Touching the philosophy behind it all

The first writing

  Having been studying lately, the differences in different belief systems, I find that the ultimate conclusion that one comes to is based on a personal bias. That personal bias is born from a predetermined faith. Every objective truth leads to a subjective truth that one would use to support his/her faith. What this means is that an abundance of evidence can be used to support two completely opposing belief systems simultaneously. However, only one truth will ultimately be proven true. Truly, two opposing perspectives certainly cannot both be true simultanaously in this strict reality we live in. My goal with this note is to reveal, to whomever may be concerned, some examples of opposing view points that use the same kind of evidence in support of their claims... Admittedly, I do not intend to hide my own faith from this writing, I will actually aim to support it in every bit of reasoning I use. Having thought through the evidence, I find that what I believe actually makes much more sense to me in a much more practical manner than any other belief does. This is less of a scientific look into truth and more a scientific philosophical one. I certainly can't prove through means of scientific evidence that what I believe is true (though I do believe the evidence supports it), but I do intend to explain my reason for believing it from a philosophical standing. Why I believe the evidence supports my faith                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                First off, in just the first paragraph I wrote that we live in a "strict reality". How do we know our that reality is indeed a strict one? Why can't every truth be true? It would be nice to believe that our purpose is just what we want it to be, wouldn't it? It would be nice for me to go to Heaven just because I believe I will and for someone else to be reincarnated just because he believes he will be reincarnated. However, I don't believe multpile truths can be true because no order can come from mulitple truths being true. This comes from a scientific law. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that you can't get order from disorder and for every truth to be true would mean that order certainly does come from disorder. That would be impossible. Furthermore, for every truth to be true would be a serious contradiction to every belief system known to man. If every belief claims that every other belief is a lie then what truth do you have? There certainly wouldn't be any truth that fits into a shared reality, just disorder that makes no room for reality. This could only make sense if reality was just an illusion relative to every belief. But if reality is just an illusion then that would mean that your thoughts are just illusions. That would mean that every feeling and emotion you have is an illusion. That means that that statement itself is just an illusion. While it can't be proven scientifically, philosophically it just wouldn't make any sense to a rational mind. So of course, I certainly do believe we live in a mutually strict reality.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Why is it that someone can be so sure that there is a GOD and another can be so sure there isn't one? If I answer that question from a point of view dealing with my belief I would definitely say that it's because man has the free will to choose whether he believes or not. Christians believe that if you seek GOD you will find Him, but if you choose to believe in something else then GOD will give you up to your own beliefs. If GOD's word is true then it would be a scary thing to stand before Jesus and hear Him tell you that He never knew you. But of course, to someone who doesn't believe that the Bible is true, they would't think that it would be necessary to worry about such a consequence. While I certainly do believe this is true I'd answer the question differently to someone who would be unaffected by the words in the Bible. Using a mental illustration to help explain a statement: -Imagine that someone had told you that they had invented a time machine, but you wouldn't believe it. In an attempt to prove it, they showed you some strange "coincidences" that would support the idea that said time machine was real. It still isn't enough to make you believe that it is, so they invite you to try it out for yourself and you refuse or only step in with one foot and then back out again, not allowing the time machine to take effect.- It's impossible to experience truth if you refuse to acknowledge it in the first place. The person who invented the machine believes it's real because he has used it several times before. But the other person simply believes that it's impossible for such a machine to exist. It would even be harder for a person to believe that said machine was real if they weren't even brought before the machine to see it in the first place. In other words, not believing is easy when one has already decided not to or is simply oblivious to truth. A belief in GOD doesn't make sense to a non believer. Not that atheism is intellectually superior to Christianity (it isn't) but if I tried speaking in the Holy spirit to my dog she'd just look at me funny without ant kind of understanding. Not because I'm speaking non sense but because she isn't intellectually capable of understanding such a speech. However, unlike a dog, rational people are capable of such understanding. Only, the understanding won't come until the rational decision is made to think thoroughly through a certain philosophical perspective.