Theologians ("God-scientists") have attempted to prove
God's existence throughout the centuries. The Bible itself
does not try this, but simply states that God's 'eternal power
and deity (His invisible characteristics)' are understood by
observing the visible things of creation (from stars to
subatomic particles; Romans 1.20). In other words, we should
be able to know God from nature just as a gorgeous palace
presupposes an architect.
According to a scientist like Stephen Hawking man will
know God's mind, as soon as he cracks the mathematical
supercode of nature. Just as if God could be identified with
matter and energy in all its forms! In fact according to the
Bible God is the maker of the universe. The universe is not on
one footing with God. In this rationalist physicists are like
eastern mystics that claim that everything is divine. But
perhaps you will counter: "What is truth?" For there are also
people that argue that there are many gods, as in
Hinduism. That so many persuasions abound does not mean that
in the end there cannot be only one all inclusive truth; which
is the Person of Christ (not an ideology, Christian
organization or elaborated theology).
Let's put the different ideas in a row.
1 God does not exist. Everything is matter. Atheism.
2 God does not exist. There are many gods. Polytheism.
3 Everything, matter and spirit, is divine. Pantheism.
4 One cannot either prove or disprove God's existence,
nor does it matter. Life is all about fighting for one's
own (material) well-being. Materialism/ agnosticism.
5 God is de maker of everything, matter and spirit, but
he does not maintain a relation with his work. Deism.
6 God is the ultimate mystery. Becoming one with Him,
e.g. with the help of saints and angels, is the highest good.
7 God is our maker, but he is evil. Satan can deliver
you from his yoke. Actually God is the real devil that
thwarts us. Satanism.
8 God is the Maker of everything, matter, mind, soul,
spirit and personality. Everything exists by virtue of
His continual, sustaining power and He thrones above His Creation. Monotheism.
All these ways of looking at God and the universe can be
divided into detailed differences, but I think that we can
safely distinguish between all mainstreams in the above way.
In passing we point out that a person's philosophico-theological world view also determines his or her lifestyle.
An atheist most of the time will also be more or less a
hedonist. A polytheist searches through magic for the power
over matter to make him one with the gods. The pantheist
seeks guidance in mysticism and meditation. A deist tends to
think that he can solve his problems primarily through reason.
The Satanist attempts to make demons, that is fallen angels,
serve him. And the monotheist attempts to be reconciled with
his Maker through forgiveness, worship and observing the
wisdom of the Bible.
Now we have reduced all religions (atheism is not really
a religion, but could be called an anti-religion) to only
eight, we will attempt to show which one is truthful. In this
we employ this criterion (test or touchstone): The truth must
make sense. Christ Himself said: 'The truth will set you
free' (John 8.32) and elsewhere the apostle Paul speaks about
the 'rational' service of our religion. All religions promise
you freedom. The communists promised freedom to the slaves of
the Czar and mystics promise you freedom through yoga or
whatever. But what is real freedom?
What is the freedom of the atheïst? Carpe diem. Pluck the
day! "Let us eat and drink and make merry, for tomorrow we die
(1 Cor.15.32). The atheist must find his luck (read:
satisfaction) in the here and now. For according to him
everything stops upon death. Death is the great enemy. If
you really hate somebody, you wish him dead. Death is only
friendly if life has become totally hopeless and therefore
pointless. Then death liberates you from a senseless
existence. Every atheist attempts to realize the sense of
life now. For one person that is music, for the other money.
For most a combination of everything available. Enough food
and drink, health and finally self-realization.
But can this kind of world view stand the test of time?
If death is written over everything, what then is the
usefulness of such a lifestyle? Do not atheists deceive
themselves? Whence for that matter the morbid obsession for
death and violence in films and books? If all ends in death,
why then would I give life my best? Away with such thoughts!
Where people used to say: Memento mori; 'Remember to die,'
now we say: Live! Be happy with your partner. And if life
turns against you, try to save what you can. However, who
shall help me to determine how to live? Well, that is up to
you! Good, says the pedophile, I like young children. Good,
says the rapist, I love violence. Good, says the gangster, I
love much money. No, says the atheist society, let's keep it
neat and tidy and decent at any rate. But what is a decent
life? Is it not I that decide that? If I desire to put a dog
chain or collar on my partner's neck, because that gives me a
kick; then that is good. All that matters is that you have
fun and that you reach your kick, your personal high. If I
cannot kick, then I kick you out of my life.
