The Bible, the written word of God, was to be destroyed. Bans and mass Bible burnings were unsuccessful. Thus, new teachings had to be introduced and people’s thinking changed accordingly. Even today, “science” serves this purpose primarily. Its numerous teachings, based only on models, despite their easily embarrassing falsehood, have the sole goal of denying the existence of God or Jesus Christ.
The gradual “disassembly” of the Bible
With the so-called Age of Enlightenment, which was accompanied by “thinking minds” such as Voltaire, Hegel, Kant, and Fichte, deliberate doubts about the existence of God also began. Man, they believed, was his own master and, through his gift of reason, fully capable of defining a morality that served the common good. France experienced such a temporary “peak of reason” between 1789 and 1799. The number of heads “rolled” during the French Revolution is almost impossible to comprehend.
With “reason” and the spirit of the Enlightenment, so-called theologians at this time also grappled with the written Word of God. The Bible had to be viewed “scientifically and critically.” Neo-Protestantism, among other things, emerged from this new pattern of thought. A rapid decline of the once Protestant churches, and this even before ecumenism was placed at the center of attention by the Church of Rome (Info).
Added to this was Charles Darwin, a hobby biologist and trained theologian, who, in the mid-19th century, formulated the hypothesis of an evolutionary development for flora, fauna, and ultimately also for humans. This imagined origin of our being fit the newly defined theses of reason like a glove.
The result can certainly be seen in the philosophies of the institutional churches that still call themselves Christian within the Evangelical Churches of Germany (EKD). Whether these “scientific” theses can even be valid is a forbidden question, because one is supposed to believe in them.
It is actually empirically proven natural laws and easily understandable logic that expose the theory of evolution as completely impossible (Info). Accordingly, there are also quite comprehensible, logical conclusions that conclusively prove the existence of God (Info).
As the “ridiculous” firmly defined
Given the ease with which the prevailing narrative, which claims an evolutionary, i.e., purely random, development of this world, can be refuted, and which sometimes triggers aggressive, even angry, reactions should these theses be questioned even superficially, one immediately gets the impression that one is above any ignorance, no matter how transparent, just to dispel the existence of God. As if it were nothing more than denying God or Jesus Christ.
One is regularly exposed to ridicule if one quotes the very first verses of the Bible, which begin with:
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)
“Completely impossible,” because nothing can come from nothing, and God, after all, created everything from nothing. “What a children’s fairy tale, ridiculous,” go the arguments. Science, on the other hand, explains the origin of the universe using a Big Bang hypothesis. This, incidentally, was formulated by Georges Lemaître, a Jesuit. The physical impossibility of a purely mathematical point with infinitely small dimensions and infinitely high density was simply given a scientific-sounding name: “singularity.” That sounds competent. Mathematicians can do something with that, but physicists lose their hair when faced with such situations.
Perfect order by chance?
If one also considers the empirically proven physical law of entropy, a further problem arises. This “singularity” must also exhibit an absolutely perfect order, which, however, must have existed “somehow” by chance. Only at the edge of credibility, science remodeled something. There was no “point,” but a “nothing.” Where there is nothing, anything can subsequently be possible, so the thinking goes. The result looks like this:
- Nothingness exploded
- Virtual particles from nowhere formed matter and stars
- Physics existed before physics existed
- The universe came into being just as if a house were to build itself
The “nothing” would have to be subject to physical laws, whether it suits us or not. Because the “something” that emerged from “nothing” followed certain rules that led to its composition exactly as we observe the universe today.
Even the mathematician gets out
Even the relatively calm mathematician has a problem with the idea that everything comes from nothing. At this point, it’s no longer enough to simply lay an 8 horizontally to express infinity. Because a perfect zero (= nothing) can never become anything other than zero without the addition (of a third element?). It’s all a contradiction in terms. An oxymoron, but it’s called science. You just have to believe what the people in their priestly white lab coats tell you.
