What would happen if, tomorrow, scientists announced they had discovered indisputable proof that all life was intelligently designed? Theists everywhere would rejoice, no doubt, but what exactly would this discovery prove?
Proof of Design vs. Proof of God and Christianity
Back in my Christian days, I found my faith bolstered by arguments for design. Biological life was complex, and I was convinced that it could not have arisen without the help of an intelligent designer. But I did not find the arguments for Christianity nearly as compelling as those for design. Even if we were designed, it does not necessarily follow that we were designed by the God of the Bible. (Even the pro-design folks over at the Discovery Institute will admit to this.)
Design is consistent with the Biblical idea of creation, but it is also consistent with just about every other tale of creation. Design no more proves Christianity than it does Hinduism, or Greek mythology.
Proof of design would rule out all hypotheses about unguided abiogenesis; and it would then cause us to wonder who or what the designer is (or was) and how he/she/it/they came to be without a designer to form them.
So for Christianity, proof of intelligent design represents only the first hurdle. The Christian hypothesis would still have to compete with a myriad of other gods, aliens, myths, and hypotheses.
Other Explanations for Design
Raelians, for example, also believe in intelligent design, but they assert that all life on earth was engineered by human scientists that came here from another planet.
And there are other UFO cults and TV shows (like Ancient Aliens) that suggest we might owe our existence to other aliens, not god(s). Who knows, perhaps alien life formed millions — or billions — of years ago, and these highly advanced aliens now traverse the galaxy, seeding earth-like planets, so that upon their next visit these worlds will be ripe for vacationing… or harvesting! (Yikes!)
Or perhaps the Hindus are correct, and we were created by Lord Brahma, and the universe is continuously being destroyed and recreated with the help of Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva.
Philosophy professor Nick Bostrom from Oxford University offers another possible explanation: perhaps our reality is just a highly advanced simulation, created by our own distant progeny. There have even been experiments geared at detecting patterns that would be consistent with a simulation.
Or maybe eternal gods do exist, and we are them! Only… we don’t know it. Maybe we got so bored with eternal life (having seen and done everything a million times over) that we chose to relieve our boredom by temporarily erasing our memories and placing ourselves into a created world like this one, where we can experience newness and adventure once more. And perhaps, when we die, we return to the “real” world, and watch highlight reels of the various challenges and comedic situations we faced, and we share a good laugh with all our eternal friends. (By the way, if this turns out to actually be true, I want all my eternal friends to know I totally figured it out… and that this game sucks! Worst… game… ever. The graphics are okay, I guess, but on the next version let’s have more supermodels and fewer plagues.)
After all, if God requires no explanation for the origin of his spirit, then neither do we, and the odds are about equal that either God or man should happen first upon the scene. In fact, we could even reason that there is more evidence to suggest we came first, since our own existence is easier to establish than God’s.
Or maybe we came first and then secretly created God, and led him to believe he was alone to see how he would respond. Maybe we did this knowing he would create new worlds, that we could then place ourselves into! Like the movie Inception, we are now living in a creation, within a creation, of our own creation! We buried the illusion several layers deep so we’d never figure it out (aaaaaand I just figured it out; one more reason why this game sucks… it’s so obvious!).
I’m not seriously endorsing any of these views, I’m just saying that even if intelligent design were proven, there are many possible explanations for who designed life and how, and Christianity may not be the most reasonable of all possible hypotheses.
Even though the origin of life is still a mystery, it’s not the silver bullet many Christians imagine it to be. Proof of design would narrow down the possibilities, but it would not prove that immaterial spirits exist, or that gods exist, or that we are eternal, or that man is living in a fallen sinful state, or that heaven and hell are real; it would only prove that something else came first (and seeing as how we exist, such a possibility doesn’t seem all that impossible).
The something that created us could be anything. We might be the product of another god, or gods, or aliens, or alien humanoids, or even ourselves! We might exist in a real world, or in a simulation, created by any of the aforementioned candidates. Or we may owe our existence to something not yet identified, that created us using some methodology not yet understood.
Even if we were able to prove that the God of the Jews was the intelligent designer, we might still be wrong about Jesus, or Muhammad, or Joseph Smith. Or maybe God did create us, but then killed himself! The possibilities are endless, and every claim must stand or fall on its own merit.
But the simple fact remains that intelligent design has not been proven, so there still exists the very real possibility that we are not designed, and that we are nothing more than the product of chance emergence. All we really know is that we exist; maybe we’re the first, maybe we’re not.
“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”
― Arthur C. Clarke
One final potentiality is that scientists may one day announce that they have discovered the order of chemical reactions necessary to create life. News to which Christians would, no doubt, respond: “Yes, but who designed the chemicals?”
Hi, I think a very compelling case for “why the Christian God” has already been made by many writers. Here’s one I found quite striking by J. Warner Wallace (bear with me, it’s a long read):
Stepping Toward God With a Wallet and a Dollar
I’ve been talking to my dad about the existence of God for several years. He describes himself as an agnostic who leans toward atheism, but it’s clear from our discussions he’s as far from theism as anyone could be. He’s also an evidentialist who worked as a police officer and detective for nearly 30 years. We tend to think a lot alike (I was also an atheist detective until the age of 35), and I can relate to his skepticism.
Many years ago, while waiting for my kids to finish a ride at a local water park, we had perhaps our best and most extended conversation on the reasonable nature of Christian theism. Our conversation began as we were talking about the beauty of the universe. Sitting by the edge of a large swimming pool, I began to look for a way to illustrate some of the foundational problems philosophical naturalism has in attempting to describe the nature and origin of life the cosmos. If we had been sitting on the beach, I would have drawn some ideas in the sand, but in the moment, as we were waiting in a crowded amusement park, I tried to think of a quick alternative. I decided to use my wallet to make a case for what I believe as a theist.
I pulled my wallet from my pocket and opened the money section. I showed him the single dollar bill in the billfold (I seldom carry cash when an ATM card will suffice), and simply asked him to help me understand how the money got there. Clearly, the dollar bill is an amazing object. It contains so much detail; specific numbers and drawings and words are inked on the paper. It is clearly the result of a design process. “So, Dad, how did the dollar bill get in the wallet?” He gave me the most obvious and reasonable explanation: he said I put the bill in the wallet. Actually, anyone could have placed the bill in the wallet, but since he saw me take the wallet from my pocket, he reasonably inferred I was the person who placed the dollar there. His answer made sense in light of the physical evidence.
