The Belief
that nothing exploded into something and that the nothing that exploded into
something somehow had the luck to come together into the right combination of lifeless
somethings for life to spring from it.
And then this nothing continued to evolve into such intelligence that
it is able to evaluate itself and it’s origins and have such a grasp of all
knowledge, enough it seems, to know without
question that there is no God... WHAT?
Then there are those who do believe that there was something
the size of a dot that exploded… When
asked where the dot came from they say it came from millions of stars and
universes that expanded evolved and ran it’s cycle and then came back together
again with such heavy gravity that it garnered the current explosion… So where did those universes come from? No answer, or they say perhaps another dot
and they still declare that they know it wasn’t God that did it… Really?
So they say, the existence of life is an accident, Intelligence is an accident, the study of science is an accident, it’s all
an accident. The conclusion for them is
that we are random matter but, in the whole scheme of things we don’t really matter. So what is the value of existence? And since we are just accidental matter is
there really a thing called value and if we just made it up then didn’t we make
something out of nothing and does that make man’s intelligence a creative force that could be described as God? Now what’s funny about that question is that
when asked that, they tilt their heads to the side, place the earpiece of their
eye-glasses in their mouth and then… nothing contemplates the possibility that
they may indeed be God after all. These buffoons
think that nothing can know if something called God started it all…
It’s interesting to me. They decry my faith and at the same time, their
Complex gravitational explosive dot of nothing that becomes life and evolves
into intelligence is a much bigger religious leap of faith than mine. I just believe that; “In the beginning God!” Now who is the religious zealot?
“Thinking
themselves to be wise they become fools”.
Prayer: Dear God... AMEN!
explain something for me.... what do you really know about atheism? it's not just denying the christian god, there is no deity to them, no allah, no zues, thor. just saying. and what about you. you believe there is no other god but yours, so technically you're an atheist as well. you're an atheist to all gods but one
ReplyDeleteThank you Lizzy,
DeleteI suppose that I do personalize when I think of atheism. I see what you are saying that they believe no God at all and to them, it's not just the Christian God does not exist.
When I was a Teen in my first public job I worked with a man who had been in college at that time for about 11 years. (I think he may still be going to college) He had accumulated a half dozen degrees. He was an avowed atheist and loved to debate with me. We became very good friends. I suppose, partly because of my days of endless back and forths with him that I personalized our discourses to the Christian God because that is the perspective from which I view God's existence.
Interesting story… Your comment reminded me that I used to tell Him that it was becoming very difficult to debate with him because we were actually discussing two different things. I told him that His argument that there was no God came from a basis of an argument that was fundamentally different than mine. He was debating a God that didn’t exist.
He was bringing a non-existant God to the debate. I totally believe in God, so I was bringing an existing God into the debate. So I had to eventually agree with him. His non-existent God in fact could not be denied… He didn’t exist. We were debating two different Gods.
One that did not exist, and one who did. So, I actually agree with Him. I am also an atheist where his non-existent God is concerned… I don’t believe in his non-existent god either! So, just as I am an atheist where Allah, Zeus and Thor are concerned, the same can be said for his non-existent god as well. I agree with him. I am also an atheist concerning that god.
So my conclusion is, his very definition of god, that is of a god that does not exist, removes us from ever truly being able to debate the subject because I agree with his initial premise... The God he describes, that is a non-existent god, does in fact NOT exist. We are not in fact debating the same God.
As we have two different definitions for god, we cannot debate debate the same thing. So his difintion as it is is true without reservation and I agree with him. The God he describes dosent exist. He cant even debate God's existence at all because he dosnt have a definiton that could include existence. He starts with "no god".
Thanks again Lizzy!
how could you be debating a different god, wouldn't they be the same god??? you two just had different views and opinions... you believe your god exist, he believes in no deity whatsoever.
DeleteI don't believe so Lizzy, You see, His definition begins with the premise that something he calls god does not exist. I agree with his assessment of his definition. The god of his premise, "a god that does not exist", actually does in fact not exist. While the God that I believe in does. He cannot really use my definition at all. He has no reference point to debate a God that is the creator of the universe. The very definition is foreign to him. I am also an atheist concerning his god just as I am about Zeus or Thor. Since I already agree with him concerning his definition we are in fact in agreement on his issue. The problem is he cannot debate mine because he begins with a different definition to begin with while I believe that His existence proves mine.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that something can exist, such as a man who is an atheist, proves to me that exist is. If existence itself is occurring then how can one who does in fact exist postulate that non existence is occurring concerning someone that he just finds it inconvenient to believe in?
From one who had real doubts at one time, my existence precluded me from postulating that such a non-existence was such an easy leap of faith.
So I do believe in God. And looking back on my life, and I am not a young man, I have come more easily to the leap of faith that God does in fact exist and if so, He has the capacity to make his existence known. Such a God would in fact find pleasure in communicating with his marvelous creation.
He could send His son to point the way to him.
In my leap of faith, God loves me and he loves you as well Lizzy. I also have many reasons why I beleive in the aspects of God, His son, why he came to His creation to bring us into a relationship with Him.
But this Post would be way longer....
Lizzy, you are way too awesome, complex, intelligent and inquisitive for there not to be a God who loves you.
This has always been a topic for debate and I believe will continue throughout the ages.
ReplyDeleteA large number people say that they don't believe in God because they cannot see him. Well, I ask them if they believe in a million dollars? They saw yes. Then I ask them, "Have you ever seen a million dollars? They reply with "No." Then I explain to them that I have faith, which is belief without seeing.
I believe in God without "seeing" him, even though I see his work each and everyday as I go about my daily life. I cannot "see" air but I know that it exists because I "see" its effects when the leaves on the trees are blowing.
I believe that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but it is our duty as Christian to offer the knowledge of our loving God.
I agree Sonya,
ReplyDeleteI also have always wanted to know why the atheists I have known use God's name in Vain. What is it in using God's name in a derogatory manner that seems to help them vent frustration?
Why don't they just say Bob-@#!@ or use someone else's name? Why does profanity help?