HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 19, 2005 Trying to prove god’s existence is just as difficult as trying to prove his/her nonexistence. Hence, it becomes a circular argument that never ends unless one or the other champion concedes. I guess the phenomena could be compared to old politics. A hard line Republican can be nothing else and the same goes for a hard line Democrat. To be otherwise would be incongruent. Let’s put it this way, if a believer or nonbeliever is an absolutist then they cannot be convinced to change beliefs. Because both sides are passionate about what they believe or don’t believe, the discussion becomes redundant and roller coaster-like. Arthur Schopenhaur was a rather eccentric philosopher, who was well known in his years (early 1800s) as a philosopher of pessimism. To understand his philosophy completely is a difficult undertaking. However, his basic belief was one of absolutism. A very simple example of his thinking would be if a person walks into a chair, they did so because it could have been no other way. In other words, man/woman cannot think beyond their primitive consciousness. The chair was there and the person walked into it, it could not have happened any other way. While this philosophy is antiquated and rarely, if ever, used by today’s metaphysical experts, he had a point. True religionists (some call them radical) can believe no other way. They cannot get beyond their concrete belief system. However, the same could be said for the skeptic (some call them radical). He/she cannot get beyond their questioning nature. Hence, circular arguments/discussions ensue without settlement and without much satisfaction for either side. For neither side has convinced the other of their wrongness or rightness. Often both paradigms of thought cannot remove their blinders. My personal belief is that the argument is moot. It cannot be solved. But, that is necessarily not a bad thing. For the believer it is good. He/she believes they have the answer to death’s riddle. The skeptic has a counter-point to hammer home relentlessly. They too believe they have an answer to death’s riddle. It is good for both. Each side provides fodder for the other. Also, it makes great debates and terrific articles on Useless-Knowledge Magazine.
As for me, I will continue to study Ozism. The idea that god in reality is the Wizard of Oz, the man behind the curtain. Oz is the master of deception, the magician of the world. Oz can take many forms, e.g., President Bush, President Putin, Donald Trump, Bill Gates, or perhaps Jennifer Wilbanks. Who is your Oz?
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
