As an agnostic, I believe there is a possibility of God, and there is a possibility of no God, and science may in fact point to the fact that there is no feasible way to determine either to be true.
That is why atheists pride themselves over Christians or other religious persons, belittle them and boast of their knowledge that God does not exist, employing their logic to contradict bible verses etc.
Herein lies the problem: first, and most importantly, the bible has no final say on whether or not a God or deity exists, only that one exists given its own rules and laws. Whether or not the bible can be disproved or found to be contradictory has no true bearing on the possibility of a deity's existence.
In a way, I find atheism to be a religion, because it entails having "faith" that God does not exist, since there is no logical way to disprove the possibility. Thus, it requires belief in something that isn't necessarily proven through science or physical evidence.
Additionally, even if the possibility of a God were disproved through clear and plain logic, that logic is human, and by nature the proof must therefor be flawed, as the nature of human beings is inherently flawed. By limiting something as grand and beyond humanity to words, verses, human concepts and ideas is insane. The nature of spoken language is so incredibly limited (and this coming from a writer) that it cannot possibly capture the concept of "God."
The human mind is also limited, in its ability to see a small spectrum of the wavelengths that are out there, its ability to reason and comprehend, etc. To take that mind and apply it to an unlimited power just doesn't seem to fit mathematically. Then again, even this line of reasoning can be subject to the same scrutiny.
As for which direction I lean (as I am human), I tend to believe there is a God, or at least some beginning will to the universe, if not simply because the universe has a better chance of not existing. Natural process, by observance, seems to follow a path of least resistance, to occur in a "natural" form. But what is natural and non-resistant about nothing becoming a universe? Wouldn't it be much more natural for nothing to continue to be nothing?
Since the fact the universe cannot be proven not to have existed for eternity (though this seems to ignore the natural life-cycle of living and dying, or decomposing, of existing things), my theory is just a theory.
- Quote :
- I don't believe in the Bible. Plain and simple. If the Bible were true from the start, it wouldn't have so many versions. You don't see any of Ray Bradbury's books being rewritten for time's sake. You don't see history being rewritten for time's sake. They spoonfeed you the same garbage about Abe Lincoln has they did decades ago! They tell you he's a great, honest man, even though if you look behind the scenes, he lied and had many mistresses. He didn't care about the slaves. He made his Emancipation Proclamation out of selfish reasons.
I think PR was right about the translations thing; which sort of backs up my "language is unreliable" theory. But as for the Abe Lincoln reference, I agree that an ideal often and dangerously becomes larger than a human being simply by the way idealism operates. Lincoln and many other rich powerful people from early America who may have enacted good laws were not necessarily good people, many owned slaves and were wife beaters etc. as a product of their era.
To quote Dave Chappelle quoting Thomas Jefferson:
"All men shall be created equal, (to his slave)
shut up, nigger! "
So, that's pretty much my long-winded take on it
Home 