I asked him, however, to limit his answer to wallet’s interior. I encouraged him to explain how the bill got in the wallet, but to provide an answer from inside the billfold exclusively. I can’t be the answer, given this new limitation, as I exist outside the wallet. At first he resisted. The limitation seemed unreasonable. How could the dollar get in the wallet if it wasn’t placed in there by someone or something outside the wallet? I asked him to play along with my thought experiment, however, and when he was unable to think of how the dollar got there, I offered him two creative explanations: (1) perhaps the dollar was always in the wallet. Maybe it is as old as the wallet and has always been there, or (2) perhaps the dollar formed over time from much more primitive materials in the wallet. Neither answer seemed reasonable to my father.
“You see”, I told my dad, “with this simple illustration I’ve described the problem philosophical naturalists and materialists have when they try to explain how life began in the universe.” How does matter come from non-matter? How does life come from non-life? If only natural forces are in play, we simply cannot go outside the physical realm for an answer. In essence, we cannot go outside the wallet. Life in this universe is either infinitely old, or it has evolved over time. But of course, these two explanations have inherent problems exposed by the fields of philosophy and science.
The scientific study of the universe is replete with evidence the universe had a beginning. In addition, the idea the universe and life within the universe is infinitely old suffers from an infinite regress problem. In addition, if time had no beginning, it would be impossible for us to get to today. And any discussion of evolution as a solution to our dollar bill problem still requires us to explain how the base material for the dollar got in the wallet in the first place. If life evolved from primal matter, how did this primal matter come into existence? We’ve simply pushed our dilemma back one level. Naturalism must explain how the pieces required for the formation of the dollar got in the wallet in the first place.
Clearly the most satisfying answer for how a highly designed object appears within the wallet is to conclude someone placed the object in the wallet. When we force ourselves to limit our answers to sources inside the wallet, we create an unreasonable (and biased) restriction. The most unbiased approach would at least allow us to consider explanations exterior to the wallet. In a similar way, it seems to me the most unbiased science would also respect the reasonable inference the supernatural might be in play.
I used this illustration to help my dad understand why I am not satisfied with a naturalistic answer related to life within the universe, and to explain the reason why I think supernatural theism is the only reasonable inference. But let’s face it, this approach, at best, simply illustrates the reasonableness of theism. It does nothing to bring me to the conclusion that Christianity is true. I needed to take two more small steps with him. I’ll describe these steps in my next two posts.
Stepping Toward a Personal God With A Wallet and a Dollar
Yesterday I described a simple illustration I used with my father to make the case for theism using a wallet and a dollar (you’ll probably need to read that article to make sense of today’s blog). The point of the object lesson was to establish the inadequacy of naturalism in describing the origin of matter and life in the universe. But this first step in the illustration simply made the case for theism. The first argument I offered with the wallet and the dollar could easily apply to any number of theistic worldviews, however, including pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, deism or monotheism. Even if we are convinced that the first appearance of life in the universe is best explained as the result of a ‘First Cause” Creator God from outside the natural realm, this still leaves us several options as to the nature of this God. Is this God personal? Isn’t it possible that the God who formed matter from non-matter and life from non-life may simply be some kind of impersonal force? After all, many world religions would suggest this is the case. I wanted to extend the illustration for my father to explain why I believed in a personal God.
I told him I believe this creator God is a personal God based on His ability to decide. I asked my dad to examine the wallet again. What happens, I asked, if I simply let go of the wallet? What forces are felt by the wallet? I let go of the wallet and it immediately dropped to the ground. Why did that happen? Why didn’t it just float for a minute and then drop to the ground when gravity decided to act on it? Why don’t we ever see that happen? You and I already know the answer: gravity does not decide when to act. Gravity is an impersonal force, and the effect of an impersonal force is felt the minute the force enters into the environment.
If we were floating around in a zero gravity environment (an imaginary room, for example) and we then inserted the force of gravity into this room, we would all immediately be pulled to the floor. The effect of the gravity is felt the minute gravity enters the room. That’s the way impersonal forces work. They can’t decide whether or not they will activate their effect. Their impact is felt immediately; the minute the force enters the room. Gravity doesn’t enter the room and say, “Not yet, not yet, not yet… OK, now!” Gravity cannot decide when its effect will be felt. It cannot decide when it will act. The ability to decide whether to act is a characteristic of personhood. The ability to move and act freely as a result of a conscious independent decision is a characteristic of free agency. It is a characteristic common to persons, not impersonal forces.
What does this tell us about the force responsible for creating the universe? Well, if it’s an impersonal force, it can only be as old as the universe. In other words, the minute the impersonal force existed, its creative power was felt, and all space, time and matter also began. Remember our gravity example: the minute gravity appears, you feel its power. In a similar way, the minute an impersonal creative force appears, we would then observe its power in the creation of the universe. This means the impersonal force would only be as old as the universe created as a result of its existence.
But if that is true, we have a dilemma. If the creative cause of the universe is only as old as the universe itself, then we must ask the obvious question: “What caused that force to exist?” Whatever caused the cause of the universe; this would then be the more powerful cause we would want to identify. Do you see the problem here? A true and singular first cause must be eternal by definition. In a very real sense, we innately know the cause of this “caused universe” must be some kind of eternal, uncaused, first cause with the ability to decide. Whatever caused this universe, it did so as a decision, and this ability to decide gives away the fact the first cause of the universe is a personal force.
I told my dad I believe personal theism is true because the first, uncaused cause of the universe was able to decide as a personal agent. About eight minutes into the conversation, I was able to make a case for theism and personal theism, but this still left us with a number of theistic options. My father, a committed atheist my entire life, married his second wife over forty years ago. She became a Mormon and together they had six children all raised in the LDS Church. The argument I made so far with the wallet and the dollar could also be used to make a case for the god(s) of Mormonism. It was important, therefore, for me to take one more step with my illustration to explain why I believed the personal God who created everything in the universe was, in fact, the Christian God described in the New Testament. I’ll describe this last step in tomorrow’s post.
