top of page
  • Writer's pictureartgainz

Approaching the Barrier of Knowledge

Updated: Jan 17, 2020

Ron Perlman as 'Amoukar' in "Quest for Fire" (1981)..

One famous idea that the atheists take for granted is that primitive man invented God (or gods) in order to explain the unexplainable, the natural phenomena for which they had no naturalistic explanation. The implication of this theory is that we don’t need God anymore because we are so much better at proposing naturalistic explanations for why thing happen.

What they fail to acknowledge is that there is an inevitable and insurmountable barrier when it comes to what can be explained “naturally”. This barrier is creation itself, the ultimate origin of all things. With our modern science, we may be closer to that barrier than our distant ancestors, but it is a delusion to think that creation can be explained naturally. This is evident from that fact that the explanations that modern atheists propose to explain creation are ultimately just as fantastical and magical as the ideas proposed by ancient savages. The fact that the creation myths of modern atheists sometimes involve fancy mathematics is pure obfuscation. If they had thought it would improve their narrative, I'm sure the ancients would have tried to calculate how many puffs of smoke emerged from the primordial flames before the Titans manifested themselves.

There is nothing natural about the Big Bang, given that the entire event contradicts virtually every natural law and every natural process known to exist. The theory itself proposes that the natural laws that reign today did not take effect until sometime after the event began.

There is nothing natural about cosmological or biological evolutionary processes, given that they contradict the second law of thermodynamics (entropy).

There is nothing scientific about multiple universe theory, given that it is a transparently stupid attempt to circumvent the statistical improbabilities of our universe appearing on its own.

When it comes to naturalistic explanations for things, the difference between us and our distant ancestors is merely one of degree. The caveman could offer a handful of naturalistic explanations for how the world operates, but the deeper mysteries were beyond him. He might be able to explain that “Klugg died because someone pushed him off a cliff” or “the fire starts because striking flint makes a spark”, but things like the natural cause of lightning were unknown, though I doubt this bothered him as much as we might think. Today, many of us have the impression that we have figured out naturalistic explanations for almost everything, almost entirely pulling a veil back off the unknown that surrounds us, but I suspect that this is a largely unfounded assumption. Quite simply, we don’t know what we don’t know; and what we don't know to wonder about doesn't bother us.

I’m sure the cavemen thought they were pretty smart too.

In reality, we are no more capable of proposing a naturalistic explanation for creation than our distant ancestors. By definition, creation must have been an unnatural or supernatural act. A child can recognize it. Something simply cannot create itself.

15 views0 comments


bottom of page