RE: Hell and God cant Co-exist.
June 5, 2016 at 6:48 pm
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2016 at 6:53 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(June 5, 2016 at 4:02 pm)RozKek Wrote:(June 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Edit because I misunderstood.
Yes.
Either way, whether a person believes there was a supernatural element at play, or a person believes nature must have somehow done this all on its own, we are putting our faith in something we have no understanding in and no explanation for. Because as far as we know, as far as we have proof for, things in nature all begin from something else. They don't materialize out of nothing.
Why are theists so scared of "I don't know"? This is a bit difficult to phrase for me: I don't believe nature must have "somehow" done this all on its own neither do I believe there was a supernatural element at play. So no, one must not either believe on of those two options. I can't help but notice when theists speak of the existence of the universe you speak as if there is some purpose to it and if it has meaning to it. Once you stop believing that you can understand that it's very possible and more probable than any of the other options that the universe simply just is. I simply believe that the universe just is, I don't believe nature did it on its own, I don't even believe nature is a thing, really. Nature is just a word describing something, it doesn't have a life, it can't do anything, everything just is and there is no evidence at all for a supernatural element. That's what I think is true based on my knowledge. Long before humans existed, no one could even ask "what caused the existence of the universe", but the universe was still there, clearly. It had no meaning assigned to it, no one was there to give it purpose or meaning, but the universe still existed, and it just was, as far as we know. Before you say, well a god was there to give it meaning, first give me evidence for the existence of a god that was there giving it meaning, and I really mean evidence, not a poem, not sophistry, not arguments, nothing except evidence. If god can't be put in a lab and proved, then there is no convincing reason nor evidence to believe in a god.
And yes, right now, everything I see infront of me is created by something else, but who says that the everyday logic we experience applies to the beginning of the universe? But, afterall I do not know and I'm fine with it, I'm a human with limited power and such, I am not special, I am just as insignificant and purposeless as a planet orbiting its star in the Andromeda Galaxy. I might not be able to know everything and sure as hell never will. And there is no evidence at all for the existence of a supernatural being, and nature is just a human concept not capable of doing anything, deep down it's just particles, atoms and matter like everything else, it didn't somehow create something.
Simply put, I don't put my faith in anything.
Why do people keep saying I'm afraid of "I don't know?" Once again, that is not at all what I'm saying.
Also, from what I understand, the "I don't know" is more of an agnostic view. Agnostics say they don't know whether there is or there isn't a supernatural being/force of any kind. The atheist holds that there isn't. Sure, you don't know how things happened, but you do hold the view that it had nothing to do with anything beyond nature. So if there isn't a supernatural, you're saying this all came from nature, as apposed to super nature (supernatural). We also don't have proof that this all came from nature, neither can we understand how it could, because from what we do know, everything in nature comes from something.
And yes, if you say "maybe nature was somehow different back then", you're still putting your faith on that. We have no proof that nature was ever different enough to have made itself from nothing. Just as we have no proof of anything supernatural.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh