“I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?”
-- John Lennon
I think most of us can agree that God doesn't look like Michelangelo's depiction on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. As a matter of fact, I remember someone telling me if you actually saw God you would go blind, and if you heard God you would go deaf, so tremendous is the presence of the Almighty. So, if we can't describe "God" without going blind, deaf, and insane, how do we prove the existence of God?
Well, supposedly in God's own words (Revelation 1:8), "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." What else, do we theorize, was in existence at the beginning and will be here in the end?
When Moses asked how to describe God, God responded (Revelation 3:13-14), Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " God simply is and, it would seem, this is all we need concern ourselves with.
Taoist philosophy explains the Tao in similar terms: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth."
I have come to believe that my God is comprised of pure energy. The "God Particle" perhaps? Maybe. It meets my criteria for God's description in Catholocism's "lesser doxology" which states, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end." Everything, all matter, is made up of atoms and molecules, and those elusive "God" particles, so it makes sense that man was created in "His image," energy, so to speak. And, no pun intended, but everything would be, for that matter.
Philosophically, there is good and bad energy. We hope to live a good life and stay away from the bad "vibes" that would threaten our peace and tranquility, the "dark side of the force," if you will. If we can agree to simply define "God" as the ultimate power of good in the universe, or just a power which we can learn to draw "good" from as we become more attuned to it, would this philosophy not suit atheists as well? Maybe it would. But, wouldn't it also depend on the atheist? Do they have issues with simply admitting to ultimate creative power, or is it more about admitting the ultimate creative power can think and reason?
It would seem most atheists are content being constantly at odds with theists instead of looking for any common ground. Atheists are first to put responsibility for "proof" of God on the theist, and theists seem to always buy into any invitation they present for an argument. Atheists who broach the subject of proving God, and theists who buy into arguments, miss the entire point of spiritual faith. "Faith" is a belief in something for which there is no proof. If neither has any proof one way or the other, then why argue about it at all? Well, some might say it's because theists have such faith we should care less what an atheist believes.
If an atheist requires proof of God, prior to surrendering any disbelief on their part, then the impetus for such proof should be with them, since the disbelief and lack of faith are also theirs. I have never understood why the faithful browbeat disbelievers until they piss them off. I guess I've always felt that, if you have faith, ta-dah! Good for you! If you don't, who really cares? Well, then again, the faithful would argue it is incumbent on all people of good faith to care about the eternal souls of others around us? This idea of responsibility for others is, as the saying goes, our cross to bear.
I offer an excerpt, below, and ask that you do some homework for yourself.
It would seem most atheists are content being constantly at odds with theists instead of looking for any common ground. Atheists are first to put responsibility for "proof" of God on the theist, and theists seem to always buy into any invitation they present for an argument. Atheists who broach the subject of proving God, and theists who buy into arguments, miss the entire point of spiritual faith. "Faith" is a belief in something for which there is no proof. If neither has any proof one way or the other, then why argue about it at all? Well, some might say it's because theists have such faith we should care less what an atheist believes.
If an atheist requires proof of God, prior to surrendering any disbelief on their part, then the impetus for such proof should be with them, since the disbelief and lack of faith are also theirs. I have never understood why the faithful browbeat disbelievers until they piss them off. I guess I've always felt that, if you have faith, ta-dah! Good for you! If you don't, who really cares? Well, then again, the faithful would argue it is incumbent on all people of good faith to care about the eternal souls of others around us? This idea of responsibility for others is, as the saying goes, our cross to bear.
I offer an excerpt, below, and ask that you do some homework for yourself.
Posted on EveryStudent.com, Marilyn Adamson, a former atheist, gave several "proofs" of God's existence which I found compelling. I posted one of her arguments here, and pasted the link to her entire article for you to read at your leisure:
All instruction, all teaching, all training comes with intent. Someone who writes an instruction manual does so with purpose. Did you know that in every cell of our bodies there exists a very detailed instruction code, much like a miniature computer program? As you may know, a computer program is made up of ones and zeros, like this: 110010101011000. The way they are arranged tell the computer program what to do. The DNA code in each of our cells is very similar. It's made up of four chemicals that scientists abbreviate as A, T, G, and C. These are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. There are three billion of these letters in every human cell!!
Well, just like you can program your phone to beep for specific reasons, DNA instructs the cell. DNA is a three-billion-lettered program telling the cell to act in a certain way. It is a full instruction manual.
Why is this so amazing? One has to ask....how did this information program wind up in each human cell? These are not just chemicals. These are chemicals that instruct, that code in a very detailed way exactly how the person's body should develop.
Natural, biological causes are completely lacking as an explanation when programmed information is involved. You cannot find instruction, precise information like this, without someone intentionally constructing it.
-- EveryStudent.com, Is There a God?
