5 Common Arguments of the Skeptic


It’s been a while! Many life events have taken my focus away from my loves of reason and writting, but I have returnd with a pen and a frustration, so here I am at it again. I present to you 5 common arguments of the skeptic. (and of course, rebuttles)

 1. There are no reasons to believe in a God

Throughout my discussions with skeptics (both presumptious and non) I come accross this quite a bit. To be stereotypical, there is a very common mixing of terms that when the definitions are accepted, begins in a losing battle. No doubt, any skeptic who starts with this statement will stand to state that unless things are proven with certainty, you’re still stuck at 0%. It’s an all or nothing ordeal to them.

But imagine a world where everything that couldnt be proven with certainty could not be believed- you couldnt believe Australia existed (unless you’d been there), or you couldnt prove, with full certainty, that your mother is your real mother. Do we demand that people not believe these things or tell us these things until we get DNA testing or we for ourselves visit every place in the world? It goes to show that this trust we form in others is a more probabilistic approach (boy who cris wolf is probably lying). And to some degree things are run in a way where certainty is never a requirement.

This drove Descartes mad to the point where he concluded that he only knew HE existed with certainty (I think, therefore at least I know I am).

But what of God? I generally think man believes in One due to the inate hunger for objective meaning (one pre-made for man), objective moral values (right is right regardless of who believes/ regardless of whether the act is beneficial to society or not) and the assumption that an ultimate Personhood made a personal man. All of these points are reasons to believe, and whether you find the reasons compelling or not, to claim there is no reason to believe is false. Typically people are stating their opinion on the matter and not a fact when they say this.

2. If God was real we would not suffer

Whether it is demanding evidence of miracles or it is saying the universe would have no pain, skeptics often jump at this argument. The only problem is how primitive these statements really are.

If there is to be any order to the universe, things have to be able to interrupt people’s wills when misused. Pain is the construct of our bodies or minds alerting the system that something is drastically outside of its desire. We do not desire our bodies burn in fire, we do not want to be rejected, and we do not want our pancreas to stop functioning, and in all these examples pain serves to scream these desires into our minds.

But in a universe where so many reactions affect so many atoms and molecules, this to some degree cannot be avoided. The fire that keeps you alive in the winter can melt your flesh. The rock giving you a solid earth is also something you shouldnt bump your toe into. The one you trust your vulnerabilities to has the freedom to stab you in the back. In order to maintain both order and freedom, thr ability to willfully or accidently step out of order must exist.

Often people like to mention the existence of natural disasters to claim the lack of a caring design. The problem here is that when examining what causes these things, we have to ask if an alternative is a possibility- the magma that helps to keep the earth existing must react in a way that it can shoot out of a volcanoe, or the wind that carries seeds must react in a way where it somehow producs hurricanes. Most who object due to the existnce of pain or evil are also unable to provide an alternate feasible possibility of how our universe might have been. (We all might say “why didnt God make the planet out of cheeseburgers that don’t rot and end world hunger”- and then try to think of how you could scientifically construct that universe and we find an impossibility.

3. The existence of evil disproves a loving God.

Another silver bullet in the “Skeptic” bank account, but let me get a little abstract with you here for a minute.

Let’s think about what we know of what existence means. The best conceptual answer is to just say that a thing “is”, but this statement carries with it the unspoken ending of”rather than ‘is not’.”

Now this is intersting because it implies that the lack of somethings existence must be a possibility in order to define it- we know what light is because we contrast it to its absence-darkness. We know what good is because we contrast it to its absence- evil.

And so if God posesses the quality of existence (God not being existance as some “is-is” arguers have put it), than it means that we must be able to contrast his qualities and so their opposites are a necessity. Good does not exist without its absence (evil), nor mercy without a concept of cruelty, nor joy without a concept of sorrow.

