UNDERSTANDING THE PEOPLE WHO ENGAGE IN DEBATES

  Debates like the existence of God between protagonists who both have no answer is foolish and the more insane will it be if the two protagonists will debate when neither of them has the answer! Did not everyone ever thought that engaging in a debate is useless and futile? But people love it so. People love to engage in vanity.

    Now, science cannot make an equation about a personal God nor make an equation of the universal God of Spinoza. Simply put, science is blind without faith and so is faith blind without science. The holistic view is that ideas, imaginations, and hypotheses in this universe, proven or unknown, in both the physical and the spiritual world form part of the plenitude of truth.

    To illustrate the weakness of the atheists' point of view on the material and physical world which is clearly a figment of human imagination, is here:

    Whereas, the theory of random mutation disagrees on the theory of evolution because by randomness no one thing can continue to live and evolve. If by random mutation the male human came into existence then it cannot continue to live because by random mutation it will again change. How can a random thing continue to flourish and live? Surely, random mutation and evolution is a farce and incompatible!

    To make matters worse, the proponents of atheism attempted into something more stupid and an impossible analogy like the verbatim production and replication of the book of William Shakespeare by an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters and given an infinite number of time. Well, I understand their idea on this, or else, to have a continuous situation of random mutation will not produce the exact replica and verbatim book of shakespeare. But this is simply unconscionable because individual monkeys have their limited life here on earth or in the universe and for one randomly mutated monkey to write a book of Shakespeare will simply be a foolish imagination! But people love to hear it being seduced by this mind.

    So the theory of random mutation is not possible and not compatible with the theory of evolution because evolution in the first place is impossible to persist if all things were randomly mutated with a fix shelf life, so to speak. A male human being which has randomly existed, or else, play hard on the idea of evolution by random mutation, would be impossible to continue living because it can only exist by random and with a limnited time, hence, there is no continuity to claim for its persistence and survival on this universe. Survival would not even be a word in a random universe in the first place.

    So the idea on the improvement of the specie by natural selection and evolution would even be an oxymoron to random mutation. The improvement of a specie will be impossible because given a "shelf life" or life expectancy which is so short no one randomly existing living thing can continue to reproduce because reproduction would even be impossible in a random situation. Randomly, a thing will exist and randomly will it vanish without evolving! Surely, if a thing continues to exist it will never be of the theory of randomness.

    By random mutation and limited life expectancy how can two individuals male and female exist at the same time and produce an exact replica of themselves being a random being? Reproduction is not random!

    The real problem with the debaters both for and against God's existence is that they do not have the certain answer. Both of them can only claim the 100% existence of God or the 100% impossibility for God to exist. The result is that they end up making the truth seekers confused in a condition of uncertainty and absurdity. The belief of God is not an answer and the hypotheses that there is no God is also not an answer. There is no answer!

    Now, the world of science added a burden to themselves and is even confronted with the problem on consciousness. They are having a hard time looking for the answer about how did consciousness came into the mind of mankind. If genes are neither conscious nor rationale nor sentient but rudimentary how did consciousness evolve from such a case and much less in a random world?

    Now, the genes are not conscious and hydrogen is not conscious, and so, is helium not conscious. So follow that their descendants are not conscious.

    Now, the problem is not only in the question of the soundness of the theory of evolution and random mutation but also in the explanation on when, where, and how did consciousness came into the physical universe?

    I can only conclude that man is not the authority on both the physical and spiritual world which he continues to search for an answer. I can only say that the problem with this world is that even the believers and proponents that God exist, on that side of the debate, is they cannot accept that God the Creator of heaven and earth is also a man who has the Spirit manifested in the flesh!