Stepping Toward the Christian God With A Wallet and a Dollar
I’ve been writing about an object lesson I used with my father several years ago to describe why God’s existence is reasonable. I used this illustration while I was waiting with him at a waterpark (my kids were little in those days), and I was limited to what I had on hand: my wallet and a dollar bill. I began with an argument for theism, then moved toward an argument for personal theism. In the final step of my object lesson, I made an argument for Christian theism (you may want to visit the links to catch up with the first two steps). While these simple object lessons are obviously less than perfect, I do think they capture the essence of our arguments and they certainly started a conversation related to the existence and nature of God. Today, I’d like to share the final step in my object lesson as I made a case for the God of Christianity.
If there is a God who is all-powerful and personal, it certainly makes sense He might be concerned for the welfare of His personal creations. If He doesn’t care about us, why would he create us in the first place? If He had the choice not to create us (He could have decided otherwise), the fact He chose to create us should give us good reason to think He actually cares about us. Even the atheist has to explain why there is something here when there could easily be nothing. It is reasonable to infer a God who creates (when He doesn’t have to) would care about the condition of His creation. A God like this would want to guide His created beings toward true moral goodness, the kind of goodness that would reflect His own character. After all, a Being with this kind of incredible power (the power to decide to create the entire universe) would also have the power to eliminate imperfection, including moral imperfection. A God like this would be a perfect being.
It makes sense a personal creator God would want his personal creations to understand and strive for the very values that reflect His nature. It’s reasonable to assume a personal God might present us with guidelines for living and then encourage us to live by these guidelines. And this is where we need to take some time to think about the nature of God. Let’s think about how God might reasonably expect us to live a truly moral life. Our human instinct is to create rules we can follow so we can measure our success and judge how close we are to being Godly, but does a system of rules actually create a Godly person?
Take a look at my wallet. It’s still on the ground from the last step in my object lesson. Imagine I have a really bad back and I’m unable to bend over to pick up the wallet. I might ask you to pick it up for me, and if you did, this generous action on your part might be viewed as a morally good act. I might then find myself wanting to reward you by giving you the dollar that started this whole conversation. But what if you knew in advance that I would give you the dollar as a reward if you would help me pick up the wallet? What if you only picked up the wallet because you wanted that dollar? Would your actions still be seen as morally good, or would your greedy motive ruin the nature of the action? If you and I are only being good so we can earn a prize, are we being truly good? If all my good actions were driven by my desire to get something in return, would we still call my actions good?
It seems to me rule-based and work-based religious systems don’t actually produce good people. They instead produce people who look good. True goodness is a heart condition. It’s a reflection of who we are when no one is looking. It’s a reflection of our desire to do what’s right, even when there is nothing in it for us. It’s one thing to experience joy or satisfaction for doing what you know you ought to do; it’s another thing to do something only because you are hoping to gain a prize. If we are only performing because we are hoping to get the reward of Salvation, we’re merely trying to serve ourselves by earning a prize. On the other hand, if our hearts are so changed we desire to behave morally even when the carrot of Salvation is not dangling in front of us, then we can say that we truly are good people.
If you are looking for a spiritual worldview in which truly good people are even possible, you are going to have to look for one that does not require good works. Now what religious worldview teaches Salvation is not the result of anything you can do, but is instead the result of something already done for you by God Himself? There is only one: it is called Christianity. The Christian worldview teaches Jesus came to pay the price for every less than perfect thing you ever did; every sin and crime you’ve ever committed. God doesn’t judge us based on any good deed we might do, because our good deeds aren’t all that impressive if you really think about it. Instead, God accepts us on the basis of who Jesus is and the price He paid for us, if we will only believe in Him and trust Him instead of ourselves. Good works are not required for Salvation, even though they are typically the result of our transformation. True moral goodness comes when we live and love in response to what has already been done for us, and not because we are hoping to win a prize. I believe that Christian theism is true because it best accounts for God’s desire to enable and encourage true moral behavior.
So, in the end, I think there are some really good reasons to believe what I believe about God and the nature of His message to us. I am a Christian because: (1) I believe theism best accounts for the appearance of our universe, (2) I believe that personal theism best accounts for the nature of the first cause of the universe and the fact this cause had the ability to decide to begin the universe, and (3) I believe Christian theism best accounts for the possibility of true moral goodness (something a personal God would desire for his creation). The Christian Worldview best accounts for the reality we see in our universe and in our lives as moral beings. Could more be said about Christianity? Of course; this primitive object lesson only began the conversation with my dad. But in three short steps I hoped to place Christianity in a position of rational consideration.
On the first article: evolution and abiogenesis are two different fields of science. We still don’t know how we came from nothing, but we have absolute 100% proof that we evolved from simple organisms. As much proof as we have about any other fundamentals of science, like gravity.
So in the analogy, who created the guy putting the dollar in the wallet? That only poses more questions, it doesn’t satisfyingly answer the question. See http://www.godfallacies.com #7.
On the second article: just because a deity decided to create stuff doesn’t automatically means he decides to care about us. The author just assumes this is so without explaining why. There’s no reason why not. After all, isn’t it the theists that tell us that we can’t understand God? We can’t use our own logic for a deity, that’s just arrogant. Just because we can’t understand why a God would create something and not care about it doesn’t mean it can be assumed that’s just how it is. Plus, the author is ignoring a third option. One where a creator cares about us, but doesn’t interfere with us. I personally don’t like this explanation, because why wouldn’t he care about people suffering, but if you are a Christian, you have ways to explain that away, don’t you? So the same could go for a god that cares about us, but doesn’t interfere with us.
Also, just because gravity is an impersonal force doesn’t mean all impersonal forces have to act like gravity….
And the third point is the weakest of all. There’s tons of things I could say about it.
> A God like this would want to guide His created beings toward true moral goodness, the kind of goodness that would reflect His own character.
We could have a long debate over why God didn’t just create us like this to begin with….
‘After all, a Being with this kind of incredible power (the power to decide to create the entire universe) would also have the power to CREATE US WITHOUT imperfection, including moral imperfection.’
> A God like this would be a perfect being.
Another thing that is just assumed. Just because something has great power and can create living things doesn’t necessarily mean that they are perfect in every way! There is no reason stated for why this is just assumed.
> Would your actions still be seen as morally good, or would your greedy motive ruin the nature of the action?
This is a complicated question that can’t be as easily answered as the author would think. Morality is a complicated subject and the Bible doesn’t give all the answers. Consider The Trolley Problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
I believe a lot if not most Christians are motivated somehow to do good. with the promise of heaven if you are good and hell if you are bad. It’s in every aspect of society. We are always acting in our self-interests, even when helping others. If you do something self-sacrificing it makes you feel good, and if you do something selfish, it makes you feel bad. If we didn’t have this, we could never have come as far as we have as a society, so this isn’t really evidence of a creator. We NEEDED this, or we wouldn’t be alive.