So why would God allow evil in the universe? Simply because you cannot even comprehend goodness unless you to some degree comprehended evil, and you could not comprehend a thing and not have the freedom to do it. As C.S. Lewis has said, if God made the universe so that it shut off your voice when you cursed or paralyzed you when you would murder (if the above was even a natural possibility), than you would never be able to maintain a real concept of good or evil, nor would doing good actually mean anything- there was no other option. Nobody could ever be praised, or held warmly, because an alternate action was never possible.

4. Christians are fake/horrible, and so therefore is their God.

This one has been used by both the preacher and the skeptic to either ruse the congregation into harder effort or shame the faith.

Unfortunately this belief usually carries with it a harsh misunderstanding of what the faith of Christianity really means (this one is religion specific).

First off, Christianity claims man is broken. We may desire goodness, but altogether have the inability to be truly good. (Paul, a Christian, even experienced this.) Now to be sure, “try harder” preachers have always preached from the pulpit “work hard to be good.”, but our entire Old Testament of the Bible is an example of the failure to do so. Often people will claim “now that we have the Holy Spirit this is a possibility!” but these people will credit holliness to something you can work for and God will help you do it. Not only is this destructive, but it is contrary to Biblical teaching. Our New Testament both states that it is love for God that makes obedience an enjoyment, and that it is effortless honesty and God’s working that produces this genuine love. It turns out that God desires creatures that love based upon their enjoyment to do so, rather than their obligation and work.

This is only logical anyway. How many of us want our significant other to love us out of obligation? And if they do, do we think we can oblige them into a genuine love or enjoyment of it? No- we desire someone who knows us inside and out and enjoys a deep affection with us.

So often times Christians can be horrible because due to false doctrine there is no genuine love inside them- only obligation and the fear of discovering the self to be completely unloving and thus something nor worth loving themselves- again this is against the doctrine of scripture.

5. Smart people don’t believe in God.

As much as it bothers me, it is true that there is a correlation between education and skepticism. While many foolishly accept this belief and the social pressure of it, remember, discovering the world was round went against what the vast majority of intellectuals believed. Discovering the molecule went against what the vast majority believed.

The problem here is not the intellegent- the problem here are the conditions that typically follow the intelligent- smart people know they are smart. This can often lead to an arrogance that your world views are fully correct because you think them, and of course your thinking is deeper and/or higher. You may become confident that you have the world figured out. Sadly enough, the confidence of the brilliant sets a standard that passes down to those much younger and open minded.

The biggest mistake I find are thr philosophical assumptions made that they do not realize are ungrounded. Things do not simply lack existene until they are proven. To disbelieve is one thing as an honest opinion, but the certainty so many skeptics carry their disbelief in is unfounded and foolish.

How does “1. I don’t see for myself a reason to believe” turn into “2. So come on guys, there is no God”? Do we not see the amount of arrogance that goes into this claim? We can imagine a dimension, a second dimension, and a third dimension- we live in a fourth- why is there not a fifth? A sixth? (any of which perhaps God exists in). The ant has no reason to believe in a moon, but that ant could only be a fool to believe “therefore there is no moon”.

Often times the brilliant are blind to the obvious. One of our greatest scientists is a horrendous philosopher (Dawkins), or a great mathematician/ astronomer is horrible at social construct or being organized (in thought, or objects). It turns out knowledge is intersting in the fact that typically having a gifting  in an area means a lack in another.


So hopefully reader you may have found something to better equip you in your discussions with the skeptic. They have set the field, created the rules, and like the child who makes their father the loser in every game, have made Theists out to be the loser in every game. It’s time reason was presented in love, and the presumption torn down.


The Argument from Morality and the Grabbing of Ghosts

Morality 2

“Christian’s are good, Atheists are bad, and shame on you…..”

How many times has this been the stereotype of every discussion on morality between the believing and the non? How many times have the definitions been stripped from those who don’t follow what we believe our “team” ought to do?

“He’s not a real Christian. A real Christian wouldn’t do that.”

“He’s not a real Atheist. He’s too compassionate.”

“He’s not a real dog. A real dog plays fetch.”

