Okay guys! There has been a lot of talk in the threads as of late, discussing personal beliefs, religions, and the like, so I wanted to bring up this topic in it's own thread, discussing exactly what each individual (yes you!) believes in detail. (although there are other threads, scattered amongst the grand abyss that is gnet, already covering this subject, I wanted to start a fresh one.)
Before I begin saying anything as far as my beliefs go...I want to make a few things clear...which is that I understand that everyone has very different views. This is all very obvious by all the arguing that occurs here on this forum, but I've started to actually like it. Reason being, because everytime I get a very blunt response, in contrast of something that I believe in.. it's because that other person has "just" as much passion in what they believe in as I do. We learn more about what we feel to be true, by arguing our points and researching on the topic, and I think this is great thing! (even though I'm sure some people are just plain assholes) But anywhoo. I just want everyone to know that even though some of you drive me insane and hate my opinions its okay, because I know that I'm annoying as fuck, at times too.
So with that aside...here we go.
I believe we have a creator, but I choose not to associate myself with any set name for my belief. I just don't want to have to be characterized, into a man-made term, applied to people who follow a 'religion'.
As much as I have studied on different 'religions', I do not follow any specific set of rules other than what my conscience has allowed me to accept as a universal right and wrong. This might be a bad thing, I don't really know. All I 'do' know is that I feel good, when I do good. Simple as that.
As far as Atheists go, I have the utmost respect for the ones who don't have the inclination to pounce on anyone who dismisses the theory of evolution. (I have even gone through a stage where I started to incline towards that mentality, but the more I studied on atheism, the more my mindset started shifting away from it.) In the past and now, I've seen many Atheists bashing anyone who believes in a higher power, force, or spiritual realm in a pretty aggressive manner, almost always associating a "Creator" with religion. ( and yes I agree that pompous, evangalist, morons are very much to blame, for this sad disposition. )
But this knowledge that I've gathered has been pretty enlightening (actually REALLY enlighting) to me. My whole search for truth in Atheism brought me to a point to where I just couldn't for the life of me agree with it. (just know that I don't want to be disrespectful in any sense.)
The first thing that I want to point out, is that in my quest for the truth... I discovered that Atheism seemed to have required as much of faith,( if not much, much, more) than any other way of believing. It was actually very difficult to cope with. I came to the conclusion that all atheists have what's called a 'universal negative'. A universal negative requires absolute knowledge (omniscience), whereas a universal positive may not require that.
I found this little metaphor, that helps me out in explaining this...
....Let's say that I am in a building with 4 rooms. I have only been in 1 room.
In order to say that every room is empty, I would have to have knowledge of all 4 rooms. I would need to know the entirety of what I am claiming to know.
However... to state the opposite, that the building is not empty, I would at the very least only need to know about one room....
So... in essence, any time an atheist claims that there is absolutely no Creator, they are claiming absolute and full knowledge of the universe (omniscience)... If they are not claiming absolute knowledge, than they are going off of "faith", but in fact, since they could never ,ever, ever, know for sure that universal negative... then they are requiring much more faith than a person who claims there is a creator (because finding out if there is one, may not require absolute knowledge).
Dictionary Definition of Faith.
"Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea. Formal usage of the word "faith" is usually reserved for concepts of religion, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or else in a Supreme Being and said being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things."
Another idea that I ponder about, is about our fucking amazing universe. What is it? Is it necessary or just there?
I remember reading an article some time ago about the possibility of the universe being a "necessary being."
The late atheist scientist Carl Sagan... is famous for his declaration that the cosmos is "all that is, was, or ever will be."
The universe, were it a necessary being, would be infinite... That means completely eternal.....This, of course, brings up some serious math issues... cuz it would open the door, to a buttload of contradictions. Mathematician quote...."The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought."
The second challenge of an infinite universe, is that it throws shit at the face of the theory of evolution.... In fact, scientists who embrace the "Big Bang Theory" necessarily reject the idea of 'infinite', eternal existence for the universe. The same is true for those scientists who accept that the universe is expanding... These two ideas overlap, but are not really identical. They are in common though,with the idea that the universe had, at some point looooooooooooong ago, an origin. Atheists who fight for an eternal universe... are going against the flow of modern science and many will continue to fight, because to give up the effort... forces them to confront the unthinkable. "If the universe has an origin, it must have a cause." *bum bum bum* This brings me to idea that the big bang theory is quite a problem for atheists... But of course... some atheists plunge into the big bang theory like coocoo.
I've noticed that a favorite argument is... If God is uncaused, why can't the universe be uncaused too?
First, this response in itself creates a blob of problems. One thing is, an uncaused universe would logically have to be an infinite or eternal universe - bringing us back to the problems that I already mentioned... But if the universe is actually a contingent being, it defies logic and reason to say that an uncaused universe out of nowhere popped into existence. It sets up a contradiction.
ALSO.... they have to argue that the raw "universe" (in whatever its first form) is the source, cause, and daddy of the whole evolutionary process. It would be completely clown shoes to deny the current existence of living things - and these things had to come from somewhere or something. The first, initial universe... (whether it was simply particles, primitive organisms, or cosmic dirt) is the only answer an atheist can give. And this means that the primitive, baseline universe had to initiate a chain of events bringing about the universe we have today. . .Can an inanimate entity initiate anything? If it could, surely such an act would be considered oh say..."unnatural" ,or shall we say, supernatural?
There are some sceintists who argue that subatomic particles can be (theoretically) eternal and uncaused. Many atheists point to this theory as if it's a "conversation-ender". But what does this prove? That subatomic particles are the raw, daddy universe? If so, we're right back at the problem of initiation. Which leaves atheists on super shaky ground with in regards to the universe. They are forced to argue that the universe is an uncaused cause..... defense is clearly not a winnable strategy, so they attack. Their favorite approach: Casting aspersions on the notion of God or a Creator as the cause.
"If the universe needs a cause," they ask, "what about God?" Let's remember what a Necessary Being is, by definition. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, necessary beings are "those that could not have failed to exist." A necessary being MUST exist in order for contingent beings to even be possible.... The issue isn't whether a necessary being exists, the issue is WHAT is the nature of that necessary being?
The inevitable conclusion to me, is that a creator is the only necessary being that makes sense..... If all contingent beings ultimately stem from the necessary being, then the necessary being is the external cause of the universe. In short, it must have all the characteristics of what we as humans normally associated with a God.
In my mind a supernatural being, responsible for the universe's existence may not have to fit any given religion. But it most certainly throws a bomb at atheism.
Sorry this is so long!!!!
