with the idea of divine intervention in this context.) Whether divine intervention or human intervention, there’s a conscious entity doing the intervening. So even if our friends were to succeed in creating life in the lab, that would only demonstrate that intelligence and deliberate intent are needed to create a living thing. I'm glad this issue is explicitly acknowledged. Every honest Origin of Life (OOL) researcher will agree fully. It’s one thing for highly trained chemists to create RNA in a lab, but another thing entirely for unaided Nature to accomplish the same. Especially considering that Nature is not trying to make RNA, and has no intention of doing so. The multiverse “solution” But, if the researcher is committed to Naturalism and atheism, then he has no choice but to maintain a strong (and unrealistic) faith that Nature did it anyway, even though he knows it’s not possible. One such researcher, Eugene Koonin, resorted to “an infinite multiverse” as a potential way out of this problem. This is the view that supposedly, anything that can happen will happen in an infinite multiverse, and this would also include the chance origin of life. In a 2011 book, The Logic of Chance: the Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, he added this: The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-life research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle. “Almost like a miracle” is a frank admission of what OOL entails. Nevertheless, in the same book, Koonin continued to cling to the multiverse hypothesis as a guaranteed solution to the problems involved with OOL. Here’s the summary of Koonin’s argument, in his own words: Simply put, the probability of the realization of any scenario permitted by the conservation laws in an infinite universe (and, of course, in the multiverse) is, exactly, one.... Thus, spontaneous emergence of complex systems that would have to be considered virtually impossible in a finite universe becomes not only possible but inevitable under MWO … What he’s saying is that if you have an infinite number of universes then anything, no matter how improbable, not only can happen, but will happen… in some universe somewhere within the multiverse. Including naturalistic abiogenesis. According to Koonin (and some “Many Worlds” physicists who agree with him), in some universe somewhere right now, there’s a guy who’s a practicing neurosurgeon, a janitor, and the lead actor in a recent blockbuster movie – simultaneously. He owns 271 cars, and is married to his high school sweetheart (who happens to be a princess from a tribe of highly-advanced super-beings). Their son adopted a pet chimpanzee named Wilson, while their twin daughters are ballistic missile experts in the local galactic army. No, this isn’t a hypothetical story I just made up. Or, rather it is, but according to Koonin’s logic these things are actually going on right now as we speak, in some universe somewhere. The pet chimp is also very clever, and has learned how to fly a helicopter, among other things. Now think about this trained monkey trying to synthesize life in a chemistry lab. What are the odds of him succeeding?? Exactly. But even the monkey has a better chance than a prebiotic Nature which has no intent or purpose whatsoever. In any case, simply postulating an infinite multiverse in an attempt to overcome the problem does not help – Koonin doesn’t put forth any mechanism whereby life could be naturally synthesized, but just makes the bold assertion that it must certainly happen given a multiverse. Time is no solution Another factor that is usually seen as a possible helper for abiogenesis is Time. If Nature has billions of years to work with, she should be able to eventually get the right combination to the safe, right? No, not at all. That would be akin to claiming a blind engineer could invent a BMW, or a Model-T Ford, given billions of years to live and try. It’s clear why time isn’t the problem. The blind engineer actually has better odds in this analogy than Nature does, since he at least knows what he’s attempting to accomplish. The language/information problem The origin of life gets all the more complicated when we realize it also necessitates the origin of information, and the origin of a language to convey that information. I could employ many quotes here concerning what information is, but I like how physicist and information theorist Hubert Yockey put it in this simple statement: The meaning, if any, of words, that is, a sequence of letters, is arbitrary. It is determined by the natural language and is not a property of the letters or their arrangement ... For example, "O singe fort!" has no meaning as a sentence in English, although each is an English word, yet in German it means, "O sing on!" and in French it means "O strong monkey". Like all messages, the life message is non-material but has an information content measurable in bits and bytes. Or, as chemistry professor Michael Polanyi already noted way back in 1958, in his book Personal Knowledge: Information in the DNA could no more be reduced to the chemicals than could the ideas in a book be reduced to the ink and paper: something beyond physics and chemistry is encoded in DNA. The origin of encoded genetic information is also assumed to have just happened miraculously under the multiverse scenario. Information here isn’t just the physical nucleobases, or even their sophisticated ordering alone, but the ribosomes’ understanding of the language, and their ability to decode and use those instructions to build the specified proteins. And then we have multiple regulatory genes in addition, which are all information networks. There’s actually a $10 million challenge out there still ongoing, for anyone who can demonstrate a set of coded information that didn’t originate from a mind, i.e., that can be spontaneously