Below is a response to an atheist with many questions. What is the point of studying if most questions lead to "We just don't know the answer yet..."? Is it best to spend our entire lives concluding we just don't know because it cannot be known; hoping by faith "one day" science, the only tool for the atheist, will answer every question? Or should we be open to looking at more options?
Please know that I think science is a wonderful tool that is useful when used properly, but how can it be the only tool man has? Would a hammer be the only tool to build a house? Is it possible other tools have been given to us?
A question to ponder as you read this. Does it take more faith to be an atheist, or more faith to believe in a God?
This is the deal.
I assume something higher that made us. There are logical reasons to believe this. If 1’s and 0’s in binary code grew a consciousness and could not see into our 3 dimensional world it would be logical for one of them to say there is nothing outside this world, our binary world. The other would say, but how did we get here? There is order, there is law, and something intelligent must have created this. Then depending on who was more educated and the better debater one would seem more right or less right. But the facts do not change, a world outside of the binary world does exist.
How do we know we are not stuck in a 3 dimensional world with some higher intelligence outside of it? If we cannot see outside the fish bowl does it necessarily mean it is logical to think all there is, is the fish bowl? You assume there is nothing higher that made us. And it would appear that you think everything happened by chance. And it appears as though you do not think this is an assumption. I showed you how there is a ton of information that makes abiogenesis highly unlikely and yet you still assume this is the best answer. You say there are problems with new science and that is to be expected. So this is a faith based belief, not based on any physical evidence.
The truth is much bigger than science or the scientific study man will be able to do. You assume that because there was no time as we know it, the Big Bang is the final answer, the first cause that caused itself. But does that mean there was nothing before it? Is it true that there is no other dimension of time? And how do we get around the fact that something caused the Big Bang? All the questions and the millions more that you do not have the answer to you will say, or at least you have only said “We don’t know yet…” But let’s call it illogical to believe God or some other dimension exists.
Another thing said is, You do not need empirical data to prove this god but science is the best and really only way to measure anything. So how am I to prove this when all you look to is science? Again, binary code and the laws that govern it do not apply to humans. Why must the laws of physics apply to God? Why is it illogical to consider that as a possibility? Why must we believe in no god to be logical especially since for most questions our atheistic answer must be “we don’t know yet…”?
What if we assumed a god instead of no god and still asked all the same questions? What if that did not make us lazy? What if that made us understand things like metaphysics better? What if that meant we did not have to decide evil based off of whims and good based off of feelings or the whimsical nature of humanity? What if that helped to make things come together more logically instead of less logically?
What if we agreed that God does not make ice cores look hundreds of thousands of years old but in reality are only 10,000 years old? What if we agreed that God does not undo the laws He makes? What if we decided that it is logical for a God to make the laws orderly and that we did not have to throw our brain out to believe in a supernatural God? What if that is what God really intended all along?
You say I have never shared a method of why I believe and think it makes sense; it is because you told me you cannot believe it no matter what. What is the point of sharing if you are opposed and unwilling to consider another way?
In my world view I do not have to pretend I don’t have faith to believe what I believe. I have never found an atheist who has not had to pretend that they do not believe and also at some point when talking about rights and wrongs, good and evil either had to decide that these things really only mean something to those who agree. Or pretend they are not religious when in reality atheism is just a belief system that people buy into. And no two atheists agree completely just as no two other religious believers believe completely the same. All your arguments as to why religion and faith are no good are not based in anything other than personal opinion and feelings. For if I used the same argument that no two atheists believe the same what does that prove?
I can still use my reason to look at all the scientific data. I can use reason and faith together. Does that mean I have all the answers, by no means!!! I just don’t have to pretend.
Can you honestly say you do not have faith in some of what you believe? It does not appear so, because for many questions your answer is “We just don’t know yet…” How is that not faith? Holding to propositions that cannot be proven in hopes that one day they can be proven is belief and faith based.
Can you honestly say that this belief in atheism, if proven false, that you would not be shaken to the core? If you would be shaken, then it is religious, meaning your are vested in it. Your whole world is wrapped up in it.
Now, this is only my assumption... but I do not believe you will be genuine, real and honest with how you would feel if atheism would be proven false.
Please know that I think science is a wonderful tool that is useful when used properly, but how can it be the only tool man has? Would a hammer be the only tool to build a house? Is it possible other tools have been given to us?
A question to ponder as you read this. Does it take more faith to be an atheist, or more faith to believe in a God?
This is the deal.
