...
There are moments in which it is equally difficult refuting the idea of God, just as much there are moments in which believing in it is absurd.
Perhaps when there is some physical evidence of this intelligent designer that even approaches in magnitude the abundance of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, there may be a place for it.
But why do we require evidence to believe in something? Surely you believe in things - like
love - which are not only intangible and lacking when it comes to this "evidence," but are also essentially
mad when thought about.
You want an evidence of an intelligent designer? Is this wanting of evidence coming from a "scientific" point of view?
The paradox with science is this - the more it seems to prove one thing, it manages to prove the opposite. Take the idea of God, for our example. Science can't provide the evidence for it, right? And,
scientifically speaking, to simply even
suggest than man came from "nothing" or simply "evolved" from nothing is illogical - it's unscientific.
You say "man" came to be by the course of evolution? Ok. And how did this "course" begin? More critically,
where did this course first found its genesis...?
The theory of evolution does not negate the question of our origin - neither biologically, nor...spiritually. At the end, the question will remain -
from where? It resonates loud and clear...endlessly...seemingly without an answer.
To hold on to the idea of evolution, or to any idea alone as the saving grace of our existence, as if it saves one from the absurdities of existence, of faith, of creation...is not only mislead, but in fact, unscientific - it's only dogmatic, fanatical, and blind to the bigger questions and the more extreme possibilities.
Do I believe in God? That's not a question I want to answer here or today. But I have to add that...
scientifically...God is plausible - if by God I mean some force which ignites the first sparks that "evolved" into what has become and what has unbecome. What is this
spark, what is this touch of creation? That...is the question...and it's entirely a scientific one, not exclusively a spiritual or a philosophical one.
At the end, science teaches us that...it is unable to provide answers for the most pressing questions, and it never will. It simply fancies subjective theories by connecting the dots (the "facts") in a subject manner. Some of us can connect the dots a little differently, and see a reality that science, for the most part, chooses to neglect. Science is our psychological fear of uncertainty and the unknown - this is why we hold on to it so tightly, it gives us something to grasp, however falsely, however self-deceptively. The truly scientific mind realizes that science fails us more often than it saves us. Eienstein was more spiritual than a mere "scientist." The same with Newton.
Human faith, human desire and passion...here...become our only answers and the only grounds on which we can truly stand, and who knows, perhaps...
reach back to the hand that first gave us this life which we now, not so humbly, call "ours"...