| |
One observation that I have made recently, is that the majority of people are very much like sheep, following along with whatever the majority believes.
How many religious people go along with all kinds of things that are illogical?
How many non-religious people go along with things that are just as bad?
Belief in God, as I see it, is something that is just very simple, many times easy to accept. This is because the idea of God gives comfort, people feel that they're protected, and will go to heaven. At the same time, it is also very logical, because everything has its cause. So, when it comes to the original cause, the only option is God. Very simple.
On the other side, you have atheists, who accept evolution. As a side note, I think it should be called accidentalism, because evolution, in every observable situation, is the product of continuous refinement by individuals.
It is a big problem when people can't even agree upon the simplest of logic, because if that is the cause, we have no universal method to agree upon things. I think what everyone can agree upon is that new species continuously appeared in the past. I prefer to say appeared, rather than evolved, because I haven't read about fossils of gradual mutations, even though I look. And they would be very quick to do so, but the fact that they don't is very telling.
Think about it, these mutations are the explanation for every different species in existence! Gradual mutations would have to be taking place on a massive scale for such variety to occur. All we have are theories, claiming that maybe this happened, or maybe that happened, maybe dinosaurs came from birds, or sea creatures mysteriously modified themselves to breath air. How did that happen exactly, where is the evidence?
As advanced as science has become, it can't even replicate something so simple that it happens all the time by accident! If creating living things was so easy, why can it not be duplicated, even with the added benefit of scientists, with intelligence, creating the conditions for it to happen?
I could easily tell you what scientists are missing, that would make them able to create life. They don't have the intelligence and power. If somethings so easy can't be duplicated by intelligent people, aided by science, I would conclude simply that they don't have the ability to do it! So, who would have the ability to do it?
Before I just jump to the conclusion of saying it was “God,” which some think shouldn't be the automatic answer for something unknown, let me take a look at what the First Cause might be.
Obvsiously, the First Cause wouldn't be physical, it wouldn't be the universe itself, or parallel universes, because all physical reality, not matter how you wish to conceive it, would still need a cause that isn't itself.
Secondly, it would be beyond time and space, because they came about with physical reality. So, one question we wouldn't be able to ask, if what caused the First Cause. This is because the First Cause is the first cause, there is no question of where it came from, it always was, the question of when just doesn't apply when time isn't in the picture.
Lastly, intelligence and power would be required. As I said above, science has been unable to make it happen, so more intelligence is needed to figuer out it is to be done. Not only that, but creation itself would require require will, in order to explain why it took place at all, in other words, the beginning needed to be decided upon, in order for it to start, or else, you will be still left searching for a cause. Will is a quality of mind, along with intelligence.
I say power, because all of creation would have to be generated, or caused to come into existence, and then manipulated, in order to create such a complex and large creation.
I am not a proponent of creation from nothing (ex nihilo) as many religious people are, or evolutionists. I find it completely unscientific to have a standpoint that assumes that it's possible to create something from nothing. Obviously, creation must have been made from what was already present. As the First Cause was all that was present, I would conclude that we are made from the First Cause.
I find it interesting that those who pracice meditation believe that the real foundation of their being, and source, is another reality, which they believe they can re-connect with. This makes sense to me, because I can see using logic that this reality must have come from another one.
Individuals who are religious, usually believe in an intelligent being, who makes the claim of creating everything us, and everything else. This Being is all-powerful, all-knowing and infinite, that “from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.” To say that He is everlasting to everlasting, satisfies the idea that the First Cause existed before there was time.
One can easily see from the above, that this “God” has satisfied the needed attributes. Is it scientific to accept God as the First Cause? It surely doens't violate any aspect of science, not does it go against logic. Science works because the assumption is made, that there is an underlying order to things. Accidentalism was never a part of the equation when it came to understanding creation, which is orderly.
Science examines material reality, which is a phase of the First Cause, but not the phase that He was originally, and still is. It is not the duty of science to examine the First Cause, they examine the effects of the First Cause. We needn't wait for science to teach us the obvious, as intelligent people, it is best for us to come to our own realizations about the matter, and stop waiting for others to think for us.
There is simply no other explanation out there, and God posseses all the qualities that would make Him the First Cause. Why wait for anything other than “God,” because no matter what you call the First Cause, it is what it is: An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Being, who is both personal, having the ablility to think and act, and impersonal, having the ability to be present everywhere, and create an ever-expanding creation.
|