According to a recent article by the Huffington Post, one of my favorite actors and host of the Science Channel show "Through the Wormhole With Morgan Freeman." recently said this of God:
"Yes [...] Well, here's a scientific question: Has anybody ever seen hard evidence? What we get is theories from our earlier prophets. Now, people who think that God invented us think that the Earth can't be more than 6,000 years old. So I guess it's a question of belief. My belief system doesn't support a creator as such, as we can call God, who created us in His/Her/Its image."
Tell Me It Ain't So Morgan!
Famous for his roles in suspenseful movies such as "7" (which I couldn't stand the ending), "Along Came A Spider" and "Kiss The Girls", which the latter being among some of the all time favorites of my wife, Morgan Freeman seemed to have left all thinking capacities on the silver screen to deliver a complete non-sequiter regarding theistic religious beliefs.
Throwing a dagger at Christianity that Morgan thinks rules out the existence of God, Freeman makes the claim that first, noone has ever delivered "hard evidence" for God. I would assume that this is the reason that he does not believe in God. The question are, what IS "hard evidence" and what relationship does "hard evidence" have on the evaluation of truth claims or reality?Is hard evidence a sort of evidence that can be examined under a microscope or seen in real time? Is hard evidence something that could be considered falsifiable by being able to reproduce it in the laboratory or by some other scientific method?
If either of those two criteria represent "hard evidence" leading to the confirmation that something exists, or that something is real, then nearly nothing exists and nearly nothing is real.
What Do I Mean?
Creation itself isn't falsifiable neither is it observable. So if this is the definition of what is considered to be "hard evidence" then creation itself could not have possibly occurred and we must question even our very own existence.
To be clear, scientists postulate by mathematical calculations and the application of philosophical metaphysical naturalism that all that currently exists either always existed or somehow came into existence by some quantum flux (which is the something that science claims to be "nothing").
In effort to get to this quantum flux an $8 to $10 billion dollar Hadron Collider was created with the result being that yet another theory was recently posed regarding the creation event. This theory claims that the Big Bang was ultimately set in motion by the breaking off of a sub atomic particle known as the Higgs Boson particle. Also known as the "God Particle", the Higgs Boson particle, was observed by shooting 2 beams of proton particles directly at one another at trillions of electron volts and is said to possibly be the cause of the Big Bang itself. In other words it is NOT the Big Bang, it is only the cause that caused the Big Bang.
Even though the particle, which had never been observed before, was observed, only speculation can be made as to how and if something like this gave rise to the Big Bang. More speculations are that there are other universes which are experiencing the same or similar things constantly, whether on a dimensional or inter-dimensional basis. However in all reality, if the criteria to believe in something is the ability to examine "hard evidence" even with this test no such criteria has been met. Further, to claim that this particle is uncaused seems to be a step away from what has been previously known as settled science based on the law of causality which claims that all things that have a beginning or that begins to exist has a cause.
So with all the confusion and special exclusion (and the wonder and possibility of science is a good thing) but where is the HARD EVIDENCE as Freeman and most so called "Free Thinkers" claim?
Secondly, if the criteria for "hard evidence' is only something that can be observed by material means, then things such as emotions, memories, thoughts, feelings of love and compassion, moral values and systems of math or logic cannot possibly exist. In fact consciousness itself would be called into question under a "hard evidence" criteria. All of these things are all immaterial realities or at the very least abstracts that exist but yet have no extension in time nor space, nor are they observable, but yet there is no question that these things exist.
When speaking to an atheist on an atheist site regarding the existence of immaterial realities such as memories and thoughts, his claim was that all of these things were the result of chemical and biological processes and that they ultimately resided or were reposed within the brain stem of the individual. I then asked, since we know where these things are, then we should be able to simply inject the supposed site of one of the memories of a person, pull out a thought and observe it under a microscope.
That sounds silly. However, is it as silly as believing that the reality of all things are only confirmed by "hard evidence"?
6,000 Year Old Earth
Morgan, whom I originally believed to be a "thinking man", further revealed his misunderstanding of scripture by claiming that all of those who believe in the existence of God and that God created man and mankind also believe that the Earth is relatively young. So the conclusion would be that the earth and the universe was only created with the appearance of age.
While people debate their positions as Young Earth Creationists against what is called Progressive Creationists, I haven't heard anyone on either side who claims that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and both sides agree that God is the creator of all things including the universe and man. In other words, under either paradigm God cannot be rationally excluded as the one who brought about the universe and all creation itself.
Conclusion ~"I think I'm God"
Having played the role of God in the movie "Bruce Almighty" Morgan must have been damaged by that role. Why? Well, one of the most strange things about Morgan's comments was that he affirms his belief in God, only that his belief and God are one in the same. When asked specifically about his beliefs, here's the statement of confusion which he delivered:
“It’s a hard question because as I said at the start, I think we invented God. So if I believe in God, and I do, it’s because I think I’m God.”
Although most people who claim not to believe in a transcendent being otherwise described as God, also claim that their view is not a world-view, and that it is simply a lack or absence of belief in God, beliefs and even non-beliefs, have consequences. Beliefs and what one affirms or denies, determine how a person lives his/her life.
If there is no consequence to anything, then there is no moral "ought" to do anything other than what satisfies and appeals to what the individual desires. If a person believes that they themselves are God, such as Morgan, then they also would have to believe in self-actualization, personal liberty and freedom to express themselves in any manner or the manner they deem fit without cause or consequence. This is simply called self-exaltation which is the ultimate characteristic of satan himself as the biblical prophet describes:
Isaiah 14:12-14 ~ "12-How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13-For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14-I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."
Although we cannot claim that those without God live without standards. We can certainly claim that those without God, do not live by God's standards or purposeful intentions. Life hasn't really began to be lived until one has come to know their creator and the purpose for which they exist.