Nietzsche, Freud and Marx have rationalized God away. We
all have become gods unto ourselves. If a psychiatrist tells
you as a hard working murderer that you are sick, on what does
he base his reason? Is it not your full right as atheistic,
self-governing homo sapiens to create pleasure out of snuffing
out other lives? The murder of God by atheists ends in the
murder of your fellow men. Mao, Stalin and Hitler, each in
his own way, chose murder to realize their atheist or fascist
paradise. One must murder to be able to live. 'Live and let
Fortunately this is too extreme for most people. But why
did the twentieth century of so-called modern man witness so
many dead? Why will almost any policeman tell you that crime
is on the rise? Is it not time that atheists at least begin
to wonder about their amoral philosophy?
Let us now take a brief look at the peoples that
worshiped many gods. The ancient Greek and Roman peoples and
the Hindus of today have an entire pantheon of saviors
available. In the end human life is governed and determined
by the gods. If you placate the gods, then life will be good
to you. They will assist you to live now and upon death you
will be rewarded or you will even become one with the gods.
There is then life after death. I hope that is a relief for
you. The Greeks did not have cars or color televisions, but
they understood, or at least believed, that mortal life is not
everything. Personally I would have preferred to be a Greek
rather than a Roman and certainly not a Hindu. The Athenians
were thinkers, but the Romans ruled with an iron fist.
However Hindus leave rats, holy cows and sometimes even
insects alive, because they could house the spirits of their
late ancestors. Now that is respect for life, if you allow
rats to eat your hard worked harvests so as to let your poor
parents live! Why do these people not realize that humans
die here in the name of the hereafter?
The Greeks and the Romans had gods and goddesses for just
about anything. Then you had also the 'president': Zeus or
Jupiter. In India that is Brahma. Killing causes bad karma
and is the reason one must yet suffer for a long time in the
death and life cycle of the mortal body. "Soma sèma" (the
body is a grave) the Greek taught. Death means liberation.
There once was a Greek thinker that could preach this
philosophy so well that many among his audience committed
suicide. Euthanasia in the case of a toothache!?
But now all joking aside. The atheist seeks satisfaction
in the here and now, the polytheist in the end in the
hereafter. I hope the feeling does not escape you that in
both cases there is something wrong, something desperately
wrong. Would there be a happy medium?
Yes, the pantheist or holist says, for everything is
divine. Yes, the rationalistic theologian says. God is the
Creator, but He suffers along with us. He cannot help it that
we suffer. He has done his best, now we have to co-operate to
find his salvation for us. Yes, the agnostic materialist
says; the happy medium is that we 'simply' do our best and
give to everybody his own. As to God and the hereafter, that
we will find out later. Yes, the mystic says, the happy
medium is that we prioritize the 'holy' and the 'ideal' above
everything else. Temporary things and setbacks we 'simply'
have to overcome.
Let us begin with the pantheist. What is his salvation
in the end? Nirvana. What is that? The unio mystica,
becoming one with the impersonal divinity. The transition
from the finite, limited and suffering ego to the infinite,
endless and salvific 'all.' As a dew drop is dissolved in a
lake, so your ego will be taken up by the divinity. But then
I ask: If I am to vanish as snow before the sun, what does
remain of myself? That does not matter of course. Everything
is impersonal. If you want to sense yourself, then you are
doing something totally wrong. Through meditation you must do
the opposite, you must empty yourself. Everything that is in
you, is unnecessary weight that sits in the way. Death is
serious, but in the end only maya, mere sham. Empty yourself
and the truth will come in automatically. I know there is a
lot of junk in my heart, but pumping myself totally empty
through yoga or whatever, that goes too far. Particularly if
the end is a personless all-spirit. Such a god I decline.
Where is the true God?
About the materialists I want to be short. In general
they are agnostic. 'God cannot be proven. He may exist, or
he may not.' The materialists unite through the prosperity
philosophy of materialism. (That in my opinion is also the
weakness of capitalism. Materialistic ambition for profit as
a life style makes for a cold-hearted ideology). But an
endless stream of goods and services is a dream. More and
more and yet again still more! And so we are caught in a
treadmill of work not so as to LIVE, but simply for mere
possession . . . This also is a dead end and only possible for
Is God then to be found with the deists? Voltaire said:
'If God does not exist, then we should make him!' He said
that because he found that the universe points to a grandiose
architect. There are many different deists, just like there
are many kinds of atheists, pantheists and polytheists. The
deists have in common that they loosen God from His creation.
God put the clock work into motion and now he lets it wind
down. We will exist until the universe collapses onto itself.
