Just a Rambling Thought

I have not had the opportunity to write as much as I would like lately. Recently, I have gone into the business arena and it has taken time away from one of my passions. . .writing. I have some time as my son is napping and the girls are away at a Halloween party. I have been reading quite a bit at night before I pass out from exhaustion and I started thinking about something. Let me preface, that I am going to be speaking of God in general, and not in particular the Christian God. The thought is just about God in general and not God in particular for this occasion.

Through some of the books I have been reading and debates I have been listening to, I have come to the conclusion that in many ways to be an atheist, you have to claim to be omniscient. In reality to say that there is no God, you are basically claiming to be God yourself, and thus proving there is a God. How? In order to claim there is no God, you claim to know everything about this vast universe, literally everything. You have to because in order to say there is no God you have to make the claim that you have it all figured out, again, literally everything.

You may be wondering if the opposite can be said then, and I would say no. To demonstrate God, you first have to admit that you do not know everything, which is humbling to say the least. We tend to admit we don’t know everything, except to say there is no God, and then we seem to know everything. It does not logically flow.

People will try to use the example that because unicorns are not observable like God then that will demonstrate that they exist, but this is a misnomer, because first of all the unicorn is a created being with physical attributes and if they were real then they would be observable by either a living unicorn or their remains. Just like the dinosaurs. We should also see evidence of them being on the earth, as in footprints, historical writings or as mentioned bones. We have none of them, though it still does not mean they don’t exist, as we may have yet to find the information. The problem still holds that they try to use a finite being with an infinite being, and it just does not work as an example.

God does not have physical attributes, as He is infinite and His influence would be through His design and created work and not by actual visual confirmation. Though, in Christianity you have this in Jesus Christ and in Hinduism you would have this in Avatars. Many have written about seeing Jesus historically and many have written and made drawings about Avatars. Much more evidence than unicorns, as they are only written about in fairy tales.

You don’t have to see something to believe it existed or exists. Go to any museum with dinosaurs. Many of us have not seen our ancestors past two generations, and we know they lived, though they are not observed. It is not possible to observe these things again either, but we see the evidence they left. That is the problem with unicorns. We have none of that. The example just logically does not fit at all. Thus far, we have none of this for unicorns.

The other problem is that we do see evidence of God. We see creation, the stars, the universe and everything in between. Physics has basically shown that there is a beginning to the universe we live within, and even atheist Stephen Hawking admits that to mess with the dials of the universe by a millionth movement would destroy the universe. If there is that much design, then it basically begs the question that there is a God.

We never say anything with design does not have a designer. From the simple belt to hold up our pants to the laptop computer I am writing this on, they are designed and anyone finding either one would say that someone made them. How much more intricate are all the life beings on the planet? If a human body can come by chance, then you have to admit that a computer can, as the body is much more complex. To try to add time just becomes a time/age fallacy, because even if you trace back 200 billion years there is still a starting point, and the question becomes, who made that point. Even if you believe the universe pulsates back and forth, someone/something had to start the pulsating. Just can’t get away from the logical transitions of who put it in motion? Maybe electricity caused it. Who made the electricity able to strike? It just happens with every way someone tries to create a beginning without a creator.

To say there is no possibility of God is a little arrogant to me, because it means that you know everything about everything and how it came into being. You are saying that you have heard all the evidence about everything and it is proven without a shadow of doubt. In saying yes to these statements, you just admitted to omniscience, which is an attribute of God. The atheist in the end just transfers the attributes from God to themselves and in reality just changing who God is. It is at least a little more humble to say you are not sure (agnostic) and then look, as it is the most important question, the summum bonum.

There is a proverb that sums it up pretty well. It basically says that those who do not believe in God are in reality fooling themselves. The question really is: why do they try so hard to prove there is no God, because you can never prove that without actually being God. There is just too much evidence demonstrating there is a God. The real question is which belief is correct, because they all give a differing view of who God is.

As I said, just a rambling thought.