IUBio

Evidence of God

Henri Westerkamp henriwes at xs4all.nl
Fri Apr 4 17:26:51 EST 1997




Does God exist?

'God-Evidence'

Introduction:

To believe that 'God' (Creator) and the 'Hereafter' (Heaven) do exist is
just as easy or difficult for us to believe than to believe that they do
not exist.
Will there be an afterlife?  No, not a life as we know it; that status
applies only to our present mortal life. But we may possibly think of
'Being'.

I have pondered for many years over these questions; after all, one would
like to know what happens to us after we depart from this present life. 
Will this be the end of it all for us?
I have also been involved in many discussions and I have been reading much
in connection with this subject for quite some time.
It has proved to be a worthwhile subject of discussion within the family
and relations, of which most are academic scholars in a variety of
sciences, such as: Physicists, biochemists, mathematicians, theologists,
philosophists, astronomists and specialists in ancient history; among them
a few heads of faculty in various universities in the Netherlands.
A short summary of these discussions follows hereunder:

It constitutes an apparently very difficult image for us human beings with
our (seemingly!) limited brainpower to comprehend this immense problem. 
This may be the reason for many to discard the idea of further involving
themselves with this subject.
It is for example almost, if not totally, impossible for us to comprehend
the concept of 'INFINITY'.

And yet...., I think that I have found the watertight evidence of God's
existence, via a logical explanatory detour and in terms which will be
understandable to all. 
(I would rather be inclined to refer to a 'Creator' or 'Supreme Architect',
because of the fact that the word 'God' has left a more or less corrupted
image with many.)

____________


The following subjects will be taken care of in view of the entire story:

1.	
Why is the evidence of God's existence through the Bible not entirely
convincing?
2.	
Why is the evidence of God's nonexistence through the evolution theory not
watertight?
3.	
How did I arrive, via this logical explanatory detour, at the evidence of
God's existence?  This explanation could also provide us with a better
understanding of all the misery experienced around us and the fact that our
(evidently good) Creator seems to have no problem with bestowing all that
on mankind.


Why is the evidence of God's existence through the Bible not so convincing?

The New Testament has only been put in writing some two hundred years after
the birth of Christ through many verbal saga's, stories and remembrances
being past on to us over generations; some of which have only partly been
written down during Jesus Christ's existence on earth.
However, it happened in those days that people would revert to a rather
flowerish styled language during conversation; one would also tend to speak
rather in parabels and symbolic language to try and get a point across for
clarification.
Jesus Christ did exactly the same; we should therefore not try and read
these translations literally.  These are magnificent stories, parabels,
which have been written down over generations.
The Roman Catholic church states for example that the writers of the N.T.
have been guided by God Himself during translations.  But many matters have
also been added by the clergy and church-officials.  These added Scriptures
as written by the Pope, have been taken as mandatory dogma's, because our
Creator has also supposedly aided the Pope therewith.  We modern thinkers
find this a rather weak submission and we would like to see something more
substantial as evidence.
Still, we are rather envious of them who are obviously able to submit
themselves to such a strong sense of belief.
On many occasions, Jesus has said: 'Your belief has saved you', praising
those people who came to Him for cures for their disorders and apparently
had ultimate faith in Him.
Yet, 2000 years ago, the appearance of Jesus Christ has greatly altered
mankind's ways of behaviour, thinking and conscience.

Before, it appears that one was compelled to hate his enemies, love his
friends and that if one had done a good deed, to more or less broadcast
that fact around to all.
In spite of that, Jesus taught us to love our enemies and let the right
hand not know when the left hand does a good deed; that one should respect
each other and help our fellow human in all aspects.
All this was unthinkable before.

Since then, mankind has not greatly improved, but people know at least to
which norms their behaviour should be measured.
The Bible has all in all, the New and the Old Testament, a rather feeble
scientific foundation; also, because mankind has clearly not been blessed
with the right popes and clergy.  What to think of a top-rank church
official who forbids the use of birth control in the African countries, or
who wants a writer murdered, because of different views on the established
beliefs?
Still, I am a Roman Catholic myself, I pursue the thought that people are
not perfect and that therefore their religions are also not perfect, since
these have originated from mankind itself.  Ergo, any other belief is also
good if it only attributes to a better life.

It must be an abomination in the eye of God our Creator to observe how
mankind, in His name and in the name of religion, busies itself with
murdering each other and waging wars on all other nations till we end up
with near total cosmocide.

Nearly all religions seem to adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ;
however, most church officials have added and removed many commandments and
prohibitions.  Some useful, but most unnecessary and totally unlogical.
The thought behind these acts were perhaps to make it all as difficult as
possible in order to bind the flock to the church.
People can therefore at best follow their own conscience, even if these are
also corruptible by their own action.  In that case it is advisable to
stick to the advice of one's own church.

