When peoples of different race, culture, language or customs are brought together into the same geographic region and the conditions are created for intermixing, the ultimate result is naturally a blending of those ethnic groups. The identity and uniqueness of those original cultural groups becomes eroded over time with each passing generation and is progressively replaced by an overwhelming mono-culture. Analogously, if a can of black paint is mixed with a can of white paint in the same container, it forms one entirely new colour. The resulting grey paint doesn’t differ from any other colour because there is no other colour. There is only one colour left. One thing. One entity. If racial diversity is a good thing, as some of our leaders profess it to be, then why bring people of different races together in the same region when the ensuing race-mixing would only bring about less diversity, not more?
One thing I’ve noticed about atheists is that they seem to use the principles of science to dismiss the existence of god. Instead however, I believe science supports the existence of god.
The numerous discoveries in physics, chemistry and in other sciences have demonstrated that our universe obeys laws: the laws of nature. For example, the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, rather it can only be transformed from one form of energy to another. Moreover, in chemical reactions, to conform with the law of conservation of mass, there must be the same number of each type of atom on both sides of the arrow. Human beings, for example, are created according to the makeup of their DNA. Our brains are simply a medley of electrical signals and biochemical reactions behaving in accordance with the laws of physics. If we accept these concepts, we are able to conclude therefore that the universe does indeed have order. Science in general seems to be a method of accounting for the phenomenon in the universe.
Furthermore, Newton’s third law of physics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If this is true, it leads to the following conclusion: every action is a reaction to another prior action. This substantiates the notion that the universe is ruled by cause and effect or causality, which in turn lends credence to the fact that we are, in the present moment, defined by our past. This also means our future can be hypothetically predicted based on our past.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system is always increasing. Accordingly, our universe will reach a point in time when there can be no more disorder. Either that or the universe will reach point in time very close to a state of ultimate disorder. This would be the hypothetical death of the universe. If in fact, this will happen, that our universe is destined for some sort of theoretical death, then logically our universe must have also had a beginning. Isn’t the idea of an eternal universe contradictory to the reality of the present in which change does exist? If I drop a ball onto the floor from my hand, there is change. That is, the ball moves from my hand to the floor. So if we were destined to become a sea of photons as some scientists say we are, then shouldn’t we have already arrived at that stage an eternity ago? Why, if the universe is eternal, is there change? If the natural tendency of our universe is going toward a state of ultimate disorder and in times past, our universe was, by nature, less disordered, that means that whatever the opposite of a sea of photons is was the initial state of our universe. It then begs the question: what forces and powers brought about this primary state of the universe? If you line up a series of dominoes and push the first one over, it therefore necessitates that the line of dominoes had to have been set up at some point beforehand. If I empty a bag of marbles onto the floor from a certain height, the marbles will hit the floor and disburse and go in multiple directions. This therefore implies that, in the beginning, I had to gather the marbles together and put them into the bag. I had to raise the bag to the starting height from where I dropped them.
The crucial point to understand is that the timeline of our universe is a sequence of unfolding events in which one event gives rise to a subsequent event, which in turn, gives rise to another event and so on. This leads one to wonder that if events of times past have engendered the events of the present, what produced the first event to begin with? What tipped over the first domino? What came before cause? Although the answer seems irrational, it is the only rational answer. If we predicate our argument on the premise that our universe does indeed have a beginning, that means that some force must have engendered the progression of events of the universe in the first place. How can such a chain of events originate from nothing? Well, it can’t. That would defy the laws of nature. Therefore, the answer must point to the existence of a force that, in fact, defies the laws of nature. This evinces the existence of the supernatural. As what is the supernatural creator of the universe customarily known? God.
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.
The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control–
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.
This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf–
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
Is Earth the only planet in the universe capable of sustaining life or is Earth the very origin point from which life will expand to conquer the universe?
The physical non-living world around us is governed by the laws of nature. Water, due to the force of gravity, will move from a point of higher elevation to a point of lower elevation if it is permitted, but what if humans come along and erect a dam or divert the flow of water to go somewhere else? When we humans do something to our environment, is that action a complex manifestation of the physical and chemical laws of nature or are we separated from the non-living world in the sense that we choose to take a specific course of action through our own volition and free will? Does free will only exist for humans?
[This passage was originally written in 2014. This does not necessarily reflect my view today.]
To forsake one’s own pursuit of family and to abandon the pursuit of wealth in order to fully apply one’s self to ensure other people have the opportunity to pursue their own interests is a higher cause than pursuing one’s own self-interests. We owe the forefathers who died for their racial kinfolk and who died for their grandchildren the greatest debt of all.
I hate free will. If there is one error god has made in creating mankind, it is the endowment of free will. It is so because free will gives humans the power to make the wrong decision. Other species don’t seem to have free will. Ants don’t get to choose whether they become soldier ants or worker ants. Birds are simply driven by the imperative to survive and reproduce in the best way they know how.
The patients on the show “My 600lb Life” are the perfect example as to what happens when free will is exercised. Most of the patients are failures, degenerates, losers and most of all miserable, destined to die in their fourties due to obesity-related medical problems. Okay, my 600lb life is an extreme example, but in my life, for example, i have made many decisions that have lead to failure and misery, knowing when i made those decisions, that they were the wrong decisions. I’m sure we’ve all done that in our lives.
True, there are the few of us who do make the right decisions consistently and they are, likewise rewarded for it. Have we, those of us who have lost the very imperative to survive and reproduce in the best way we know how? Or perhaps,
Or perhaps, free-will doesn’t exist after all. Perhaps those of us who make bad decisions were never destined to make good decisions and vise versa.