I was urged to watch another Horizon guide titled 'The End of God?', BBC 4 Thursday 10th November. It was good at giving us a summary of current ideas – but that is all it was. No proofs for what was being said. The usual language of hypothesis was used – because that is as far as Cosmology can go. It referred to the "exact moment after the Big Bang" for example... when attempting to 'recreate it'.
This is rather like saying we can reproduce the exact moment Bart Simpson became real... it is guesswork built upon fantasy! The Big Bang itself cannot be proved to have happened, so how can anyone 'recreate' what happened a moment after this myth occurred??
The idea expressed in the program was that God is being inched out by science, bit at a time. People, including scientists, are free to say this, but it proves absolutely nothing. I am aware of the hypothesis behind the several researches trying to 'prove' that 'God' can be mechanically induced by a 'God helmet' that can introduce certain emotions or sensual perceptions into the brain. The idea is really to 'prove' that God does not exist – only the notion of a god exists. But, from what I have read and seen, no scientist has come anywhere near to 'disproving' God. Listen to the language – the clues are there!
Scenes were shown of arguments against 'Intelligent Design' (ID), and critics supposed that behind ID Is some kind of religious belief. This is untrue, because many scientists who teach ID are NOT 'religious'. Their intention is simply to oppose evolution as taught by Darwinists, because they see 'gaps' in their logic... which are countless. Though the program attempted to suggest that these 'gaps' were being ever closed, bit by bit, by new scientific discoveries, this is also untrue.
The trouble is, a one hour program cannot possibly deal with every aspect of this issue. It is logical to say that the filling of gaps is rather like pretending the principal of fractals does not exist. That is, the more we learn, the less we know. The more we fill known gaps, the greater are the new questions that arise because of the 'filling'! It is an infinite progression – if we can call continual lengthening of knowledge 'progression'. Is it?
What destroys Darwin's hypothesis is not belief, but facts. You can reduce researched elements to the smallest degree, and the smaller you go the bigger becomes the problem of insufficient knowledge! This has nothing to do with God, or anyone's beliefs. Evolution is either true or it is not! Only one thing will prove Darwinism is true – and that, is to show us the mechanism of change! But, in the century and a bit since Darwin, no-one has yet produced such a mechanism! It is the lack of this mechanism that makes Darwinian evolution a fairy-story.
So, evolutionists who attack ID, or even Creation as per Bible, are being intellectually fraudulent. Evolution is merely high-level stupidity. Evolution cannot prove its own existence to be valid... so what gives it credibility? Nothing, except the rabid hatred that atheists have for God and believers! There is no science to upstage or displace Creation – only the perception that it does, which is very different. I have watched science go through hoops to 'disprove' Creation, but it has never, ever, managed it! It is all sheer guesswork. Nothing more and nothing less.
You will notice that I have not attempted to 'prove' God created everything. This is because I have no need to. What is being questioned is not God, but the lack of intelligence of atheistic science. We can do that purely in terms of science itself. I can assure readers that NOTHING in the program came even close to 'proving' God does not exist.
To his credit the presenter concluded that God will be around for a long time yet. But, don't be joyous – he was only saying that the perception of God will be around for a long time. In other words, the program was saying that whilst science has not yet disproved God, it is a matter of time, because God does not exist except in our minds. But, rest assured – scientific progress is indeed fractal, so the more it says the greater and more prolific are the problems and queries raised! And this will go on for as long as the earth remains. It is simply not possible to 'disprove' God!
I say this on the strength of the way science produces many unproven ideas and uses language indicating their guesswork, not scientific 'facts'. I also say it NOT from a 'religious' angle, but from the scientific angle. The 'religious' angle is yet another whole argument! The BBC continually tries to dislodge God with its ever-so-reasonable science programs! But, few understand that what they see and hear are only guesses, modern myths.
I also noted (again!) that scientists use Roman Catholics, and many other cultic groups, to show that activities such as meditation, leading to 'spiritual experiences, can be induced. I have no doubt whatever they can do this... because the phenomena they examine are not Christian or biblical anyway! The genuine Christian walks with God; he does not claim idiot-experiences brought on by trances, etc., or the stupefying experiences found in so many charismatics.
Science cannot measure or induce genuine Christian spiritual experience, which is matter of fact, and 'isness'. It is in another realm untouched by human perception. Perception does not invent God – God is real and exists whether or not we perceive Him or want Him to be real. And no amount of scientific prodding of brains will ever be the same as direct godly activity. The program, then, was yet another vague and off-the-mark attempt to 'disprove' God. Any basic philosopher knows this is an impossible task! But, viewers don't know that, do they! That is why the BBC keeps on pushing this kind of rubbish, to suit its own meagre policies of unbelief and to try to bring about an atheistic society.