Many intelligent and good people think that religions have done more harm
than good and that mankind can easily do without these; I, however, do not
entirely agree with them.
Most people feel the need for a religion; a place to join together, such as
a church, a chapel, a mosque, a synagogue or in the open air in order to be
able to concentrate on prayer to God, ask questions, to ask forgiveness for
their transgressions, make amends etc.; in short, all matters for which one
seems to have so little time in our modern society.
All religions have originated from the needs of mankind.


Why is the evidence of God's nonexistence through the evolution theory not
so watertight?

Charles Darwin has introduced his 'Evolution Theory' halfway the 19th
century; not to disprove God's existence, but as a 'thinking' model in
order to enable future sciences to further expand their knowledge on these
theories.
Darwin's theory propagates that out of nothing, under certain
circumstances, a live cell can evolve, which could then further evolve into
trees, plants, fish, animal life and ultimately into human beings.
This process can be sustained by way of two important qualities:
1.	
The fight for survival and
2.	
The possibility to transfer the acquired characteristics onto the following
generation. (Neo-Darwinism).

What is actually a living cell?  Michael Denton describes it as follows: 
If we could enlarge a living cell with a factor of thousand million, we
would be looking in utter astonishment at a very complex, fully automated
factory, with in- and out- roads for the transport of materials and waste
disposals, incorporating the most faultless computer system for automatic
controlling the entire process, quality control, building of modules,
automatic manufacturing of components and prefabricated parts, assembling
processes and building of modules.
We would be astonished beyond belief over the purposefulness of the robotic
machinery; over the orderly arranged chains of DNA molecules.
Each albumen molecule consists of many thousands of atoms, neatly arranged
in high three-dimensional structures.  Most astonished we would be by
observing that this ultimate and complex system copies itself entirely and
perfectly within a few hours.
It is therefore unimaginable for me to think that a cell as described above
could possibly emerge out of nothing, without the intervention of a
supernatural creator or architect.

Some scientists profess to know and understand the secrets of nature and
it's origin thereof.  These so called scientists maintain this probably to
enlarge their image towards their students and the scientific world;
however, science is definitely not benefiting from these allegations.  One
can recognise the true and serious scientist by the fact that they come to
the ultimate conclusion that the more they try and study this phenomenon,
the less they understand of it in the end.  It may be just that, how our
Creator intended it to be.  If we knew everything, we would probably be
equal to God.

Last year, America has stopped the manufacturing of a large factory; a
particle accelerator consisting of a 75 Km long underground round
racetrack, where charged protons are being accelerated up to very high
velocities and to bring them into collision with each other in order that
they will fall apart into yet unknown substances.  America was the only
country which could pay for such a project, costing 10 milliard US dollars.
Congress has asked the science department at who's request this accelerator
was being constructed: Could one guarantee satisfaction after this
experiment, or would they need to build a larger accelerator in the future
to discover more new matter by colliding this last discovered matter? 
Science could not give that guarantee, so the whole project was stopped. 
It seems thus impossible that science will ever understand all secrets of
nature, if alone through financial problems.  This story reminds me of the
biblical story of the 'Tower of Babel', written approximately 550 BC.  The
Babylonians wanted to know what 'Heaven' looked like.  They started to
build a tower which was to extend into heaven; the building of that tower
was still in progress till God put an end to it by confusing and corrupting
their language.  From then on, they stopped understanding each other and
the construction of the tower was halted.  Hence the 'Babylonian
Confusion'.
The tower was dismantled approximately 320 BC.  Two pictures of this tower
still exist and were painted by 'Breugel'.

There is, however, another problem with Darwin's evolution theory. 
Scientists have fairly accurately established the age of our planet, after
the Big Bang; what existed before that, nobody knows.  They also know the
age of the earliest discovered micro-organism.  Consequently, they have
calculated how many natural evolution-years it would take to evolve from
these micro-organisms to human beings.  They have also calculated that it
would take a long time in excess of the age of our planet to evolve from
micro-organism to human beings; consequently, at some time there must
obviously have been some interference from beyond our world.

All humans in any part of the world, Europe, Africa, Australia, USA etc.
have one common Y-chromosome, which no other living creature has; it is
also not found in apes.  Here is evidence that we all have had a common
father and mother and that during the 'evolution' God must have interfered.

Anyhow, there is some evidence of a certain evolution; even the Pope had to
admit this recently, but to link this to the non-existence of God seems to
be completely unjustified.


How did I arrive, via this logical explanatory detour, at the evidence of
God's existence? 