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     I do believe that one of the best arguments for the existence of GOD would be the Kalam Cosmological argument. It states: everything that comes into existence has a cause, the Universe came into existence, therefore the Universe had a cause. That cause of course would be GOD. For something to come from nothing would be beyond impossible, and it is indeed a fact that the Universe had a start. So why is there something rather than nothing? A simple (however unthought of) rebuttle would be: "well who created GOD?" However, Christians don't believe that GOD came into existence. Therefore, GOD has no cause. Rather, GOD is the cause. GOD is the invariable source that everything else in existence depends on for existence. To ask who created GOD, one would have to assume that GOD is subject to His own laws. GOD created the Universal law of time. GOD also created matter, GOD created energy, and space. "In the beginning (time) GOD created the heavens (space) and the Earths (matter)". GOD used energy to create life and material in 6 days, and on the 7th day He rested (laws of energy conservation and energy decay). If nothing could create something then why hasn't anything come into existence spontaneously? Nothing is nothing so there's no way that nothing can discriminate against a universe coming into existence from nothing and not a laptop doing the same. The big bang is what many people like to call the beginning of the Universe. Because we know that it came into existence, many people like to call it something that would discredit GOD or make it sound as though a beginning doesn't need GOD. However, just saying that it was the big bang still leaves the chicken and egg problem. What exploded? Where did the energy come from? Time and space didn't exist until the Universe came into existence, so if there was a beginning then when did the matter come into existence? It couldn't have been eternal. Even if matter was eternal, where would you put it? There's no space for it outside of the Universe. The chicken and egg problem exists because answering these questions only brings about circular reasoning.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Many people claim they don't believe in GOD because they can't see Him and because there is no (to the atheist) satisfactory evidence suggesting He does exist. However, to those who share this idea, I'd like to quote a question from science philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig "Is the absence of evidence, evidence for absence?" This is a question that exposes and supports every kind of faith. There is no undisputed proof for common ancestry. Rather a very apparent absence of evidence. It requires faith. In fact, in regards to any religion or theory that deals with origins of any kind, there is indeed an absence of evidence. So if anyone answers "yes" to that question, it's fair to say, they haven't thought their philisophy  through. This brings the understanding back, all objective truth can support a subjective truth that is just a person's faith. Everything a person looks at is seen through the eye of that person's faith. A classic example would be the age old argument of unifomitarianism vs. catastrophism. Uniformitarianism ties in with evolution in support of an old Earth. Uniformitarianism is the belief that the geologic column is the result of  millions upon millions of years of erosion and slow Earth processes. Catastrophism is the belief that they all came from a catastrophic event (like a flood). Personally I think catastrophism explains a lot more than uniformitariansim does (but I won't get into that right now). The point is, both sides are looking at the exact same factual evidence and both sides come to opposite comclusions. I certainly can understand why someone would come to a different conclusion from my own, but understand, Christians (like myself) have a very good reason to believe what we do. The Universe is unimaginably huge. I understand that it's hard to believe in a GOD you can't see when He would have to be so big to create a Universe. Because to us the Universe is huge. To GOD the word Universe is literally a single spoken sentence. Uni=single and verse=spoken sentence. Our galaxy is literally close to or at the center of the Universe. . Personally, I think it would be a tragedy for a GOD so incomprehensibly huge who loves you to exist and you ignore His existence or refuse to acknowledge him. Especially considering the rewards and the consequences that might come with the faiths concerning Him.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   As if to further complicate the issue of a finite Universe, the idea of a multiverse has been suggested. So instead of a big bang, it was the big bang bang bang (infinite bangs?) This is really just philosophical suicide. If the Multiverse does indeed exist, the chain of events that caused them to start would still require a cause. But if their are an infinite number of big bangs, then how could more of them still happen? When would they happen? Surely, you can't add one to infinity. If that were possible, it wouldn't be infinity. So for a multiverse to exist (unless the multiverse is infinite and eternal) it would still need a cause. If there are an infinite number of multiverses they couldn't possibly be caused... Because to be infinite they would have to be eternal. Otherwise a cause would still be necessary. The idea of a multiverse is no more than a battle cry yelled out of desparation, just for the sole purpose of living in a World where the existence of GOD is unnecessary. The idea brings nothing more than more confusion. It's amazing, the kind of ideas people think of just to give themselves the illusion of a life where GOD isn't necessary.

Author's Note

Ignore the spacing errors please
:)