You're going to hear a lot of crazy rumours about me becoming an Atheist and claiming I'm not just to calm Suzannah down, but there is more to it.
Suzannah was very upset that I "deconverted" (which I didn't...) and I was touched by the way she cared. Here, let me explain my actions.
I put forth ideas supporting God's existence during my time in General Apologetics. They swore at me, they put down my intelligence and they challenged every single bloody word. This was done by mostly Agnostics and Atheists.
After gathering my thoughts together, I wrote this essay:
Is there after all, a God? Mankind has been battling with this question since the beginning of their human consciousness. Their ability to use logic and reasoning has gotten them where they are today, and I can merely try to defend the God of Christianity by my knowledge thus far. One, who reads this essay, should keep in mind that I am merely a sixteen year old and hold little knowledge on general science and apologetics. I do, however, as any functioning human being, have intelligence and logic. Although in reality I stand in no particular position and remain a neutral mind on the issue of God, I will try to defend the Christian God; as this idea appeals to me as the most logical way to define our existence. There is, after all, a God.
My first argument is the nature of God and why God does not need to be created. The Universe physically consists of space and matter. Matter relies on space to exist, and space relies on matter for its existence to be necessary and hold purpose; but however, spaces existence does not necessarily depend on matter. The flow of time is what allows space and matter to avoid stagnation. An example of stagnation would be a rock that rolls back and forth in a half pipe in the same exact motion infinitely; one can say the rock is stuck; in this situation, there seems to be no flow, only stagnation. Ergo, we can observe the Universes general process of functioning: time, space and matter; and how all three aspects depend on each other to produce the observable Universe that is without stagnation. God, as a creator, would have to exist outside of time in order for it not to have its own creator. How can God create time when this action would require the time that has not yet been created? An action does not necessarily require time, especially for an omnipotent creator such as God, and therefore it is justifiable for God not to need the time that has not yet been created to achieve the creation of time.
My second argument will explain paradoxes and justify Gods omnipotence. Can God create a rock so big that God itself cannot lift? Can God wish itself out of existence and wish itself back into existence? The Christian God claims to have certain characteristics to itself that we humans cannot understand. Assuming this is true, we must certainly accept the fact about this Christian God, that we cannot understand its nature, and if we could, it would not be God. However, assuming this is false, we see the error of mankinds logic in which when mankind tries to create God and label him as omnipotent as a solution of the mystery of creation. In the end, how can something come from nothing? Well, God is omnipotent, so God must be responsible for this. Paradoxes such as the story of Achilles show paradoxes in their true nature, rather than their empty purpose of applying them to Gods nature in order to challenge its existence. Many atheists will agree that paradoxes are not a good argument to challenge Gods nature and mankinds errors when considering that God is the creation of man, not the other way around.
My third argument will be The Anthropic Principle theorizes that human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the parameters for the Universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges. The principle interprets these amazing coincidences as proof that human existence somehow determines the design of the Universe, and that the Universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Now that the limits and parameters of the Universe can be calculated, and some even directly measured, astronomers and physicists have begun to recognize a connection between these limits and parameters and the existence of life. It is impossible to imagine a Universe containing life in which any one of the fundamental constants of physics or any one of the fundamental parameters of the Universe is different, even slightly so, in one way or another. This theory accurately describes the Universes fine-tuning that allows human existence on dramatically coincidental levels. However, is the Universe tuned for human existence, or is human existence is tuned for the Universe? For mankind to be tuned for the Universe, we would have to take Natural Selection into consideration. I do not have complete knowledge on Natural Selection, but I will do this to the best of my ability. Natural Selection states that our existence today is the result of billions of years of evolution. This takes us back to the very early forms of life. In what condition should the Earth have been in order to support the very early form(s) of life? What governs the very first rising of life? What causes them to attain consciousness? These questions challenge Natural Selection and Evolution, but do they mean to emphasize that the answers to these questions will inevitably lead to God, the intelligent creator? Not necessarily, however, Im making the assumption that there is an intelligent creator and governor behind this. This does not offer much proof or evidence for his existence. Just because we do not know X, does not mean that X was created by God. I havent provided evidence, but no one really can. What I can do is, explain the nature of God on this issue.
So, why would God exactly go to such trouble to create us? God may have created us through Natural Selection and Evolution for many reasons. First, let us take into consideration that Genesis may be a metaphor. When it claims that we are approximately 6000 years old, it may be really saying that our self-awareness as human beings was established 6000 years ago. Now, why would God create us through Natural Selection and Evolution? It may very well be that God has done this to put no-limits on the mind of mankind, to have mankind always striving for an answer. One might say that the Universe is extremely vast, why the waste of space? Relativity comes into mind. How vast would it be if we were 200 billion times bigger? How vast would it be if we were 200 billion times smaller? It is all relative. Assuming that there is a God, the Universe is not very big at all compared to God. We can assume that God has made the Universe just necessarily big enough to put no-limits on the mind of mankind, to have mankind always striving for an answer. Why?
