God or no God

God or no God? “The fool has said in his heart “there is no God”” Psalms 14:1 That is a very strong statement. 3000 years ago when it was written, atheism was a fringe belief. For all of human history, belief in a Deity has been common and pervasive. Only in the last 100 years has atheism become mainstream, and then only in the west. Now, belief in God is seen as foolish! However, as we shall see, the 3000 year old statement still holds true. Whilst the idea of a God was commonly accepted, the form and character of an all powerful being was by no means uniform, and took many varied and exotic forms, usually being a reflection of the peoples of the earth and their environments. This often involved a great deal of superstition, and illogical and even harmful beliefs and practices. In our post Christian, post enlightenment culture, we view these “gods” and their often barbaric, illogical and harmful belief systems as unworthy of our civilised rational age – and rightly so. But by what measure do we view them as barbaric and primitive? When the Spanish arrived in Mexico, by what measure did they determine that the Aztecs were a cruel and bloodthirsty people as they sought to appease their gods with human sacrifice on an industrial scale? Well the Spanish regarded themselves as Christians (arguably they were mistaken, but for now, we will take them at face value) and the Bible forbids human sacrifice. The Canaanites sacrificed their children to Baal, and God was so outraged by that, that He commanded the Israelites to destroy their culture completely. No doubt the Conquistadors saw themselves as God’s instrument in destroying the Aztec culture as well, even if they were more motivated by gold than by morality So the 16th century Spanish had a moral imperative derived from the Bible (at least in this case) I would argue that our 21st century moral zeitgeist is also derived from the Bible. “Thou shalt not kill” is not something that the Aztecs were constrained by, but then they did not have the Bible, and nearly 2000 years of Christianity underpinning their belief systems. We do. Which is why an atheist subscribes to roughly the same morality as a Christian, instead of one similar to the Aztecs or Canaanites1. Even though the atheist has rejected the God of the Bible, he derives his morality from that same Bible. But for how long? The examples of godless totalitarian systems in the last century, are a grim reminder that a morality derived from, but divorced from the Bible, is not fixed, but conditional. An atheistic society allows, encourages and even forces its citizens to adopt a plastic morality, one that is 1 Although abortion on demand is not that different to the Canaanite practice of offering up their newborns on the fire to Baal.

not anchored in the immutable laws of God as expressed in the Bible, but is tethered to the changing expediencies of a man made system. Of course, an atheist maintains that there is no God, pagan, Hebrew, Christian Muslim or otherwise. If there is no God, morality is man made, not God decreed. So the whole argument above is nullified. At best, the atheist will acknowledge his morality debt to Christian civilisation over the past 2 millennia, but would claim that is no different to an Indian atheist owing a similar cultural debt to Hinduism. So, the atheist’s claim that there is no God, which in western culture is a relatively recent phenomenon, going back 200 years to post enlightenment philosophy, backed up by primitive and erroneous evolutionary theory; is a ready made microwaveable meal that they eat in order not to have to cook and digest the much more challenging recipe of deism. But is it true? Will it stand up to the rigorous application of reason and science so beloved of atheism? To find out, let’s indulge in a little thought experiment. In order to get rid of God, (for that is the real motivation) atheism has some quasi religious doctrines. 1. The cosmos, (all energy and matter) made itself from nothing via the means of a big “bang”, when nothing exploded into something! As a cognitive statement and theory, this surely belongs in a Dave Allen comedy sketch! Some atheists acknowledge the stupidity of this idea, but cling to it nonetheless, as abandoning it would mean letting God back into the equation.2 2. Auto biogenesis. This is the belief (it can only be a belief) that life started spontaneously. When it was first proposed, our understanding of the cell, and consequently single celled organisms, was primitive. Now that we understand the incredible complexity of the cell, it is clearly impossible for an accident to produce an organism that is so sophisticated, and yet life offers none simpler!3 2 Atheist evolutionist Prof. Richard Lewontin: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some 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. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. 3 Atheist professor Anthony Flaw “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design …. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are

3. Evolution. Atheists maintain that the incredible variety and complexity of life is entirely due to natural processes of evolution over vast periods of time. It is conceivable that a twig could be blown off a tree, embedding itself upright in the dead centre of a circle of 24 mushrooms, and thus becoming a working sundial. It is inconceivable that a similar process, or indeed any process other than one performed by an intelligent being, could be responsible for the watch on your wrist! The supposed mechanism by which evolution is supposed to work is said to be mutations. Mutations are mistakes in the DNA sequence. If you make a mistake in your algebra equation, will it lead to the right answer? If you have a mole on your skin, that is a mutation. Of what benefit is it to you? Whilst it is a minor mutation that you can live with (as long as it does not become a melanoma), other mutations are not so benign, such as haemophilia. Every organism on earth suffers mutations in its DNA, and some of them are passed on to the next generation, leading over time to a LOSS of function and genetic information, not a gain. Yet for evolution to work, the reverse has to happen. So the science, instead of supporting evolution actually supports the opposite – de-volution. There is a scientific term for this process, it’s called entropy, and it is defined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.4 Natural selection was invoked by Darwin as an evolutionary mechanism. Darwin was a very observant man, but he was looking at the natural world through the wrong lenses. He observed natural selection at work in finches, noting their variety of beak structures in different environments. But they were still Finches. Selective breeding gets the same results as natural selection, by artificial means. But selective breeding of dogs results in different dogs, not in horses. Natural selection in finches results in different finches, not in Parrots! There is no evolution as in microbes to man going on.5 So if the “scientific” explanation is not scientific, and not an explanation, then what is? What is the alternative? Well, as Richard Lewontin recognised, the only alternative explanation is God. needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.” 4 The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that processes that involve the transfer or conversion of heat energy are irreversible. ... The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state. 5 Dr Natalie Bennett Immunologist “The scientific method is not appropriate for biological evolution. Evolution is not observable within our timeframe; it is an alleged historical event. Evolution [microbes-to-mankind] cannot be confirmed by experimental investigation but depends on untestable assumptions. Evolutionists interpret facts to fit a hypothesis that resists modification, despite evidence to the contrary, i.e. it is clearly not falsifiable in practice for those who believe it. Evolution is accepted as a theory despite being unable to adequately explain many observations in the natural world, such as the origin of the immune system that I studied. Evolution makes a mockery of the scientific method, but students are encouraged to accept it as an unassailable fact. This is not good science.”

