I eventually became agnostic/atheist.
The Creator of the universe, Jehovah, that I had firmly believed in and prayed to, went *poof* and existed no more all of a sudden. Well - not 'all of a sudden', but eventually, He disappeared in a poof of research and logic.
So... what then? What of other contenders for the title 'Creator of the universe' ?
Well - further research into more critical thinking (not critical as in negative, but objective research) about the Bible and religion taught me that things weren't as I had thought. So, long story very short; the Bible was out the window for me.
But that's just one version of God, with various mutually exclusive adaptations due to different interpretations of certain texts. So what about God? You know - the actual, living out there, existing, God and Creator?
I can't say for certain.
I believed for a while after leaving the Witnesses. It's easy as pie. All you have to do is just choose to believe there is a God, and there It is. But once you do, you will almost inadvertently place certain characteristics on It, and as soon as you do that, you separate 'you' from 'them'; those who believe as you do, and those who don't. Does the God you found care if others believe differently than you? If It does care, what's the damage to the people who believe differently? Nothing? Then your God doesn't really care, and there's no need to believe in that God specifically, because everyone is equal anyway. So - - say you don't put a name to It. You just choose to believe. Some God, some where. Maybe even that you are God, or part of God. Is that the ultimate stance? Hedging your bet? Just in case? What if it's the wrong God though? What evidence do you have that you are right? What if one of the other, less forgiving religions are right after all?
Bummer.
I can say for sure that the more I read and research, the more I see that God, if He/She/It/They exists, has worked via natural means in this universe. Nothing came or comes supernaturally *poof* into existence. You'd perhaps think that's the atheist stance; that things came *poof* into existence, but it isn't. 'Random chance' is not so much the core of the issue, as much as it is a case of the water in a pond perfectly filling the hole, and not the hole of the pond perfectly fitting the water in it. We live in a universe where energy can become matter, and matter energy. We live in a universe that by the looks of it had a beginning, and will have a natural end. Perhaps it is a never ending cycle, but never once exactly the same. Who knows. Unfortunately we can only do proper research within the known universe. But the logical inferences and projections are there. Energy can become matter. Molecular clouds can coalesce by gravity to form denser forms of matter. When it becomes dense and massive enough, it triggers a nuclear fusion, and a star is born. The remaining matter may gather into (a) planet(s) around the massive center which did become a sun.
It's much more involved than that, but that's the gist of it. -Gradual formation from simpler beginnings.
Organic molecules are not restricted to earth. They can also bond to form more complex molecules. The environment will "favor" those bonds that are able to exist in said environment. Other bonds will obviously disappear or not form. Once life more or less as we know it does arise, it's not in a sudden *poof*. Evolution (mutation, natural selection etc.) eventually kicks in. Life slowly grows and diversifies as the environment changes and/or the 'simple' life forms are separated by some distance over time. Mutation provides the basis on which natural selection can work. Animals don't evolve during their lifetime; lineages evolve. Some make it, some don't.
It's much more involved than that, but that's the gist of it. -Gradual formation from simpler beginnings.
How about all the creationist evidence for a creator then? You know, complexity, statistical improbability, 'fine tuning', 'no existing transitional forms' - - all that good stuff? Well - - I was smacked right in the face when I did my own research on the WBTS reasoning on these matters; how they'd lie, distort, mis-quote, misrepresent, misunderstand, use circular reasoning, etc. etc. Christians allegedly shouldn't behave like that. But they did. And my subsequent research into other creationist arguments and logic have shown me that they too have no qualms about using the same tactics. It doesn't seem to matter how you do it, as long as you can 'bring people back to the Bible'.
I have also found that when arguing these matters, if you come to a point in the discussion where you go "Of course, I have some doubt that I have all the facts, and I may be wrong about this specific thing, as future research may reveal.", you are then not presented with just a belief in "a God", no - you are then suddenly handed the entire Bible with the patriarchs, Jesus, sin, judgment and salvation all in one neat package. One tiny admission of not knowing everything there is to know about the universe is suddenly transformed into having to believe everything Christians believe. It is the 'wedge' strategy; just get a tiny foot in the door, and then pour the entire Christian doctrine through the crack. But that's not how it works. If I admit there is a tiny chance there is a creator out there, that doesn't actually mean I have to agree with the entire Bible, sin, judgment, Abraham, Jesus etc. It just means there may be a creator.
I could perhaps have taken creationist arguments more seriously if it weren't for those things. Some more scientific arguments have been raised, like the 'irreducible complexity' issue, but have been elegantly countered by other scientists. Usually, the creationist method is not to come up with own scientific research, but to try and sow doubt about how science is done, exaggerate mistakes and frauds, and deny certain evidence. What they have to substitute it with, is simply that they have the Bible (or Koran etc.), and that is the word of God, therefore no further research into the subject is necessary, 'cause we have God's word on the matter.
