Beyond horizons

Human history, and all aspects of human life are mostly related to search for the unknown. Humans had always gone to war to conquer unknown territories. If we look into history most of the travellers and explorers undertook the hardships of dislocation just in the anticipation of finding something new. People, all along the human timeline, were fascinated by new faces, new cultures, new music, new languages, new foods etc. 

This, search for the unknown, has another vector as well, except for the physical or material one. People have also been always fascinated by the questions regarding the coming into being of humans, and other life forms, and non-living forms around us. This more spiritual or let’s say meta-physical exploration has given birth to things like religions and ideologies. Over the course of thousands of years of human existence, we humans have evolved from beings worried only about finding and consuming food, to beings, which have sufficient extra time to indulge into deep philosophical discussions.

All along the timeline there had been a lot of different ideas and theories about the start of life and source of life and source of existence. Some of the ideas evolved into more intricate ideologies, whereas others lost breathe and seized to exist, but two main lines of difference exist till date: one part of human race thinks that life was created, whereas the other half thinks that life came into being (happened). I know you don’t agree with me, because I have over simplified a lot more complex situation, but my purpose is not to provide proper definitions or details of ideas. I just want to elaborate the diametrical difference of perception about life.

Those, who think that life was created, have their own God or gods, who as per their belief and perception created the life on earth, the earth itself and the whole universe. The consequent question, “why”, is answered differently by followers of different gods and to the best of their belief, their responses do answer the question in all its complexity.

On the other hand are the ones, who do not believe in creation of life and creation of medium of life. These humans have their own explanations of initiation of life. For these people the word “evolution”, as used by me, is not very correct. For them evolution is the process, widely known as “Darwinian theory”, of changing of one species into another until human beings evolved out as they are today. 

The ones, who believe in creation and existence of GOD are called “Theists”. and those, who do not believe in creation, are called “Atheists”. The theists do not have a singular theory of creation accepted unanimously by all different sorts of Theists, just like the Atheists do not have a singular theory of occurrence.

Apart from the debate about creation or evolution the main parting point among these groups is the existence of GOD or the absence of the same. God as per perception is not a directly visible being. So the theists or the atheists could not and cannot base their debate on physical existence or absence of the personage called GOD.

The theists have been spending millions of man hours in proving that GOD does exist and that God is the creator of all life and non-life, whereas the atheists have spent the similar amount of man hours in negating the existence of God.

It is very hard for me to associate myself with one group or the other. The reason is not that I believe in creation, so I cannot associate myself with Atheists, or that I trust that one of my ancestors was a baboon, therefore I cannot associate myself with the Theists. The heart of the matter is that the question of human conception or conception of life or matter is still an unknown field. There are and there will be a lot of theories about the beginnings of everything, but they are and they will be theories until one day we do find a real practical, physical answer, which might happen today or maybe after a couple of million years from now.

When you talk to Theists they bring around some really mind blowing arguments, which do make one believe that there is God and that life was created by it (the God). When you talk to Atheists they throw similarly mind boggling justifications towards you and after talking to sensible Atheists one starts understanding how flawed the theory of creation is. 

But as I said I cannot associate myself with any of these groups. Why? Not because the theists or the atheists cannot compel me logically: as I already said both groups have learned to be very logical in their argumentation over the course of thousands of years (or maybe millions of years). But, the one fact that draws me away from both of these groups is the level of their individual confidence in their rightfulness, the level of their certainty in the existence or absence of GOD.

How can you be certain of the existence of God if you have not seen it?

Similarly, how can you be negating something that you think does not exist?

The question regarding the start of life and matter is an exploration and explorations cannot be undertaken if you are certain of what to expect. Exploration is quite the opposite of being certain. The only thing that you can be certain of, when starting out on an exploration, is that you are not certain of anything!

Certainty kills the soul of exploration and novelty! Let’s not give up exploration into the unknown, falling victims to misconceptions of certain morons!