> True goodness is a heart condition.
No, it’s a brain condition. What makes someone a good person has to do with genetics and upbringing, mostly. There’s no evidence you are born good or bad.
> Now what religious worldview teaches Salvation is not the result of anything you can do, but is instead the result of something already done for you by God Himself?
This is skirting around the issue. Are good people rewarded or not? If they are rewarded, yes, that is motivation, whether you believe God “chose” you or not. Anyway, I don’t understand how this is evidence the Bible is the inspired word of God, which Christianity derives from.
> There is only one: it is called Christianity.
This is a bold-faced lie. There are a lot of other religions that say you are chosen by God. And tons of denominations within Christianity like that. Which one is true? Heck, I can create a religion on the spot right now like that. What makes you believe your denomination of Christianity rather than my new religion I just made, if this is your core evidence of what makes the right religion?
Again, I don’t see how this proves the Bible is a creator god’s one and only holy book.
I don’t have time to do the whole thing, so I’ll just tackle one part for now – the post about the uncaused cause.
The first thing to say is that forces such as gravity aren’t necessarily just on or off. The force of gravity manifests itself in different ways depending on the conditions prevalent at the time. In fact, this is true of all the fundamental physical forces. We know that at high energies, such as existed at the big bang, all of the fundamental forces had the same strength – they were unified. And then, as things cooled down, differences ‘froze out’ bit by bit. Physicists think that gravity was initially repulsive, for example, causing inflation of the universe. Later, it became attractive.
garbonzo asks the question ‘What caused that force to exist?’ But the answer ‘God did it’ relies on the presumption that ‘impersonal forces’ require pre-existing causes in the first place. The argument is a common one that takes this form:
1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
This can be attacked on a number of levels, but a major problem is that even if each step of the argument is true, there’s no reason to posit a personal God as the relevant cause. Why not an impersonal physical cause due to processes in some larger multiverse, for example? Gravity might be only as old as the universe, but why couldn’t whatever caused gravity be older than the universe – perhaps even eternal?
If there was a pre=existing cause of the universe, then one argument might be that it couldn’t be eternal; it must itself have a cause. But if the argument is that nothing can be eternal, then why can God be eternal? If, on the other hand, everything must have a cause (as we appear to have accepted by accepting premiss (1), above), then it seems that God must be caused, too. What then was the cause of God? And if God doesn’t need a cause after all (so that He is the ‘uncaused cause’), then why not say that the universe doesn’t need a cause instead? Wouldn’t that be more parsimonious? Why introduce a supernatural being into the discussion?
It’s not clear to me why any posited ‘eternal cause’ for the universe must be personal or have the ability to decide anything. Maybe the eternal cause is a set of overarching physical laws that create universes willy-nilly, and we just happen to live in one of the ones that is suitable for life. Also, why must the cause of the universe be ‘more powerful’ than the universe? Who knows? It might be quite easy to create a universe. Perhaps every black hole creates a universe at the other end. We don’t know.
> How does matter come from non-matter? How does life come from non-life? If only natural forces are in play, we simply cannot go outside the physical realm for an answer. In essence, we cannot go outside the wallet.
The wallet is a flawed analogy. A wallet doesn’t ordinarily contain everything that is necessary to build a dollar bill from scratch. In contrast, the universe clearly does contain everything needed to build life from scratch.
> The scientific study of the universe is replete with evidence the universe had a beginning. In addition, the idea the universe and life within the universe is infinitely old suffers from an infinite regress problem. In addition, if time had no beginning, it would be impossible for us to get to today.
It’s not clear to me why we should rule out infinite regression as untenable. Perhaps you can explain.
As for the statement that we couldn’t get here from there, compare the natural numbers. There is an infinite number of integers. They have no ‘beginning’. Therefore, by the argument being put here, it is impossible for us to count from 1 to 10. We can never ‘get to’ the number 1.
> And any discussion of evolution as a solution to our dollar bill problem still requires us to explain how the base material for the dollar got in the wallet in the first place. If life evolved from primal matter, how did this primal matter come into existence? We’ve simply pushed our dilemma back one level. Naturalism must explain how the pieces required for the formation of the dollar got in the wallet in the first place.
And if your own answer is ‘God put the pieces there’, then you’ve simply pushed the dilemma back another level. Theists must then explain how God got there in the first place.
> Clearly the most satisfying answer for how a highly designed object appears within the wallet is to conclude someone placed the object in the wallet. When we force ourselves to limit our answers to sources inside the wallet, we create an unreasonable (and biased) restriction. The most unbiased approach would at least allow us to consider explanations exterior to the wallet. In a similar way, it seems to me the most unbiased science would also respect the reasonable inference the supernatural might be in play.
Science is the study of the natural world. If – and only if – science fails to provide an explanation, then we might need to invoke the supernatural and toss science out the window. But in actual fact, science has some pretty good ideas about where the universe came from – even if they aren’t yet verified.
Man is to God, what a bacteria is to Man. A bacteria living in the human body if it were sentient and able to reason like man, may try to envision the existence of a “being” called “Man” So, we have a conversation between an “Atheist” Bactria A , and “Theist” bacteria B
A. I do not believe in a “being” called Man.
B. But Man exists.He is very powerful. He created all that exists. He is our provider
A. Aw common, How can it be and yet all this suffering in the world.
B. You do not understand. When we suffer, he is also suffering.
A. I guess he cannot be all mighty then.
B. But he is!
A. And personal.
B. Of course.
A. And all knowing
A. How does he look like
B. He is incomparable to anything ………………….
Man is God! what a bacteria is to man, so can we conclude that we are just bacteria, causing irritation/cancer to the entire body? and also… .
Your story, its dialogues and thinking in the bacteria level only, as a small tablet with water is sufficient to kill our entire group? Is it?
Shame on bacteria, human!
“if it were sentient and able to reason like man”
Comparison, I am not saying that Man is God. But as an Image of God, we can compare just for the purpose of explaining to Atheists who God is like. You know, in order to know Him, we need to so-to-speak reduced him to our human logic. So, just as a bacteria living in a human being is (if it were a reasoning bacteria-which it is not) incapable of understanding or wrapping the totality of the Human Being in its tiny head, so is man incapable of understanding God.
