The "correctness" of atheism

The only one definition of God that could possibly, in any remote way, allow for God to exist is God is "correct". If God, if Truth, is some objective entity that surpasses all the laws of nature, then it must be perfectly logical, because that is the one quality that God must have in order to have created the universe as we see and experience it. We've proven omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence are all illogical, proven so with the one true "characteristic": logic. God must be compliant with all laws of nature, all laws of morality, all laws of reason, etc., because by God definition is "correct": perfect objective and subjective Truth.

And the core of truth IS that it is correct; we know Truth because it is observable, testable, verifiable, because it stands up against the battery of reason and science. I don't mean that Truth is a neo-Platonic entity in some dual reality along with the physical manifestations of numbers. Rather, what makes the most logical sense, in any field, must be true or called truth. That is to say, we can place those observed, verified truths into the container called Truth, which, again by definition, must be (even if just a subset of) God.

That means that if it is most logical to conclude that there is no God, then that claim falls into the realm of Truth. And if that is true, then
  1. it is perfectly acceptable to no longer believe in God, and
  2. since what is correct is in Truth, accepting that God does not exist actually brings you closer to God.
If there is some possible world outside of our existence, a place where God could actually exist if God is perfect Truth, then in order to truly be "closer to God", one must accept as true that God does not exist, because that position, being most logical, is "closer to God".

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Forced birth is slavery

The Supreme Court of the United States appears to be on the precipice of making the most heinous, inhuman ruling of law since the Dred Scott case. There is no way to sugarcoat the gravity of the stakes. Restricting abortion rights denies a person of their humanity. Fundamental to issue of abortion rights is the concept of bodily autonomy. If a person does not have the right to dominion over their own body, which certainly must be denied in order to deny a pregnant person the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, then truly, a person does not have any other rights at all. Without the self-evident right to bodily autonomy, a citizen of the United States loses all of the following rights which have been sacrosanct since before the Constitution was drafted, before the Declaration of Independence was signed: Freedom of speech Without control over their own body, a person does not have the right to articulate, write or type words. If the state has control over a person's body, the s
Read more

The Right to Bear Arms is Outdated and Needs to be Repealed from the Constitution

The 2nd Amendment grants citizens the right to use a certain technology. It does not say "right to defend themselves" or "right to carry swords". It says "right to bear arms". The historically and contextually accurate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the states have the right to defend themselves against an aggressive federal government by using war technology which was, at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, guns: manual rifles and hand pistols which could fire 1-2 bullets per minute. If the intent was enable states to defend themselves, then clearly they must have the right to match the war technology of the aggressive federal government against whom they have the right to defend themselves. The concept that the right is limited to guns is historically-bound and irrational, as it does not advanced through time along with literally every other right and law in the Federal Code. If the aggressive federal government uses technology to adv
Read more

Joshua stopping the sun

I would argue that a spherical earth is in fact anti-(Abrahamic religions). There are several passages of "historical events" in the Old Testament that cannot possibly be true unless the Earth is flat and stationary. For example, Joshua stopping the sun in the sky for 12 hours and then starting it again. If Joshua had stopped the rotation of the spherical Earth, every object above ground, including the oceans, would have lurched forward at >1,000 mph, not merely killing almost all life on the planet but turning it to jelly. The story only works if the lightbulb is "out there" and we/Joshua are the ones who are stationary. Technically, yes he could have bent the light waves from the sun, but since the sun simply continued on afterward, that bending must still be in place today. The new curvature through space-time must have accounted for not only the sun but for literally every single light particle in the entire observable universe, because we are not physically
Read more