generated by Nature. The judges include well-respected biologists George Church and Denis Noble, and the Royal Society has also gotten involved recently. No one has claimed the prize (find out more in the 2 minute video below). The complexity problem Most of us don’t actually know, much less appreciate, the number of things that need to be done in order to arrive at the “simplest” cell. Nature has no goal or aim or plan to create a cell. The fact that highly trained, highly intelligent chemists still can’t do it, speaks volumes. So how is it that some lay naturalists and even some with degrees think all that’s needed is lots of time, and then Nature will eventually produce a living cell? The sheer amount of intellectual effort that goes into OOL research is more than impressive, and we still can’t make life ourselves – we can’t pull it off. But a mindless prebiotic Nature with no intention of creating a cell somehow did? Consider the ingredients needed to make a basic candy. Here’s the list for Skittles: Sugar Corn syrup Hydrogenated palm kernel oil Citric acid Tapioca dextrin Modified corn starch Natural and artificial flavors Colors (Red 40 Lake, Titanium Dioxide, Red 40, Yellow 5 Lake, Yellow 5, Yellow 6 Lake, Yellow 6, Blue 2 Lake, Blue 1, Blue 1 Lake) Sodium citrate Carnauba wax Now consider just a miniscule piece of a Skittle. Would Nature alone be able to synthesize and assemble the ingredients needed to make a tiny piece of a Skittle? No. Never. Not in ten billion years! But many adults believe Nature somehow synthesized and assembled everything that’s needed to make a living, metabolizing, self-replicating cell. The extraterrestrials “solution” But what if we were to claim that life on earth resulted from panspermia – that Extraterrestrials (ETs) seeded the first life on Earth? This is indeed what some among our SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) friends propose. Well, then they’d have the problem of explaining how Nature produced those ETs. As Richard Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion: …there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a Dark Age peasant transported to the twenty-first century…In what sense would they be superhuman but not supernatural? In a very important sense…the crucial difference between gods and god-like extraterrestrials lies not in their properties but in their provenance. Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process. No matter how god-like they may seem when we encounter them, they didn’t start that way…They probably owe their existence to a (perhaps unfamiliar) version of Darwinian evolution. Saying ETs put the first life on Earth still keeps us inside the box of Naturalism. And then Nature still has to create and evolve the ETs, so the abiogenesis problem – how life can ever have come from non-life – remains. Then there’s at least one scientist in peer-reviewed publication who also thinks panspermia by ETs isn’t a good enough proposal. Brig Klyce concedes there’s one of two possibilities: “supernatural intervention or intelligence” (aka God) or that cellular life has existed from eternity This concession appeared in a paper (“Cause of Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?” in the August 2018 edition of the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology) that Klyce co-authored with more than a dozen other scientists. He believed “that the complexity and sophistication of life cannot originate (from non-biological) matter under any scenario, over any expanse of space and time, however vast.” But if that’s so, then how is life here? Rejecting the possibility that God was involved, Klyce then proposes this: A strictly scientific way around this dilemma would be to amend or tweak the big bang theory to allow for life from the eternal past. After all, the big bang theory is relatively new and still occasionally amended. Therefore, it seems unready to forever overrule the unviolated principle and consistent evidence that life comes from life. Yes, that’s an actual suggestion from a peer-reviewed secular scientific paper – that life started here from a universe before the big bang. So either God did it, or self-replicating microbes have always existed. The difference between the two proposals is that: God is an eternal Supernatural This is logically consistent and plausible, and even a metaphysical necessity to avoid an infinite regress of causes. On the other hand, proposing an eternity of replicating microbes, each of which had a beginning and an end, is trying to say that abiogenesis never happened because there was no “first ever microbe.” But things that have a beginning still need to have an explanation for that beginning. Trying to hide that behind an infinite regression isn’t an answer to this problem. Conclusion For decades, highly trained experts have been striving to create life from scratch, using the raw materials found in nature. They have yet to succeed. Even if they did eventually succeed somehow, that would only demonstrate that a high level of intelligent input is needed to create biological life; which is what we’ve been saying the evidence has always shown. Proposing an infinite multiverse where “anything that can happen will happen” is an unsubstantiated assertion with no empirical evidence whatsoever, and doesn’t offer a mechanism for abiogenesis or even address the issue that Nature has no intent to create life. The suggestion that microbial life has always existed and self-replicated is a logical absurdity, since there can be no such thing as an infinite regress of causes. Thus in the question of God vs Naturalism, there is no question as to which answer is absurd. Kenechi Okoli is a Christian who loves science, and in his free time he enjoys reading, music, and cooking. While he lived for over a decade in the US, he now resides in Nigeria....