Human beings are the highest form of physical life on our
planet, if not our solar system.
Whether you take that statement from a naturalistic standpoint
or a spiritual viewpoint, it remains true.
We humans are meant
for great things.
Which begs two fundamental and existential questions for
humanity:
What are we made for? And more importantly WHO made us?
The naturalist will tend to digress at this point, and say
that human beings are NOT made. They have evolved
as a result of the interaction of the natural laws of the universe, namely
the interaction between time, matter, and a rather unscientific sounding thing
called “chance”.
If you ask a naturalist what chance is, chances are he/she
will tell you that it is but the result of the random interplay of events and
matter in our physical world.
In other words, human beings, from a naturalistic
standpoint, are an accident. There is
no conscious purpose behind the laws of nature that sought to bring human
beings into existence. We simply came to
be as a result of the interplay of those laws.
If this sounds straight out of a science fiction novel, let
me point out that apparently, this is what leading scientific figures in the
world’s most influential societies are thinking. And what the scientific
community thinks, the rest of the world tends to follow.
There are certain logical conclusions one can draw from the
naturalistic explanation for human existence. First, since humans are the
result of a mindless process (remember, lack of consciousness means lack of a
mind), then humans by inference cannot
have a mind or consciousness.
The logic behind this is simple. You cannot create something out of nothing. If the process by which
humans were formed was a mindless one, then you cannot expect that process to
impart a mind to that which it had formed. Put another way, I cannot give you a
million dollars, if I don’t have a million dollars to begin with.
Sound reasonable enough?
The second conclusion is this: if human beings are without a
mind or consciousness, then human beings
do not have the capacity to be self-aware.
Again the logic here is simple. You cannot be aware of anything if you do not have a mind or consciousness
to be aware with. I cannot spend a million dollars if I don’t have a million dollars (this is
different from loaning a million dollars which I do not have the capacity to
pay for. While technically, I could
spend a million dollars on credit, I still NEED the actual million dollars to
spend, despite the fact that I’ve loaned it.)
Do you see where this is going?
The third conclusion one can draw from all this is as
follows: if human beings do not have a mind or consciousness to be aware of
themselves with, then who the heck wrote
and is reading this article?!
The answer: nobody.
There is no mind or consciousness outside of humanity that is capable of being
aware of humans, since creation or “nature” (which is the politically correct
way of describing reality from a naturalistic viewpoint) is a result of a
mindless process. And since humans are a part of nature, humans themselves do
not have the capacity to be aware of their own existence.
Therefore nobody has
written or is reading this article.
This is problematic in so many different ways that it would
take reams and reams of philosophical discussion to tackle properly. And even
then, it wouldn’t matter because as the arguments above show, nobody would write nor read them anyway
since no one has the conscious capacity
to do so in the first place.
The question that needs to be asked at this point is this:
Where did all these
words in this article come from?
Perhaps the naturalist would say: they’re just the mindless
result of the interaction of the natural
laws of time and matter, plus chance.
To which I would ask: then
where did the naturalistic explanation for reality come from? To whom is it
addressed to?! And for what purpose?
See, as much as the naturalist worldview would like to
believe (the word “believe” here is crucial) that everything that exists does
not have an underlying purpose behind them -- being the result of a mindless
process -- the naturalist’s very
explanation for the existence of nature in itself serves a purpose.
What purpose does it serve?
To explain the nature
of reality!
To whom?
To someone who has the
mental capacity (i.e. a conscious mind) to process that explanation with!
And who in nature has that mental capacity?
I do not doubt that even the naturalist would say that nothing
less than a human being would suffice for the job.
The naturalistic
viewpoint therefore is self-defeating. It does not and cannot sufficiently
explain the nature of reality to accommodate for the phenomenon of the simple
act of presenting its own explanation for reality to someone.
If we reject the naturalistic explanation for the existence
of reality, then what alternative are we left with?
I have to point out that at this point most naturalists
would turn agnostic and say that they do not know.
Well, the alternative to me is rather plain and obvious: if a mindless process cannot account for the
existence of reality, let alone consciousness in humans within that reality, then
something with a consciousness MUST have been there in the first place to
impart consciousness to the human race.
If this makes sense to you, then you are faced with the
inevitable conclusion that a Creator exists.
And if you’ve accepted as fact that a Creator does exist, not only would you have made
it easier to answer the two existential questions at the beginning of this
article, you would have already given the Creator honor by acknowledging that
you have indeed been created by Him.
If you’re a human being, and you’ve come this far in reading
this article, I want you to know that the Creator is waiting with bated breath
at the conclusions you will draw from all of this.
Because in the end, you and I were meant to know Him. You and I were meant to give Him honor.
You and I were made to
worship.
It is my sincere prayer that you will come to know Him and
cherish Him as I do.
To Him be all the glory.