Yet none of this has anything to do with what the moral argument for Deism is all about! I see this argument constantly straw-manned again and again (and again), to where the Deist argues “Without God we have no reason not to sin” and the Atheist responds “Are you saying I would sin without belief in God? I don’t, and in fact, you do more.”

So let’s put aside all this ugly stereotyping and distractions from the real argument, take a look at what the moral argument actually is, and lets jump into each defining point to make sure it is sound. W.R Sorley, Scottish Philosopher, shortened the argument into the following.

  1. If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
  2. Morality is objective and absolute.
  3. Therefore, God must exist.

So lets take a look at premise 1. in depth.-

  1. “If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.”

There are not many Skeptics who would actually argue against this point. In fact, Mackie, Dawkins, Sartre, and numerous others concede this point.  “It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones.“- Richard Dawkins.

Yet I have heard recently objections towards an objective morality staying objective if God has made it. (It would be subjective because it is God’s opinion)- Yet to take on such an argument, you’d have to misrepresent the definition of God. If God is all knowing and all good, how could his opinions not be the absolute truth? If He did create the very existence of moral values, how is his interpretation of morality anything but objective?

And let us try to conceive of any other means by which an objective morality could be made apart from opinion. If what a man “ought to do” or “ought not to do” isn’t ground in a “who says so”, then how can one just happen to exist? Just because an idea is generally agreed upon doesn’t mean that that idea is objective. This is why most Atheistic philosophers DO actually boil down morality to our desires and what we think will lead to them in a healthy way.

           2. “Morality is objective and absolute.”

This is the most controversial point of the argument. For what reason do we think morality is actually objective and absolute? After all, there are many disagreements between what is right and wrong; many grey areas. Who has the right to say what is a part of the objective morality and what isn’t?

I’d actually like to argue that idea behind the concept of morality itself is what qualifies it as being “objective.”- and to do that, first let’s look at the implications of a world without objective morality.

The most important question to ask when it comes to determining the possibility of an objective morality is the “why” question. Why is this wrong? Why is this right? The argument can only be reduced to human desire, or God’s desire. There are no other alternatives. Let us try this experiment-

“We should not murder eachother”- why?

“Because murder is wrong”- why?

“Because it violates a person’s rights” – why does that matter?

“Because…” and eventually you’ll reach a point where a person admits “Because that’s what I want it to be like” or “That’s what we all want.”

But why are your desires more important than mine? Should I desire to kill and the majority desire I not kill, why should I listen to the majority? Better yet, what if I convince the majority to let me kill? Why is life better than death, or healthy progress better than destruction? And if a person naturally desires life, what is wrong with skewing them to desire death?

In fact, when we predicate morality on man’s desires, the system begins to fall apart. All right and wrong become based on fluctuating desires, which we have no reason to slave ourselves towards anyway.

Yet the one who answers the “why” with “God says so” says a great deal more about the situation that those who take morality to be the opinion of the majority. The one who says “God says so” is saying things more like “It goes against your reason to be” or “It goes against the most important opinion”.

And here is why I say that subjective morality goes against the concept of morality: man doesn’t actually believe that morality is just an opinion. “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis covers this dilemma right off the bat. “Man acts as if there are rules that everyone ought to follow (paraphrased.). When we say people shouldn’t murder, we mean more than “we don’t like that”, we mean that person is acting apart from how a man should act. Yet why should a man act in any certain way? Who gets to say so? Man or God?

3. Therefore, God must exist.

This one doesn’t need to be argued. If the above two points are true, this one is an obvious truth.


With all that considered, what I find about the skeptic approach is that in the end, it’s all a grabbing of ghosts. Man wants to throw away their ability to have an objective morality, and wants to keep it too. We grab onto the what we think was solid ground in skepticism, and we grab onto our ideas of true morality, and the two vanish in our hands. When we try to have both, we can have neither. We become the kid with 5$ in the toystore who thinks somehow we can walk out of that toystore with our 5$, a new toy, and no rules broken.

After all, that is what we want, and why “shouldn’t” we have what we want?


