What is it? What is the truth? Who is to say what the truth is? Who is to say what we seek is the truth? We've been told, time and time again, that God is the truth. Or is it?
What is God? Some say that He is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being that created the universe and mankind. Others say that god is the scapegoat of humanity. The biggest excuse and the largest reason behind the murdering of thousands. A brain-washing technique. Something that people hide before, while others mock. Someone that some worship while others cannot tolerate hearing the name of. No matter what anyone thinks, let's step back for a second and assume that God really exists. Let us examine one possibility.
If God exists, why would He have created the Universe and mankind? If you have read my previous posts, you would see that my theory is that we're here to ultimately prove Lucifer wrong. But that leaves one thinking, why would He create Lucifer in the first place? Forget Lucifer, why would He create angels in the first place? Because He was lonely? But didn't He say that He needs no one? These give rise to new questions that have no answers. Perhaps we're missing part of the picture.
After thinking about such things, something becomes apparent. Before, thousands of years ago, people used to worship the Sun because they thought that it was a god. Now, science has proven otherwise. What if the same happens to the God that we believe in (or some of us do, rather)? Before, we said that God created the Universe, now, we say the Big Bang created the Universe. Before, we had nothing to explain what it was that triggered the Big Bang, now, some scientists believe that it's due to two membranes of space-time hitting one another. Now, we're left with the question, what created space-time? Once again, we turn to God. It seems that we have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge, but whenever we can no longer find any glasses of water, we fill that glass by turning to God and saying that He is our water. So, does God really exist?
In my opinion, yes. And I'm not just saying that blindly because my religion tells me that I have to believe in God, otherwise, I'd burn in the fiery pits of hell for all of eternity. No, there is actually reasoning behind it. I see the order of the universe, from the order of how the electrons move around the nucleus and don't just crash into it, to how the galaxies are distributed evenly throughout space, something that would be practically impossible if the Universe was created by chance. At the end of the day, things just seem to work out. Everything is working, both independently and with one another. Would things not fall apart really quickly if the Big Bang was simply by chance, if nothing guided the events that proceeded the creation of the Universe? Is this really all chance?
No. Of course not. We all see that every single day in our lives. Perhaps I'm not a crazy religious person and perhaps I don't understand why God exists or how He exists and how the Universe works and what created space-time and what was there before nothing and how it is that we believe in God even though there is no proof of Him, yet there had to have been if He were to give us the big books of religion.
But I still do believe in Him and I still consider myself a religious person. Just because I don't pray five times a day doesn't mean that I don't believe in God or that I don't believe in my religion. I simply believe that those sets of rules were meant for thousands of years ago and don't necessarily apply to today. Sure, God is all knowing and would have known about today and wrote the books (through His mediums) with regard to today as well, but how could He have applied it to those days and today without confusing everyone and still say it in a way that people could understand? What, He'd have put multiple chapters and condemned people of ages ago to "not read ahead?" And even so, even if He could see the future and took into consideration that the laws had to hold true for all time, why would He send out multiple people to write multiple books? Because times had changed? Is that not contradictory? This is why I say not all things in the Bible, the Qur'an or the Tanakh apply to things today. For example, the Islamic book forbids eating pork. This was, according to many, due to the fact that pigs were not cooked properly back then and contained many worms, but that doesn't really apply today anymore. Same thing goes for not drinking out of a bowl which a dog drank out of. Back then, there were no vaccines for dogs that had rabies, and the illness could pass through water. But there are now, so again, that statement no longer holds true. Perhaps it's time for a new book, considering how the world is getting worse daily?
But no matter, many still believe in religion. And things stated in their religion are being proven by scientists. For example, we are gathering more and more proof of the existence of the Big Bang (such as the cosmic microwave background, observed decades ago and more recently, dark energy, explaining why galaxies are spreading apart at an ever increasingly speed). If we find enough evidence and prove that there really was a Big Bang, almost 13.8 billion years ago, then that must mean that the volume of the Universe was, at some point, zero. Which would mean that the density was infinite, since the Universe has some mass. Didn't God say that, thousands of years ago, that the Universe was created out of nothing? So it took an infinite amount of energy to create it. Perhaps that is why we cannot fully understand God, because we simply cannot imagine infinity (really, it gets difficult past a thousand).
Perhaps that's what science and religion really are. They are like eyes. They are humanity's tools, which we all need to use. Like eyes, though, there needs to be something in between to put together the two pictures to make sense of everything. Perhaps, like a brain for the eyes, we need a medium to connect science and religion. I don't know what that medium is. Perhaps someone will soon find that medium, or perhaps it's up to us. If you have any ideas, let me know below.
