Monday, May 28, 2012

“We do not believe in any individual god or gods but rather, we believe that the soul is, um - What is a good term? A non-localized phenomenon.”

So, the news about Eurovision are in. Yes, the terrible, horrible, absolutely dismaying news. Iceland and Denmark hardly got any points, despite their awesome songs. Well, at the very least, I am not the only one who was reminded of Kosh when first shown Albania’s performance.

Yes, I just personalized a country, sue me.


So, on the (semi)existence of God. First of all, who is God?

Let’s say he is the Catholic God that directs our every move and punishes disobedience. One guy that plays The Sims with our planet. One single almighty being that ensures our continued existence until such a time that he grows weary of us because of our sins. In this case, his existence is hardly probable. To think that such a being is all alone is like saying God and Doctor Who share a past (killing off their own species). Not to forget that God exists because of faith. That is why he cannot prove he exists.

A fun sidefact: if Adam and Eve had obeyed God and not eaten from the tree of wisdom, the Bible wouldn’t have been written and Christianity per se would not exist. It would be more like a Nazi containment camp.

Anyways, getting back to the subject, if God really were perfect, then why would he be alone? If he cannot be proven to exist without not existing, could he really exist? If he commands us, how do we tell? If he cannot be certain we get his/her message, why is it justified to punish us with natural catastrophes? If God is unjust, can he, as a perfect being, really exist? I don’t think so.

But it is when a wider approach is taken, where God’s existence can be quite reasonable. God, for an atheist, is indefinable – you cannot deny something you ‘know’ not to exist. (check Gettier problem)

Chinese have a God or patron saint for almost everything. Hardly what we would call a God in the ‘western’ world. Not to mention other Asian religions; Gods of small tribes in Africa and other places. God can be defined differently from how we are used to. Since every religion already does that and those definitions tend to violently conflict with every other religion’s definition, perhaps it is better to compromise.

Well, if God is but one of many, and instead of controlling our every move, they may influence our lives knowingly or unknowingly. Basically the ‘ant’ situation, where the party we talk of is quite beyond our ability to comprehend. It is quite reasonable to assume through induction that if we exist, and we are further developed than other species we are aware of, then there are species further developed than us. I refuse to believe that this resource-hogging planet-burning life-wasting fact-fearing species we call human is the best the Universe has to offer. According to such a definition of God (a group of greater beings we cannot at all or can very hardly comprehend in any way, who may or may not be aware of us), Gods probably exist. Supported by the Gettier problem, I choose to ‘know’ Gods as such exist and Gods as else don’t. I have actual reason to think so and I believe so, hence I know. For all intents and purposes for me, that is a fact.

Naturally one could define God is such a way it would exist, perhaps even equalling it with man. But that is perverting the ‘idea’ of God a little too much. A God is something greater than man, not just common man (otherwise a genius could be considered a God, which perhaps I would not mind, but it does not sound quite right either). God is something or someone that we can look up to in awe, that can give us hope, that can do and be more than us. Something or someone beyond heaven. And that is in compliance with my previously proposed definition.

So, the next time you ask me whether I believe that God exists, be ready to offer a definition. Because God probably exists, depending on the definition at hand. Then again, there are those who do not wish to learn, but only acquire simplified ‘facts’ that may or may not be true, relevant, useful, or significant.

The search for truth must come from ourselves. There are no right answers in certain pseudosciences, for instance philosophy or psychology. There are probably answers, true, but what is true for one is false for another (unless the claim in view is a blunt, basic one). Every person should find his or her own truth, nobody else can dictate the truth. But everyone can share their opinions and create a discussion, through which more and more probable claims can be perfected and developed.

No comments:

Post a Comment