Bacteria can’t think. Say there were tiny humans inside of us, yes, they would be capable of understanding that they are actually inside another living being like themselves, eventually. There’s no reason why they couldn’t.
Also, we are not personal or almighty to a bacteria. And didn’t create them, we just let them strive, we also don’t care about their safety, much like our universe compared to us.
Bacteria can’t Think
I did not say the could.
“they would be capable of understanding that they are actually inside another living being like themselves, eventually”
Most likely they do not know.
“Also, we are not personal or almighty to a bacteria”
They do not think, so the “Almighty” factor does not factor. Comparison.
“And didn’t create them, we just let them strive, we also don’t care about their safety, much like our universe compared to us.”
Your body actually creates some of them, though you may not know
Who said bacteria can’t think? Have you spoken to them? Only humans need brain to think! even then we can’t think to know the future! We are bacteria to God. but
Are you agreeing that Almighty is incomparable to Humans?
“To whom can you compare me, equate me, to who can you claim I am equal or comparable? Isaiah 46: 5-9
So, apparently God cannot be compared to anything that man has. But still, to know Him, we must seek something that tells us or infers to the nature of God.
Man, was created as an Image and Likeness of God. So, whatever the nature of God is, there is something in Man, which infers the nature of God. That, which infers to the nature of God in Man, is the Mind of Man.
Man thinks, so……..God thinks.
“for my thoughts, are not your thoughts, my ways not your ways-Its Yahweh who speaks” Isaiah 55:6-9.
Man is Intelligent……………So God is Intelligent.
Man, is a microcosm of the Macrocosm.
God is Light.
“I the Light, have come down to the World so that all who believe in me won’t have to stay any longer in the dark.” John 12:46:46
We are made of Light.
“You could also say that from the point of view of present field theory, the fundamental fields are those of very high energy in which mass can be neglected, which would be essentially moving at the speed of light. Mass is a phenomenon of connecting light rays which go back and forth, sort of freezing them into a pattern. So matter, as it were, is condensed or frozen light” David Bohm, (See Marks Weber “Dialogues with saints and sages: The Search for Unity)
The Universe is a Hologram
“The nature of reality and of consciousness is a coherent whole, which is never static or complete but which is an unending process of movement and unfoldment….. Particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something”. David Bohm early 1980’s
Human Mind is a Hologram
See Karl Pribram & Karl Lashley works
Each one of us, is a seed of the Universe. And each one of us, have a seed of God who is the Christ.
“I tell you most solemnly, unless a grain of wheat falls on the ground and dies, it remains only a single grain; but if it dies, it yields a rich harvest” John 12: 24-25
Really great article as always 500Q! I appreciate the inclusion of Ancient Aliens, you know it’s my jam. 😉 (Check out the Starchild Skull for some real evidence!)
> And perhaps, when we die, we return to the “real” world, and watch highlight reels of the various challenges and comedic situations we faced, and we share a good laugh with all our eternal friends.
Glad this was brought up too, it’s something I’ve thought about since I was 14 or so, one of my first ideas after being indoctrinated with Christianity.
You’ve touched on a few problems with it though. Why would we want to put ourselves through unbearable suffering? Or maybe YOU aren’t really real, and my destiny / fate doesn’t have suffering in it. Still, if this were the case, why is my life so boring? We play video games with tons of action in it and / or adventure, I’d expect nothing less from what is essentially the video games of the future. Heck, if the CIA recruited me tomorrow, or something equally as exciting, it’s so unlikely that if it happened, I’d be more likely to believe this is a simulation rather than the odds of something like that happening to me.
I’m not sure I would like to erase my memory myself. If I were bored I’d erase part of my memory, like a movie, etc. but not the part that makes me who I am. But then again, maybe my simulation self is smarter than my other self! Unlikely, but interesting…. Also who knows what kind of logic pervades the “outside world”.
The Hard Problems Of Consciousness
It appears you wrote this article…? Without knowing how consciousness works, we cannot say it supports design (this would be an argument from ignorance), but it is a fascinating topic, and one I will cover under a future question.
It seems like he reads David Chalmers articles / books.
Sorry, I normally have a very small window for reading articles and replying. I modified this article from a manuscript am still working on, titles “The Sword of God” It basically deals with a reconciliation of all knowledge. Am still polishing it and of course, since I am a student in most of what I am writing, my arguments may look to lay to professionals, but I do not mind criticism Its part of learning. Let me condense another part for consciousness as evidence of Intelligent Design.
Wholeness and Implicate Order
“The nature of reality and of consciousness is a coherent whole, which is never static or complete but which is an unending process of movement and unfoldment….. Particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something”. David Bohm early 1980’s
Some scientists have had the courage to tentatively approach some spiritual leaders of various religions, mostly Eastern, to find out whether they, they might throw light into the apparent mystical nature of reality, as revealed by Quantum Mechanics. Some have dabbed in Hinduism, others into Buddhism and other religions of the East, which claim that reality is a “Maya” or a kind of an illusion . There are some have even joined the Christian faith, reading critically at the bible to find answers. Others have come up with some bold suggestions, about the apparent confusing weird world that is inferred by quantum Mechanics. One of the scientist who gave a rather revolutionary view of reality is the late David Bohm. He was Albert Einstein’s colleague and former professor of theoretical physics at Birbeck College of the University of London. Bohm was inspired by the idea of looking at the manifests reality from a holistic perspective, when he was studying plasma systems. In his book, “Wholeness and Implicate Order’
Professor Bohm suggested that we need to approach the sturdy of reality and the universe as one Undivided Whole, which is not made of parts. This wholeness, is in a perpetual state of dynamic, and coherent flux, manifesting what we refer to as “things” Bohm said that the perception of particles that communicate instantly at a distance is merely an illusion, and in fact, these particles are essence of the same “something” that is manifesting the reality that we perceive. Bohm saw our physical reality being a manifests phenomena as an order, unfolding from a more complex order which is hidden within it, which he called an implicate order. He said, “The nature of reality and of consciousness is a coherent whole, which is never static or complete but which is an unending process of movement and unfoldment….. Particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something”. (David Bohm Wholeness and Implicate Order’ 1980)
David Bohm also argued that what happened during the EPR experiment is not that , subatomic particle were moving and having a mystical communication. He suggested that the idea of communication was an illusion. That its not as if one were applying an experiment in two particles. Rather most likely, it was the same particle! He gave the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium with a fish. Imagine, also that you are not able to see this aquarium directly, but that your knowledge of it and what is in it, come from two television monitor in a room. These two monitors receive signals from two television cameras, one in front of the aquarium, and the other at its side. As you look at these two television monitor connected to different cameras, you might assume that the fish on each screen is a different entity. But as you closely observe them, you notice that there is some strange relationship between them, in that when ever one turns right, the other one makes a contra turn. When one is staring straight ahead, the other is staring at the side. At some time, you might even think that the two fish are communicating with each other. But this is not the case. Its just one fish, whose perception of it is distorted by the mechanism of observation. Bohm says that this is what happened in regard to measurement of subatomic particles by Allan Aspect team.
