God - Real or Delusion?

by Steve Bastin

Powerful forces are at work in our country and throughout the world to obliterate God from the minds of people.  God, they cannot touch, but belief in God, they hope to erase.

These forces are equally opposed to Yahweh, the God of Israel and Father of Jesus Christ, Allah, the god of the Muslims, and the gods of all other religions.  They are opposed to God as Creator and they are opposed to a God who listens to the petitions of His people.  They are opposed to the One who made man in His own image and they are opposed to Him who sits in judgment on the deeds of men.

In place of God they offer improbability and natural selection.  However improbable the origin of life might be it is more probable to them than the existence of God.  However improbable it might be that this life might achieve consciousness, it is more probable, to them, than the idea that there is a Supreme Consciousness who imparted consciousness to people.

Wherever the Christian sees evidence of design, purpose and planning in those things that are made, the atheist sees only an illusion.  Design is an illusion.  A planned universe is an illusion.  A purpose to existence is an illusion.  There is nothing but matter in motion.  And love is just a chemical reaction!

One has to wonder at the zeal and energy being utilized to erase the idea of God if it is all an illusion.  If there is no purpose and no end to which all is directed by a Divine Being, why bother to try to change the direction in which society is going and why try to change the beliefs of those who are simply going to the grave?

Richard Dawkins has recently written a book, “The God Delusion,” in which he argues passionately that there is no God.  He suggests that there are three “momentous, difficult and statistically improbable” steps that evolution had to surmount to achieve what we see today.  The first of these three improbable events is the creation of life.  The second is the development of a ”eukaryotic cell.”  (That is a cell such as humans possess “with a nucleus and various other complicated features such as mitochondria, which are not present in bacteria.)  The third is consciousness that makes us aware of ourselves and our environment.  He then goes on to say that of course these have been surmounted because we are here.  The Christian proposes in place of these three improbabilities only one “improbability,” God.  (But since there is a God, He is not “improbable.”)

Consider the matter from a statistical point of view.  There is either a God (whom Dawkins would describe as extremely complex and therefore improbable) or there is blind matter.  Either matter has existed eternally or God has existed eternally.  If there are only two possibilities then the probability is 50 per cent for each.

If there are only two possibilities and one must be true, it cannot then be described as extremely improbable.  (At least by the standards of mathematics that I used as an engineer.)

There are complexities on each side.  It does no good to say “Your complexities are greater than mine, so my proposal is more likely than yours.  Such statements are simply assertions with no scientific data to support either one.

There are extreme complexities in the design  and construction of a computer.  These complexities do not make a computer statistically improbable, but only difficult.  But the difficulties may be overcome by the genius of a mind.

On the other hand, inert matter has no mind to resolve the complexities.  Therefore the overcoming of complexities by inert matter may rightly be described as “momentous, difficult and statistically improbable.

Either a complex God created a complex world or simple atoms achieved complexity alone even though it was “momentous, difficult and statistically improbable.”

Consider what the apostle Paul wrote, in his letter to Christians at Rome, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”

The design argument for the existence of God may have existed prior to the time of Paul or its origin may lie in the passage before us.  Either way, it is one of the most persuasive and atheists have forever struggled to find an answer.  It was thought that Charles Darwin had come up with the ultimate answer when he wrote his book, “The Origin of Species” (abbreviated title).

Darwin proposed the survival of the fittest , sometimes referred to as natural selection, as the explanation for the apparent “illusion” of design.

That left begging the question, “But where did nature obtain the characteristics and features upon which natural selection might act?”  To date the only answer that I have seen is to say that changes arose through mutations.

Mutations are a fact, but mutations that have led to new features and characteristics that are favorable to life and development have yet to be demonstrated (so far as I am aware).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

At one point Dawkins complains, “It is utterly illogical to demand complete documentation of every step of any narrative, whether in evolution or any other science.”  I would simply assert that if one wants to label something as “fact” rather than “theory” then complete documentation is essential.

Consider for example the case of the boiling pot of water.  At 11 o’clock, on passing through the kitchen, someone observed a pot of cold water sitting on the stove.  Returning to the kitchen two hours later, one observed the same pot on the stove, but now the water is giving off water vapor and is obviously hot.  From this one draws the conclusion that the stove has been turned on to heat the water and later has been turned off, all during the absence of the observer.  To state that the water was heated by the stove is not a fact, but a theory.  There are other possible theories that may equally explain the facts of the case.  Thus it is with evolution until every step is documented.  It is simply a theory, but a theory that may be proved unsupportable by the discovery of additional facts.  (In the case of the boiling pot, the pot could have been carried elsewhere to be heated and then returned to the stove.  The water might have been emptied and replaced by water from an extremely hot water tank located elsewhere in the house.  And there are still other possibilities that might be suggested.)

When it is claimed that we do not need the missing facts in order to proclaim our theory a fact, one is not being scientific, but is simply expressing one’s faith.

There are many facts that Dawkins dismisses with a “wave of the hand.”  “The Bible is a myth.”  “The stories about Jesus were not written by those who knew him.”  And many others.

Careful investigation has led me to the opposite conclusions.  The Bible is not a myth, nor a collection of myths.  Jesus was really born of a virgin, preached and healed the sick, died at Golgotha, was raised from the dead and returned to heaven where he now reigns.

Atheists and unbelieving “Christian theologians” have tried for the past two hundred years to discredit Jesus and those who wrote about him.  The evidence continues to mount that the gospels were written by those who were Jesus’ associates.  They were penned by men who were concerned about the literal accuracy of the records they wrote.

God is real.  Those who do not believe are deluded.