Man, Life, and the Wounded God

Hurt Heart

In ancient times, according to the book of Genesis, man united to kill God.

We might think the idea is fairly ridiculous, the idea of killing God. Whether you believe the story to be literal or metaphorical, the story is about an inborn hostility towards the Divine.

With modern Christian theory that the spiritual happens on an alternate plane (or on an alternate level), we know that we cannot “physically” harm God (unless He becomes physical and allows us to), but what about “emotionally” or “mentally” harming God? Is pain only a possibility with Christ, or has God felt or endured a kind of pain throughout time?

To answer this, I think we can turn towards the person of Christ apart from his physical being. We know that “Jesus wept.” (1) due towards the suffering of those around him (in the death of Lazarus), that he unleashed “hell” upon the temple (psychology shows us anger is connected to a type of pain (2)), and that he lamented over Jerusalem (3). Should the Father and Christ be one, as scripture says (4), God must share these same emotional states as Christ, and we know sorrow/fear/anger to be a certain kind of pain. It only follows that an eternity free of pain means an eternity free of these things.

So in a sense, God does feel a certain kind of “heart” pain throughout His interactions with humanity.

Yet this is where I think things get interesting. I’m not sure that the squashing of a spider harms the heart of God. We may feel compassion by projecting an imagined human soul inside of a living creature, but in the end, two colonies of ants went to war today, thousands died, and nobody truly cared. A boulder fell from a mountain today and split into many pieces- and nobody truly cared (if you did you’d be a loon). Yet that family pet that we’ve owned and loved, the one we’ve made “almost human“, feels pain and our hearts ache.

Why would they? Because there are things we have chosen to love, and there are things we have not. We cannot love our pets without the possibility of pain in losing them, or their suffering. To take on the joys of love, we must endure the hardship that comes with it. Should a person not feel a pain of loss, then the love that person truly had would be in question.

So if God were to be truly loving in a universe where desires clash all over the place, He must yet endure pain.

We must also realize that our ability to hurt the “heart” of God comes from the fact that he allows us to do so. He allows us to hurt Him, because He allows Himself to love us. While desire remains, so does pain. We may feel the grief of loss of a loved one, as long as we are missing them. Inevitably, we move on and do not feel that pain of a lost desire until that person is remembered. We may feel the pain of missing an old girlfriend/boyfriend until we decide to move on and no longer desire it/ be conscious of it.

And I believe this is where scripture leaves us. God has a desire for man, yet if man will not satisfy the desire of God, He must at some point “move on” even for Himself to be truly happy. He must forget man (the old lover), and cease to desire.

So where does this leave us? If everything I’ve stated so far rationally follows, than man carries himself a great responsibility. We have been to bring God joy whilst we have greatly hurt Him. How could forgiveness mean anything unless a Being has been wronged? And how could being wronged mean anything unless your wrong causes some kind of pain? And if we have caused pain upon God, restoration must come in making right a relationship. If we do not, perhaps the fires of hell are just the metaphor for “having God move on from you, and missing out on your chance to be the object of love from the Great Being.” Perhaps realizing you were made to be loved, and perhaps this realization of all hope to obtain it is truly the worst pain imaginable.

We may not know, but for now, we know that  we are faced with the abilities to both please God or hurt Him, and while we may yet hurt Him (and hate it) for the rest of our lives, perhaps we can examine where our own hearts are at, and see if where we stand.

1- John 11:35

2- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201306/anger-how-we-transfer-feelings-guilt-hurt-and-fear

3-Matthew 23:37

4- John 10:33

What is Time, and can it be Eternal?

Eternal Time

There has never been a more obvious and yet elusive concept as time. Days pass, clocks move, and things change, and yet when we ask the question “What is time”, all we can really say is that it is a thing we measure and that it keeps moving. Models have been made to illustrate how time plays into our universe, and time is the reason we are considered to live in a fourth dimension rather than a third. Even quantum physicists claim that time actually doesn’t exist, and so much of what happens depends upon whether they are viewed or not. (1)

So all that said, what can we really know about the concept of time? To answer that we might have to look at what it’s attached to- actions. We can tie the measurements we give time to a certain amount of actions. One rotation of the earth we deem 24 hours (approx), comprised of many smaller measurements. Your microwave might take seconds while your vacation, days. Actions mesh with time, and thus change happens along the ever-forward moving flow of time.

