MuraRengan
Banned via Warnings
Link to original post: [drupal=4941]Why I'm not an Atheist[/drupal]
I'm writing this blog not to start any trouble, but because I would like some feedback on my thoughts. The following stuff has been weighing heavily on my mind for some years now, and I think it's important now for me to at least have it written down somewhere. As a foreword, I'm urging that everyone be mature in the blog because this can very easily turn into a very lame thread if people can't be reasonable with each other.
Somewhere around the age of 15 I went through a metamorphosis that changed my way of thinking more drastically toward astronomical concepts. This was a change brought about by my introduction to the smash scene at around age 13. Put simply, the smash scene was my first encounter with atheists. They challenged my way of thinking, admittedly, for the better. Prior to this I'd never even considered "What if God doesn't exist?" It forced me to come to terms with a lot of oddities, untruths, and faults in my religion. For awhile, I thought it was a very real possibility that I might end up becoming an atheist. But at around age 15, I started to think about the world, reality, time, and space, and for 4 years I've been struggling with understanding whether or not believing in God (or a godlike entity) is warranted. I've only recently made the decision that it is.
The thing about reality that bothers me the most is time. A few years ago I wrote a blog here explaining what I think the problem is with time. I talked about how I believe that time extends prior to the Big Bang and creates an infinite time paradox, that being that if time can be recorded infinitely backwards there is no explanation for the progress of any events in time. Some people responded to that idea that there was no time prior to the Big Bang because time can only exist when there is change, and there was no change prior to the Big Bang. I didn't have an answer for that then, but I do now.
The Big Bang is nothing more than the rapid expansion of energy and particles into space. It is an event that occurs within reality, which consists of time and space. Most atheists I've spoken to believe that time prior the Big Bang is "meaningless" because there is no change. That word bothers me. It implies that that time exists but is somehow not important. This is one of the areas where I simply can't agree with modern atheism. The atheistic concept of time relies solely on visible, physical, recordable change. But both time and change are concepts, and just as there is physical change, there is also conceptual change. Even prior to the Big Bang, there was the conceptual change of "then" and "now". Even if everything that is existed in and unchanging singularity, that unchanging singularity still existed within increments of "then" and "now". Though it was not recordable, time "predates" the Big Bang, as does space. The fact of that existence makes all the difference because it refers back to the infinitely regressing time paradox.
Now what does this have to do with me not being an atheist? Well, when I first started this thought process, I did so with the sole intent of not presupposing gods into the equation. This is simply one of many conclusions where I see that totally realistic (which, in this context I mean to be "as relating to reality") thinking lead me to a brick wall. How could science possibly explain an infinitely extending past in the midst of an apparently progressing future? I don't see how it could, and when I brought this same issue to my atheist friends, they didn't think so either. One of my friends outright told me that I was right, but more commonly I get the answer that "Time just is that way and we can't explain it." Here is where I really can't agree with modern atheism. Atheism has most of its basis in science, and scientific thought has always been with the presupposition everything that exists has an explanation. Now perhaps my atheists friends aren't the most knowledgeable atheists, but I fail to see how one whose beliefs are based in science would suddenly drop scientific thought in the specific issue of time but maintain that science is the answer for most other things.
But, that's not the only time I've had this response from atheists. Like I said, this time issue is one of many issues that I feel science cannot explain. Another deals with energy. From what I've read, energy, unlike any other entity in existence, cannot be created and does not decay. It never came into existence and will never leave existence. I made a thread in the debate hall that addressed several different subjects, including energy. I asked why energy exists as it does. I asked how was possible for something to exist of itself forever extending infinitely into the past. I asked whether or not science could explain why energy exists in the manner that it does, and more than one person told me, "Why does energy need to have an explanation?" They didn't have a scientific answer, which leaves me with two possibilities for understanding reality: Either the most basic components of reality such as time, space, and energy exist in their very specific ways for no particular reason at all, or they are designed to function in these manners. As for which I believe, I'll say that I believe it's far too outlandish to think that time, space and energy, the very components of everything that could ever be, have no explanation to themselves. As a rule of thumb, to me, the more specific order and function a thing or concept has, the more need for explanation there is for it.