Then maybe there will be another big bang. A god who plays
yo-yo? The Stoics already claimed that everything will end in
a great conflagration and then will start anew exactly alike.
I now point out to you the similarities. The atheist
believes in love, the polytheist in Amor. The atheist reckons
with social whores, the polytheist with the temple servants of
Venus. The atheist works with the forces of nature, the
polytheist with the gods. Both desire to harness or control
them in some way. So the materialist believes in matter and
the pantheist in the soul or spirit. The materialist and the
atheist strive to make life give its best now, with or without
God. The polytheist and pantheist predict salvation in the
hereafter. In materialism and atheism the idiosyncratic
pantheon of the human being reigns supreme. We must, they
say, respect each other as much as possible. We must allow a
person his or her own 'kick.' In polytheism the idiosyncratic
pantheon of demons (1 Cor. 10. 20) reigns supreme.
The mysticists try to attain to the divine with the help of saints and/or angels, in order to be freed from, what they so experience, the uncertain and even low body. Some of these even went so far as to conclude that God was to be found in themselves. This borders on pantheism.
This brings me to the seventh group, the Satanists. Do
they really exist? Why not! If there are Christians that
worship God, why would there not be persons that venerate the
devil? Aleister Crowley said that the devil is life, light
and love and that the only valid law is: 'Do whatever you
wish.' Indirectly he has influenced more people than Brown,
Jones and Robinson even can begin to understand. How can you
believe in God and not in the devil? Atheistic theologians
babble that God stands for what is good in us and that the
devil is merely the personification of evil. The Satanist
laughs this off. He also believes in both as persons, just
like the Christians. For if God is not more than just an
idea, then death in the end is the destiny of the entire
universe. And if God is absolutely good, holy actually that
is, from where then all evil? 'He is a liar and the father of
one,' Christ spoke of the devil (John 8. 44). Christ also
makes clear that Satan is the murderer of humans from the
start. What did the devil make himself believe (Is. 14 &
Ezek. 28)? That he could be like God. This lie he also
instilled into Eve, our first mother. Why is the Satanist
Satanist? For God murdering jealousy. Satan does not want to
recognize God, but he has to. The Satanist follows Satan in
this rebellion. Where the atheist rationalizes God away,
there the Satanist rebels. Albert Camus concluded that life
is pointless, a punishment inflicted by the gods or the forces
of nature. Here the Satanist advances blaming the Maker of
the universe openly.
What does a Christian say of this? God is good and made
us good as well, but we willingly chose evil. That is why we
lost paradise (the Garden of Eden). Was the God of love
unrighteous in testing Adam and Eve in the matter of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil? No, He had every right to
see whether we would answer His love. He did not make us
robots, but people with a will to choose. If God is not good,
but yet almighty; then there is no hope. What awaits us is an
eternal nightmare of senseless nihilistic suffering. If God
is schizophrenic, pardon the language, then he is worse than
the devil and all we can expect is everlasting torture. What
does the Satanist have to offer us anymore than an eternal
unrighteous hell under the sway of a whimsical tyrant who is
infinitely more powerful than Satan? For He made Satan. But
the Bible says: 'Will not the Judge of all the earth do
In passing we mention the idea of Zoroastrianism
according to which good and evil have existed from all
eternity. In the end light will overcome darkness. But then
God and the devil are brothers! Perhaps Cain will slay Abel
We want to be short in this essay. Therefore we generalize: The atheist tends to seek the sense of life in
a form of pleasure or at the best in some form of self-fulfillment. But he is confronted by death and that robs all
his accomplishments of meaningfulness. The polytheist
honors the gods and desires to be one with them. The atheist
is a god to himself, autonomous in everything; the polytheist
is subject to all gods. The former overly accentuates the
here and now with the result that everything ends in death and
meaninglessness. The latter overly accentuates the hereafter
with the result that the here and now is experienced as
meaningless. The only thing you can save from it is food for
the hereafter. To soften timely life magic must offer
outcome. Magic is knowledge of the gods that makes you
surpass your own limits. The atheist uses technology to
assuage his pain. The powers of nature are there to serve us.
One can conquer them, be it temporarily.
The pantheist actually also overemphasizes the here
and now in an opposite way to the atheist. And the god of the
deists is in fact just as impersonal as the god of the
mystics. The rationalist deist attempts to help God a little
and searches for the perfect politics, economics or
psychology. But the human also here disappears when he
desires to establish his own paradise. Rationalist reason is
everything but salvific. The mystic tries to empty himself,
the thinker wants to fill himself. Neither reason nor
mysticism can save us.
