Well it's certainly not national, but around here there is a lot of snow.
Driving is now dangerous and in some cases actually less convenient than walking. The branches of trees are breaking under the weight of snow and ice that has been pushed on them. And the snow falls ever-softly down.
What I'm getting at is that the weather is terrible, even dangerous, but within the danger I find the most beautiful nature. I can't say exactly why, but I felt compelled to walk in this danger, without a specific destination, only carried by my slight whims. The wind and snow beat hard on my face. The icy layer under the snow crushed with each of my steps only to give way to more snow. Not surprisingly, I came to a wood. I have been there often, and nearly every time there I seem to find beauty, but the dainty prettiness of the wood has always been best viewed under a blanket of snow. I walked through, finding no place where beauty did not stir. I would often pluck an icicle to feel the satisfying crack of ice. then I decided I was done I would not do anything more to disturb the beauty, and as I came to this decision I noticed the irony in it, since my footsteps disturbed more nature than anything else. I came to the creek, which still found the will to flow. It was covered with a thick layer of slush, and here I wiped snow off the ground and reflected. I love to indulge myself by sitting next to such beauty, listening to the subtle noise of nature and simply thinking. To me, the wood showed how God brings beauty out of ugliness and disaster. The wood easily makes me forget the ugly, black slush on the roads, and the extreme struggle of trying to push a car through that mess. No, I would say that snow brings more beauty than anything else. I wish I could have taken pictures of all that I saw, and perhaps I make go out again, but the beauty of an icy xylophone, isn't easily re-made, and now it only exists in the memory and imagination of those who have seen it.
Perhaps I will go out again, but for now the snow keeps falling, covering my footsteps.
...That was strangely reflective wasn't it? Perhaps I've been reading too much of the romantic poetry...
I'm Out
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Atheist God
Well now it's certainly been far too long (again). I suppose theirs a slight irony in the fact that the time when I have less that needs to be done, I do less stuff like this. Anyway, I was kind of waiting for something to blog about as opposed to making up something to post. Beside all those points, I have finished a reading a trilogy which could easily be my favorite series. Of course when I finished the last book I feel the way I always do when I come to the end of a great story. I don't know if it's the sadness that it's finally over or something else, but I find the only way to fill he hole that that feeling gives my is to think about the book, study it, analyze it. I do everything from memory, I don't bother to look up a small detail and if it was larger then I would remember it. So where am I getting? Well, normally I just think about the books, but for this one the more I thought, the more I felt as if there was some message I should be getting from the book. I guess I'm getting ahead of myself now though.
The trilogy is commonly known as the Mistborn series, it is very grand in scope and contains magical, political, and even religious themes. However, contrary to what even I would have guessed, when I looked into the book I concentrated on trying to find a religious theme. It seemed like the book said that if people do not believe in something, then they will have no hope. Makes sense right? Even hope must come from somewhere. Without believing in something, people will have no hope, without hope, people will fall into despair and then nothing will ever progress. So then that led me to think; what about atheists? I'm not atheist, so excuse me if I'm wrong, but atheists don't believe in a god do they? If that is so then how does an atheist get any hope, my first thought was that they get it from material goods, but that makes no sense. Hope is the eternal believe that things can work out for the better at any time, no matter the circumstances. Atheists could not get hope from material things since they are finite, yet for hope to be true, it must be based on something that never ends, otherwise it couldn't be eternal ad thus would be a false hope. So, this leads to the conclusion that atheists have no hope, but this can't be true, for I have met a few atheists and while none of them were the most optimistic, they most certainly believed that things could go right. Also, if atheists had no hope they would never bother to try to get people to believe they were right
Where then do atheists get their hope. Here, I make a bit of a logical jump, I can't expect most, or really any, to take this seriously, but just listen. Atheists have hope, (we're focusing on the people in general, not every specific case) this means that they must believe in something eternal and immaterial. What could possibly then be both those things but a god? The truth is that the atheists have a god, they just don't acknowledge it.
The atheists god is better known as chance. Chance does not have favorites, bias', or prejudices he just decides the outcome of life without thinking whether it would help men or harm them he doesn't care what happens or if anything happens. Silly right? But it would explain how atheists could possibly believe in evolution. For evolution to work, the RNA in our bodies must make a mistake, that happens,but only rarely. However since RNA copies DNA so many times then mistakes do happen. But, the chances that the RNA's mistake would actually help our bodies is a chance that's even a billion times smaller. They say that they world is a few billion years old, I don't agree, but we won't press that now. This means that I could find it plausible that perhaps one, maybe two useful mutations could occur, but more would be extremely skeptical. Now to this, evolutionists add that previously, radiation from the air made RNA mistakes more common, thus useful mutations are also more likely. The truth is however even if useful mutation becomes more likely for a monkey to evolve into a human there must be a few hundred useful and very specific mutations, let alone if a single celled organism is to evolve into the many animals we have now, there would need to be thousands of these mutations. So for evolution to have actually occurred would be a chance of one in a trillion. I've always wondered how people could possibly believe that something of such a small chance could ever occur. That is like saying if I put an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters, one will write a Shakespearean play. The fact is that can't happen because one can only get a finite number of monkeys. So how could one believe that such a small chance could ever occur, unless you believe that chance will do anything no matter the odds and thus something like this is now possible. It seems that unless you already believe that this is the only choice atheism has no real proof. However when looking at my own faith there isn't much factual evidence that can prove that I'm right, but once on assumes that it is correct there is near no end of evidence and proof of my faith. So one must assume that they are right in order to find any proof in their own theology. I think that there is undeniable proof that God watches us in his miracles. But that is only undeniable if one assumes that God did those things and that they are miracles. An atheist would wave the miracle saying that there is a scientific explanation, or he would say that all the witnesses were experiencing a hallucination. Thus for the very many miracles which we could not possibly even fathom a scientific explanation of they suggest hallucination. But for so many people to have the same hallucination at the same time would be a very, very low probability. Again this means nothing to the atheist because if even the smallest possible chance exists then he will view it as easily possible. So now we are at the same problem, he problem is one cannot prove a faith to an atheist because he is blinded by his own faith even more so than he would be by most religions.
