Regarding the first question, "how can they be wrong?", there are two false assumptions made in this extremely popular question. First, there is the assumption that sincerity equals truth. Just because a person believes a lie sincerely does not make a lie less of a lie. If one were to take a math test, and write down that x+4=7, x=5 they would be marked wrong, right? But if they were to tell their math teacher that they really believed that x is equivalent to 5, would the teacher excuse their mistake and void the correction? No, the answer is still 3, thus making the answer wrong. This brings us to the second false assumption. Just because a person is very bright, does not mean they cannot be wrong. Let's say the person in the math scenario had written multiple positional papers on mathematics and received awards for doing such, would they all of the sudden be right in the equation? No, the teacher would respond to their sincerity with, "show me how it is 5". This would make the sincere test taker explain his/her position. Let's push this even further. Perhaps this test taker writes down a ten page proof of how this equation comes out to 5, the teacher would just have to subtract the 4 from both sides of the equal sign to conclude the equation. So, just because there are bright people who hold a certain view point and can argue about it, does not make them right. So,what about our second and deeper question. Which world view is correct?
Consider the following descriptions of each world view:
Atheism holds that there is no God.
Agnosticism maintains one cannot know if there is or isn't a God.
Pantheism believes that everything is one with an impersonal (something without a will, emotion, or thought) force called God.
Panentheism thinks that everything is literally in God.
Deism holds that there is a God but He is not interacting with His creation.
Theism is the belief that there is a God and that He is involved in its history.
Though there are many arguments for each lets focus on one question, "why is there something rather than nothing?". This question is not a problem for Panentheism, Deism, and Theism. It is a major conundrum for Atheism, Agnosticism, and Pantheism.
First, the most popular form of Atheism is Materialism, which states that there is nothing outside of this universe. So for them the question is answered either:
A) The universe made itself.
B) The universe always existed.
C) Nothing made the universe.
D) Something made the universe.
Now, the first option is the position that Stephen Hawking takes. But this view is impossible, because for something to have been made from it's self would indicate that it already existed before, negating the necessity for it to make it's self. The second option is impossible because science shows that the universe had a beginning. The third option is absolute nonsense and only Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss believe this. This only leaves us with the fourth option, something made the universe.
Second, Agnosticism can't even ask the question since no knowledge is obtainable, thus it is untenable.
Third, Pantheism can't answer this question because, how can something without a will choose to create something? This could only happen if an outside force made the Impersonal Force create it, which just passes the buck back to the same question.
So, it is either Panentheism, Deism, or Theism. For that we will investigate in Part Two.