Yet interesting questions arise if we show that it is tied to actions. Should actions cease (if that were really a possibility), could time be measured? If molecules and energy froze, would time exist? Does time begin with actions?

I have a theory that time may be the grand action. Time not be dependent upon actions, but actions upon time. If this however is the case, than time cannot be eternal- It must have begun. Even renown skeptic Richard Dawkins is quoted in a lecture “It is therefore difficult to see how the universe could have been oscillating for an infinite time.” and states instead that time may be an illusion. Whether it is actually our illusion, or an objective thing, time has a stronger case for having a beginning.

Further arguments about the past being infinite are the paradoxes that arise in the reality of infinity. Hilbert’s Hotel is a famous example of the complications. You may check the end of the article for example.

Arguments for the existence of an eternal universe usually revolve around a surrender towards the impossibility of man to comprehend infinity. They find infinity to be a natural possibility and why not? Like Aristotle said (in my edit) “Any past we can conceive, we can also conceive just a little farther back.”

So where does that leave us in the end? Time is either infinite or finite, and may be an illusion either way. Yet there may be a third option- a time with a finite beginning might have an infinite end. The ball may be rolled from the top of an eternally big hill, and may roll eternally (unless it is somehow stopped)

This illustration points out what I found to be the most plausible scenario. An infinite anything reaches problematic conclusions, and yet we can somewhat imagine the infinite right here and right now. Perhaps the non-eternal state of our being can only mesh with the eternal possibility of time because it is a created-construct. Perhaps after death, we may step into the fifth dimension where we can “inconceivably exist apart from time”.

After all, the naturalist finds themselves just as stumped as the supernaturalist on this one- “I don’t know how it works, but I BELIEVE it does.

(1) http://wokenmind.com/quantum-theory-proves-that-time-does-not-exist/17/03/2013/

(2) As there are an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests, every room is occupied; the hotel cannot accomodate another guest. However, if a new guest arrives, then it is possible to free up a room for them by moving the guest in room number 1 to room number 2, and the guest in room number 2 to room number 3, and so on. As for every room n there is a room n + 1, every guest can be moved into a different room, thus leaving room number 1 vacant. The new guest, then, can be accommodated after all. This is clearly paradoxical; it is not possible that a hotel both can and cannot accommodate a new guest. Hilbert’s Hotel, therefore, is not possible.

A similar paradox arises if the past is infinite. If there exists an infinite past, then if we were to assign a number to each past moment then every real number (i.e. every postive integer) would be assigned to some moment. There would therefore be no unassigned number to be assigned to the present moment as it passes into the past. However, by reassigning the numbers such that moment number one becomes moment number two, and moment number two becomes moment number three, and so on, we could free up moment number one to be assigned to the present. If the past is infinite, therefore, then there both is and is not a free number to be assigned to the present as it passes into the past.

Pacal’s Wager Revisited and A Greater Conclusion


Blaise Paschal was a famous mathematician, physicist, and Christian philosopher. Writer of the defense of the scientific method, and strong contribution to the study of fluids, he was a brilliant mind. Probably the largest thing he is known for however, is Pascal’s desire to prove Christianity via rational and philosophy. Like many great Christian thinkers before him, he never quite reached an irrefutable conclusion, but instead came up with something we call “Pascal’s Wager”, and it goes like follows-

  1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
  2. A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. You must wager (it is not optional).
  4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
  5. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (…) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
  6. But some cannot believe. They should then ‘at least learn your inability to believe…’ and ‘Endeavour then to convince’ themselves.