Eventually every human system will subside into oblivion.
Why is this? Because man simply refuses to recognize God as
the Sovereign, All-good, All-knowing, All-powerful, All-holy
and All-present Lord over us all. People are like children
that want to live without their father and mother. God, our
Creator, Who loves us more than a mother her child, is
unconsciously experienced as very threatening. We want to do
our own thing.
But you might say, "You have ridiculed just about
everything by now, but what does your God have to offer?"
Everything! If all of humanity would cease their fights now
and were to beseech God for forgiveness; then God would be
merciful to us as in the days of Nineveh (see the book of Jonah
in the Old Testament)! Why is life so hard? Because we live
it without God. Even most of the so-called monotheists are
just as mad as the atheists. The atheist says and does, the
monotheist says God and acts on his own 'kick.'
Do we then all have to be the same as if we were robots?
No, just as God is personal, an 'individual', the highest one,
so humans and angels are also individuals. But as long as we
humans, individually and collectively do not give God His full
rights and recognize Him in this; so long He cannot recognize
us fully. God is not a bogeyman, but neither a Saint Nick.
And in this way we will lose out on the true sense of life.
As long as we blame God for WW II and for our handicapped
child, for our whatever frustration; so long we will stray
like sheep without a shepherd, exposed to the wolves of
suffering, senselessness and death. What the atheist, the
materialist, the deist, the mysticist, the pantheist and the
polytheist covers up, the Satanist does openly and with all
his heart to the utter consequence. Away with God; I am my
own god. The Satanist is conscious of the bottle-neck. We
simply refuse to give God His due. "I am like a motherless
child, a long way from home..."
Perhaps you consider this but a poor way of reasoning.
Where is the great proof of God's existence? Nobody can see
God and live! Isaiah saw God and only could live because he
exclaimed that he was lost and because the grace of God
forgave him. I can see you shrugging your shoulders. But
think on this: If God could be shown to exist in His highest
divinity, either we would have to be like Him, or He like us.
There are indications enough that point to His eternal power
and godhead (that is His unique character as Maker of the
universe). Only a fool claims that everything has come to be
by itself and that out of nothing or out of some imaginary
cloud of gas. But where did that come from then? "The fool
says in his heart: 'There is no God'." I quote the writer of
the psalm. Anselm said that God is the highest being one can
think of, greater than Him nothing can be imagined.
I do not appeal to your intelligence only, or to your
feelings. I attempt to address your heart. I take it upon
myself to show you that all religions are pointless. Why?
Because the creature is indifferent to the Creator and
actually, in the deepest recesses of the heart, hates Him and
openly challenges Him. Both in words and in deeds we embrace
nihilistic nonsense. And in turn we fight that by escaping
into some kind of temporary satisfaction and comfort ourselves
with useless ideas about the future and a possible afterlife.
I am a sinner
Turning my back.
I am no winner
Living I lack.
I am a loser
Seeking my gain.
I am a soother
Missing the train.
Where is the action
What is this life
Where is attraction
What is my wife.
Where is the motion
What is the rhyme
Where is commotion
What is just mine.
Is there a difference
Is there a sense
What is true reverence
What is no nonsense.
This booklet is written in first instance for people that
realize that they need God (although I hope and pray that the
lone sinner will listen). Since humans have turned their
backs on their Maker in the Garden of Eden, the soul
experiences a vacuum. God did not create this vacuum to make
us search for Him, as some pious authors have claimed. This
emptiness is a direct consequence of our godless attitude.
I do not at all feel the need to advance intellectual
proof that would have to serve to establish that God must have
created the universe and that therefore the evolution theory
must have been thought up. The missing links, that is the
fact that the links are missing, indeed show that the human being
did not develop over millions of years, but that there have
been basic species from the very start; with the genetic
possibility of variation within the different species. This
is called polyphyletic (or polygenetic) over against
monophyletic development, or micro-evolution versus macro-evolution, for those in the know. In other words, God made
various basic types of animals out of which all the other ones
developed. Evolutionary theory claims that all species
developed out of one archetype through the process of endless
speciation. Nor do I desire to employ the old proofs for the
divinity by Thomas Aquinas (who was inspired by Aristotle,
called the philosopher by him). I attempt to point out to you
that all major streams within the so-called great religions
are useless as far as our salvation is concerned and that they
are at least ridden with inconsequences. In the end religion
is the invention of your own god. In this Feuerbach was
right: everybody makes his own god(s).