Striving for a particular goal is what humans do. We strive to find out whats behind the door; therefore we must turn the knob and open the door. We strive to end all suffering on Earth by moving our civilization to a location to a place without volcano eruptions. We strive to find comfort by scratching our arms when they get itchy. We strive for the greater good. Ending this strive would result in a pointless and meaningless life.
Well, then, what is Gods example of a pointful life? Why did God create us? Christianity explains how God has created us out of his love. This leaves room for abstract statements and questions such as: Why would God need to create something to love it and find satisfaction? I assume this is what created in his image means. We do not physically look like God, however, we know that God has no physical shape, (other than Jesus Christ which is not necessarily the point in this particular idea) therefore the logical explanation is that we were created in his thinking patterns. Non-tangible ideas such as Love, Peace, Satisfaction, Justice and Mercy are just some of Gods thinking patterns. Imagine completely bizarre, random and abstract beings that perhaps do not think or act or reason or dont rely on space or matter to exist, these are just some of the alternatives to what our thinking patterns and our existence are. Therefore, since we are created in Gods image, God would need a form of satisfaction. God will get satisfaction through creating life, loving it, providing eternal peace in the afterlife, performing justice and showing mercy, all of these ideas show Gods nature; just as a mother gets satisfaction from loving her child. But, wait a minute, according to Christianity, we are all sinful creatures who do not satisfy God, but make him regret creating us. Arthur C. Clarke said: If there are any gods whose chief concern is man, they cannot be very important gods. This quote emphasizes that God does not exist, because we are such miserable creatures in the middle of nowhere, that if God did exist, then God would obviously not be important. But there is a simple explanation; God still loves us just as any parent would love their child even if the child was a screw-up. A screw-up meaning that the child did not meet the expectations of the parent not in the choice of a lifestyle or a certain career, but in morality and their personality. Therefore, God gets satisfaction through forgiveness and mercy, having mercy on mankinds sins and forgiving mankinds sins; which is where the meaning of Jesus Crucifixion comes in, but I will not go into it.
If God loves us, why is there so much suffering in the world? Well, the answer can be simple. Without suffering, there is no good; it is not recognizable, and it is not appreciated. Without suffering we do not strive towards anything. Suffering is our fuel. If we knew the meaning of life, would we need to exist? But, if suffering is necessary for good to exist, then how will Heaven be possible? Will there be suffering in Heaven? Surely not, or it wouldn't be Heaven. And if suffering is not necessary for good in Heaven, then why is it necessary now? The answer is simple. Assuming that there is a Heaven, we currently live on Earth where our nature is imperfect according to God's wish; which is sinlessness; as Ive mentioned before. According to God's will, sinlessness is perfection. We rely on suffering to strive for perfection. If we rely on suffering to strive for perfection, then, that means we have not achieved perfection, and need suffering in order to achieve it. Being in Heaven is defined as being with God, therefore attaining perfection. With perfection achieved, in Heaven suffering is not necessary for the enjoyment of bliss.
------------------------------------------------------
After writing this essay, I wrote another, pretending that I just deconverted. I slopped together ideas by misinterpreting GOd's nature, and describing it inaccurately, and I basically put forth the idea that God was mankind's imagination's creation, rather that the other way around. The essay was ****, and you will see that too. Because the purpose of that essay was to convince atheists that I became one too, and I actually had so much trouble trying to disprove my previous essay, that I had no choice but to ignore my knowledge on GOd's nature, and put together.. basically ****..
when the thread started off as I'm an atheist, I'll tell you why soon, the atheists in General Apologetics went wild! "Welcome to logic, welcome to this, welcome to a life without religion wrapped around your neck" etc... the second essay was so crappy, that I expected it to be put down, and to be said that "This isn't the correct way to disprove God"
but no one said a word! everyone ate it up! every single atheist was saying "Yayyyyyy" rather than seeing the crappiness of the essay and my thoughts.
so, you see, this is exactly what Christ talked about, about the sheep, and the salvation, and the attacking the sheeps etc...
you all know what i'm talking about, i can't find the quote, i am getting banned to go to bed.
so the point is, no atheist rejected this. one man commented on it, and he said that "your arguments are good, you're on the right track, but you lack science which is justifiable because you're 16 years old..."
see, a stupid essay, and no one refuses it, because it supports them.
Suzannah, don't be discouraged, the purpose of that thread was the preceeding, and I think I made my point.