To simplify, he is stating that because we cannot know rationally if there is a God or not (with pure certainty) than the better choice is to believe in one just in case there is. Pascal makes his claim by stating that if we are wrong about God’s existence, we “lose the present” and if we are wrong that there is no God, we lose eternity. Therefore the best bet to take is to believe.

This argument has been argued against countless times, where people have plugged most anything in besides “God” and have arrived at some similar (and silly) conclusions. During my times of doubt, I studied this argument inside and out. While I don’t believe Pascal was wrong, he left four options, and the conclusions I tend to disagree with.

  1. You believe and there is a God so you gain eternity.
  2. You believe and there is no God so you have lost the present.
  3. You do not believe and there is a God so you lose eternity.
  4. You do not believe and there is no God so you gain the present.

The only issue that I find with the whole scenario is the assumption of a “lost present”. Pascal assumes that it would be if there were no God to disbelieve in one. I however, disagree entirely. Voltaire said that if there were no God, man would invent him. What he was really getting at was the human need for a God for reasons of meaning, hope, and unconditional love. These things are natural human desires and cannot be found in the world we live in (causing dilusioned disbelief or despair). Suppose I had the choice between the belief in God and disbelief (I’m not sure man gets as much of a choice as they pretend) but lets just take it for example. I prefer to live with hope, unconditional love, and meaning (that I didn’t create to cover up a lack of meaning) than to live without. I’d be happier to have died believing and be wrong than to have died disbelieving and be right. Are not those who have become saved healed and typically made more full of joy and freedom? Isn’t it those who concentrate on the rules of the Scripture rather than the relationship with Christ that find it miserable and wanting?

So I propose a revision to Pascal’s wager, because I disagree with his idea of losing the present.

  1. You believe and are right so you gain eternity (and the present)
  2. You believe and are wrong so you gain the present
  3. You disbelieve and are right so you lose everthing
  4. You disbelieve and are wrong so you still lose everything

With this line of reasoning, I find there to be no wager at all- no gamble. The verdict is clear. Should our faith be an illusion, it is better to die in madness than to live in clarity. In a meaningless universe, why not than pursue that which we find will bring about the greatest joy? It’s like fictional character  “Puddlegum” said in “The Silver Chair”(By C.S. Lewis)

“Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia.”

A Case for Deism- Desire for Meaning


Therapy states that the absence of meaning is emptiness, and that man needs meaning to continue. We ourselves probably believe in some sort of meaning towards our existence, such as to build upon what we have as a society, to feel good, or to achieve something eternally for ourselves or others. Regardless of what our ideas of meaning are, society itself needs to exist with purpose, and finds joy in doing so.

Yet we know that the “scientific” view of the universe (more or less Atheistic) is to say that all of us/this just happen to exist without predetermined cause or meaning, in a universe itself that has no predetermined cause or meaning. They rationalize this by stating that because we haven’t found one, there isn’t reason to believe in one.

I however, think that they have missed pieces in their reasoning. Instead of analyzing their desire and asking why it exists, instead they analyze the universe and state “no, this doesn’t seem to belong”. In fact, mankind gets by telling you to “invent your own meaning.”

If we have to make one for ourselves, isn’t that just proof that we don’t have one?

And why do all the other things that we desire exist? Food, community, love. Why is meaning the only thing that we desire naturally as humans that goes unanswered? How could a universe with no meaning create creatures that want meaning?

Simply put, the most rational thing we can believe is that there is a meaning to our existence and that “we may not have found it yet.”. If every natural human desire is able to be met, then we must believe that those we cannot find answers to are able to be met! Deists like myself claim that we HAVE found those reasons. To me, I am able to determine a purpose behind something I make, and therefore if the universe itself has a purpose, we know that comes about by rational determinal minds!

Studying molecules, energy, and numbers will never bring about a solution towards our inherent/natural desire for meaning. This I find, is best proposed by the theory of God, and to this point, may only end at the theory of God.

