“If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists”

See this blog post I just wrote, that you’re reading right now?  This blog article is proof of the existence of God.

Before you read/watch/listen to “If You Can Read This I Can Prove God Exists,” read THIS first. (700 words – 2 minutes) – then come back and continue reading. Thanks.

Yeah, I know, that sounds crazy.  But I’m not asking you to believe anything just yet, until you see the evidence for yourself.  All I ask is that you refrain from disbelieving while I show you my proof.  It only takes a minute to convey, but it speaks to one of the most important questions of all time.

So how is this message proof of the existence of God?

This web page you’re reading contains letters, words and sentences.  It contains a message that means something. As long as you can read English, you can understand what I’m saying.

You can do all kinds of things with this message.  You can read it on your computer screen.  You can print it out on your printer.  You can read it out loud to a friend who’s in the same room as you are.  You can call your friend and read it to her over the telephone.  You can save it as a Microsoft WORD document.  You can forward it to someone via email, or you can post it on some other website.

Regardless of how you copy it or where you send it, the information remains the same.  My email contains a message. It contains information in the form of language.  The message is independent of the medium it is sent in.

Messages are not matter, even though they can be carried by matter (like printing this email on a piece of paper).

Messages are not energy even though they can be carried by energy (like the sound of my voice.)

Messages are immaterial.  Information is itself a unique kind of entity.  It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.

Messages can be in English, French or Chinese. Or Morse Code.  Or mating calls of birds.  Or the Internet.  Or radio or television.  Or computer programs or architect blueprints or stone carvings.  Every cell in your body contains a message encoded in DNA, representing a complete plan for you.

OK, so what does this have to do with God?

It’s very simple.  Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind.  A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences.  A mind that expresses both desire and intent.

Whether I use the simplest possible explanation, such as the one I’m giving you here, or if we analyze language with advanced mathematics and engineering communication theory, we can say this with total confidence:

“Messages, languages and coded information never, ever come from anything else besides a mind.  No one has ever produced a single example of a message that did not come from a mind.”

Nature can create fascinating patterns – snowflakes, sand dunes, crystals, stalagmites and stalactites.  Tornadoes and turbulence and cloud formations.

But non-living things cannot create language. They *cannot* create codes.  Rocks cannot think and they cannot talk.  And they cannot create information.

It is believed by some that life on planet earth arose accidentally from the “primordial soup,” the early ocean which produced enzymes and eventually RNA, DNA, and primitive cells.

But there is still a problem with this theory: It fails to answer the question, ‘Where did the information come from?’

DNA is not merely a molecule.  Nor is it simply a “pattern.” Yes, it contains chemicals and proteins, but those chemicals are arranged to form an intricate language, in the exact same way that English and Chinese and HTML are languages.

DNA has a four-letter alphabet, and structures very similar to words, sentences and paragraphs.  With very precise instructions and systems that check for errors and correct them. It is formally and scientifically a code. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

To the person who says that life arose naturally, you need only ask: “Where did the information come from? Show me just ONE example of a language that didn’t come from a mind.”

As simple as this question is, I’ve personally presented it in public presentations and Internet discussion forums for more than four years.  I’ve addressed more than 100,000 people, including hostile, skeptical audiences who insist that life arose without the assistance of God.

But to a person, none of them have ever been able to explain where the information came from.  This riddle is “So simple any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve.”

You can hear or read my full presentation on this topic at

Watch it on video:

Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.  Everyone can agree on that.  But information has to come from somewhere, too!

Information is separate entity, fully on par with matter and energy.  And information can only come from a mind.  If books and poems and TV shows come from human intelligence, then all living things inevitably came from a superintelligence.

Every word you hear, every sentence you speak, every dog that barks, every song you sing, every email you read, every packet of information that zings across the Internet, is proof of the existence of God.  Because information and language always originate in a mind.

In the beginning were words and language.

In the Beginning was Information.

When we consider the mystery of life – where it came from and how this miracle is possible – do we not at the same time ask the question where it is going, and what its purpose is?