He suggested that there is a reality of a more complex dimension, that we are not yet privy too, and only gets inferences from its potions. This is the reality which he explains as “Wholeness” Bohn suggests that there is an implicate order, enfolded in the reality we perceive, and out of which this order we perceive as physical reality unfolds, as an explicit it order of appearances, and then enfolds back into the Implicate Order. To David Bohm, everything is interconnected in One unified unbroken whole. He says, “If man thinks of the totality as constituted of independent fragments, then that is how his mind will tend to operate, but if he can include everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole that is undivided, unbroken, and without a border then his mind will tend to move in a similar way, and from this will flow an orderly action within the whole. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980) This idea of unbroken whole, has also been accepted by other leading scientists. A French physicist Bernard D’Espagnat appear to have agreed with Bohm when he said that “the entire notion of an external, fixed, objective world now lies in conflict not only with quantum theory, but in facts drawn from actual experiments…. in some sense all these objects constitute an indivisible whole.”
According to Bohm the universe exists, as an implicate order, out of which, and explicit order unfolds as the physical reality we apprehend. The explicate order is the one that appears to exist. In this reality of explicit order, there appears to be boundaries, where parts make up the whole and things appear “spatially extended” and existing , in “space” and “time”. In the implicate order, however, whole makes the parts, in a kind of holographic state. It’s a timelessness reality of unbroken wholeness, an everlasting consciousness, where there are no boundaries, space, or time. There is only Oneness. This implicate Order, governs and determines the manifest reality.
The Holographic Paradigm
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Planck
David Bohm has further suggests that the whole universe, is structured like one gigantic virtual phantasm, or hologram. A Hologram represents both visible and invisible image. This is a three dimension virtual image that is produced using coherent light, of a laser beam, whereby a light wave interference pattern is recorded on a film, and then reproduced as a three dimension image, when illuminated. In creating a Hologram, a laser beam is split in to two by a beam splitter . One laser beam (the object beam) is shone on an object, and the other beam, (the reference beam) shines directly and acts as a guide of the other. Both beams are then joined together and recoded on a special photographic plate. If one shines a laser beam on this plate, a three dimension holographic image of the object appears. What is interesting about this image, is that even if you tear potions of the plate, the holographic image does not get cut off or. Rather, it continues to appear as a whole, only that it gets more and more blurred as more and more parts of the plate are cut. Thus, the information about the whole image appear to be written in every part of the plate. That is, every part of the image, contains information about the whole image! Bohm claimed, that the universe and our reality is also fashioned like this holographic film. It explains the so-called, “spooky communication at a distance” inferred to by Einstein, where particle appear to communicate instantaneously. What appears to us as separateness entities with boundaries is actually an illusion. Bohm argues that this holographic image is an example of his idea of an implicate unfolding an explicit order. The three dimension image produced, is an explicit order or unfolded order. The information contained about the image in the beams is an implicate order or enfoldment. Therefore according to Bohm, the physical universe, is an emergence from an implicate order of quantum information potential which organizes itself and unfolds an explicate order which we perceive as realty. ( See The Essential David Bohm)
The Holographic Universe
“We are part of nature as a whole whose order we follow”. (Spinoza, Ethics, 1673)
David Bohm extends his idea of holographic nature of reality, and suggests that whatever we perceive as reality are not “things” but rather, a holomovement of ideas, which are interrelated, and part of the whole, containing information about the whole from each part. In this idea of the reality, David says that we should recognize it as “movement” and “totality” This Holo-movement Bohm says, has two constituents. Movements and appearances. Its movement which creates appearances. Appearances suggest boundaries which in reality do not exists. But in itself, its one humongous virtual non-local reality, which is enfolding, and unfolding, as an explicit order, out of an implicate order, of unbroken whole, a timelessness, space less and one without boundaries. “The enfolding-unfolding universe and consciousness” Events and objects perceived are mare ideas, created by the mind, and hence, it imposes “space” “time” and “boundaries” as it interprets and gives meaning to reality. But the whole, is unbroken Oneness. The non-locality of universe, and the quantum entanglement, leads to the idea, that given that the totality that we observe is mare movement of wave like patterns of energy, in this Holo-movement, all is energy, and movement. The universe therefore unfolds like a gigantic phantasm, a Ghostly crystal ball, of totality where there exists no parts, but one wholeness or oneness. What is seen in our physical reality, as the reality of “space and time”, is in the implicate order, or a holo-movement of consciousness. In this wholeness, there is information about the whole universe that is contained in every part of the universe however small and every part of the universe, contains information that can replicate it. In this a timeless, space less, boundary less reality, one make all. In essence, every part of the universe is itself a seed of the universe. One can also imagine the universe as a humongous ghostly crystal ball of light, in which matter is a projection or an appearance of a wave motion of light, from a deeper reality, of the implicate order. This light has been coherently directed, appearing as if it has been slowed down, to actualize what we perceive as matter and reality, which include galaxies, stars, planets, and everything we observe, including ourselves. In this crystal ball, everything is light differentiated and movement and therefore connected as a Hologram.
Okay, the film has started join in asap, ended, can we go back to our real normal world!
Everyone’s, dreams do not turn become reality, does it? We have a lot of expectations, though.
Some of dreams, I liked and would like all your votes!(Points to ponder)
1. Even if we were designed, it does not necessarily follow that we were designed by the God of the Bible…then?
2. It would then cause us to wonder who or what the designer is (or was) and how he came to be without a designer to form them.
3. We might owe our existence to other aliens, not god(s).
4. These highly advanced aliens now traverse the galaxy, seeding earth-like planets, so that upon their next visit these worlds will be ripe for vacationing… or harvesting!(Same thoughts as we have, nothing more!
