I am about to reveal to you a part of myself, the opinions and perspectives I hold along with the rationalizations they are based on, to you. I hope that I can make you challenge yourself on all of the ideologies you have been conditioned to believe from birth, just as I have challenged mine. Accept the idea of possibility and seek the truth, no matter what that means.
Below is a documentary, one of the greatest documentaries I have ever seen. It explains where religion, all religion, originates from. It also demonstrates for you many of the parallels that exist between them. If you want to understand why I do not believe in any of our written theologies, then it is crucial for you to watch this documentary. There are 3 parts to this documentary.
If you are still interested in this email after watching the documentary, then I have a few philosophical arguments for you to consider.
I. THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
One of the most popular philosophical arguments against the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient god is The Problem of Evil. In this philosophical argument, the original premise contradicts itself in its conclusion. One of the later versions of The Problem of Evil, which has been revised from its original format, is as follows:
- God exists.
- God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
- A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
- An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
- An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
- A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
- If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
- Evil exists (logical contradiction).
If you would like to learn more about The Problem of Evil, I have provided you with a link to wikipedia's webpage for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil, I highly recommend reading it, as it is very resourceful. In essence, this argument claims that if an omniscient, omnipotent, and all benevolent being exists, then no evil exists. However, evil exists, so therefore if an omniscient and omnipotent being exists then he is not benevolent; and if he is benevolent, then he is not omnipotent and omniscient.
II. THE OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX
The next philosophical argument to consider, which is under heavy debate and has strong arguments on both sides, is the Omnipotence Paradox. The paradox states that: if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.
One version of the omnipotence paradox is the so-called paradox of the stone: "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" If he could lift the rock, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent, as the rock was not heavy enough; if he could not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with.
However, one of the strongest counter arguments to this, which should also be considered, states that the omnipotence paradox is logically incoherent and just as much nonsense as asking god to draw a square circle.
If you would like to read more about this argument, I have provided a wikipedia link to the webpage for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
In essence, the idea of an omnipotent being existing is paradoxical. However, it is also possible that there are paradoxes within the paradox that make the argument not valid. Also, It is important to note that this argument refers ONLY to omnipotence, and not to benevolence.
III. THE ARGUMENT FROM FREE WILL
In essence, this argument states that free will and omniscience are incompatible. This creates a paradox. The concept of there being an omniscient being with free will is contradictory. If the being is omniscient, then the being is all knowing. If the being is all knowing, then all things are predetermined. If all things are predetermined, then free will does not exist. I will demonstrate this argument for you below:
Premise 1: God is omniscient.
Premise 2: God knows that Tom will do x action at t time.
Premise 3: At t time, x must occur.
Premise 4: At t time, tom is give the option to do x action or y action.
Premise 5: If god is all knowing, Tom must do x action.
Premise 6: If Tom does y action, then god is not omniscient.
Conclusion: If x action must occur at t time, then the will to act freely does not exist. If y action occurs at t time, then omniscience does not exist.
If you would like to read more about the argument from free will, I have provided a link to wikipedia for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will
THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG
I have demonstrated for you only a few of many, many philosophical arguments on the existence of god. I chose to demonstrate the three above for you because they are the ones that I have found to be the most prevalent. This really is just the beginning. There is so much more to learn. If you are interested in learning more about other philosophical arguments on the existence of god, you can use the following link as a guide for your references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
There is also much more information and theory on this subject that is part of my logical reasoning that I have used as the basis for my belief system. However, I feel that I have just provided you with a plethora of knowledge that needs to be digested and considered before more is divulged. If you are still interested in learning more about my belief system and its foundation after you take the time to consider and deeply reflect on what I have already disclosed, then in my upcoming emails you can expect to learn about Renee Descartes, Philosophical Moral Theories, Immanuel Kant, Consciousness, Cosmological theories and concepts (including the big bang theory, hubble's law, Galileo, string theory) It is here that things become much more confusing and complex, as you will likely find that asking questions only leads to more questions in the enigma that is reality.
HOW I IDENTIFY MYSELF
Agnosticism
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[44] Agnosticism as a broadumbrella term does not define one's belief or disbelief in gods, agnostics may still identify themselves as theists or atheists.
Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheism is the view of those who do not claim to know the existence of any deity but do not believe in any.[45]
The theologian Robert Flint explains: "If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist, although he assume no superhuman knowledge, but merely the ordinary human power of judging of evidence. If he go farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist, an agnostic-atheist—an atheist because an agnostic."
I shall close in my own words. Above all else, I believe in always seeking truth and that is what gives me hope, passion, and strength. It is from within that I find these things, not from any external being. I want to free the human mind so that it may be challenged, cultivated, and opened on every level to all of the possibilities in our realm of understanding that may or may not exist. I do not need to know that I have a purpose or that I will transcend death to live in happiness. It is enough to know that I am here, especially when the odds of my being having ever come into existence were against me. I quote, "In human coupling, millions upon millions of cells compete to create life for generation after generation, and against unfathomable odds... it's you... only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from all that chaos is like turning air into gold. ... A miracle." -Dr. Manhattan, Watchmen 2009. It is enough to be able to open my eyes and take it all in, thinking of how incredible it is that I am even capable of experiencing the visual stimuli I am perceiving. Whether I have a purpose or not, does it make those moments any less valuable? Why is it that for our universe to have existed, it had to have been created by a higher deity? It isn't that our universe exists because the conditions for it to be created were perfect, it's just that the conditions that brought it into existence were enough to do so. But does that make it any less fascinating?
No comments:
Post a Comment