But which one? To answer that question requires us to impose some existential parameters for the practical definition of God, and see which one of the claimants fulfils those parameters. 1. God must be the originator of everything. (Omnipotent) 2. God must be eternal, as time is created. (Omnipresent) 3. God must be all knowing. (Omniscient) I am not an expert on paganism, but I know of no pagan gods that lay claim to these attributes. Only the God of the Hebrew Scriptures does. (The Muslim concept of Allah is derived from the Hebrew Yahweh, but is embellished and altered to fit and propagate an alternative worldview.) Now you are free to believe in any god you want, or none at all. However, you are taking a big risk if you do so. Let me explain. The simple logical progression of this argument leads us to the conclusion that only an almighty uncreated being – God, offers an explanation of the cosmos, the earth, and you and me. If that is the case, He had a reason to create you and me. We make a great mistake if we do not attempt to discover what His reason was. It is immaterial why we might choose to ignore God, our reasons will not affect the outcome. It is also logical to conclude that if God made us, and He had a good reason to do so, He would also go to the trouble to explain to us why He made us, and what is the meaning and purpose of our existence. Now all religions have their own god or even gods, and most of them have their scriptures. So how do we determine the true from the false? Well, I believe the answer is to be found in the answer to the question “will it fly” It might look like an aeroplane, it may sound like an aeroplane, but will it fly? For example, what do religions offer someone to improve their lives now, and what do they offer after this life is over? Without exception, religions link improvements in this life, and the prospects for the hereafter to the success of the believer in adhering to the requirements of their scriptures. Failure on the other hand, is punished by kicking the unfortunate believer further away from nirvana. It is a form of justice perhaps, but devoid of grace. It is salvation by works. This gives the priests of those religions enormous power over their followers, power that they are often not shy in exploiting to their own advantage. It is not surprising that people find that objectionable, and are keen to find an excuse to leave their religion. But Christianity is not like that6. The God who has revealed Himself in the Bible is not like that. If you read the Gospels you find a story of redemption that is offered free to all, not because there is not a price attached, but because the price has been paid. You find examples of human failure, forgiven by God’s grace, and lives healed and transformed by God’s power. 6 Some religions that claim to be Christian, can be exploitative, for example Roman Catholicism, and Greek Orthodoxy, but they all propagate salvation by works, and profit from people’s inevitable failure. They miss apply Scripture for their own ends, hence the Reformation sparked by Martin Luther, a Roman priest.

Instead of a distant god demanding that you measure up or else, you find God incarnate coming down to meet with you where you are, and offering His hand to lift you up higher to where He is. Of course, you may not want to be where He is, you may not want to have eternal life, you may not think you need forgiveness, you may think that when you die God will be so impressed with your level of perfection that He will eagerly accept you. But what if you are wrong? If you have an important event to celebrate, like a wedding, or a significant birthday, or the birth of your child, who do you invite? Family, close friends? What about the neighbour from hell next door? No? So why would God allow a lying thief to attend His party? (I have yet to meet anyone who maintains that they have never told a lie, or taken something which did not belong to them!) Our standards may be higher than the neighbour from hell, but God’s standards are nothing short of perfection, because He is perfect. No matter how good you think you are, you are not good enough. And it really does not matter what you think. If you want to play for your local football team, it is the coach’s assessment of your skills that determine if you are accepted, not your own! If you think that is harsh, perhaps your neighbour from hell next door might also be upset that you didn’t invite him to your party? However, there is hope, God can change you (and your neighbour), if you are willing to allow Him to. Firstly you must recognise that you (like all of us) are a sinner in the sight of God. (“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” Romans 3:23) Secondly you must confess that you are a sinner, and repent. (“if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:9) Thirdly you accept the gift of new life that God gives you freely. (“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” John 3:16) So the challenge is this; will you continue to hide from God behind an excuse that religion is corrupt (it is) or everything can be explained without God (it can’t) or that you are so good that if there is a God (there is) He will be honour bound to have you on His team (He won’t)? Or will you, with an open mind open a Bible and see exactly who God really is, and what exactly He says, and why He made you, and what He offers you? That would be a wise thing to do. Taking a gamble on the basis that there is no God, would be foolish indeed. Do it now, there is only today, tomorrow does not exist.