5.Our reality is just a highly advanced simulation, created by our own distant progeny. (agreed we need to come out, enough of being the models for simulation, anyway we will be discarded.)
6. Or maybe eternal gods do exist, and we are them! Only… we don’t know it. Maybe we got so bored with eternal life (having seen and done everything a million times over) that we chose to relieve our boredom by temporarily erasing our memories and placing ourselves into a created world like this one, (very close)
7. I want all my eternal friends to know I totally figured it out… and that this game sucks! Worst…
(Please my friends also, if at all you find them)
8. After all, if God requires no explanation for the origin of his spirit, then neither do we, and the odds are about equal that either God or man should happen first upon the scene. (Cannot complete in this, please create new post)
9. Proof of design vs Proof of Gods existence, We have already discussed, but for the benefit of the newer audience,
Starting from cell to Organs and their systems, from atom to galaxies…if these are working in harmony then you need some eternal power to control these, as we all the sophistication have accidents as if it was predetermined?
You are breathing? then, without your knowledge you are absorbing oxygen and letting out carbon di oxide? How? Why?
In parallel your digestive system is converting the solid food and liquid food into energy? Why? How?
You eye are seeing something it is getting transmitted to brain, where it processes and tells what the image is? How? Why?
You are able to smell and give reference to previously stored.How? Why?
Same with recognizing taste and sound? How? Why?
Let us first, understand these basics with which we are born, worst. We are fed through umbilical cord inside our Mothers stomach! for 9 month!?
Then we can discuss on the next layer!
“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”― Arthur C. Clark( so let us not live in second level of illusion)
And the film has ended, can we go back to our real normal illusion world!
The Dream Reality
“And so, He did this so that they might seek the deity and, by feeling their way towards Him, succeed in finding Him; and indeed he is not far from any of us, since it is in Him that we live and move and exist, as in deed some of you own writers have said: We are his Children” Acts 17: 27-27
Let us, for the purpose of further demonstration compare this so-called physical reality with another kind of reality. This reality, is the dream reality. When he is asleep, we find that the Mind of Man, is a generator of a reality we call “Dream State” This reality, generated by the mind, seems quite real to us, when we are asleep. The dream reality replicate the reality we find ourselves in when we arise. In the dream reality, everything we experience assumes total authenticity. It appears so real, such that its impossible to imagine that all that all that we experience in the dreamland, the people we meet, the places we go to, the things we do, is all generated by the mind.
Nobody knows he is dreaming when he is in dream state. Its difficult to consciously recognize when in the dream state, that we are all that has happened in the dream reality. That we were the people, the places, and the things that we did. That we were both, the generators, and experiencers of the dream reality. In our dream state, our mind behave as it its receiving sensory data, just as in the waking stated, and these senses appear to function just as well as if we were awake. We can see, smell, touch, taste, etc. In that dream state, our mind convince us that this drama unfolding in the dream state we are experiencing, is “real” “true” and “out there” differentiated from us, who are experiencing it. That this dream reality, is disconnected from us, and separate and apart from us, and we are merely experiencing it. It appears objective and physical, and indifferent to us as subjective observers . Yet, when we wake up, this illusion disappears. We find that it was all a dream. Whatever happened, the people we met, the things we did, that it was all “us”. We were these people, we were these places, we were the things, and we were these experiences. Our mind generated all this reality. It did not exist, apart from our mind. The mind expressed, it, and experienced it.
Now, in our waking state, we find ourselves in another reality, exactly which appears as a replication of the dream reality. In this reality, our senses, convince our minds that this reality we are now experiencing in our wakeful state, is real. Its out there, its true. Its physically separate, and disconnected from us. It exists apart from us. That we are mare its observers, who have a subjective experience of the separate, objective and disconnected reality. However, one thing we have just found out is that this waking reality is as much a generation of our mind, though our senses experiences, just as the dream reality is a generation of the same mind when it was asleep. This waking reality, is a reality perceived through our sensory organs, which our mind impose parameters, and interpret as existing out there. Our senses tells us that whatever is out there, be it “things” or “people” is separate from us. Yet, this reality, the waking reality, is as much a generation of the mind just as the dream reality. Without the mind interpreting these sensory data, thus experiencing this reality, we cannot tell what these “things in themselves are”.
The main question is this; why, should we accept this waking reality as the true reality, and reject the dream realty as an illusion, yet, both are a creation of the same mind? The point is, if at all, when we woke up we found that all that we dream was us, why should we accept the waking reality, any less a dream reality, than the reality generated when we are asleep?
Science has at last indicated that all physical realty is actually one unbroken whole, made of spherical standing light waves, in motion, actualizing what appears as objective matter. That somehow, even if we are not conscious of it, we are all connected, with everything and everyone, no matter the appearance of separateness. Quantum Mechanics, have shown that the physical reality is non-local, and entangled at quantum realm, existing in a state of supper positioning and only becomes real when observed.
That quantum coherent superposition of states. Quantum entangled of wave structure of matter, in the quantum realms reduces matter and reality as a waves of indeterminate state. Matter and reality is basically, Wave, and Motion. That means that, the macro structures , or entities that have been manifested by these quantum super-positioned entities do not in fact, have any definite reality until its observed. That is, at the macro level, it becomes impossible to talk about any physical object having definite properties independent from our observation, if at all, the quantum systems that has manifested its exists as a wave of probability! Its only observation that gives raise to reality and appear to give reality a definite and therefore objective state. Consequently, the possibility of a definite reality existing apart from observation also becomes illogical.
Therefore due to the apparent entanglement property that is to be found at the quantum realm, it not possible to distinguish between internal subjective experience and external objective reality. And given that this reality exists as quantum supper positioning, the only reality we can be sure of, is the present observable moment. And that too, is fleeting, as an object coherent superposition. Its reality that becomes real when its observed. And therefore it’s a reality that is made real by the observer! It cannot exists separate and independent from the observer, and therefore, its entangled with the observer! The Observed, and the Observer are reduced to an idea, unfolding as an experience.