Suzannah was very upset that I "deconverted" (which I didn't...) and I was touched by the way she cared. Here, let me explain my actions.
I put forth ideas supporting God's existence during my time in General Apologetics. They swore at me, they put down my intelligence and they challenged every single bloody word. This was done by mostly Agnostics and Atheists.
After gathering my thoughts together, I wrote this essay:
Is there after all, a God? Mankind has been battling with this question since the beginning of their human consciousness. Their ability to use logic and reasoning has gotten them where they are today, and I can merely try to defend the God of Christianity by my knowledge thus far. One, who reads this essay, should keep in mind that I am merely a sixteen year old and hold little knowledge on general science and apologetics. I do, however, as any functioning human being, have intelligence and logic. Although in reality I stand in no particular position and remain a neutral mind on the issue of God, I will try to defend the Christian God; as this idea appeals to me as the most logical way to define our existence. There is, after all, a God.
My first argument is the nature of God and why God does not need to be created. The Universe physically consists of space and matter. Matter relies on space to exist, and space relies on matter for its existence to be necessary and hold purpose; but however, spaces existence does not necessarily depend on matter. The flow of time is what allows space and matter to avoid stagnation. An example of stagnation would be a rock that rolls back and forth in a half pipe in the same exact motion infinitely; one can say the rock is stuck; in this situation, there seems to be no flow, only stagnation. Ergo, we can observe the Universes general process of functioning: time, space and matter; and how all three aspects depend on each other to produce the observable Universe that is without stagnation. God, as a creator, would have to exist outside of time in order for it not to have its own creator. How can God create time when this action would require the time that has not yet been created? An action does not necessarily require time, especially for an omnipotent creator such as God, and therefore it is justifiable for God not to need the time that has not yet been created to achieve the creation of time.
My second argument will explain paradoxes and justify Gods omnipotence. Can God create a rock so big that God itself cannot lift? Can God wish itself out of existence and wish itself back into existence? The Christian God claims to have certain characteristics to itself that we humans cannot understand. Assuming this is true, we must certainly accept the fact about this Christian God, that we cannot understand its nature, and if we could, it would not be God. However, assuming this is false, we see the error of mankinds logic in which when mankind tries to create God and label him as omnipotent as a solution of the mystery of creation. In the end, how can something come from nothing? Well, God is omnipotent, so God must be responsible for this. Paradoxes such as the story of Achilles show paradoxes in their true nature, rather than their empty purpose of applying them to Gods nature in order to challenge its existence. Many atheists will agree that paradoxes are not a good argument to challenge Gods nature and mankinds errors when considering that God is the creation of man, not the other way around.
My third argument will be The Anthropic Principle theorizes that human existence is possible because the constants of physics and the parameters for the Universe and for planet Earth lie within certain highly restricted ranges. The principle interprets these amazing coincidences as proof that human existence somehow determines the design of the Universe, and that the Universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Now that the limits and parameters of the Universe can be calculated, and some even directly measured, astronomers and physicists have begun to recognize a connection between these limits and parameters and the existence of life. It is impossible to imagine a Universe containing life in which any one of the fundamental constants of physics or any one of the fundamental parameters of the Universe is different, even slightly so, in one way or another. This theory accurately describes the Universes fine-tuning that allows human existence on dramatically coincidental levels. However, is the Universe tuned for human existence, or is human existence is tuned for the Universe? For mankind to be tuned for the Universe, we would have to take Natural Selection into consideration. I do not have complete knowledge on Natural Selection, but I will do this to the best of my ability. Natural Selection states that our existence today is the result of billions of years of evolution. This takes us back to the very early forms of life. In what condition should the Earth have been in order to support the very early form(s) of life? What governs the very first rising of life? What causes them to attain consciousness? These questions challenge Natural Selection and Evolution, but do they mean to emphasize that the answers to these questions will inevitably lead to God, the intelligent creator? Not necessarily, however, Im making the assumption that there is an intelligent creator and governor behind this. This does not offer much proof or evidence for his existence. Just because we do not know X, does not mean that X was created by God. I havent provided evidence, but no one really can. What I can do is, explain the nature of God on this issue.
So, why would God exactly go to such trouble to create us? God may have created us through Natural Selection and Evolution for many reasons. First, let us take into consideration that Genesis may be a metaphor. When it claims that we are approximately 6000 years old, it may be really saying that our self-awareness as human beings was established 6000 years ago. Now, why would God create us through Natural Selection and Evolution? It may very well be that God has done this to put no-limits on the mind of mankind, to have mankind always striving for an answer. One might say that the Universe is extremely vast, why the waste of space? Relativity comes into mind. How vast would it be if we were 200 billion times bigger? How vast would it be if we were 200 billion times smaller? It is all relative. Assuming that there is a God, the Universe is not very big at all compared to God. We can assume that God has made the Universe just necessarily big enough to put no-limits on the mind of mankind, to have mankind always striving for an answer. Why?
