Of Logic and Reality

Of Logic and Reality:

In college, I took a course in logic. If you have instructors who have not deliberately blinded themselves to various possibilities and are willing to keep an open mind, a logic class can be very eye-opening. I discovered that it is impossible to prove a negative.

For example, how would you go about proving conclusively to everyone in the world that God does not exist? In order to settle the question once and for all, you would have to go into every corner of the universe simultaneously and see for yourself that God is not there; and technically, you would have to take everyone else along with you for the ride, if you are going to prove to them conclusively that God does not exist. You would also have to go into every time period in every corner of space simultaneously and see for yourself that God was never there in the past and will never be there in the future. If you are going to convince everyone else that you are right, once again, you are going to have to find some way to take all of them with you on the journey. Good luck with that. Furthermore, you would have to travel into every different dimension or alternate realm of reality (spiritual, physical, transcendental, hyper-dimensional, microscopic, macroscopic, unknown, invisible, and visible) simultaneously and verify once again that God is nowhere to be found. Trust but verify. Go and see. At that point, you will most likely have proven conclusively that God does not exist; but then, will you be able to use your evidence successfully to convince everyone else to believe that God does not exist?

Proving to yourself that something does not exist is one thing; but, proving to everyone else that it does not exist takes it to a whole other level. The problem is that if you can do all of those things simultaneously, then you are a God or you are God, and then God does indeed exist. In order to prove a negative conclusively once and for all, you effectively have to become the thing that you are trying to disprove, which will in the end negate your proof. In the case of God, you would have to be a God or become God in order to convincingly and conclusively prove to everyone else that God does not exist. See the problem?

Let's take a simpler example. How would you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Moses never spoke with God and never saw God face-to-face? Once again, you would have to find some way to take us both back in time, and we would have to somehow stand over Moses' shoulder every day of his life and see for ourselves that God never once appeared to him or spoke to him. The same would apply to Joseph Smith or any of the other prophets. In order to convincingly prove to me that God the Father and Jesus Christ never appeared to Joseph Smith and never spoke to him; we would have to find some way to stand over Joseph's shoulder for the duration of his life and see for ourselves that God never appeared to him and never spoke to him. See the problem?

Likewise, in order to prove that there is nothing smaller than a quark, one would have to be a quark or be smaller than a quark in order to convincingly prove to all the rest of us that there is nothing smaller than a quark. Particle physics can be instructive. Each generation, the scientists change the fundamental building block of nature to something smaller, after they find signs of something smaller. They left the visible behind long ago, and now they are dealing with the invisible or the microscopic. In fact, the scientists are now dealing with the “indirectly detectible”; but, they still have no way of examining the undetectable. If it is non-physical or if it is undetectable by our physical instruments, then we simply have no way of examining it. How far does it go? How small does it go? We don't know. We can only speculate and guess.

The moral of the story is that it takes an infinitely greater leap-of-faith to choose to believe that God does not exist than it takes to believe that God does exist. If just one of the prophets in the Bible is telling the truth, then God does exist; and, then we have to take it from there and deal with it. Some of the prophets in the Bible claim to have seen God and talked with Him face-to-face as one person talks to another; and, this serves as convincing proof or evidence of God's existence for anyone who chooses to believe that the Biblical Prophets were telling the truth.

On the other hand, to unilaterally decide that something does not exist requires that we stick our heads in the sand and refuse to see. Ostriches and young children do that all the time. For a young child, they truly believe that if they turn their head and look away, the scary thing simply ceases to exist. In contrast, coming to believe that God exists simply consists of keeping an open mind and choosing to believe that one or more of the prophets in the Bible were telling the truth; or, it consists of finding God for yourself. There is evidence (tons of evidence) for God's existence; the question is whether one is going to choose to look at and believe that evidence or not. In contrast, there is no evidence and can be no evidence to support the claim that God does not exist, because it's impossible to prove a negative.

