The Paineful Truth Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 (The following post is probably not applicable for hard atheists) Some people's egos rail at the idea of being descendants from monkeys, while others object to being placed in a situation where they are forced to exercise their free will and thereby determine their character. Call it a maze if you will, but as with all analogies, they have limitations--in this case severe limitations: 1. We're in an unspecified, possibly infinite maze, with unlimited generations, but with stations along the way that provide validation that we're moving in the right direction. The "maze" started when someone invented the wheel or helped a fellow injured/sick monkey. 2. We, unlike innocent creatures such as rats and guinea pigs, are sentient beings, which gives us vanity (the ability to rationalize trespass on other's lives or not), thus creating good and evil and the free will to choose between them. 3. God, if He exists, can (has the ability) to intervene, but doesn't in order not to abrogate our free will. In the process, if God exists, free spirits or souls are created to our benefit and His. Some people's egos may be bruised at this idea of a maze, or test or being His pets or whatever analogy you want to use. But because we have no evidence for His existence, our actions are the same even if He doesn't exist, which would blow the maze analogy to pieces and save our precious little egos. If you have the choice, and we may, which would you prefer? You can rebel and opt out, choosing not to do evil, but also not to have character, and just sit and rot physically and/or emotionally. A lot of people avail themselves of that "luxury". If you choose to rebel against the idea of a God and His maze, can you be sure it is against the Truth and not the gods that men have made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosingMyReligion Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 3. God, if He exists, can (has the ability) to intervene, but doesn't in order not to abrogate our free will. In the process, if God exists, free spirits or souls are created to our benefit and His. My question to number three is... If God exists and does not want to interfere, then why are some people so certain of his existence? Why is God such a vital part of people's lives if he(or she or it)chooses to allot free will? Why not stay out of the equation completely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Paineful Truth Posted November 18, 2006 Author Share Posted November 18, 2006 People who are certain that God exists are just as under the influence of blind faith and those who are certain that He doesn't. But that doesn't stop them from acting on their "certainty". Most people's concept of God is what they were indoctrinated to and have not revisited since. They, through laziness or brainwashing/fear, chose not to examine it, but those that do still see the universe and wonder at it's cause, or at the cause of man's suffering. Freewill is more of a statement of our relationships with each other, especially since God either does not exist or remains non-influential. It's why I advocate dumping all our preconceptions of God (and no God) and substituting Truth. If there is a God, it will lead there, if not, then it will lead there. Until we know, which we are no closer to than we were 4 million years ago, an open-minded, agnostic approach toward what "God" might be is absolutely necessary. Meanwhile, we use our free will to advance our knowledge and institute a universal moral code for our interpersonal/social relationships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts