Read on Twitter
There are atheists out there who believe that God isn't real because there's no scientific evidence for it.
A vast swathe of the scientific method relies on observation and experimentation; however, there's no tangible way the atheist can observe God's non-existence.
A vast swathe of the scientific method relies on observation and experimentation; however, there's no tangible way the atheist can observe God's non-existence.
The atheist could tell me that this goes both ways; that there is no scientific evidence for God either, but that's not my point here; my point here is the atheist's beliefs requires faith.
The scientific evidence for God's non-existence requires faith because the scientific method cannot disprove the existence of God; and thus because it cannot disprove the existence of God it is merely a broken hypothesis.
So, that leaves us at a crossroads;
1. Believe in something.
2. Believe in nothing.
Between believing that we are a cosmic accident and believing that we were made for a reason, the latter is both more rational as it grants us justification for our existence, and is much more…
1. Believe in something.
2. Believe in nothing.
Between believing that we are a cosmic accident and believing that we were made for a reason, the latter is both more rational as it grants us justification for our existence, and is much more…
…comforting as it means life and our existence isn't meaningless.
The atheist can try to rationalize a reason to live but at the end of the day there really isn't a reason to under the atheist worldview. “There isn't a reason for anything. I do not have an existential worry..
The atheist can try to rationalize a reason to live but at the end of the day there really isn't a reason to under the atheist worldview. “There isn't a reason for anything. I do not have an existential worry..
…of eternal life or eternal death that is at stake, I do not have any reason to care about whether or not something dies, as at the end of the day we are a gigantic cosmic accident and we are all just chemical reactions reacting to each other,” according to the atheist.
The theist on the other hand, does have something at stake and thus has a reason to see his existence with reason and with any real sense of objectivity.
The reason this same line of thinking could be applied to another irreligious individual; maybe not an atheist but an agnostic. The agnostic is only a slightly more honest atheist, for at the end of the day the agnostic doesn't necessarily believe in a God either.
You might say they don't believe in the lack of one either but that's where you'd be wrong; the agnostic either lives as though there is a God, or the agnostic lives as though there isn't one, and there's no point on living out your life in uncertainty about something you…
…cannot confirm nor deny either way.
Logic dictates there is a God in the failure of the scientific method and rationality.
Logic dictates there is a God in the failure of the scientific method and rationality.