Now what was the point of all that? I don't know. When I start to think sometimes I feel like I could be on the verge of something large. My logic here is not perfect I can see many flaws in it, but by realizing them perhaps I can avoid them in the future. I only ask that unless you yourself can see the holes in my logic, don't criticize it (although, looking back I don't think they're that hard to see). I would love to hear peoples opinions to my blasphemy since this is all what came out of my head, without any alteration and there are somethings I feel I should change, but won't. Do people think that I'm stupider than I would admit, or smarter? Do people prefer this to me talking about how much I like a game? Since this is the first time I really spent any depth writing philosophically I need some feedback, preferably of the constructive kind. So with that, I thank you for reading.
I'm Out
The trilogy is commonly known as the Mistborn series, it is very grand in scope and contains magical, political, and even religious themes. However, contrary to what even I would have guessed, when I looked into the book I concentrated on trying to find a religious theme. It seemed like the book said that if people do not believe in something, then they will have no hope. Makes sense right? Even hope must come from somewhere. Without believing in something, people will have no hope, without hope, people will fall into despair and then nothing will ever progress. So then that led me to think; what about atheists? I'm not atheist, so excuse me if I'm wrong, but atheists don't believe in a god do they? If that is so then how does an atheist get any hope, my first thought was that they get it from material goods, but that makes no sense. Hope is the eternal believe that things can work out for the better at any time, no matter the circumstances. Atheists could not get hope from material things since they are finite, yet for hope to be true, it must be based on something that never ends, otherwise it couldn't be eternal ad thus would be a false hope. So, this leads to the conclusion that atheists have no hope, but this can't be true, for I have met a few atheists and while none of them were the most optimistic, they most certainly believed that things could go right. Also, if atheists had no hope they would never bother to try to get people to believe they were right
Where then do atheists get their hope. Here, I make a bit of a logical jump, I can't expect most, or really any, to take this seriously, but just listen. Atheists have hope, (we're focusing on the people in general, not every specific case) this means that they must believe in something eternal and immaterial. What could possibly then be both those things but a god? The truth is that the atheists have a god, they just don't acknowledge it.
The atheists god is better known as chance. Chance does not have favorites, bias', or prejudices he just decides the outcome of life without thinking whether it would help men or harm them he doesn't care what happens or if anything happens. Silly right? But it would explain how atheists could possibly believe in evolution. For evolution to work, the RNA in our bodies must make a mistake, that happens,but only rarely. However since RNA copies DNA so many times then mistakes do happen. But, the chances that the RNA's mistake would actually help our bodies is a chance that's even a billion times smaller. They say that they world is a few billion years old, I don't agree, but we won't press that now. This means that I could find it plausible that perhaps one, maybe two useful mutations could occur, but more would be extremely skeptical. Now to this, evolutionists add that previously, radiation from the air made RNA mistakes more common, thus useful mutations are also more likely. The truth is however even if useful mutation becomes more likely for a monkey to evolve into a human there must be a few hundred useful and very specific mutations, let alone if a single celled organism is to evolve into the many animals we have now, there would need to be thousands of these mutations. So for evolution to have actually occurred would be a chance of one in a trillion. I've always wondered how people could possibly believe that something of such a small chance could ever occur. That is like saying if I put an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters, one will write a Shakespearean play. The fact is that can't happen because one can only get a finite number of monkeys. So how could one believe that such a small chance could ever occur, unless you believe that chance will do anything no matter the odds and thus something like this is now possible. It seems that unless you already believe that this is the only choice atheism has no real proof. However when looking at my own faith there isn't much factual evidence that can prove that I'm right, but once on assumes that it is correct there is near no end of evidence and proof of my faith. So one must assume that they are right in order to find any proof in their own theology. I think that there is undeniable proof that God watches us in his miracles. But that is only undeniable if one assumes that God did those things and that they are miracles. An atheist would wave the miracle saying that there is a scientific explanation, or he would say that all the witnesses were experiencing a hallucination. Thus for the very many miracles which we could not possibly even fathom a scientific explanation of they suggest hallucination. But for so many people to have the same hallucination at the same time would be a very, very low probability. Again this means nothing to the atheist because if even the smallest possible chance exists then he will view it as easily possible. So now we are at the same problem, he problem is one cannot prove a faith to an atheist because he is blinded by his own faith even more so than he would be by most religions.
Now what was the point of all that? I don't know. When I start to think sometimes I feel like I could be on the verge of something large. My logic here is not perfect I can see many flaws in it, but by realizing them perhaps I can avoid them in the future. I only ask that unless you yourself can see the holes in my logic, don't criticize it (although, looking back I don't think they're that hard to see). I would love to hear peoples opinions to my blasphemy since this is all what came out of my head, without any alteration and there are somethings I feel I should change, but won't. Do people think that I'm stupider than I would admit, or smarter? Do people prefer this to me talking about how much I like a game? Since this is the first time I really spent any depth writing philosophically I need some feedback, preferably of the constructive kind. So with that, I thank you for reading.
I'm Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