If one starts with the assumption that everything that the Biblical Prophets and Apostles said in the Bible is true, it completely changes the outcome and totally changes the meaning of the text. Try it some time. I did. If one takes the Bible (and the events recorded therein) literally, or takes it all on faith, it completely changes the interpretation of the text. Then the only questions that remain are: “How accurate is the record that the Biblical scribes produced? Is there any way to find a more pristine or unaltered version of the original text?” For example, whenever Jesus or his mother claims that Jesus is the Son of God, if one takes that literally and assumes that it is true, he gets completely different results than the person who simply says, “Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, but nobody should take that literally.” The first interpretation even goes so far as to assume that God Himself exists. The second interpretation concludes that everything that Jesus said is suspect or false. Our chosen assumptions actually change the meaning of the text.

Faith or belief is a decision and a choice. One either chooses to believe that something is true, or he chooses not to believe. That's the true nature and the real definition of faith. Faith is choosing to believe or choosing not to believe; either way, it's a leap-of-faith. I laugh whenever someone tells me that the atheists have no faith. That's simply not true. The atheists make a choice and take a leap-of-faith that is infinitely greater than any leap-of-faith that a religious person can possibly make. It's a blind leap-of-faith that the atheists make, a monumental leap-of-faith. They leap to conclusions that can't possibly be proven to be true. The atheists literally launch themselves out into the unknown and the unknowable, and they simply choose to believe that their atheism is true. That takes a great deal of faith, a blind faith.

Over and over again, the atheists jump to conclusions that can't possibly be proven to be true, because they are always trying to prove a negative; and logically, it just can't be done. Typically, whenever a person is trying to prove a negative, he actually has to become the thing or take on the aspects of the thing that he is trying to disprove in order to convincingly prove to others that that thing does not exist. It is just the reality of the situation. At that point, he sometimes ends up proving to himself the very thing that he was trying to disprove.

I have always had trust issues during my life. My motto seems to be, “Trust, but verify.” Someone tells me that I will get burned if I touch my finger to a hot stove. So, what do I have to do? I have to try it out for myself to see that it is true. After all, I'm not going to take their word for it. I've got to see for myself. “Ouch! That really hurt. Trust me. That really hurt! Trust me, you don't want to do that.” Thankfully, I was lucky enough not to wait until it was red hot before making the attempt. I think some people still have the scars from their attempts to verify rather than trust.

Ironically, something is proven to be true at the very moment that we choose to believe that it is true. Human beings have the power to will things into existence or to believe things into existence. Take love for example. Love does not exist until we will it into existence or believe it into existence. Love exists at the very moment that we choose to love someone or choose to find someone or something lovable. Love is a decision or a choice. So is faith. I have noticed in my own life that no matter what it might be, it does not exist until my wife finally says, “Yes”, and actually wills it into existence or permits it to exist. Think about it in your own life. You didn't love that person until one day you finally realized that you love that person. Somewhere in between, a decision or a choice was made. You literally willed love into existence, where it never existed before. That's the power of belief and choice. Something becomes true for you at the very moment that you choose to believe that it is true. Then comes all the hard work of questioning our assumptions and trying to disprove the falsehoods that we have come to believe are true. Sometimes, it will take a lifetime to convince some of us that a few of our chosen beliefs are actually false; and, sometimes we will never see it or accept it no matter how much evidence comes our way, because we have simply chosen to believe that it is true.

An atheist simply has no idea how illogical, shallow, pointless, and unrealistic many of his arguments are to someone who has chosen to believe. I have noticed that on average, the theists seem to have greater depth and understanding (they have more going on upstairs and in their lives), simply because they choose to keep their minds open to all the different possibilities. On average, the theists seem to have more interesting thoughts and ideas than the atheists do. The theists definitely have thoughts and ideas that are a lot more humorous and silly than the atheists can ever possibly produce; and, humor can be very therapeutic. One thing I know for sure is that theism is infinitely more interesting than atheism. Atheism is a dead-end, even though many people have chosen to believe that it is true.

