The Loch Ness Monster is an interesting question. It
definitely meets the definition of a cryptid; it’s one of those weird creatures
which has yet to be seen, but for which there is plenty of circumstantial proof.
Almost all of the evidence for its existence has been faked, including the
famous 1933 picture, yet enough proof exists for people to believe in its
existence. Although it has been searched for, little more than the shadow of a
flipper has been found, and even that is up for debate. Although there is
plenty of room for it to exist and the loch could easily hide it, and there are
even theories about how it could go from loch to ocean, there is little evidence
that it actually exists. Yet, hope for its existence persists.
Christians and other believers face a similar dilemma when it
comes to God. There are plenty of charlatans who muddy the waters, their “proof”
obfuscating any proof that believers could use to prove their case. It doesn’t
help that would be legitimate proof, such as the Shroud of Turin, seem to be
proven otherwise every day. In short, it seems that proof of God’s existence
will never come. Admittedly there is the possibility that this is exactly how
God wants it, and He hints at that repeatedly in the Bible.
The problem is proving God’s existence to skeptics. This is a
legitimate problem. There is the fallacious argument that keeps coming up is
the basic “can’t prove a negative”; you can’t prove that God exists because he
doesn’t exist. Although a great statement by the great skeptic James Randi,
there is the problem that there is a fundamental disagreement between skeptics
and believers, in that one side believes in God and the other doesn’t. By
calling upon that manta, a skeptic can point out that you can’t prove God’s
existence because of course He doesn’t exist; they don’t seem to understand the
logical fallacy in the argument. Specifically, you need to demonstrate that
something does not in fact exist; there are too many times when something has
been said to not exist and that something makes an appearance; the coelacanth was
thought to be extinct until one was captured in 1938. I’m sure an omnipotent
being can easily hide as long as He wants to, making the point somewhat moot.
However, there is the problem that the proof is much more
subtle than that. The problem is that people don’t like patterns that appear
too coincidental; we are geared that way, and it makes us crazy when we
encounter a pattern without sense. This runs from something as simple as the
cells in our bodies to the dispersal of galaxies. Because of this we believe
that we have found God, like the Devil, in the details; we keep seeing,
hearing, sensing someone laughing just beyond our reach, and we figure that it
has to be some supernatural being. It makes little sense to us that the
universe would become ordered on so many levels, that what exists on one level
should exist on levels both higher and lower, and that no one could be guiding
that organization.
In short, my proof for the existence of God is the universe
itself. I look at it, and am truly awed. I recognize the miracle of its
existence, of human existence, that we are able to see the order of its
majesty. Although there is that part of me that recognizes that the universe
would of course become more organized as it aged, it still amazes that it does
in fact happen.
I guess I could have argued that the miracles of healing,
last-minute miraculous rescues, even the weirdest coincidences that end up
protecting people, could be proof of God. But somehow they feel cheap against
the enormity of the miracles that we see each night just be looking up…
No comments:
Post a Comment