No answers only questions. Perhaps it is the only thing that I can hope for, questioning without recourse. In my limited capacity, asking questions is all I can really do, to fathom some meaning to my existence. It is why I find myself in a continuing flux of some indeterminate future, wondering if anything has merit or if it all is just fanciful illusion. I can understand why people behold religion or belief in the supernatural to find solace in this cold expanse of a seemingly unlimited universe. Well perhaps that is not entirely truthful, I’m trying to understand why it is so important for people to have belief in some form of deism or theism or spiritualism and why having an eternal life is so attractive when I find the idea of infinite existence a little overwhelming and more than a little horrid. What would you do for an eternity? Is it merely a metaphor of hope? Does it transcend into living a more moral existence? I don’t have answers, like I said only questions.

More questions. The first law of thermodynamics states that no energy can be created nor can it be destroyed, so in some sense then a spirit if it is an energy can not be destroyed nor can it be created for that matter so my line of reasoning has been quashed even before it began. I was going to muse that perhaps this would in some way rationalise eternal life into a sort of perspective, but if energy or spirit cannot be created then the spirit must be formed outside of energy, some other field, outside of laws of physics or mechanics. It bothers me that people keep referring to spirit and that I have no idea what they are referring to. All these little metaphors and poetic terms endearing themselves to some thing outside of the material world, the world of stuff. Terms like “the heart” or “spirit” invoking romantic notions of something outside of reality, binding the material with the metaphysical. I have some notion what people mean when the ascend these terms into daily existence and with our relations to each other and things but in supernatural terms they seem vacant to me. I embody something from the heart as a metaphor for an emotional state or the spirit of some occasion to the enthusiasm one holds to that thing. But when someone says pray from the heart it becomes difficult to summon an emotional response to some imaginary abstract form like God. Linking the spirit as a life force, the stuff of life is beyond the scope of my consciousness. Having to have “faith” in some imaginary thing is beyond me.

Christians like saying that God is Love and it seems reasonable if that were all that lay in this claim, but then having to assign this Love into a supernatural deity is beyond comprehension. To have faith that this is the ultimate truth and that it ought not be questioned or is beyond analysis and outside of human comprehension is strangely lacking in substance. Then when you think about it, love is a curious proposition in itself. Curious because it encompasses a rather broad range in human experience.

When I was flirting with the spiritual I did adopt this notion that God is Love but it started to unravel somewhat when I began to think about it. It is a beautiful notion and in its positive sense it transcends into something good and binding but curiously it can also transcend into something all together bad and negative.  So we have this strange polarisation where God is Love and “Love is the Devil” so the question is, is Love good? or is it bad? It is relative and thus imperfect so it diminishes and provokes uncertainty in ascending it to omniscience and omnipotence.

It is where I flaw in faith, I ask too many questions that aren’t original in any sense but invoke a caution or mistrust in some instances and not so in other senses. The paradox of existence, the existential paradox. I’m very fond of the scientific method and enjoy the fruits of scientific inquiry in all of my day to day existence and I hold a lot of “faith” in this method. Big ideas like “the Big Bang” and evolution seem plausible and I hold a belief in these theories but I can’t seem to extend this belief onto a creator or God. It is a peculiar disposition I think because something like the Big Bang is just as hard to grasp as God, so why believe one and not the other?

The paradox I have no answer for, maybe they are both the same thing? A bit like the Love dilemma, the good and the bad are of the same coin. Perhaps it is because the Big Bang appears to be neutral, there is no dichotomy between good and bad, it just happened without some silly feud for control, which for something supernatural seems so reminiscent of human behaviour. If we are created in the image of God then it worries me that in this other realm there exists power struggles that we humans partake in, perhaps mimicking the gods own control issues. Science seems to abandon the trivialities of our own judgements of what is right and wrong, good and bad, and just deals some fairly indifferent facts. Although the facts are benign it doesn’t mean the purposes and uses that we then choose to employ are of the same value. The choices are in our hands ultimately so we’d want to hope that the dichotomy of good and bad is favoured towards the good and that Love isn’t too much like the devil.