So relating this again to why I'm not an atheist, if there is any one thing that needs explaining and science can't explain it, the only conceivable answer is something unscientific, unrealistic, specifically, not relating to reality as we understand it. I'm sure you can see where this is going now. I'm not an atheist because I believe that evening the most scientific modes of thought we will eventually hit a brick wall where unscientific "things" become necessary to explain. Equally important is the necessity for the unscientific "things" to be unexplainable, such to avoid more origin crises. I just don't think it's rational to rule out "God", rather, at the very least, I think it is at the utmost of logic to believe that supernatural "entities" exist. Granted, this does not suppose that all the hoopla about the Christian God follows, but I wasn't going for that in the first place. For you, my reader, you can consider this the end of this blog as it refers to rational thinking, but I will now go on into my own personal beliefs.
I am a Catholic, but understanding what I do, I can barely call myself faithful in the most traditional sense of the word. I don't pray and ask God to do things. I don't take the Old Testament very seriously. Despite all this, I am very informed about my religion. I know and understand most of the Church's beliefs and policies, though I don't necessarily agree with the extent to which they should apply to the average person. That said I'm still very loyal to Catholicism for one reason: its history. There are records of every pope back to the very first, Peter, who, supposedly, had actual contact with Jesus. I won't simply ignore the written records that chronicle a history that leads directly back to Jesus. There are many historical facts that hinder and compound on the existence of Christ as described in the New Testament, starting with the Roman persecution of Christians that occurred shortly after the Ascension. As it stands, unless I'm given a reason to believe that the history of the Church is a lie, I'll likely remain a Catholic. Though, above all, I wish to maintain looking at everything objectively.
If you read all of this, then I thank you for your time. Writing this is very important to me because honestly I just want some to tell me that I'm not completely out of my mind. This is the first time I've ever shared any of this, and I feel that thinking to myself too much could easily cause me to loose base with other modes of thought. I'd like to know everyone's thoughts.
I'm writing this blog not to start any trouble, but because I would like some feedback on my thoughts. The following stuff has been weighing heavily on my mind for some years now, and I think it's important now for me to at least have it written down somewhere. As a foreword, I'm urging that everyone be mature in the blog because this can very easily turn into a very lame thread if people can't be reasonable with each other.
Somewhere around the age of 15 I went through a metamorphosis that changed my way of thinking more drastically toward astronomical concepts. This was a change brought about by my introduction to the smash scene at around age 13. Put simply, the smash scene was my first encounter with atheists. They challenged my way of thinking, admittedly, for the better. Prior to this I'd never even considered "What if God doesn't exist?" It forced me to come to terms with a lot of oddities, untruths, and faults in my religion. For awhile, I thought it was a very real possibility that I might end up becoming an atheist. But at around age 15, I started to think about the world, reality, time, and space, and for 4 years I've been struggling with understanding whether or not believing in God (or a godlike entity) is warranted. I've only recently made the decision that it is.
The thing about reality that bothers me the most is time. A few years ago I wrote a blog here explaining what I think the problem is with time. I talked about how I believe that time extends prior to the Big Bang and creates an infinite time paradox, that being that if time can be recorded infinitely backwards there is no explanation for the progress of any events in time. Some people responded to that idea that there was no time prior to the Big Bang because time can only exist when there is change, and there was no change prior to the Big Bang. I didn't have an answer for that then, but I do now.
The Big Bang is nothing more than the rapid expansion of energy and particles into space. It is an event that occurs within reality, which consists of time and space. Most atheists I've spoken to believe that time prior the Big Bang is "meaningless" because there is no change. That word bothers me. It implies that that time exists but is somehow not important. This is one of the areas where I simply can't agree with modern atheism. The atheistic concept of time relies solely on visible, physical, recordable change. But both time and change are concepts, and just as there is physical change, there is also conceptual change. Even prior to the Big Bang, there was the conceptual change of "then" and "now". Even if everything that is existed in and unchanging singularity, that unchanging singularity still existed within increments of "then" and "now". Though it was not recordable, time "predates" the Big Bang, as does space. The fact of that existence makes all the difference because it refers back to the infinitely regressing time paradox.