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall

Full Presentation and Technical Details (please review before posting questions or debates on the blog, almost every question and objection is addressed by these articles):

“If you can read this, I can prove God exists” – listen to
my full presentation or read the Executive Summary here:


“OK, so then who made God?” and other questions about information and origins:


Why DNA is formally and scientifically a code, and things like sunlight and starlight are not (Please read this before you attempt to debate this on the blog!!!):

http://evo2.org/blog/information-theory-made-simple and http://evo2.org/faq/#code

-The Atheist’s Riddle: Members of Infidels, the world’s largest atheist discussion board attempt to solve it
(for over 4 years now!), without success:


2,208 Responses

  1. David Hysom says:

    I’m only partway through your post but I’m stumped by this glaring error:

    >Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind. A mind that agrees on an alphabet and a meaning of words and sentences

    Yo, Dude, I exchange messages with my cats all the time. Sometimes I send them messages, and sometimes they send me messages. And I’m pretty sure my cats have no concept of an alphabet. Further, I guarantee that my cats and I don’t share a common concept of the meaning of words. Yet we communicate and exchange messages just fine.

  2. David Hysom says:

    After reading your entire post I’m struck that nowhere did you define “information.” In my mind, that relegates your arguments to a house of cards.

    The closest to a definition you gave was the statement, “Messages, languages, and coded information ONLY come from a mind.” Hm, so by definition you’re saying that a defining aspect of Information is that it “comes from a mind.” That is not convincing nor generally agreed upon.

    You might say (and I may be putting words in your mouth) something like, “we all know/agree as to what information is.” If that’s your belief it’s not true, unless you agree with my definition: “information is pattern.” In which case a diamond contains information in it’s crystalline structure, etc.
    The definition(s) of “information” are varied. I highly recommend reading this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information which contains a longish discussion as to just what is “information.”
    Regards, Dave

    • The definitions have all been discussed in this thread quite thoroughly. Please read more closely.

      Quoting from the page:

      –Why DNA is formally and scientifically a code, and things like sunlight and starlight are not (Please read this before you attempt to debate this on the blog!!!):

      http://evo2.org/blog/information-theory-made-simple and http://evo2.org/faq/#code

      It is also rigorously defined in the ten million dollar prize specification at http://www.naturalcode.org.

      • Jack Ellis says:

        Things like starlight and sunlight DO carry very useful information. For example we use starlight shining through an exoplanets atmosphere to determine what chemicals make it up.
        We can ‘de-code’ that information, you could compare the spectrum we get to the ‘chemical one’ we get from DNA and RNA. You are settling on a definition of information that isn’t agreed upon. The natural world CAN produce information, sometimes e.g. in the case of Cellular life, it also produces (via evolution) the ‘machinery’ to decode it. Sometimes a mind has to work on building that machinery, e.g. reading information in the spectrum of light. We can, like cellular machinery, use that information to duplicate the chemical cocktail that our observations reveal, e.g. duplicate the atmosphere we observed.
        In the case of biology, we know it’s possible for things like RNA to develop without a mind, we also know evolutionary and other processes can do the rest. I know it’s complex and low probability, but it only needs to happen once in a huge universe and over a huge timescale!

        • Sunlight does not contain encoders and decoders, thus does not count as a code system such as is required to win the $10M prize.

          40 years ago I heard a guy say: “You can believe in God with a capital G or chance with a capital C.” He was correct. You and I have clearly placed our bets. I believe the universe is divinely ordered. You believe in luck.

          • Jack Ellis says:

            It is not ‘luck’. The universe, and everything in it, is naturally ordered – not divinely.
            It isn’t luck that I drop a book and it lands in the floor, it’s an unavoidable result of the ‘laws’ of physics.
            And just like information, laws don’t need ‘creating’.
            You are doing what humanity has done for millennia, filling the gaps in your knowledge with gods.
            As I said, you are not using a universal definition of information, you are defining information by what you perceive to be features of DNA. ‘Creation’ is one of the areas we still have large gaps in our understanding, it’s a comfy (but temporary) hiding place for ‘gods’ since we realised they don’t do thunder, rain, eclipses etc.
            Your prize might well be won soon, or it might not. Although, I could join as US university and do a physics degree, claim my religious right to answer ‘god did it’ to all the questions, get my degree and claim your prize by saying ‘god did it’. Seems totally acceptable evidence, has been for millennia.

  3. Derek Mathias says:

    Unfortunately, this is essentially an elaborate argument from ignorance fallacy (with the equivocation fallacy for the cherry-picked definition of “code” thrown in for good measure). It’s essentially saying that because you don’t understand how information could occur through natural processes, therefore an intelligence must have done it (and furthermore, that intelligence must have been a god). However, we already know that RNA (and cell membranes), at least, can be formed completely through natural means, and that is enough evidence to support the notion that information can form naturally. I’ve made a couple of videos that flesh out the arguments further:


  4. Richard Hall says:

    “That’s right, I only desire to demonstrate that living things have a creator.”

