Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The problem with this is that Sagan does not define what would constitute an extraordinary claim or what would represent extraordinary evidence. So, no matter what evidence you give the skeptic he will simply say it is not evidence or it is not extraordinary evidence. The skeptic then becomes the judge of what is evidence, what is not evidence, and what is extraordinary evidence. From this simple observation I would have to conclude that evidence is for the seeker or for a person who has the will to believe. A seeker or a person who has a will to believe is surely not a person who has a prior commitment to skepticism.
Usually, what the skeptic wants is absolute or overwhelming evidence. In other words he wants you to beat him into submission. Of course, this is a requirement and condition that many skeptics only apply to the existence of God. For example, many of them believe in the string theory and the existence of aliens, both of which have no evidence at the present time, yet they believe these highly speculative theories. So, what is the difference between these beliefs and the belief in a deity? These theories seem to be extraordinary claims, which means they should all have extraordinary evidence to prove them. However, they have none and yet they are believed. This is said not to disagree with Carl Sagan but rather to show the inconsistencies of skeptics and their bias towards faith in God. Many of them have a prior commitment to materialism and atheism.
We also need to point out that you can prove very little to a person who has a will to doubt. René Descartes the famous French philosopher believed that you could only prove to yourself your own existence. Thus his famous statement, “I think therefore I am”. When people demand proof before they will believe something, they are asking for a lot. Proof and evidence seem to be somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. Absolute proof cannot be given, because a person could claim that the thing to believe, or the evidence, is an illusion or that we live in a matrix where everything is not real. On the other hand, there seems to be room for different degrees of evidence which point to the truthfulness of something. There can be circumstantial evidence which is inferred from other things and there can be eyewitness evidence.
However, I do believe there is some extraordinary evidence for the existence of God. That extraordinary evidence comes in the form of miracles. By miracles I mean something that cannot be explained by natural causes or by the laws of nature. When we use the word miracle we also are inferring that the things that we are talking about are very rare or only happened once in the history of the universe. These miracles are (1) That something came from nothing. (2) That part of the something was alive. (3) That some of the living stuff had consciousness (4) That something which was alive changed into something else.
Let’s look at each one of the above. First, that something came from nothing. This miracle happened when the universe came into existence. Science refers to this event as the big bang theory. If you wanted a detailed explanation of what happened in the big bang, you need to go to science. If you go to the book of Beginnings (Genesis) it simply says in concise speech, “In the begin God created the heavens and earth”. In this we find that the something came not from nothing, but was rather created by a something (God). For the how of that, you would have to go back to science again.
My question is this, what is more of extraordinary claim. That God, an intelligent being, created the heavens and the earth or the claim of the naturalist atheist, that something came from nothing. If you believe that something came from nothing please send me your extraordinary evidence.
The second miracle is that a part of the something that was created is alive. When we look at the universe, its order and its complexity, we must stand in awe not only of the universe but also of the fact that there is life in it. Life is a miracle and there is no evidence of life coming out of nonlife today. That secures the creation of life a place among miracles of miracles.
The third miracle is that some of the living stuff had consciousness; certainly we are talking about the existence of man. The fact that the universe gave birth to a conscious being like man is an extraordinary happening beyond imagination. There is one thing that is more miraculous than consciousness and it is that conscious beings could believe that consciousness came from unconsciousness.
The fourth miracle is that something that was alive, changed into something else. Yes, I am talking about evolution or continuous development. Did you ever think about how much of a miracle, evolution is? In essence the universe and life does not exist but it is becoming and we do not know what it is becoming. Some say it is dying, but I don’t think so. I think it is simply changing, growing and maturing. Could it be evolving toward the omega point?
A part of this growth and development is still another miracle which was the resurrection of Christ into a higher life form, or the new being. His resurrection was the last evolution of mankind into his final and complete form. In his pre-resurrection form he was called “a root out of dry ground” which expressed the unlikelihood of his existence. His existence like the other miracles was a onetime happening that is hard to explain. In his death and resurrection he demonstrates something coming from nothing, something that was dead coming to life, and something changing from one state to another and becoming something else. In this, he is the one that all existence points to. As scripture reads, “He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end”. He is the over man of Nietzsche or the omega man who is over all of creation.
I know that all of these miracles can be explained away by materialists and their tall tale of naturalism. They tell an unbelievable story of how these things happened and then declare the story as evidence that all these miracles just happened naturally without an intelligent guide behind it. In other words they were just accidents. It is up to the reader to choose what they will believe. Accidents or miracles?
 Sagan being an atheist or at best an agnostic only used this criteria when talking about religious questions. He seemed to have no problem with the speculative theories of physics, i.e. string theory, big bang theory and black holes. All of which are based on very thin scientific evidence. Sagan is a classic example of scientific bias, which comes from a prior commitment to materialism.
 Richard Lewontin (evolutionary geneticist), s,” hints at this predisposition and bias when he says “[The public] take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” “Billions and Billions of Demons,” page 31 Quota in Never Pure by Shapin Steven
 A statement by the seventeenth century philosopher René Descartes. “I think; therefore I am” was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. In Latin (the language in which Descartes wrote), the phrase is “Cogito, ergo sum.”
 “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing” By Lawrence M. Krauss is an attempt to explain the universe without God or a first cause. The book is a disappointment, for the nothing that it propounds that the universe came from, turns out to be a something. Jan 1, 2013 by Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins
 There was a time when some scientists believed in spontaneous generation, however, this theory was disproven by Louis Pasteur when he established beyond a shadow of a doubt that spontaneous generation is impossible under present day conditions. Even if science were to create life in the laboratory, it would only confirm that the lesser comes from the greater. For such an experiment would show that it took consciousness to arrange the elements to make life. In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment created some of the chemical ingredients that are found in basic life forms. However, these scientists’ claim that they had done this by reproducing early earth conditions has been proven false. Plus, it is basically a false presupposition that they created life. A few of the building blocks of life is not life. A few bricks are not a house. Even if science were to create life in the laboratory, it would only confirm that the lesser comes from the greater. For such an experiment would show that it took consciousness to arrange the elements to make life.