Interesting concepts, unless you're an atheist. In 2003, James Skemp on his blog, StrivingLife, took a look at Ms. Adamson's article. I have listed an excerpt of a comment he made about it, and have included the applicable link so you can refer back and contemplate my response:
"While Adamson is quite correct, I do hope that she is not asking us to keep an open mind, much like many people who attempt to show God's existence hope us to do. The reason I'm troubled by this thought (of her suggesting an open mind) is best summed up by Ayn Rand, who has given some interesting advice, worthy of notice. Let us then, instead/to be sure, keep an 'active mind' instead.-- StrivingLife.com, Response to "Is There a God?"
I have a better idea for James. How about we all keep an open and active mind. Open your mind enough to let in the possibility of what Adamson proposes, prior to being actively critical of it. If you opt to read Skemp's response, I think you'll agree he changes the rules to suit his agenda. This is not to say I don't think they both have good points, but you can't paint her points in a different light so they fit your response, and this seems to be his forte.
Atheists don't own the mantle of dissent, theists are just as culpable; theists against atheists. This would seem to be the world we have created; divisiveness to the very end, with no possibility of common ground. We do this in discussions of politics, race, gender, sexual orientation, and so much more. It's not as though there enough ground in the universe to find some commonality, it just seems like neither side of a conversation is willing to budge.
For theists, there is no downside to a belief in "God," regardless of definition. If they die and there is no God, they won't realize it. There will be no harm, no foul, no nothing. Theists may have wasted a bit of free time, but they were happier for it while they existed. For atheists, there would seem to be a big downside. If they die, and there is a God... oops. Welcome to hell.
I have often wondered if, given the opportunity, just before death, an atheist would opt to pad their bet and open their mind, you know, just in case. Hey! What could it hurt? It beats simply being dead... forever because you expect nothing.
Editor's Note
(Re: disclaimer cum "get out of jail free" card)
Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so. This is also why, occasionally, I will present an "opinion" just to stir an emotional pot. Where it may sound like I agree with the statements made, I'm more interested in getting others to consider an alternate viewpoint.
It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and while engaging in peaceful and constructive discussion, in an arena of mutual respect, concerning those opinions put forth. After over twenty years with military intelligence, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.
We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we learn from the experience, and what we do afterward.
Pastor Tony spent 22 years with United States Air Force Intelligence as a planner, analyst, briefer, instructor, and senior manager. He spent 17 years, following his service career, working with the premier, world renowned, Institutional Review Board helping to protect the rights of human subjects involved in pharmaceutical research. Ordained 1n 2013 as an "interfaith" minister, he founded the Congregation for Religious Tolerance in response to intolerance shown by Christians toward peaceful Islam. As the weapon for his war on intolerance he chose the pen, and wages his "battle" in the guise of the Congregation's official online blog, The Path, of which he is both author and editor. "The Path" offers a vehicle for commentary and guidance concerning one's own personal, spiritual, path toward peace and the final destination for us all. He currently resides in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where he volunteers as lead Chaplain and Chaplain Program Liaison, at the regional medical center.
The atheist has considered the "evidence" for the existence of god as proposed by the major religions, and found it unconvincing. Ms. Adamson's article proposes nothing new, and continues to use the scripture as evidence of god, claiming the scripture as truth because the scripture says it's true (circular logic). Mr. Skemp points out most of the usual fallacies with the arguments put forth by theists.
ReplyDeleteWhy does the theist not realize that we are the way we are because that's how life on this planet evolved (because that's how this planet formed, because that's how this universe is made)? If carbon were not the most common element in the universe, maybe life on earth would not be carbon based (but it is). All life we know consists of the *same DNA*; humans are nothing special there either.
Only humans can create stories -- which we've done for thousands of years before we could write them down. We've used "magic" to explain the frightening, the unknowable. As we have gained knowledge, we have discarded to mythology many early thunder god, war god, creator god, and savior god stories; just as we have discarded much astrology and alchemy for astronomy and science. (Early "scientists" were called "natural philosophers", just as an aside. "Scientist" didn't come into common usage until 1800s, I think.)
The differences between theists and non theists isn't because of what theists believe. It's because of what the theists want to force the non believers of their particular version of god's law to believe. If theists just went about their own business and left others alone, think how many fewer killings and wars we would have had, even in only the last 20 years (India/Pakistan, the "Irish problem", the "Palestinian problem", the Muslims who want to kill all who don't believe exactly as they do, the KKK and other more blatantly hateful sects of Christians, the Tutsi vs the Hutu (Rowanda), Sharia vs other Muslim groups... and any and all of them against non theists in particular. It goes on and on.
So in short, Pascal's Wager fails. I (and many, many others) am good without god. I do not waste my time, energy or money on fantasy, but do volunteer my time, energy and money to doing good works. It just feels better not to be coerced into doing what I already know is the right thing to do.
I believe that if there is a sentient universal energy or power, it would much prefer to meet an honest doubter than a death-bed, self-serving, hypocritical "convert". Just my open, active mind opinion of course. -- Gail Dobson