Happiness and the Self Reprogramming Mind

Man stands between boulders on summit, arms out

The claim that our minds have power over external and internal reality is scientifically sound. We’ve heard of “The Placebo Effect”, seen countless books on “The Power of Positive Thinking”, and have studied the grim effects of madness. In fact, there are even secular sciences revolving around the idea that reality doesn’t exist until it is measured in our minds (1) and that our brains can change themselves just by THINKING. (2)

Some have taken this reasoning to the point of pure Determinalism, where everything that happens to us is either “allowed” or “desired” by our minds. Others even to say that nothing else exists besides yourself (granted your mind is purely determinal).

Most of us however, believe in an external reality that is shared between many minds. I believe that although our minds affect reality, the relationship is mutual. Other minds may affect our reality as well as reality itself affecting our mind. Mind may not bend reality that we may fly, but mind may bend reality that we may effect our own mental engine, and small portions of physical reality.

This being said, man’s inherent and natural desire for happiness has meshed itself into this information. “Think happy thoughts/focus on hope/have compassion” have become determinalistic “preacher’s” sermons. After all, if happiness is subjective, than it is perfectly possible for the mass murderer to become as perfectly happy as the nun with some “Reprogramming of the mind”. All we must simply do is reprogram the murderer to feel no guilt, to abandon compassion as nothingness, and away he goes.

Yet we find there is a natural when it comes to happiness. There are things we never enjoy unless we “reprogram”. Nobody enjoys abuse, unless prior external occurances (self esteem, seeing the act committed by people you think are “good”, even birth/ generation issues) rewire you into thinking that abuse towards you is “good” and hence you become a sadist. The problem we find here is that these “happinesses” we do not believe to be “good”, and thus “good” is a concept greater than “happiness”. Yet even if this statement is true, we know that true “good” ought to cause “happiness”, and so we naturally believe that true happiness is objective rather than subjective.

And we see the flaw in society today. “What’s good for you may not be good for me”, “Whatever makes you happy”, “There is no truth” all revolve around man trying to grab what he thinks will make him happy. Yet if we can see obvious examples where we may deem someone else’s happiness unhealthy and not-“good”, than we nullify the above statements! Even in the midst of this thinking, how many times have we tried to obtain that which will make us happy only to find out how hollow that happiness is? Will the alcoholic truly be happy escaping reality eternally, or the cutter happy punishing him/herself forever?

Instead, madness is reserved for these individuals. Temporal happiness is not the same thing as long-lasting happiness, and pleasure a false substitute. Here than, we must determine that while our “moral compass” or “critical thinking of what is good” may be useful, we are obviously flawed. We, like Paul, may desire good but be unable to truly produce it or find it. How arrogant to rely solely on man’s interpretation of good to proclaim true good!

And perhaps this is the end of the game. Those who pursue their own happiness may indeed have what they wanted, and lose happiness forever. (3) And those who, while doing their best to critically think for themselves, trust in an exterior source (IE. Scripture) may be the ones who find it.

The puppy whose master bathes it and gives it rules might find its master wicked and wrong. “Doesn’t he care about how I feel? Why would he want me to be sad?!” Yet that dog may someday grow to understand that eating its own poop, or letting itself get eaten by disease ridden tics, would be the result of it’s thoughts on “happiness”.

Maybe we can apply this example to our own lives.

1- (http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/)

2- (http://www.messagetoeagle.com/thoughtsreality.php#.VdYV9Xttofo)

3.- Ref C.S. Lewis “The Great Divorce”

The Start of Something New

Once Upon a Time

Hello, my name is Chris Petersen, and if you are reading this, I’d like to thank you for taking an interest in my blog! I’m no scholar, nor a man of brilliance, but deep thought is not for only the qualified but  for the interested.

Since I was very young one of my favorite questions has always been “Why?”. “Why This” or “Why That“. With age I’ve discovered I really enjoy trying to understand how things operate (Nature, Individuals, Societies.).

So this new place, this “blog” is now my outlet. No more discussions in the Youtube comments sections, no more Facebook rants, and no more bottling up inside what I love to talk about.

So I hope you find interest in what I write, and would love feedback in all forms (debate, questions, thoughts)!