It would be suitable to say, despite how revoltingly so to many, that the existence of a personal god is, to put it mildest, petty and unjustified. To attain a certain argument, one that is robust and can stand by itself, it would be appropriate to say this: a personal, all-knowing; all-caring; all-benevolent being can only exist if sentient beings, capable of high cognitive function, exist. After all, the stars nor the ocean nor the clouds can, no matter how grand they are, worship an omnipresent being. So one may conclude that without enlightened life:
a) The only god that can exist is nature.
b) Nature would not define itself as god, as it is an unconscious agent in the universe.
One may then reason that proving the nonexistence of any sentient god would be directly found at an injunction in which natural processes can explain our world. However, this will take copious amounts of time to find enough evidence to placate the stubborn and more so, could be potentially as unstable as our constantly changing understanding of the universe. The majority of the human population would not see new understanding as natural processes, but as divine intervention. So one may conclude, based of the myriad of interpretations of understandings of our universe that sway dangerously far from the objective observations of science that :
a) Human cognition demands an explanation almost always, and when it cannot find one it will consequently make one- that being god, the ultimate, infallible answer to just about everything.
b) Without the knowledge of natural processes, humans will invariably create their gods so as to avoid the discomfort of not knowing.
There are invariably thousands of explanations of people's personal gods. Each god is made in the patriarchies' image, and behaves as he does, or would like to. An age later, that god becomes part of the newer societies' literature, laughed at and studied deeply as that society commits to new, better gods. Consequently, we must treat these premises as such:
a) Every religion that has ever existed has had some insight into a divine god.
Therefore, every religion is correct.
(if gods are made in the image of man, then they cannot objective interpretations anyhow)?
If one is persuaded to agree to this proposition, then one may affirm that a divine god exists, whether or not evidence for him actually exists. Simply put, a person may believe a divine god exists because he or she understands every faith has had insight to it, and understood it as such- every religion is a language for the explanation of god, and does its best to say the same thing: god is real.
If however, an individual, employing their intellectual faculties, disagrees with the statement that each religion is correct then they must throw out the entire divinity of a god because:
b) If one does not believe each religion is a code for god,
then they must believe that religions before were stories and interpretations of events and things antithetical to their common logic.
-they must then acquiesce that their own religion is not a code of language for divinity.
Thus, a divine god does not exist. For all religions have been a petty, weak, and unsupported decoding of the god of nature. Science, lacking a dogmatic and rigid structure, gives us the natural processes to our world- making unsupported claims about the universe and divinity unnecessary and actually pernicious. Science is the antithesis to religion: it begins to explain the god of nature.
One may now cease to make religion out of interpretation of the divine, but make oneself divine out of interpretation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)