Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Nature of God part I


I've decided that this is the topic that must be explored in several parts. Number one, because so many people disagree on the nature and existence of God to begin with. And two, because I also have a point of view which I believe to be valid and therefore must be defended.

Ok, so let's start at the beginning. Is there a God?

Many will debate that there isn't one. Their proof is rather simple, but I really don't think it is well thought out. Some atheists say there is no God because if there was one he would give proof. This is a bold assumption about the nature of God and for that matter, the nature of proof that he exists.

I had this one boss who used to say (and pardon my French, but this is how she said it), "It is dangerous to assume. It makes an ASS out of U and ME."

What does that mean? Well, assuming is a risky venture because no one knows everything and you are going to get a lot of things wrong.

Ok, so why did I say that the statement "if God were real he would prove it" is an assumption? First off, it assumes that if God exists then he would perform a certain action. That action being proving to others that he exists.

So I ask.... why would he? What is assumed about the nature of God that says he would go around proving His existence? Renee Descartes once tried to prove the existence of the Christian God through his Meditations on First Philosophy. If you don't know who Descartes is, he is the one who coined the phrase "I think therefore I am." I once took a philosophy course where we had to prove where his philosophy fell down in his Meditations. With every course in logic and philosophy you learn that along the way the thinker starts to make assumptions and that is where their philosophy falls apart. Descartes philosophy fell apart in several places, but the one that bothered me the most was his assumption that God was as immaterial as a definition of a triangle. God is not a triangle. A triangle is a mathematic concept which can be represented through imagery but is not anything close to a Supreme Being. Triangles have not created worlds... or human beings. Basically, he argued that God existed by definition.

Uh, problem... there are many gods in the pantheon of the world. Many different definitions. Choose one, any one. And let's examine the nature of that god. I'll pick Zeus. Philanderer, liar, even rapist. He zaps people with lightening, punishes people on whims, and even ate one of his wives who was pregnant with Athena at the time. Does he exist by definition?

Now one might argue "Yeah...I see what you are saying. But he was a myth."

For the record, a myth is merely something people once believed to be true - often sacred things. And scarier, some myths have been proven to be real - such as the Trojan War. Atheists believe that the Christian God is a myth. For the record.

My point is, if you are going to try to disprove there is a God you can't start with an assumption about the nature of a god... especially one you don't even think exists. I mean, some gods in some pantheons just mind their own business. You could be as insignificant as an ant is to a homeowner for most gods.

But what about proving there is a God? I think it is better to say that you would have to prove that your god is the real God, and that he (or she as some insist) really exists. You would have to set up your own test of proof as per the nature of each god, from the Trinitarian POV to the non-Trinitarian POV to the polytheistic POV of whichever faith you follow. Don't believe me? There are a lot of definitions of God out there.

But let's look at the atheist argument about the non-existence of God again. They are assuming the Christian God in this case. And further, they are assuming they understand the nature of the Christian God , who is a self-declared loving God... (as well as vengeful and jealous if you read the Old Testament). Many argue: if God existed there would not be so much suffering. If God existed he would show himself. If God existed he would not have let this (whichever) tragedy happen.

First off, let's list the assumptions about the nature of this God here.
1. God's job is to prevent suffering.
Really? Where does it say in the Christian scriptural cannon that God prevents all suffering from happening? Here is a fact: most religions spend their time explaining why there is suffering, as suffering is an unpleasant fact of life. Let me emphasize that last part. FACT OF LIFE. Be happy you feel pain. It is an alert system that prevents you from damaging your body beyond repair. And as for emotional pain, it teaches compassion... which may be God's plan all along. Further, usually the Christian God says it is our job to alleviate suffering, not so much his.

2. God has to prove himself to us.
Uh. No. If anyone has read any scriptural cannon of most faiths it has always been the believer who has to prove his/herself to God. Not the other way around. God does not have to prove anything. He is, by definition of being a god, the superior being. Period. People who demand a god to prove themselves are like little brats aching for Zeus lightening-bolt action time. Potential grease-spots on pavement. And as for the Christian God, be happy His nature is to ignore stupid challenges like these.

3. God is here to end all tragedies.
Here is the thing, POV matters a lot in this case. Like a child who just lost his soccer game, or a favorite toy, it is tragic and sad - but not the end of the world. Further, it may be in fact good for the child to lose that one thing. You might say, "What?! Are you crazy? How can a tragedy be good? People died? An opportunity was lost!" or whatever. From our limited view of life and the events, it is tragic. But if God is eternal, and if his POV is over the vast expanse from eternity to eternity as most Christians do claim, then wouldn't you think that he can see how significant an event may be for a) your personal growth and b) letting go of things not important at all. We fixate on tragedies like kids fixate on cartoon characters sometimes. We forget that there is more to life than this life. It is called having an eternal perspective. It is hard for us in the here and now.

And for those who only believe that this is the only life they have got, yeah...it is scary.

The list can go on. But let's stop for now. Let it suffice that you cannot disprove that there is God by arguing that God would behave in a way you would want if he were real. That's like saying your mother only loves you when she is giving you want you want (on demand, by the way). Things are...whether you like the way they are or not.

Next time, I'll discuss more the nature of proof that God has that he exists...that is totally missed by those who don't want to believe in him.

No comments:

Post a Comment