I'm not concerned with people who think a God or Gods talk(s) to them. Nor am I concerned with people that believe that Jesus is there to save them when everything goes wrong. You guys, provided you're in that camp, are unsaveable. History will look upon you in much the same way it looks upon the Romans. That is: how can any rational person believe that shit?
No, I'm concerned with the great number of self-proclaimed agnostics I've noticed. I'm assuming that this is a side-effect of reform liberalism, but I still think it needs to be addressed. You're like a bunch of myopic progressives--you want to entertain the idea of a world without a God or Gods, but you're too entrenched in today's society to admit it.
So, here's my thesis: If you believe in the validity of logic and its correlation to the real world (and you better; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use Totse), you absolutely cannot even entertain the idea of a supernatural being or beings. Why? Because the existence of a supernatural being presupposes something outside of the law of cause and effect. And if anything--absolutely anything--lies beyond cause and effect, then cause and effect itself ceases to be a reliable observation.
For instance: suppose you are turning a gear, which is in turn attached to the teeth of another gear. Now obviously, the law of cause and effect will say that such-and-such gear will turn the such-and-such teeth of such-and-such gear when you apply kinetic energy to either of them, provided that they are in a logical configuration. However, let's consider this: something is outside of the law of cause and effect. Even better, let's consider the popular idea that there's an omnipotent, omnipresent intelligence that lies beyond cause and effect, able to change it at will. If this were the case, then the action and reaction of those gears is no longer predictable. And not only those gears; nothing can be determined if anything exists outside of cause and effect. If something exists outside of cause and effect, then cause and effect becomes unreliable; which means, when you boil it down to ones and zeros, that logic itself is entirely unreliable.
Which means that you don't have machines. You don't have computers. You don't have life.
Of course, I'm sure that someone can come in and say: "What if that which lies beyond cause and effect decides not to interrupt the process?" That's all fine and dandy, except that every religion to date depends upon something outside of cause and effect in order for that religion to make any sense whatsoever. The Israelites enslaved by the Egyptians? It wasn't cause and effect. It was God's Mandate, from without the material world.
Not only that tiny little fact, however, shows the fault in the "outside of cause and effect" argument. In order to justify such a statement, one must assume supreme knowledge of said supernatural being or beings. In essence, one must assume him/herself to be the supernatural being. Yet this, however much one might wish it into being, cannot possibly be the case. We ourselves are entirely bound by cause and effect in the material world, and if such a supernatural land of fairies and gremlins existed, we would never be able to comprehend it. We are bound to the world in which we exist, and that world is very plainly a law of cause and effect. Even if one could presume to know the nature of supernatural beings, he or she now has the burden of proof--for which there is none, nor will there ever be.
In addition, some agnostics may argue: "But Joe! Just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't there!" And my response: of course it doesn't mean that, but it does little to change my argument. My argument is that the validity of logic's entirety depends upon cause and effect, and anything beyond cause and effect introduces a variable that can't be predicted or factored into any cohesive argument. I could easily say that some people will be able to read this post, unless ghosts stop them from doing so! Such is the fault inherent in the agnostic argument: by introducing variables outside of logic, the process of logic itself becomes fruitless.
And, once again, I'm not interested in you 'Goddies' out there. I'm sure you're convinced that God exists because you feel a tingle in your spine whenever you go to church, which has an average temperature of 60 degrees. You guys just keep thinking that you're going to be saved, and go on trying to save people like me. I, on the other hand, would rather address real issues and solve real problems.
This post is for the agnostics of the world. And, in essence, my point is: your mind can be so open that your brain will fall out. If you claim to adhere to logic, then you simply cannot entertain the idea of the supernatural. You defeat the process in the process.
[This message has been edited by Toothlessjoe (edited 11-13-2006).]
|
Threaded Mode