When I was at the height of my depression and atheism, people around me described me as being a wet blanket; and often, they simply wanted me to shut up and go away, because I was making them depressed. Many times I felt like standing up in church and shouting, “Can't any of you see how pointless all of this is?” I still remember the day when I told my brother that I no longer believe that God exists and truly meant it. I also learned that if you are depressed or suicidal, you don't want to hang around with atheists, because they are simply going to make you more depressed and suicidal. Only the theists are capable of providing hope, because atheism is literally a dead-end.

Atheists have infinitely more faith, blind faith, than any religious person can possibly ever have; and, I have noticed that atheists on average tend to be extremely faithful to their chosen beliefs – they eagerly share their beliefs, they actively preach them, they enforce them if possible, and they mock anyone who refuses to believe as they do. The atheists often promote their beliefs religiously (or militarily) just like the religious fanatics have been known to do. Google search “militant atheism” or “militant atheist”. Look up Lenin, Stalin, or Pol Pot.

I have noticed that there can be a great deal of fear associated with atheism; or at least, that's the way it was for me. Many atheists simply cannot handle the thought of considering any other point of view other than their atheism; it scares them to death. Many of us would rather wander around in a deep dark pit for years on end than seek for an explanation or ask for help to get out of the pit. It seems to be human nature. It's a matter of pride. We can be stubborn.

The times during my life when I was atheist and no longer believed in God, I was deathly afraid of God, and I didn't want Him to exist. I wanted to cease to exist. I was ill and insane. At that point, nothing seemed real to me; it was a strange and confusing way to exist. When I no longer believed that God exists, I slowly found out first-hand that there was really no way to provide evidence or proof for my chosen belief and point of view. I had simply made a leap-of-faith by choosing to believe that God does not exist. There was no way for me to prove to my brother that my chosen beliefs were true, because I had chosen to believe a negative. As I sobered up and made my way through withdrawal symptoms, I eventually discovered and realized that it is infinitely easier to support a case for God than it is to prove that God does not exist.

Whenever I have been thinking rationally or logically or soberly, I have had to face the possibility of God's existence, and then move forward from there. Life is completely different when one is no longer afraid, and no longer afraid to face the various possibilities that exist. Obviously, whenever I am thinking rationally or logically, I like to keep my mind open to all the different possibilities, and see what comes of it. I have found that it is a constructive way to live and a productive philosophy of life. I have learned not to be afraid of it; but, it didn't come easy.

Nowadays, my overall philosophy is to avoid jumping to conclusions and then parking there for the rest of one's life. However, there is one conclusion that I have drawn and hope to be able to keep for the rest of my life – I have noticed that theism is infinitely more interesting and varied than atheism can ever be. Theism simply has more layers or depth – peel back one layer, and it just exposes another layer down below. There's more to think about when it comes to theism. That's just the reality of the situation.

Now, don't get me wrong. Atheism isn't all bad. There was one aspect of atheism and the atheist philosophy that I found extremely therapeutic and beneficial – psychologically, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Once I finally stopped trying to get God to magically solve all of my problems and decided to try to solve them on my own, I started to make rather quick and impressive progress. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Awhile ago, I got addicted to prescription drugs. It's extremely easy to do. I wanted God to heal me in my addictions so that I could continue to bear my additions and withstand their side-effects; but, the reality is that I had to break my addictions before I could find and experience the healing that I sought. Initially, I wanted to have my cake, and eat it too. I attribute the atheism within me or my agnostic philosophies to my decision to take the bull by the horns and try to overcome my problems on my own, rather than waiting for God to solve all of my problems for me. It worked. Good can be found in every philosophy and point of view, if we are willing to look for it, see it, find it, and use it for ourselves. I found out that atheistic stoicism (grin and bear it) can have its healing virtues, if one is willing to take advantage of what it has to offer.

The moral of the story is to keep an open mind to all the various possibilities. Take what works and go with it. Keep moving forward. It makes logical sense to me.