The highly acclaimed and almost untouchable scientist Steven Hawkins was one of the proponents of “quantum fluctuation” (or “vacuum energy”). Using this model, Hawkins explained, among other things, the “evaporation of black holes.” Particles and antiparticles emerge from nothing but exist only for a short time, as they annihilate each other.
If such an antiparticle crosses the event horizon at the edge of the black hole, annihilation through interaction with the resulting particle becomes impossible. This antiparticle is inevitably drawn into the black hole, colliding with another particle there, and thus annihilating it. This reduces the mass of the black hole. Only if this happens often enough and for long enough will the black hole eventually be completely annihilated. That’s the theory.
The “fluctuating nothing”
Yet the same principle applies here as in the Big Bang: “Something” from “nothing.” For even a “fluctuation,” or whatever one might call it, is anything but nothing; it is and remains “something.” It is even subject to a physical law that leads to interactions. In this model, it involves the annihilation of particles and antiparticles. After all, both could hypothetically coexist undisturbed. The formulated, inevitable annihilation, however, is physically based.
In this case, too, something impossible gets a scientific-sounding name: “fluctuation” here, “singularity” there. Just believe in it.
The “white-coated” scientists are also torn between a finite and an infinite universe. The physical law of entropy is like a thorn in the flesh. This second law of thermodynamics rigorously rules out not only the self-organization of matter but also a universe that has existed for an infinite time. According to current opinion, the universe has existed for just under 15 billion years. Emerging from nothing, self-organizing even though its initial state should have been in perfect order, giving itself physical laws at an undefined but inevitable time X, it is condemned to a virtual heat death by entropy.
Replacement models are necessary
Since entropy moves everything from order to disorder, equalizing energy differences until there are no more, the universe must ultimately end in something quasi-deadent. The idea arose that the universe’s expansion would reverse. Everything would contract again, reaching the “singularity,” followed by another Big Bang, and everything would begin again.
The dilemma is that the further researchers investigate, the more they realize that they know less and less about the universe. Currently, only about 23 percent is known. The remaining 77 percent is divided into “dark matter” and “dark energy.” Again, two scientific, confident-sounding terms. In reality, these phenomena were only called “dark” because science has absolutely no idea what they could be. An academic euphemism for “we’re groping in the dark.”
According to current physical models, there must be something causing the completely unexpected observations. This particularly concerns the shape and stability of galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe. What causes this? No idea. So, “dark matter” and “dark energy.” Sounds scientific, and you just have to believe in it.
World simulation
Particularly wild theories speak of a “world simulation.” Everything observable is merely appearance and not reality. We are in a simulation, they claim, just like the characters in a computer game who interact with each other but cannot recognize their own simulated state.
Another impossibility, since simulations are urgently dependent on information. Another irrefutable law of nature, repeatedly proven, is the compelling necessity of an intelligent origin for any kind of information. Information can never arise from (inert) matter. Therefore, anyone who claims we are in a simulation must also be able to name the “programmer.”
Everyone will experience it personally
If you don’t simply believe everything that’s presented to you pre-chewed and regurgitated, but instead question (illegibly), examine critically, and (illegibly) use your own brain, then such nonsense called science quickly comes to light. It would actually be sandbox-like, if it weren’t actually so serious. After all, this structure has characteristics that are strongly reminiscent of the Inquisition. A doctrine is formulated, white-coated priests preach and enforce these teachings, “fact checkers” search for dissenting views and immediately formulate accusations of heresy.
It is clear that a vigorous effort is currently being made to merge godliness and godlessness. A synthesis of the Gospel and atheistic humanism (Info).
Regardless of whether atheistic science clings rigidly to its godlessness, explicitly designing its models, however ridiculous, just to deny the existence of God by force, or out of learned ignorance and arrogance, it will be God himself who will personally enlighten them about it at the “end of things.” Then comes the great oblivion.
The memory of the just is blessed: but the name of the wicked shall rot.
Proverbs 10:7
Bible verses from King James Version (1611)