Anyone can see the clear distinction between animals and human beings. 
Humans have a free will; humans have an equal disposition towards 'evil' as
they have towards 'good'.  Mankind has to fight an endless struggle with
itself during this life to try and bring the 'good' to the surface and let
it prevail:
Honesty in business above a faster and dishonest profit - no inkling
towards another woman - no coveting - trueness toward wife and children,
instead of that pretty secretary - etc.
Animals have a different nature; they kill only when hungry, or when in
danger.  People on the other hand can kill and torture for mere pleasure
and can make someone else's life a true hell.
We also have to fight a constant battle against many temptations found in
films, video's, TV and last but not least the Internet.

It seems logical and imminent that we humans, who have to fight our entire
life against our intrinsic bad inhibitions and wrong wishes, should be able
to expect a reward at the end of this life.  What that reward would be or
how it would look like, only God knows.  Death and cremation or interment
are certainly not among my favourite expectations.  
It would have to be in a life after this life.  Consequently, since
everything will be encompassed into the 'eternal', something which we
cannot grasp, there would also have to be an eternal reward; something
equally incomprehensible for our human brain, but something wonderful all
the same. 

I asked myself what that possibly could be and if it is comparable to
something we know?
Everyone has at least experienced a few moments of bliss during this life
or a moment of true happiness.  It could be at a positive reaction from our
first love, or when one suddenly meets a beloved one, or when the first
child was born, or seeing a beautiful landscape etc.
Maybe it is comparable to this kind of happiness; however, not for only a
moment but forever in all eternity.

Under those circumstances, we could also live with the miseries of others;
not to distanciate ourselves from them, but rather to help them with all
our strength.  That is a common feature to our good characteristics.  We
know that others are also growing towards an infinite better life (being)
than here on this planet and that in God's eyes this present life is only a
very temporary trial for the human race and that dying young can only be an
asset, so as to be able to enjoy the blissful state even sooner.  That
being concerned with the misery of those people left behind will attribute
to the right side of the scales of the evaluation of each of us
individually.

Thanks to the mere threat of nuclear war, we have in this modern world
experienced a long period of peace and quiet, but also with far more
temptations which have not made our lives any easier.  We seek happiness
and peace, but often in a wrong manner.  I have personally and consciously
experienced the second world war.  I those days the churches were filled
with praying people; nowadays we can hardly concentrate and reflect on
prayer, lest we have to endure another miserable period.  We modern people
are inclined to turn towards pseudo-religion, pseudo-medical care; as long
as it is something else than what our parents have believed in.  We don't
want those old-fashioned things and values any more, but something new,
something that will grab our imagination, something mystical - such as new
religions from India or scientology, new age, cosmic, of which are: talking
to trees and dolphins, loose and free, deep, celestial promises etc.
Mankind rather seeks the 'truth' with new age medicinal cures such as: Look
and stroke, magnetising, touch for health etc.

Modern humans have really experienced little misery and are too much
involved and concerned with themselves.

I THINK, SO I AM !

IF I SEE A WATCH, I THINK: THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A WATCHMAKER BEHIND THAT !

IF I THINK ABOUT GOD, THAN I HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM - MERELY CALLED
PRAYER !

THOSE WHO ARE NEVER IN DOUBT CANNOT BE VERY INTELLIGENT !

Mankind consists of a body and a soul (Psyche).
According to Plato, the soul is the non-body side of the human being. 
Since then, the western world has adopted the concept that the immortal
soul is placed versus the mortal body.

Also according to Plato, the human 'soul' has had all knowledge in it
before it entered the human body at birth.  However, during it's travel
down to earth, this knowledge has been temporary lost or hidden.
The soul is responsible for the human brainpower and the knowledge between
good and evil.
If Plato is right, then our material body will remain on earth and return
to dust, while the non-material soul lives on after death.

Finally a true story from close friends:
A six year old daughter had to be operated on; something went wrong with
the anaesthetic during this operation and it took the doctors and medical
staff one and a half hours to restore her heartbeat and respiration.  Here
follows her own story; a story which a girl of six years old could not
possibly have invented:
'I was sitting in a bus surrounded by elderly people, but it was such a
beautiful trip that I would have liked to remain there forever.  Suddenly
the bus stopped and everyone alighted; I too wanted to get out because it
was so beautiful and pretty, but it seemed as if I was stuck to my seat. 
Isn't that a pity?'

If you wish to have further discussions on this subject, than it can be
done within the discussion group over the Internet, where you have found
this story.  You can also contact me direct by Email on:

<henriwes at xs4all.nl>

Translation from a Internet friend to whom you can also address your
command and questions: <carl ottow at xtra.co.nz>

Kind regards,
Henri Westerkamp





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net