Welcome to Gaia! ::

I realize that many of you will disagree and likely be stuck in your ways, but this is an alternate argument.

What is God? God is defined as the Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. Ideas of a creative force behind the universe have existed for as long as there have been conscious human beings. At the same time, arguments have been posed against the idea of God and the Soul for thousands of years. However, these arguments are often flawed from their very cores. Please note that while I refer to God as “He”, God holds no gender, this is simply a grammatical device, and it seems less clumsy than saying “He/she” or “It”.

To begin, allow me to state that a finite being can never fully comprehend the infinite- This goes for potential infinite beings and abstract mathematical points alike. Although we can understand the idea of an infinitely small or large point through association, it is not possible for us to count to infinity, nor to visualize a mathematical point. To do so, we would need to have the characteristics of infinity to meet the prerequisites needed to observe the infinite. In laymen terms, we would need to live forever to be able to count forever. God is infinite, and as such human beings can hold a concept of God, but can never truly realize God as a physical being.

Many arguments I have heard against God come from tearing down religious dogma-The argument goes, roughly, if religions cannot agree on what God thinks is right and wrong, then God must not exist. This argument is inherently flawed because it fails to do two things- It fails to understand the infinite nature of God, and thusly tries to place God in a box of man-made Dogma. Secondly, it tries to denounce God based on the actions and interpretations of mortals. Essentially, they are basing their view of the infinite on the finite, which is a poor conception of reality.
I tend to agree that religious dogma is irrelevant. Religious dogma is indeed foolish, as it is in fact a finite interpretation of the infinite. However, as such, one must realize that because it is irrelevant, it does nothing to prove or disprove God, in any way. It is simply an interpretation of God by mortals, and as such it doesn’t really prove anything about God, only what mortals think of God at the time. Such an argument would be a fair argument against organized religion, but God is not confined to the boxes people shove Him into.

I have heard an argument from suffering that asks “If God exists, why is there suffering?”- This argument stems from the idea that God must kneel before Man to fix all of our self-made problems. This is similar to the “I prayed to get X, I did not get X, therefore God does not exist” argument, although the worldwide suffering argument is significantly less selfish, and provides a bigger benevolence question. To begin, if God exists, He does not need to solve our problems. His existence is in no way logically equivalent to His aiding us.

This holds true especially when we are the cause of our own problems and our own suffering. Our capitalistic control of the world, our will to constantly procure more trinkets and objects, and our violence over such items and territory is the cause of almost all of our suffering. If we are causing so much strife, why should God fix it for us?

Is it not our job as sentient, intelligent beings to solve these problems? Rather, was it not our job to simply keep these problems for occurring in the first place? To quote a favorite song of mine, “Bending light and beaming forth across space-time, to see us scared in reflections of their oil black eyes, to stalk us like a predator, like our movies imply.

They’re not the ones who come to kill us- come to fill us full of lead, they’re not the ones who hate us- And they are not the ones who mutilate our animals, or travel through the stars, they’re not the ones who cause us harm- we are, we are, we are.” (Protest the Hero, Sequoia Throne) – Although this song is about extraterrestrials rather than God, the point remains the same- We cause our problems, and placing them and their solutions on outside sources is more than simply unfair and illogical, it’s also foolish.

There is also an argument from science, which varies in stance. It ranges from arguments along the lines of “We can not prove God by science so God cannot exist” to “We understand how X works, the cause is Y and therefore not God” – Both of these sound rather similar, but they differ in their focus. One attempts to disprove God based on the parameters of scientific discovery, and the other attempts to disprove God based on Mankind’s understanding of the universe.

The first argument is fundamentally flawed for several reasons- Most simply, an absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. There could be a proof of God that we simply have not found yet with our current technology and understanding. Another very important reason is that science does not ask the type of questions required to come in contact with God, in any direction, be it for God or against. Since it is, in fact, something that cannot be proven by our current objective analysis, there can be no conclusive scientific data for or against God.

The second argument usually lies somewhere next to chemical complexities and the vastness of the universe, in an attempt to lure one into the idea that since everything is so complicated, and we know how complicated it is, and also since we have not found God holding a decree with his signature on it, then God cannot be a part of these things. I would like to ask why, exactly, not?

To start, we as human beings don’t know nearly as much as we think we do- Whenever we come across a small discovery through trial and error, we believe we have found it all. This was true in the 1800’s, when it was said there was no more to be discovered, and is true now when we believe we can prove or disprove God through the little we know of the vast universe around us. Our medicines are still half-poison, riddled with side-effects, we don’t fully understand how light works or what exactly it is made of, and we’re still largely perplexed by gravity and time, save for a few equally possible theories.

Simply put, there are many things we do not currently know, so an argument of such scale based on our understanding cannot be passed as objective or even credible. Keep in mind, this is an argument against the infinite based on a relatively small understanding of the finite world.

Secondly, again, science does not ask the questions required to come in contact with God. God Himself could send a flawless pillar of pure carbon to Earth inscribed with his name, stating that He exists, and be signed on the bottom.