Striving for a particular goal is what humans do. We strive to find out whats behind the door; therefore we must turn the knob and open the door. We strive to end all suffering on Earth by moving our civilization to a location to a place without volcano eruptions. We strive to find comfort by scratching our arms when they get itchy. We strive for the greater good. Ending this strive would result in a pointless and meaningless life.
Well, then, what is Gods example of a pointful life? Why did God create us? Christianity explains how God has created us out of his love. This leaves room for abstract statements and questions such as: Why would God need to create something to love it and find satisfaction? I assume this is what created in his image means. We do not physically look like God, however, we know that God has no physical shape, (other than Jesus Christ which is not necessarily the point in this particular idea) therefore the logical explanation is that we were created in his thinking patterns. Non-tangible ideas such as Love, Peace, Satisfaction, Justice and Mercy are just some of Gods thinking patterns. Imagine completely bizarre, random and abstract beings that perhaps do not think or act or reason or dont rely on space or matter to exist, these are just some of the alternatives to what our thinking patterns and our existence are. Therefore, since we are created in Gods image, God would need a form of satisfaction. God will get satisfaction through creating life, loving it, providing eternal peace in the afterlife, performing justice and showing mercy, all of these ideas show Gods nature; just as a mother gets satisfaction from loving her child. But, wait a minute, according to Christianity, we are all sinful creatures who do not satisfy God, but make him regret creating us. Arthur C. Clarke said: If there are any gods whose chief concern is man, they cannot be very important gods. This quote emphasizes that God does not exist, because we are such miserable creatures in the middle of nowhere, that if God did exist, then God would obviously not be important. But there is a simple explanation; God still loves us just as any parent would love their child even if the child was a screw-up. A screw-up meaning that the child did not meet the expectations of the parent not in the choice of a lifestyle or a certain career, but in morality and their personality. Therefore, God gets satisfaction through forgiveness and mercy, having mercy on mankinds sins and forgiving mankinds sins; which is where the meaning of Jesus Crucifixion comes in, but I will not go into it.
If God loves us, why is there so much suffering in the world? Well, the answer can be simple. Without suffering, there is no good; it is not recognizable, and it is not appreciated. Without suffering we do not strive towards anything. Suffering is our fuel. If we knew the meaning of life, would we need to exist? But, if suffering is necessary for good to exist, then how will Heaven be possible? Will there be suffering in Heaven? Surely not, or it wouldn't be Heaven. And if suffering is not necessary for good in Heaven, then why is it necessary now? The answer is simple. Assuming that there is a Heaven, we currently live on Earth where our nature is imperfect according to God's wish; which is sinlessness; as Ive mentioned before. According to God's will, sinlessness is perfection. We rely on suffering to strive for perfection. If we rely on suffering to strive for perfection, then, that means we have not achieved perfection, and need suffering in order to achieve it. Being in Heaven is defined as being with God, therefore attaining perfection. With perfection achieved, in Heaven suffering is not necessary for the enjoyment of bliss.
------------------------------------------------------
After writing this essay, I wrote another, pretending that I just deconverted. I slopped together ideas by misinterpreting GOd's nature, and describing it inaccurately, and I basically put forth the idea that God was mankind's imagination's creation, rather that the other way around. The essay was ****, and you will see that too. Because the purpose of that essay was to convince atheists that I became one too, and I actually had so much trouble trying to disprove my previous essay, that I had no choice but to ignore my knowledge on GOd's nature, and put together.. basically ****..
when the thread started off as I'm an atheist, I'll tell you why soon, the atheists in General Apologetics went wild! "Welcome to logic, welcome to this, welcome to a life without religion wrapped around your neck" etc... the second essay was so crappy, that I expected it to be put down, and to be said that "This isn't the correct way to disprove God"
but no one said a word! everyone ate it up! every single atheist was saying "Yayyyyyy" rather than seeing the crappiness of the essay and my thoughts.
so, you see, this is exactly what Christ talked about, about the sheep, and the salvation, and the attacking the sheeps etc...
you all know what i'm talking about, i can't find the quote, i am getting banned to go to bed.
so the point is, no atheist rejected this. one man commented on it, and he said that "your arguments are good, you're on the right track, but you lack science which is justifiable because you're 16 years old..."
see, a stupid essay, and no one refuses it, because it supports them.
Suzannah, don't be discouraged, the purpose of that thread was the preceeding, and I think I made my point.
