Novelist. Author of APSARAS and tales from the beautiful Saigh Valley. First person to quantify spiritual values.

Total Pageviews

Monday 21 June 2010

Is there any evidence of God?

On Sunday's BBC programme, one of the Big Questions posed was 'Is there any evidence of God?'

The audience, like most BBC audiences came over as being overwhelmingly religious and socialist. When I consider that the most socialist societies, such as the Communists were essentially atheistic, it must be a special type of hybrid person indeed that attends these shows in person. They appear on Question time, as well.
The opening statement by a Muslim man said that the Universe was created by the Big Bang. Because of the complexity of the universe and the characteristics, particularly of certain dimensionless numbers, the Universe had to have been designed and tharefore must have had a Creator.
WHY? Why would anyone, anything want to create the Universe we live in. Of course, the Muslim man cannot attempt to answer this because, being only a man of the Islamic faith, he cannot question God's motives.
I was disappointed with Professor Atkin's response. He wasn't strong enough in his defence of science or indeed scientists. When a man said that scientists only ever dealt with possibilities it was untrue but was left unchallenged. Of course, there are many areas of science, particularly those involving the mind, that are open to interpretation but in our Universe, two plus two always equals four. That's as certain as anything can be this side of the Big Crunch. He could have added that the Big Bang was only one of several theories as to how our universe came into being and rather than be explained by an impossibly ridiculous extra-universal creator could more simply be ascribed to being the outcome of random unimaginatively large number crunching.

One commentator asked if 'Love' was not a manifestation of a God. It is certainly a special case which scientists are trying to unravel and may have a role to play in evolutionary survival of the fittest. The problem I have with this is the same as for the argument that there are so many wonderful natural effects, such as beautiful surises, for it not to be connected to a God. As it is that Love has an antithesis in hate and evil, so beautiful natural effects have tsunamis, earthquakes and hurricanes.

I accept that man has a spiritual side, his appreciation of the arts is testament to that but animals have it in small measure, too. Why does it have to be allied to the hyperthetical concept of God or Gods; and why do people feel the need to prostrate themselves before this idol?
I have heard people say that finding religion, God or Jesus has transformed their lives. I am delighted to hear it and I rejoice that they have found peace and happiness in their discovery. I wonder if they would reach this state of nirvana if they were not exposed to a myriad influences from priests and others who have a vested interest in promoting their ideology. People who have a need or an emptiness are vulnerable to those who feed them the promise of milk and honey. Why not! It's human nature.

Scientists and other rational people should not need to prove that God doesn't exist. Surely it is encumbent on the believers to demonstrate this proof. They haven't been able to for three thousand years insisting that the basis of their religion was Faith not proof and they didn't do so last Sunday.

No comments:

Post a Comment