The belief in God is one that is often made on faith since believing by the use of faith requires us to suspend our reasoning which makes it easier for the religious to escape not having to explain things to possible worshipers. He ask them to suspend their rational thought process which is not the proper way a free mind and a free person thinks. This is because faith requires us to bend how we rationally evaluate the world to some pre-determined answer and it puts each person in their own dreamworld. It is saying that God exist because I believe even though it may conflict with my rational judgment and observations.
One wonders what would happen if we had to accept the existence of God on the basis of reason and not of faith. It would mean that we have to accept the possibility that God may not exist and accepting that outcome if that is where our reasoning takes us. It requires that our thoughts align itself with truth which seems redundant for a religion whose main deity deems truth as one of the most important of its virtues. This means that if God is real then we accept it because it is true but if he isn't real the very same faith requires us to accept that as well.
I am not advocating atheism in this piece but more advocating the proper process that a person comes to believe in something. I reason that their is a God because of the natural order of the universe in the same way that their is order in all things that we make. Everything we make functions by rules and without those rules it would not function the way we designed it to. A good example is a watch in which the watchmaker establishes the rules which allow it to tell time the way the watchmaker wants it to. The rules establish how it is to function and for what purpose it functions for. It would have no form or substance that would distinguish from any other invention of man without those rules.
The universe seems to operate in a very orderly manor to the point where we can have our own 'laws of physics' to help us understand that order. These laws are really discoveries in the same way that an alien may discover the rules of a watch piece. The alien can not assume it is his rules because he did not design the watch piece itself. In many ways, we are the alien where we discover rules of how the universe works otherwise known as the 'laws of physics' that existed before us since those rules were in operation millions of years before our existence. This means we did not make the universe since we did not make the rules of its operation that define its order. Only the watchmaker can claim such a right.
That is a reasonable argument because it uses reasons as the basis for an idea. Atheist often cite that the bible is full of indiscrepancies (quite correctly) that invalidate the existence of God. That to is a reasonable and rational argument because it uses the reasoning process of the mind which is what I am advocating for. We should only use of that part of our mind and nothing but that part in all things which will allow us to free of all things. It frees the part of our mind that determines the actions we take which allows us to have freedom over the choice of actions we take in life.
One wonders what would happen if we had to accept the existence of God on the basis of reason and not of faith. It would mean that we have to accept the possibility that God may not exist and accepting that outcome if that is where our reasoning takes us. It requires that our thoughts align itself with truth which seems redundant for a religion whose main deity deems truth as one of the most important of its virtues. This means that if God is real then we accept it because it is true but if he isn't real the very same faith requires us to accept that as well.
I am not advocating atheism in this piece but more advocating the proper process that a person comes to believe in something. I reason that their is a God because of the natural order of the universe in the same way that their is order in all things that we make. Everything we make functions by rules and without those rules it would not function the way we designed it to. A good example is a watch in which the watchmaker establishes the rules which allow it to tell time the way the watchmaker wants it to. The rules establish how it is to function and for what purpose it functions for. It would have no form or substance that would distinguish from any other invention of man without those rules.
The universe seems to operate in a very orderly manor to the point where we can have our own 'laws of physics' to help us understand that order. These laws are really discoveries in the same way that an alien may discover the rules of a watch piece. The alien can not assume it is his rules because he did not design the watch piece itself. In many ways, we are the alien where we discover rules of how the universe works otherwise known as the 'laws of physics' that existed before us since those rules were in operation millions of years before our existence. This means we did not make the universe since we did not make the rules of its operation that define its order. Only the watchmaker can claim such a right.
That is a reasonable argument because it uses reasons as the basis for an idea. Atheist often cite that the bible is full of indiscrepancies (quite correctly) that invalidate the existence of God. That to is a reasonable and rational argument because it uses the reasoning process of the mind which is what I am advocating for. We should only use of that part of our mind and nothing but that part in all things which will allow us to free of all things. It frees the part of our mind that determines the actions we take which allows us to have freedom over the choice of actions we take in life.
0 comments:
Post a Comment