The problem with faith and belief is their definitions. To have faith in something or someone greater than yourself translates into a belief that is not based on proof; a trust or confidence in a person or being without that concrete proof that they actually exist. The basis for faith in God is that one must live a righteous life here on earth since life is apparently temporary and fleeting whereas heaven, or whatever a specific religion may assume to be the afterlife, is eternal. So with this comes faith. Since how we live here on earth translates to how we will live when we die has, to some degree, forced people to believe in a being powerful enough to take utter control of ones soul when the freewill stage of eternal existence ends. It's as if this life is where we prove ourselves to be worthy of "eternal paradise". But isn't one who fakes a belief in God just as sinful as any other sin? With this the question becomes, whose fault is it? Who is the one who is sinning? Is it the man who believes in God only out of fear of the consequences for not believing? Or is it the man who is imposing the will on the other man? The definition of terrorism is this: the use of violence and/or fear and threats to coerce. But with this, now who is to blame? If the bible literally is the word of God, does God now sin? Is God contradicting God or are we contradicting God by fabricating facts about the way we should live or how it was once was and now is suppose to be? The answer can be simple. Since childhood, most people are taught the fact that all people are equal but completely and utterly unique. All people are different from the tips of their fingers, to their faces, to their DNA. Why then do all peoples have to follow a strict guideline of how to live? If all man is different then their thoughts would inevitably be different; ergo, what is right for one person can't possibly be right for another. So what this translates to is an imposed will of living. Morals cannot be taught; morals cannot be forced. What is right and wrong is a feeling of what is right and wrong and the conscious decision to not do wrong within a universally implanted set of rules. If all man is different, which they are, moral code cannot be imposed by man and only by something capable of imposed that will to all who fall within limits of humanity. But is that proof or coincidence? Coincidently, there is a very thin line between destiny and coincidence. But that's not the proof that transcendence exists. Does that mean there isn't proof? Not in the least. The inevitable laws of physics, the laws in which every aspect of the universe obeys, can actually prove the existence of some higher power.
Men and women are really nothing more than beasts, animals in a fleeting life of stalling time. A lion awakes in the morning, hunts to provides, then stalls by keeping itself busy until its demise. A man awakens, works to provides, then returns only to stall until his death. Does this mean life is meaningless? Absolutely not. But then what does it all mean? What is the point? To better understand ourselves we must better understand the animals. Obviously, animals have no need for cigarettes, television, drugs, internet, or dependencies on irrelevance. So why do we? If a dog could smoke, would he? If animals suddenly became aware of death would we see a splurge of animal religions; dogs created in the image of "god"? Why are we so much more complex? Why are we the only animals aware of our own death? While I can't answer what our destiny is as a people, I can say that because of the, “humans are the only creatures aware of their potential demise” argument, people have hesitated to have faith in transcendent beings. Because we are aware of our coming deaths, have we fabricated God to ease the pain of "ceasing to be"? Do we cease to be, like we simply never existed only remember through the eyes of the ones who still walk the earth? If we do cease to be then that only means that the people remembering the dead will soon cease to be themselves making the memory of the dead non-existent. While it's impossible to say whether we do cease to be, if this human life is the only life, what can be said is that God can be proven. Whether that translates into a paradisiacal afterlife, or at the very least a question and answer period in which one may realize the purpose of their own life, is hard to answer. But where there is a god there will be answers. And if God is all-knowing, it would be absurd for him or her to not reveal something in death at least. So with god proven it is relatively safe to say that there is a minimum of realization for all and a likely chance of eternal paradise as well. This writer personally believe that the dead will live eternally content but this writer also believe there will be a system of utter enlightenment of all the worlds mysteries as well as the choice to simply cease to be. Being dead, one may have a clear enough conscience to choose between nonexistence, reincarnation, or nirvana.