Does this mean then that we have to throw all religion
overboard? No, of course not. For then we turn ourselves
into gods, with all the ensuing evil. Is this too heavy for
you? You do not want to think about this? Consider well that
if you reject all religion, you make yourself your own
divinity. You are then responsible for your own code of
conduct and for your children's lives and ultimately you will
have to answer to the entire global village. I do not
exaggerate. If you are totally autonomous, then there is no
absolute cadre of reference in which man can live.
Dostoevsky understood this very well. Also the
existentialists realized this, but as non- or even anti-Christians. And their children now opt madness. We simply
are doing our own thing, fix the environment where necessary
and further are waiting when disaster will strike. Human life
is a ship at sea with a thousand, no a million helmsmen, who
all think they know what they are doing. Is it strange then
that things are the way they are? That we can exist at all we
owe to the grace of God. You see, God simply must be there,
because without Him we are like sheep without a shepherd. Who
else but God can reign over us? Who else but our own Maker
can tell us the who, why, when and how?
I am very well aware that we so-called Christians have
not lived up to our name. Often we have run amuck and have
ruined things. Prostestants are just about all their own
theologians. Yet there is a difference of day and night
between true Christians and non-Christians or merely nominal
ones. The Christian knows him- or herself in the hand of
Christ. The non-Christian is doomed to either some form of
superstition or some form of skepticism; both are disastrous.
If you are a thinker, then you will find my proof for
God's existence rather cheap. You might hold it against me
that I jump to conclusions. Maybe you are a physicist that
has learned to trust his own eyes. You know about atoms and
quarks and you once asked yourself where the divinity could
be. Well, I dare argue that the Christian faith is reasonable
and 'logical' (Rom. 12.1). It is not a leap into the dark á
la Kierkegaard, as if the Bible were irrational. Faith is not
nonsensical, but transcends the limits of reason. 'As the
heavens are higher than earth, so My ways are above yours,'
the Lord says. Yet God bows down and puts a staircase between
heaven and earth.
I have already pointed out that there is no mathematical
proof for either God's existence or His character. If we
could prove God by means of mathematics or the laboratory,
then His Person would be no different from ours, or even would
be like a plant or a stone. But there are indications that He
must exist. Mathematics is for the material world, faith and
emotion is for a higher world. Therefore the laboratory will
always be down to earth, earthy. But faith belongs to a
spiritual world that cannot at all be comprehended by math or
the lab. Neither can your emotions and deepest motivations be
represented by an equation. If you insist in a headstrong
fashion that the universe began with the Big Bang, then I turn
the tables on you and reproach you with being irrational.
Whence then came the material, energy, conditions and all the
necessary things to develop an intricate human as yourself?
Geneticists argue that intelligence is determined partially or
mainly by biology; where then is the biological determination
in the Big Bang? Whence all the superbly accurate order
witnessed in the universe? Did this all arise through dumb
luck? Yes? Then you are irrational, not I.
I doubt that man will ever find conclusive proof
beginning with math or the lab and ending with the divinity.
God and creation do not fit in one formula; for then both
would be part of a still higher world. God is living in an
unapproachable light and being the highest does not fit in an
equation with matter. God being the Maker of matter, however,
must have its equation. Therefore it remains a question of
faith, a leap of emotion as it were; just as a child leaps
into the arms of his father to be saved out of a house on
fire. But it is a far crazier leap to deny God. For then you
jump into the hopeless, senseless and godless world of your
own responsibility; into the flames. I repeat: if the divine
does not exist, then in fact we are all our own gods. In that
case you can restrain a mass murderer out of self-defense, but
you do not have the right to condemn him. For he is his own
god, with his own feelings no matter how strange they may
seem. However, if you want to believe with me in God, you can
appeal to the rule: "Thou shalt not murder."
Kant and other philosophers attempted to establish ethics
or a code of conduct. But the central problem they all faced
was the extrapolation of the human dimension into the divine.
Reasoning from the human dimension one cannot possibly
conclude to a universal law. For what human are we to take as
an example for all the others? Therefore, every philosophy is
the product of the philosopher that proposes it. There is
only one human that is worthy for such an endeavor and that is
Christ Jesus. If we take Him as the paragon of virtue, then
we can begin to undertake it to establish rules for
comportment. Not Muhammad, not Buddha, not Confucius are apt
or worthy for this. Christ cannot be accused of a single
weakness or sin.
Faith then is indeed a kind of leap, from your own
individual, limited ego into the Other, into the divinity Who
wants to be your All in all.