While I was out with a few of my squad mates yesterday, I realised something. One of them had actively converted to Christianity, to my (mock) horror. Lol.
So in a slight bid to proselytise, she gave me this book titled "How Can I Know There Is A God?" Anyway, to be nice, I decided not to drive my own squad mate up the wall with my always-proven-to-work "Where is the proof?" question.
On my way back from Somerset, I started flipping through the tiny booklet, and was immediately drawn to the section that had the 4 classical arguments for God. Interesting, I thought to myself, wary that I could probably throw them out of the window with my need (endless, might I say) for empirical evidence. Anyway, thankfully my squad mate wasn't around, let's just say that if she were, she would have been driven up the wall by me.
Argument 1: Argument from Being/ Ontological argument Basically, it goes along the line of "If I define God to exist, he must exist". Can I say that if I were to define that a yellow polka-dotted, purple elephant exists, a yellow polka-dotted, purple elephant must exist?
Argument 2: Argument from First Cause/Cosmological Argument It implies "Our world has a cause, because it has a cause, God exists." Until you find out that that cause is, I don't think I would ever buy it. As plastic bag explains the idea to interestingly,
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. (2) I say the universe must have a cause. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (4) Therefore, God exists.
Errr.. what happens If I say something does NOT have a cause? Go figure. Heh.
Argument 3: Argument from Design/ Teleological Argument Ahhh.. Intelligent design, I saw that coming!!! This is the one argument that defies Darwinism, and I love Darwinism!!! "Physicists marvel at the unbelievable complexity of everything they study". Just because they don't know how to explain it doesn't mean God has to be behind it. The same way, just because you can't find your wallet doesn't necessarily mean I took it, does it? And back to a certain flawed argument I've heard made in the name of ID, about how perfectly the bodies of organisms are designed, can someone please explain to me why do vestigial structures exist?
Argument 4: Argument from Man/Anthropological argument Well, I guess this one focuses on the supposedly differences between Man and animals. We have the ability to reason, make moral decisions, be self-sacrificial and appreciate the fine arts. Animals (supposedly) can't. So God must exist. But who's to say that animals can't do all of the above? Just because we don't understand them doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, it should be blasphemous that we can't appreciate nature's version of the fine arts. We don't appreciate the chirping of birds, the song of whales etc. And people claim we appreciate beautiful stuff? And who's to say that we are self-sacrificial not based on instinct? Different people may have difference responses to different situations based on instinct. If someone's instinct tells them to die, what do you think they would have done?
Of course after going through all these, I did a little thinking, when this really disturbing thought came to me.
If I reject God, and if one really does exist, I go to hell (supposedly). But if a hardcore rapist-cum-robber-cum-kidnapper-cum-murderer were to accept God, he'd go to heaven because he has a 'crutch' called 'God'? Disturbing, ain't it? The only reason why this thought came to me was probably due to the countless Christians who have been telling me "If you accept God, you go to heaven. Reject him, go to hell". OH HECK!
I'm a 3rd year student in what is probably the largest autonomous university in Singapore majoring in a Science-related subject (well it sorta IS SCIENCE). I'm known to be introverted, sarcastic (at times), funny when I rant (which isn't a good thing lol) and somewhat of a loner. I miss LA and would move there in a heartbeat :(