One thing that I do know, is that God exists. For the above mentioned and for one more reason. I believe in God, just in case. I'm sure that I will die some day, of that there is no doubt, because even though there are no documents of observing God, there are millions upon millions of people passing on. So, of death, there is no doubt. There are two possible scenarios. If God exists, and I believe in Him, hopefully, after I die, I will go into heaven. If He doesn't, then what was the harm in believing? Certainly, in both scenarios, it's better than not believing.
With the above said, I leave you with this. No matter what, no matter what you believe, no matter who you are, may we all be blessed. Whoever you are, I wish you all the best.
Religion and science should be able to co-exist.
ReplyDeletePeople who are opposed of the ideas of religion definitely do not understand it enough to base their believes on it.
What is the purpose behind the origins of religion?
To explain the unexplainable? Does it hold the same purpose of myths? Can it now be replaced by science?
Or is it for people to believe in all-mighty powers and the presence of destiny? Why do people want to believe in destiny, and so-called fate? Does religion blind others from logical thinking and self-discovering then?
Although I do believe in a figure, or multiple figures actually, of higher being, I doubt that it's quite the same. Religion is a questionable thing because there are so many different beliefs. Two people can be religious to the same extent, yet their religion may never be exactly the same.
ReplyDeleteI find that science is just another type of religion- a way to explain the supernatural, the wondrous, the mysterious, the miraculous doings of everyday life. Or perhaps it is religion that should be viewed as a type of science?
Both start off the same way. An individual will try to explain some strange going-on (or maybe even not so strange) that draws his or her attention. Their reasoning will end up being something that they believe in. Doubtlessly, others will end up believing the individual's new concepts and ideas as well.
Are science and religion different only on the basis that one has been "proven" and the other hasn't? Evidence seems to point to everything these days. There are phenomena that occur daily which cannot be explained by science, and there are concepts that just can't be explained by religion.
Personally, from an attempted outsider's point of view, I just see religion and science to be further examples of mankind's biggest mistake- Attempting to find order in the chaos which indubitably exists in and around our lives.
I love this post, Abteen.
ReplyDeleteI've always been a full-blown atheist and it irritated me to no end that other people attempted to convert me. It seemed like a total disrespect that someone would tell you that your beliefs (or "lack" of belief) was wrong; it bugged me that as an atheist, I had more of a chance of hearing all of these "convert to this..." talks than someone who had a religion.
Basically, your post is the first time that someone else has succesfully gotten me to listen to the points of why someone else believes in the existence of God.
There's one question I would like to ask... Well, right now, we have all these different religions and such, and people falling on different sides of the spectrum in their beliefs of His existence.
So what?
I truly don't mean this in the rude, mean, inconsiderate way. I'm just saying, right now, we're searching for the TRUTH, which is a "yes" or a "no" (or some confuzzling in between answer) that God does exist.
But then what? We find out. Do you think we'll find out? Why would it be US of all generations, that will find out? And if we do, what does this mean? There's an awareness of His existence?
Then if we know that He does exist, we ponder, (WAIIIIIIT) if we were created by God, then who has created Him? Could God have a creator? Why does He exist? Why do we exist?
Oh yeah. Somewhere on this blog (I think it's this post, but I'm not sure; I've been on a BLOGSTALKING SPREE... XD)you've mentioned that if the universe is always expanding at an increasing rate, it once started as "nothing" of infinite energy.
That's because you worked backwards.
And found an endpoint.
I'm probably missing this HUGE chunk of knowledge that is probably in my face atm, but why can't we have negative space time? I mean, in your other post, you said that *IF* we were able to travel faster than light, then we wouldn't be able to relive events... isn't that negative space time?
Ok actually, I think I'm just really confused.
Which brings me to my conclusion... I'm still atheist, but an untrue atheist :D. I'm reading the last book of Pendragon, it mentions an existence that thrives on the knowledge and spirit of humankind. I'd like to think of life that way. I'd like to know that our curiousity towards many things parallels a bunch of spirits who live around us, inspiring us when we need it.
Don't take me wrong, though. I'm not saying that whatever DJ MacHale has written IS the WAY OF LIFE. It's just an idea that I like to believe for the moment, knowing fully that it is fiction, though corresponding to many aspects of life in a meaningful way.
Because I know that if it eventually becomes tiring and boring for me, it's a fictional reality I can bury amongst the others; I guess I just don't have the courage and responsibility to bear the truth.