Science could tell us what the slab was made of, how old it was and the direction the material came from, but it could not give subjective or spiritual answers such as “Why is this here” or “Who sent it?”- This is the limitation of science, that while it can detail the objective in the most efficient way possible, it can never answer any question which is not objective in nature or which involves things for which current science does not account. Therefore, arguments of science can never disprove God, and can in fact work to support God.

Thirdly, if God is infinite and intelligent, then systems of evolution and chemical interaction are not beyond the scope of conscious creation. Light in particle/wave form, gravitation, chemical interaction, force, time and direction working so conveniently together to form a comprehensible and existent universe does not disprove God, and by the sheer amount of coincidence involved, bolsters my confidence in my statements.

The universe, it is said by our current scientific research, began as a singularity many billion years ago. This singularity was, as singularities, are, infinite. It had no concept of time, since its mass was also infinite and compressed to a singular, spaceless point. Suddenly, despite the infinite gravitational forces holding it inside itself and the fact that there was no such thing as time for this to occur in, the singularity expanded rapidly. At first, it was hyperactive energy. Then, it cooled into plasma and lighter elements, and as it slowed and cooled it combined to form heavier elements. Even Steven Hawking, though a supporter of this theory, believes it sounds like creation. And rightly so- A supermassive object like this should likely never escape its own gravitational force- And how it would do so without the existence of time in which this expansion could occur also escapes me.

The Alchemists and Kabbalists hold an answer here- In the beginning, as they have said for thousands of years, there was only God, the infinite, timeless entity. When God created the universe, it was at first only Soul- Untouchable, nonphysical, immortal stuff. It is much like energy in this regard. After that, the energy corrupted with distance from God and turned into physical stuff- Here we see dualism and monism as one thing- Although there is matter and soul, both things come from the single God. And as the matter corrupted further, it became heavier elements. This is shown through the idea of the Macrocosm, with the Sun being the source of light and warmth, and Saturn, being farthest from it (Aside from Uranus and Neptune), the corrupted, cold symbol of death and suffering. As we can see here, the two stories are quite similar- The difference, as mentioned earlier, is that the scientific version goes only by what we can see and currently understand.

Some disbelieve in the soul. It is argued that the soul does not exist, but it is merely an illusion of free will and the self. I return with the logic of Descartes. If I do not exist, how can I be aware that I do not exist? If I am being mislead about my existence, then there must be an “I” to be mislead in the first place, and there must be something on which to project an illusion of free will. And that thinking thing is the soul and the self, which according to Searle’s Chinese room argument, cannot be of a binary or physical system. This proves to me in the existence of the Soul, and since God is, according to the Kabbalists, the same stuff as God, it implies the existence of God. This idea, I should add, occurs in many faiths. In Hinduism, the idea is to connect the Soul (Atman) with the Brahman, or the ultimate reality of the universe. In Christianity, Heaven is sometimes said to be a simple connection or closeness with God.

I have to wonder- Why is the soul not supported by science? We accept ideas of photons, dark matter and black holes, even though we largely understand them through association- We rarely actually see these things, we simply know they are present because we can see their effects on the universe. We can clearly see the effects of the soul- No two people are the same, and I do not believe that physical bodies alone can make up a mind, as per Searle’s argument regarding symbol-processing and physical units not holding the capacity for true thought.

To conclude, God is not defined by mortal expectations, nor is God able to be disproved through science. What we know is too little to disprove God, and will always be such, as we are finite and God is infinite. God is not found in a church, but is found in our souls, and can be understood through our use of logic and reasoning. He does not ask for sacrifices or golden idols, but for us to be in accordance and harmony with Him and our own souls, by harming none and valuing our infinite souls and knowledge over the finite riches of the finite world.

I believe in unicorns.

There is no evidence that unicorns exist. However, this does not mean that said evidence does not exist, merely that we have not thus far found this evidence.

You see?

I hope that "You should believe in god just in case" argument isn't in there because that argument is flawed, with that argument I should believe in everything I can possibly believe in, just with the fear that one or all of them might be true.

My point is that it is fallacious to assume that a lack of evidence can be refuted so easily. I could also say that there is a flying spaghetti monster. I could say that anything that I want exists, and by your argument, there's a fair probability that it does.

Oh, and an infinite universe nullifies the idea of a creator, as space and time are intertwined...

I don't believe in an infinite universe because it brings a mathematical paradox with it that makes everything 0%, or nothing. Literally. For if it takes up any space that can be measured to part of a whole, then there is a total and it is therefore not infinite.

Strictly speaking, there doesn't NEED to be. But given the fact that the pre-universe was a singular point, and was also infinite in mass and outside of time, it seems highly implausible for this to do much of anything without getting a push. That and the immense amount of chance, not only in the perfect string of laws that allow matter to exist, let alone matter that can chemically interact and develop life.

Again, my reasoning isn't "A man with a book told me so"- I am a contender here. I do not aim to change your mind or make you believe what I do. I simply demand respect for my opinion on the objective analysis we are both witnesses to.

Edit- To reiterate, my argument is not "You can't prove me wrong so I am right", but it is "Respect my opinion, for it is well thought out.

My post did not mean to attack your freedom, but it was meant to justify my own position- I feel that in general, my position is under attack and therefore deserves a legitimate defense to be more than simple old-fashioned superstition.