Now what does this have to do with me not being an atheist? Well, when I first started this thought process, I did so with the sole intent of not presupposing gods into the equation. This is simply one of many conclusions where I see that totally realistic (which, in this context I mean to be "as relating to reality") thinking lead me to a brick wall. How could science possibly explain an infinitely extending past in the midst of an apparently progressing future? I don't see how it could, and when I brought this same issue to my atheist friends, they didn't think so either. One of my friends outright told me that I was right, but more commonly I get the answer that "Time just is that way and we can't explain it." Here is where I really can't agree with modern atheism. Atheism has most of its basis in science, and scientific thought has always been with the presupposition everything that exists has an explanation. Now perhaps my atheists friends aren't the most knowledgeable atheists, but I fail to see how one whose beliefs are based in science would suddenly drop scientific thought in the specific issue of time but maintain that science is the answer for most other things.
But, that's not the only time I've had this response from atheists. Like I said, this time issue is one of many issues that I feel science cannot explain. Another deals with energy. From what I've read, energy, unlike any other entity in existence, cannot be created and does not decay. It never came into existence and will never leave existence. I made a thread in the debate hall that addressed several different subjects, including energy. I asked why energy exists as it does. I asked how was possible for something to exist of itself forever extending infinitely into the past. I asked whether or not science could explain why energy exists in the manner that it does, and more than one person told me, "Why does energy need to have an explanation?" They didn't have a scientific answer, which leaves me with two possibilities for understanding reality: Either the most basic components of reality such as time, space, and energy exist in their very specific ways for no particular reason at all, or they are designed to function in these manners. As for which I believe, I'll say that I believe it's far too outlandish to think that time, space and energy, the very components of everything that could ever be, have no explanation to themselves. As a rule of thumb, to me, the more specific order and function a thing or concept has, the more need for explanation there is for it.
So relating this again to why I'm not an atheist, if there is any one thing that needs explaining and science can't explain it, the only conceivable answer is something unscientific, unrealistic, specifically, not relating to reality as we understand it. I'm sure you can see where this is going now. I'm not an atheist because I believe that evening the most scientific modes of thought we will eventually hit a brick wall where unscientific "things" become necessary to explain. Equally important is the necessity for the unscientific "things" to be unexplainable, such to avoid more origin crises. I just don't think it's rational to rule out "God", rather, at the very least, I think it is at the utmost of logic to believe that supernatural "entities" exist. Granted, this does not suppose that all the hoopla about the Christian God follows, but I wasn't going for that in the first place. For you, my reader, you can consider this the end of this blog as it refers to rational thinking, but I will now go on into my own personal beliefs.
I am a Catholic, but understanding what I do, I can barely call myself faithful in the most traditional sense of the word. I don't pray and ask God to do things. I don't take the Old Testament very seriously. Despite all this, I am very informed about my religion. I know and understand most of the Church's beliefs and policies, though I don't necessarily agree with the extent to which they should apply to the average person. That said I'm still very loyal to Catholicism for one reason: its history. There are records of every pope back to the very first, Peter, who, supposedly, had actual contact with Jesus. I won't simply ignore the written records that chronicle a history that leads directly back to Jesus. There are many historical facts that hinder and compound on the existence of Christ as described in the New Testament, starting with the Roman persecution of Christians that occurred shortly after the Ascension. As it stands, unless I'm given a reason to believe that the history of the Church is a lie, I'll likely remain a Catholic. Though, above all, I wish to maintain looking at everything objectively.
If you read all of this, then I thank you for your time. Writing this is very important to me because honestly I just want some to tell me that I'm not completely out of my mind. This is the first time I've ever shared any of this, and I feel that thinking to myself too much could easily cause me to loose base with other modes of thought. I'd like to know everyone's thoughts.