    Then come up with hard evidence.

  5. STAVROS CHOIS says:

    I’ve read the Bible, at page 3 I became an atheist.

  6. C. W. says:

    Let’s see if I have this right.

    P1. All language is created.
    P2. DNA is a language.
    P3. DNA is created.

    Is that correct? I’ll go further. God speaks a language to people. That language must have been created from a mind. Therefore that mind must be encoded for language. Therefore that mind must be created.

    Ergo, God was created. Proof that polytheism is the only correct interpretation of this argument.

    • I don’t debate anonymous cowards.

    • Vishnu Swaminathan says:

      Actually, it would be:

      P1. All language is created.
      P2. DNA is a language.
      C. Therefore, DNA was created.

      P1. God speaks a language to people.
      P2. That language must have been created from a mind.
      C: Therefore, that mind must be created (i.e., God was created).

      All modus ponens arguments must be formatted this way; if the conclusion flows from the premises, then the argument is valid and sound.

      However, Premise 2 here is false. DNA isn’t a language, nor is it a “code,” within the generally accepted meaning of the term. Mr. Marshall is committing the logical fallacy of equivocation – taking a word and using it in one context, and then changing that word’s context.

      If you read the scientific studies Mr. Marshall cites (most of which are indeed peer-reviewed), you will indeed see the authors using the term “code” to refer to DNA.

      In each case, however, if you read the study in its entirety, you will discover that the term “code” is being used as a shorthand, an analogy – something to make things easier to understand. The scientists aren’t saying that DNA actually IS a code; they’re saying that it’s LIKE a code in the way it works.

      This is simply human pattern-seeking 101. A million years ago, when homo sapiens first evolved, we needed to evolve this pattern-seeking nature. The grass moving could be the wind – or it could be a lion. We needed to have the pattern-seeking to survive.

      This is also how deities were developed. If a rock fell from the sky, it must have come from somewhere; therefore, the idea of a rock-throwing god would come into being – and then that idea would evolve with the people. This is how we came to the religious ideas which exist today.

      Leprechauns, faeries, dragons, demons, angels, gods, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, unicorns, ghosts, goblins, ESP, spirit-healing, etc., etc. etc. all have one thing in common: they are creations of the mind, and ONLY exist in the mind.

      There’s no way to prove, using empirical evidence or repeatable tests, the existence of the ‘supernatural.’ By definition, it could NEVER be demonstrated to exist.

      If you have a claim that something exists, then the burden is upon you to demonstrate your claim. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the proof must be to support it. For example, if I claim that I ate dinner last night, that’s an ordinary claim; the social contract allows that statement to be accepted at face value without evidence. However, if I claim that I ate dinner with the President of the United States last night, that’s an extraordinary claim; unless you know that I’m an ambassador, relative of the President, etc., you can rightly be skeptical of my claim absent evidence to the contrary.

      Mr. Marshall’s “prize” is another logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof, which is: “I say this thing exists; now YOU go and prove it.” This is the exact opposite of how logic is supposed to function, and demonstrates Mr. Marshall’s dishonesty on a deeper level.

      Unfortunately, people are generally uneducated, and will believe the woo that’s out there; that’s why we have flat-earthers, holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, and anti-vaxxers. The people who think that Mr. Marshall is onto something are those who don’t have the education (or mental strength) to stand and tell him the truth: It just ain’t so.

      Get with the program, people. Until and unless someone gives empirical evidence (and/or a repeatable, falsifiable test) that a deity of ANY description actually exists, we must be skeptical of that claim.

      • Oh yeah. The “DNA isn’t really code” retort.

        “It’s not really a code, it just LOOKS like a code to all those ignorant uneducated people who publish papers in genetics and bioinformatics.”


        If, without “cheating” you can generate a system that “looks like code” and “looks like it has an encoder” and “looks like it has a decoder” (just as all reproducing cells do) sufficiently to meet the prize specification, you get ten million dollars.

  7. Vishnu Swaminathan says:

    The people who “who publish papers in genetics and bioinformatics” aren’t ignorant. They never said that DNA looks like a code. They made an ANALOGY. That’s all. You’ve taken that analogy as if it were actually fact.

  8. STAVROS CHOIS says:

    Do not simply read the Bible, study it, and you will become an atheist on page 3.

  9. Gary Francis says:

    Are you saying the bible caused you ro be an atheist or were you already an atheist

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *