As I've stated before, I believe in God and I am a reasonable man. Atheists do not have a monopoly on scientific or rational thinking, regardless of what Richard Dawkins says. I know what a belief is and I'm entitled to mine.
My argument for the existence of God is simple. Matter and Anti-Matter are real. That means there are things and “not-things” and sometimes particles pop out of existence and anti-matter particles pop into existence. I interpret this to mean that there are things in this universe that hold power regardless of whether or not they exist. Perhaps to put it another way, there are things in this universe for which existence matters not. For me, God fits into this category nicely as a consciousness,outside the rules of being and any concept of time or space.
If the Universe collapses into nothingness tomorrow, it won't matter to God. He is beyond needing to be anything. (Please excuse my referring to God as “he.”) The reason I put “God” in this place, is because this place exists and I wish for one to explain the other. Obviously, this is where my logic breaks down and I am content here. If God lives outside the paradigm of needing to exist, I'm sure there isn't going to be much fervour over a silly thing like human reasoning, let alone the biased desires of one man's beliefs.
But, “what” is “God.” Here we have a problem and we must point to whatever baggage this particular deity carries. Once we start needing to claim that God is this or that we are again playing our very favourite games of categorization and distinction. I am not keen to play, not in this arena. God is not experiential in my understanding. God remains unknown. So if the intention leaves me alone, by not defining God and allowing my “God paradigm” to stand in as what God is, I am able to find my eudaemonia.
It's clear to me that God and the existence of God, is not in any way provable. However, my estimation of the transparency verses the force is my own. I'm perfectly fine with not knowing and I have no one insisting I do more than this. (Perhaps you have.) There is still some force to the intention and as I am likely to not be “allowed” to view God as I do, from within any particular religion, I score it with slightly more force than transparency.
God is extremely mysterious and probably not evaluatable in any way. I don't accept the ideas other people have about God. I doubt very highly that the Bible is “the word of God.” The only thing keeping me from finding this evaluation to be completely uneudaemonic is that I have my own interpretation.
This, in a similar fashion to my consideration of transparency versus force, is slightly to the side of hyper-manipulation. I feel that I desire to believe in God, for the reasons I have stated, but it is still a desire, which must side with emotion before logic. I desire, I hope and I wish for there to be a God. The existence of God is welcomed in my Universe. However, this score is entirely contingent on my ability to keep my God paradigm as I've defined. If someone wants to start changing things on me, turning God into something that can be understood, I'm likely to find myself strongly resisting the intention.
I think I would be happy to find God, if that were possible, but my happiness is not at all dependant upon it. As for the virtue to be found in the mean, I think it has been described well by my theism. Blind faith is excess, blind denial is deficiency. As, on the question of God, we are all blind, the mean leaves God a mystery.
The question is, why can't we?
God Bless YouReplyDelete
This is insightful. Also intriguing. I enjoy thinking about these things, and I appreciate your effort to express it here.ReplyDelete
Thank you and thank you too!ReplyDelete
Very thoughtful. Although I do believe that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, I believe it reveals Him only in part. We try to 'humanize' Him because we are not comfortable with something that doesn't fit into our paradigm. I believe this often interferes with the depth of faith we could otherwise experience.ReplyDelete