@ Anonymous: I agree. They should co-exist. Perhaps people that oppose religion have other reasons to not fully continue on with it. Not everything's right for everyone. There are many factors playing in this. Perhaps the purpose of religion, amongst other things, is to explain the unexplainable, but to a much higher and much more reliable degree than that of myths. I don't think it should be replaced by science, more re-enforced by it. Perhaps it's to show people the powers of God, to believe in them is an individual choice. I believe fate is self-made, otherwise our lives would be pre-determined and thus have no meaning. Therefore, religion does not blind others from logical thinking and self-discovering, rather the contrary.
ReplyDelete@ music-ecstasy:Interesting points. Very unique, the multiple-figure one. I agree, two people's religions are never truly the same. Religion to a person is as unique as they are. I find science to be a counterpart to religion, like a sequel. They complete one another. Both have unique viewpoints and perhaps it is best to view one as it is, not one as the other, such as science being a religion or vice-versa. They play the same role, but do so in completely different ways. It is true that one will find an answer to some going on and attempt to prove it, and others will believe him, otherwise known as a theory. It would be wise for one to see if they actually agree with the theory and not just blindly follow it. I believe that was the case with religion. People blindly followed, but both have to be viewed with an open mind and agreed/disagreed by an individual due to their own thinking, not that of others. Since science is more modern than religion, compared to the extent of religion, not many people blindly follow it. I do not agree with your last point, I think it's humanity's duty to attempt to answer the questions in life, which does not necessarily mean that we're finding order in the chaos of life, for if we look hard enough, order is always in chaos, in any part of life. It's in our souls, in our instinct to be experimental and curious. That's how humanity moves forward, but that's just my opinion.
ReplyDelete@ Lucille:I don't think it's wrong to be an atheist. Simply a choice, which I've thought about undertaking and realized that is not the right choice for me, yet, as I wrote above, different things are right for different people. I would also find it rude for people to force me to be something I'm not. Everyone has a right to think for themselves. As for your question, it is a great one. ONe of the greatest in the world. Of course, no one has a definite answer, but I attempted to come up with my answer to this question in a previous post (you've got to stalk harder :P). I don't think anyone created God, which is hard to fathom, since we've never dealt with a situation like that. Perhaps our minds simply can't take in such a hard task, but that's just a cheap excuse out. We'll keep working at it until we crack that mystery, for humans have a reputation of solving mysteries. For the Universe being created out of nothing, it isn't just me saying that, it's scientists all across the globe. And I suppose they did work backwards, but there is proof that this actually did happen. As for negative space-time, sure, I guess you could call it that, but it's more like a direction, so it'd be like saying "negative meters" which is redundant. Perhaps reading that blog with patience would clear things up (I know, it's long. My bad.) I'm glad to find that you're thinking for yourself and educating yourself by reading, if only everyone was as inspired as you are. Yet, I don't agree in the whole spirit, floating bubbles thing. I do believe in spirits (the soul of God, which differentiates us from other, non-living things) but not by definition. Yet, as you said in a way, everything is correlated in some way, shape or form. It's not fully fiction. Reality is a perception by an individual. So is the truth. Thus, I full out disagree. You can bear the truth, for you already know it.
ReplyDelete@ Lucille:I don't think it's wrong to be an atheist. Simply a choice, which I've thought about undertaking and realized that is not the right choice for me, yet, as I wrote above, different things are right for different people. I would also find it rude for people to force me to be something I'm not. Everyone has a right to think for themselves. As for your question, it is a great one. ONe of the greatest in the world. Of course, no one has a definite answer, but I attempted to come up with my answer to this question in a previous post (you've got to stalk harder :P). I don't think anyone created God, which is hard to fathom, since we've never dealt with a situation like that. Perhaps our minds simply can't take in such a hard task, but that's just a cheap excuse out. We'll keep working at it until we crack that mystery, for humans have a reputation of solving mysteries. For the Universe being created out of nothing, it isn't just me saying that, it's scientists all across the globe. And I suppose they did work backwards, but there is proof that this actually did happen.
ReplyDeleteAs for negative space-time, sure, I guess you could call it that, but it's more like a direction, so it'd be like saying "negative meters" which is redundant. Perhaps reading that blog with patience would clear things up (I know, it's long. My bad.) I'm glad to find that you're thinking for yourself and educating yourself by reading, if only everyone was as inspired as you are. Yet, I don't agree in the whole spirit, floating bubbles thing. I do believe in spirits (the soul of God, which differentiates us from other, non-living things) but not by definition. Yet, as you said in a way, everything is correlated in some way, shape or form. It's not fully fiction. Reality is a perception by an individual. So is the truth. Thus, I full out disagree. You can bear the truth, for you already know it.
ReplyDelete