I assume something higher that made us. There are logical reasons to believe this. If 1’s and 0’s in binary code grew a consciousness and could not see into our 3 dimensional world it would be logical for one of them to say there is nothing outside this world, our binary world. The other would say, but how did we get here? There is order, there is law, and something intelligent must have created this. Then depending on who was more educated and the better debater one would seem more right or less right. But the facts do not change, a world outside of the binary world does exist.
How do we know we are not stuck in a 3 dimensional world with some higher intelligence outside of it? If we cannot see outside the fish bowl does it necessarily mean it is logical to think all there is, is the fish bowl? You assume there is nothing higher that made us. And it would appear that you think everything happened by chance. And it appears as though you do not think this is an assumption. I showed you how there is a ton of information that makes abiogenesis highly unlikely and yet you still assume this is the best answer. You say there are problems with new science and that is to be expected. So this is a faith based belief, not based on any physical evidence.
The truth is much bigger than science or the scientific study man will be able to do. You assume that because there was no time as we know it, the Big Bang is the final answer, the first cause that caused itself. But does that mean there was nothing before it? Is it true that there is no other dimension of time? And how do we get around the fact that something caused the Big Bang? All the questions and the millions more that you do not have the answer to you will say, or at least you have only said “We don’t know yet…” But let’s call it illogical to believe God or some other dimension exists.
Another thing said is, You do not need empirical data to prove this god but science is the best and really only way to measure anything. So how am I to prove this when all you look to is science? Again, binary code and the laws that govern it do not apply to humans. Why must the laws of physics apply to God? Why is it illogical to consider that as a possibility? Why must we believe in no god to be logical especially since for most questions our atheistic answer must be “we don’t know yet…”?
What if we assumed a god instead of no god and still asked all the same questions? What if that did not make us lazy? What if that made us understand things like metaphysics better? What if that meant we did not have to decide evil based off of whims and good based off of feelings or the whimsical nature of humanity? What if that helped to make things come together more logically instead of less logically?
What if we agreed that God does not make ice cores look hundreds of thousands of years old but in reality are only 10,000 years old? What if we agreed that God does not undo the laws He makes? What if we decided that it is logical for a God to make the laws orderly and that we did not have to throw our brain out to believe in a supernatural God? What if that is what God really intended all along?
You say I have never shared a method of why I believe and think it makes sense; it is because you told me you cannot believe it no matter what. What is the point of sharing if you are opposed and unwilling to consider another way?
In my world view I do not have to pretend I don’t have faith to believe what I believe. I have never found an atheist who has not had to pretend that they do not believe and also at some point when talking about rights and wrongs, good and evil either had to decide that these things really only mean something to those who agree. Or pretend they are not religious when in reality atheism is just a belief system that people buy into. And no two atheists agree completely just as no two other religious believers believe completely the same. All your arguments as to why religion and faith are no good are not based in anything other than personal opinion and feelings. For if I used the same argument that no two atheists believe the same what does that prove?
I can still use my reason to look at all the scientific data. I can use reason and faith together. Does that mean I have all the answers, by no means!!! I just don’t have to pretend.
Can you honestly say you do not have faith in some of what you believe? It does not appear so, because for many questions your answer is “We just don’t know yet…” How is that not faith? Holding to propositions that cannot be proven in hopes that one day they can be proven is belief and faith based.
Can you honestly say that this belief in atheism, if proven false, that you would not be shaken to the core? If you would be shaken, then it is religious, meaning your are vested in it. Your whole world is wrapped up in it.
Now, this is only my assumption... but I do not believe you will be genuine, real and honest with how you would feel if atheism would be proven false.
I got to your 2nd paragraph...in my opinion, as I grew up a "believer by force", is that it absolutely takes more faith to be a believer. I understand your stance on faith, and agree in your definition; however there is so much more evidence to explain the universe, the forces of nature, physics, etc. through science and the empirical evidence that science has provided than there is in a supernatural being such as God. Faith in mono-theistic supernatural being, will always in my opinion be the belief in "well, if science hasn't figured it out yet, it must be God". That's not a way of living that I'm willing to follow, nor will I ever believe it. At 43 years old, my life experience has taught me so much with regard to this...much more than I can try to explain in a comment (response) to a blog entry.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. There are many things that science cannot explain. Many of my other blog entries go into those things. How does science explain the Big Bang, or how life began? What does science tell us about metaphysics, love, hate, good, evil etc...? Do people make assumptions concerning these concepts? Does anyone know, for sure, because of science, that love, hate, good and evil are subjective preferences for individual minds and society? My point is that science cannot answer all the questions. We need more tools.
ReplyDelete