I fully understand that people find it hard to accept that complexity can come from humbler beginnings. There's a reason we've believed in gods for thousands of years. It is easily the most immediate, easy, and actually most logical explanation as long as one doesn't think too long and hard on it, or do enough real world research. "I live, I am complex, I can create, nothing comes *poof* into existence, therefore, someone must have made me and all of this". I understand the thought. I understand it can be said that although God would be even more complex and would therefore even more so need a Creator to explain His existence (and so on), God exists in another plane altogether and have existed forever, therefore exempt from the rule. This is of course only assertions that cannot be verified in any way. Ad hoc arguments to save that story. But I do understand why people choose the God explanation for complex things.
That said - once you do understand the principles behind current scientific thought and theories on the subject, you'll find that they are quite elegant in their simplicity as well.
I also fully understand that when hit with life's harsh realities, like the loss of a loved one, it's easy - maybe even necessary for some - to have a loving 'anchor' to turn to and cling to. I have had little loss in my life so far fortunately; perhaps I'll feel that need when that day comes.
That said - it would in that case not explain away my current reservations about this deity; it would only be something I chose to believe in because I felt it necessary emotionally. But I do understand it.
Now - why did I even mention all the science stuff above? The gradual development of the universe and subsequent gradual formation of planets conducive to life as we know it, life gradually emerging there, and life thereafter gradually evolving, does not preclude the existence of a deity.
Well, this may be so (although it does preclude literal readings of certain religious texts).
However - the supernatural is simply not part of my life; not part of my experience.
Is it right to "demand" that creation should have been done supernaturally? Not necessarily; if God exists, He/She/It/They worked within this natural universe, and would use its building blocks made from energy existing in this universe. But supernatural occurrences and supernatural creation is par for the course for most religious texts describing past (and some current) events.
Sure, I've had one or two inexplicable things happen, but invoking some invisible entity doesn't explain it. Logic and scientific methodology can (in my case, at least so far). Sure, I acknowledge that people have supernatural experiences, have visions of angels and talk to God etc. I also acknowledge that people have experiences of being probed by aliens in a UFO somewhere. That they travel the universe in the astral plane. That they serve food to gnomes living in their garden. That they've sacrificed animals and people to appease the Gods, and the Gods have sent rain or sun. That there are giant spiders in their room. That the government is out to get them specifically, because they know the president is a reptilian. That God has told them the End comes in 2011.
But it's not part of my reality. What I mean is; I can't start believing something simply because others assert it as true (sometimes with highly dubious "evidence", if any at all). So why do I 'believe' scientists when it comes to the things I have mentioned above?
Because, in contrast with the supernatural things, scientific theories can be tested again and again, and give real world results; things I myself often can verify. Sure - there is no scientific theory of the origin of life yet, but there are actually some good hypothesis out there now.
So, let's say I either don't read the Bible or other religious texts literally, or I ditch it altogether, in order to find the God.
Well - where was the God while I was a Witness? Did the God care that I was lead astray? Does the God care that many live their entire lives as Witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists, Muslims ... Christians? Once I left the JWs, did the God lead me to true religion? - Only if 'true religion' is atheism(!).
Has the God interfered in the dealings of mankind, animals and the universe in general in a positive sense? Only in ancient writings. Not in my personal experience. I can only go by how the universe and life is right now (except for what archeology, geology, paleontology etc. can tell me about the past). Sure - good things happen, but they are balanced out by bad things. I can infer that it all had to have had a better beginning, but it would only be an unsupported assertion because it sounds better than current reality. A creator who doesn't show up might as well be totally non-existent. Especially when we're beginning to understand that the creator is in fact not needed to explain things anymore.
God was once responsible for everything natural. Earth quakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, comets, asteroid impacts, volcanoes, rain, drought... you name it, God (or the gods) were behind it, good and bad. Now? Who knows what God is behind. He/She/It/They don't prevent any of the bad things from happening at least.
My current stance is that it's simply because He/She/It/They don't exist. So I don't blame them for not stepping in(!). If I "blame God", it's only the concept. Sure, agnosticism and atheism have the 'drawback' of not offering eternal afterlife. I may want an eternal afterlife. But it's not my choice to make. It's not my reality to create. I can't change the universe simply because I wish something were true. I have to live in reality.
Could I be wrong? Sure. So could you (not talking to the original poster of this thread here, but to anyone who reads this).
