Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Reclaimer
I wrote this myself more so to emphasize the absurdity of denying a creator on the basis that the universe can be explained. The universe itself can be the circumstantial evidence there is a God, there never has to be a watch maker found for the watch itself to be sufficient evidence such a man existed.
And I use the grain of sand as the counter-part to the watch because in the religious debate we often perceive the heavens as too remarkable often forgetting the fact that a single grain of sand itself is amazing.
It stems from an argument I once had with a man over the equation 2+2=4.
He argued that this is a human invention and not "truth" that there is no truth in philosophical sense. I argued that no matter what you do you cannot claim that 2+2=4 is false. He then proceeded to claim that we merely define it as 2+2=4.
So I stated that even if you said 1+1=5 (in our words) if you still have .. of something and .. of something else it equals .... of that something.
.. + .. = ....
He continued to refuse it on the basis that we apply definitions to those things ... units...
To which I said "you are simply asking for more evidence than there is".
Coming from an atheistic background (I was from about the age of 10 to the age of 18 a self-proclaimed Atheist who over those years became more and more defensive of the idea of Atheism) it was an epiphany that would later be incorporated into my rediscovering faith.
All Atheists are asking for more evidence than there is - and all Atheists are just as absurd as the man who rejects the idea that 2+2=4.
This doesn't mean I know what religion is right, but as the movie Dogma concludes "it's not about which faith is right just that you have faith".
|
Think of it this way. There are certain brain injuries that cause completely nonsensical logic to occur in the mind, what if all of us were equally impaired so that we could not think straight. Imagine that you just think 2+2=4 but that it actually isn't, your logic is convoluted, impaired and wrong.
I actually have personal experience of this sort, it may help my point. I got a concussion when I was a kid, around 12 years old, and when I had the trauma I could have sworn that I was turning left, while my whole body swayed to the right. My head was spinning so much, and my logic so impaired I couldn't distinguish the difference.
Another example that may help; there is a medical story of a guy who had damage to his brain, and couldn't perceive the left side of his body. He would draw self portraits of only his right half. When asked about the other side of his body, he just couldn't perceive it. it was out of his mind. To him there was no other side. Brain damage can cause some pretty screwed up things, which shows us that logic is all relative.
So what if we're all just equally impaired, and 2+2 is actually 5. We just can't think straight. Thus based on this we can conclude, there is no truth, there is only relative truth. What we perceive to be true according to our capability and outlook.
We could be incapable of understanding our own beginnings, maybe the answer to the beginnings is the real answer to 2+2, but we cannot figure it out. So many make up an all powerful being to solve the problem. The problem with that is then the question of what created this all powerful being comes up. There is always going to be the question of "Well what caused that", whether you believe in naturalism, that the universe just is as it is, or that a god created it.
Why must a person believe in something that is all powerful. Why is faith in a being we have never encountered a good thing? The idea of a god is impossible to prove or disprove, it is the funniest idea to explain everything because of that.
Are not people with faith not asking for enough evidence instead of the opposite? Someone somewhere along the line came up with the idea of god (or if you're religious god put it there) that there could be an omnipotent power in the universe. Why must the burden be on the skeptic and not the believer.