Jewish Atheist has proclaimed Opposite Day! Hooray!
Atheism's fallback explanations for the existence of the universe is that it must have always existed in some form or that it somehow popped into existence by itself.
However, the Big Bang and associated evidence indicates that our current universe has not existed for all time. And ideas offered about the Multiverse or an inexplicable conception of "time" is pure speculation and no better than many traditional religious ideas.
The idea that our universe, which is as ordered and capable of making intelligent beings like ourselves, was just an accident is an absurd conclusion and is literally incredible. It is based on nothing else but the atheist's stubborn protection of his ideology which effects to drive meaninglessness and hedonism far above traditional values and virtues.
While there may be many things which we humans do not fully understand about the Cause of our universe, it is the height of presumptuousness to assume there is none merely because we cannot prove that there must be one. The most sublime and abstract thing in existence is extremely difficult to prove given our limited mental abilities. Rational people don't reject Quantum Physics just because they don't understand it, kal v'chomer God, who must be many orders of magnitude more difficult to grasp, should not be so rejected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That'd be awesome if it catches on. My complete opposite day entry is here.
Your subject is overblown. Your argument doesn't support believing in god, it supports "not not" believing in god -- which still leaves one agnostic or weakly atheistic. Finally, while the opposite of your atheism is theism, your opponents are onto-religious, not just Deists. This argument does nothing for them.
Mis-nagid,
"Your argument doesn't support believing in god, it supports "not not" believing in god -- which still leaves one agnostic or weakly atheistic."
It gives reason to perhaps believe in something.
"Finally, while the opposite of your atheism is theism, your opponents are onto-religious, not just Deists. This argument does nothing for them."
I know, but onto-religious arguments are hard for me to stomach. They just don't have the data on their side, so one must effectively undermine our various established data-gathering systems to stay above water. I couldn't seriously argue like that.
Unless I'm mistaken, Einstein was a deist based upon ideas similar to the ones you just posted.
JF,
Einstein's beliefs are somewhat debatable. He did tend to sometimes contradict himself. But, yeah, you do have a point.
Einstein was a smart guy and I think he had a good appreciation for science, the basic inherent philosophy behind science, its implications and its limitations.
A skeptical, scientific worldview makes onto-religious claims difficult to support.
Post a Comment