by Tom Koecke

Created on: July 22, 2007

One of the arguments that permeates from the "religion of atheism" is that "nobody can prove God exists."

Those from the monotheistic religions often bite onto the hook attached to this lure, and try to explain Who and What God is. The Bible tells them it is their faith which matters, so why they feel the need to accept the challenge does not make sense to me: just have faith, live purely, and do not judge others. Walk as Jesus would walk; I don't recall much reference to him pulling out his Old Testament and preaching. Simply put, that is not how Jesus walked.

I, myself, struggle with the question of Who and What God is. As such, I am considered agnostic. The Bible is, to me, a history of man's knowledge, and, taking into account some relativity factors, meshes well with science. Consider the chronology in Genesis: God created the Heavens and Earth; He gave it light; He gave it water; He gave it vegetation; He gave it animals; He gave it people; He rested.

That, to me, doesn't seem too dissimilar from the view of the atheistic religion, which goes something like this: First, the universe was created; gases formed and created solar systems; life, on this planet, comes from water; the first life was vegetation; animals came after the vegetation; human beings are elite animals; the future of the world is in the hands of humans.

I believe both polarities on The Subject fail to understand infinity. Infinity is both "part of how God is conceived in the Bible," and is also "part of the definition of time." Essentially, the argument of the atheist is: "God does not exist; time created everything."

The atheists contend, however, that "God cannot be proved."

In fairness, then, atheists ought to be able to offer "a logical conclusion, substantiated by science (their bible), to disprove God."

They may point out the contradictions in the Bible as evidence that "the Bible is not true, offering the only other option is false." To those with scientific principles, I ask then if that does not contradict "infinity?" If so, is "infinity" not a part of "both science and math?" That is also not "proof, but uncertainty."

BONDI'S THEORY

In 1959, Hermann Bondi theorized "physical laws apply when mass 'is less than zero,' but, in general relativity, physical laws would work inversely on anti-mass." Others claim to have proved that to be true, but "admitted the virtual impossibility of proving there is such a thing as anti-mass;" no one, however, has disproved it.

One, then, would expect that

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>