Because of the entangled state of quantum systems, it means that there exists a Quantum Interconnectedness of all and in all, and therefore, just as in a dream reality the perception of separateness of the reality we were generating and experiencing was merely an illusion, in this waking reality, our sense of separateness, is also merely an illusion, caused by our subjective interpretation through sense experience. What waking up confirms to us about the dream state and the dreamer, is the same thing that Quantum entanglement, and super positioning of states of systems has confirmed to us, about the so-called “Objective reality” and the “subjective observer”! That in as much as all dream reality was generated by our mind, and we were all that we experienced in this dream reality, this waking reality we wake up to, is also generated by us as observers. We are therefore as much generators and the ones who experience the physical reality, as we are generators and also the ones who experience the dream reality.
From Quantum Mechanics, we have also learned that Matter is not made of small things. We cannot pin down the ultimate substance that matter is made of. It exists as super positioning of states, as wave of probabilities. That means that, its not possible to prove the existence of anything, except consciousness. Reality that is perceivable through Consciousness necessitates Conscious observers, in order to perceive it. All that exists, therefore is consciousness. Its consciousness that has generated reality, which we experience, because its consciousness that observes and interpret the same reality. We as observers, as part of Consciousness who is God, generate this reality, and experience the same reality.
“The graphics are okay, I guess, but on the next version let’s have more supermodels and fewer plagues.”
“Intelligent Design” is really a perception, depending on how you look at the universe. In reality what exists is chaos, from stars exploding, imploding and being re-born to natural disasters and even birth defects that exists among all life forms. What is true though is that life protects itself by adopting to the chaos.
Forget, Intelligent Design. We are all aged while some maybe 30 or 50… but the truth in reality is that we are not aged, As every cell in our body is replaced in its due time, when every cell is replaced, then where is question of our parts or body getting aged? As every part is new!
We should be living forever then? Why age and death? what is wrong?
“We should be living forever then? Why age and death? what is wrong?”
You are in a dream state. And just like in a dream state everything is an illusion, even so, the waking reality is still an illusion. Death, does not exists. That means that total unconsciousness does not exists. We are not a whiff of smoke that vanishes in the cosmos after we “die” We do not die, even as when we wake up, we do not “die” in the dreamland. Age, is actually a paradox. The more you age, the more you grow. Do not things that you used to do when you were young look foolish when you age? So, age is growth, that leads, (or aught to lead) to maturity in Spirit.
You got it, we cannot die by our-self, but get killed by others and most probably by our, so called habits! It can be anything but to please, our senses from tobacco smoking, chewing, drinking Alcohol, by HIV, AIDS, …WE MURDER OUR SACRED BODY! It was not created to die. Read Bible about Prophets and their life span has been upto 900 years… but we are not exceeding 55 without any health problems. If at all we do is considered as miracle!
There are many ideas as to why we age. For example, our body accumulates DNA damage over our lives that cannot be repaired or is repaired, but now incorporates changes to the genetic code, mutations. While most of these are not detrimental they can lead to problems such as cancer. Accumulate enough damage and we are unable to repair ourselves to 100% or to at least to maintain viability and we die. Also, our body, through its own mechanisms of metabolism and the such produce toxic chemicals and reactive oxygen species, ROS (free radicals). These toxins and ROS are highly damaging and again facilitate damage to our DNA. Another theory is that over time, through cellular division our chromosomes are capped at either end with telomeres. Each round of cell division shortens these telomeres and this is an idea why we age too, albeit it’s not completely worked out yet.
There is no proof the Bible’s stories about 900 year old people are real. And you’ve never heard of death by natural causes?
What is the point we are trying to prove?
Why don’t we answer regarding the cell replacement and our age rather than asking for proof for someone else living which can be proved, but not necessarily for now.
Do you believe in each and every cell in our body getting replaced? then how are we aged?
The “well then, who created God” issue becomes a bit more graspable when we consider that the spirit realm isn’t affected by the confines of the ‘fabric of space and time’. So if time doesn’t pass in the same way then one can see how an almighty being could simply always BE. That universe might not be affected by entropy…at all; and would be why spirits are never said to grow old and die. 1 Cor. 15 refers to the heavenly resurrection of the 144,000 christians destined to rule in Heaven as kings, “For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality.” So life as a spirit is equated with incorruption.
How could spirit persons be incorruptible if Satan became corrupted?
Anyway, your argument has been seen many times before. See http://www.godfallacies.com
Notice Fallacy 7.
Evidence to prove…for what?
If can read and understand, then that is the proof for God’s existence. You are talking about getting more IQ? But we lack basic common senses, how do you think, you are able to read this and understand!
God is alive, that’s the reason your eyes can see, while your brain is able to process what it can see, and understand. All this happening in parallel, how can you ask for proof?
Religions are some of the covers, but there is God who is protecting us every second!
I as a Christian agree that proof of design would not prove Christianity. As a Christian though I do not seek proof of God or of Jesus being The Savior. Christianity is supposed to be about having faith. With solid proof it would no longer be a testament of faith as God intended it to be.
I certainly understand that argument, but it seems to me it’s quite possible — even probable — that the reason God desires faith without proof is because this evolved out of necessity, because there was none. This same excuse can be used to defend why any imagined god does not present themselves or do anything to prove that they actually exist.
Strangely, God didn’t always seem to mind displaying proof, be it fire from heaven, or parting seas, or raising people from the dead. If this proof didn’t disqualify THOSE witnesses from entry into heaven, why should it disqualify us?
You make some very great points. I respect your point of view. For me personally I know there are many possibilities outside of my faith, but I have faith because I believe it is the answer in the end. I don’t believe what I believe because of science.
I guess 500Q doesn’t want to toot his own horn, but he made a really great article pertaining to this here: https://500questions.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/47-can-we-just-know-that-god-exists/
I just don’t know how you can argue against what he is trying to say. All different types of religions say you just need to have faith to believe in their religion with nothing else to go by. They are all equal in that sense. So how do you choose? You can’t. The only method humans have to choose between two competing theories is logic, which is the opposite of faith.
A Muslim could come to this thread right now and say the same thing you have. He simply has faith that Islam is the true religion. How would you argue with that?
What would you say to a salesmen trying to sell you a product he claims heals your brain, gives you high IQ, cures brain related diseases, etc. but he can’t provide you any evidence this is true. Would you buy into it anyway? Maybe he’s giving it to you free even, but what is his motive, and what is really inside that product you are digesting? I wouldn’t take it even if it were free. Why? Because there’s no evidence backing it. That’s how it is for every aspect of our lives, why would you make an exception for religion? It’s simply illogical.
It’s obviously way to much for us to comprehend. Our only hope is to trust each other, and live life according to a healthy, peaceful blue print. Peace!