Here is a funny bit of logic coming from a guy who presents himself as cookie monster flipping you off. ---->
Enjoy.
GabonX wrote:This is from a larger paper I wrote. If you have thoughts post them...
There is an argument which I have often heard people use to "prove" the existence of God which I would like to address. People will state the fact that something can not come from nothing. The law of conservation of energy states that matter cannot be created or destroyed and I trust Einstein's assertion that energy and matter are the same thing in different forms so I am with them up to this point. Based on this they will assert that the Universe could not always have existed, that there must have been a beginning to it. They go on to state that this means there must have been a God to set things in motion as this is the only explanation for our existence. This argument is self defeating. The fact that something cannot come from nothing does not mean that the universe could not have always existed but rather the opposite, that the things which make up the universe have always been present in one form or another. To claim that it is impossible for something to always have existed and then to claim that God always existed in the same argument is completely illogical. If anything we can be sure that there was always something and whether there is or is not a God does not change this fact. Energy cannot be created or destroyed which means that there was no "beginning" to reality. There may have been a beginning to the universe if there was a God to create it but there may just as easily have always been a universe which is governed by the laws of physics without a supreme and conscious will. This argument does not "prove" anything as logic and science both dictate that reality has no beginning or end.
Despite the fact that what may be the most commonly used argument to prove the existence of God is fundamentally flawed it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. Contrary to this, it may be possible to prove the existence of God if he exists. We may overturn some artifact of discover some phenomenon, though I'm not sure what either would be, which would incontrovertibly prove the existence of God. In addition to this God, being supremely powerful, would have the ability to reveal his presence and prove his existence at any given time to any people whom he saw fit. For moses this was the burning bush. For the apostles the miracles performed by and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ sufficed to prove the existence of God, if we are to take the bible as a historical truth. While shy of God's revelation to man our knowledge of whether God exists will never be certain we can never be absolutely sure that he does not as the very nature of what God is proposed to be means that he has the ability to conceal and reveal his presence as he sees fit. For me this means that where others proclaim that they believe things about God I use the word hope in place of where they use the word believe. I hope that there is life after death, that God exists, and that if he exists that he is a loving and caring God.
First, let me say that I enjoyed this reading. In all honestly, if it is yours and you are submitting it for a class, You certainly need to revise it. It is close, but it is not there yet.
I have bolded and made red 2 key words in your text. Reality and certain.
We all know the old adage... "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, did it actually make a sound." Certainly , one can argue, no. Sound is the result of processing the information in the environment and turning that information into something that you as an intellectual being can comprehend. Though it happened, this tree that fell in the forest, one can alternatively argue that, yes, it did make a sound, that there was certainly the same information present in the environment. If there was an ear in hearing range, it certainly would have processed that information and hence, the sound of the tree falling would absolutely have occurred. The problem that needs solving is not as apparent in the question as it is the definition in the terms of the question. To do this, we must decide, what is sound? If sound is the processed information inherent in the environment from the tree's fall... then, no, there was no sound as the tree fell. Don't get me wrong, there were certainly plenty of physical collisions at the molecular level, which is the information that would otherwise be processed by the ear. But, based on our definition of sound, this is not sound. Sound is the processed representation of this information.
Likewise, we can apply the same logic to the existence of God. Does God exist? First, we need to define God. Now, doesn't that sound sac religious? Maybe, maybe not. I believe that there are plenty of already existing definitions that we can agree exist to put the notion of God into the context of existence that we, as human beings, can understand. Christians believe in the very human Jesus Christ as the manifestation of God here on earth. Emanuel, he is called... God among us. Ever seeking "relationship" with his children, he seeks our love by using already convinced believers to convince others that He exists and is waiting for us to come to him. Now, I am not as familiar with Allah, Buddha, Krishna or any of the other major manifestations of God as I am with the Christian "definition," but let me say that i believe that they all hold the same purpose in the vast expanse of humanity. They serve to cause us to question, to ponder the spiritual nature of who we are, why we are and what we are to do. Sometimes, we even beg God to set our directive for us.
If we take the baseline definition or quality of God from all that we know about God, one major factor that we fine common is that God created the universe. How is it that we know this? Well... for Christians (again, familiar from my upbringing...) the bible tells us that in the beginning... you know the rest. I for one, don't buy the notion of a creator because if there is a creator, then who is responsible for creating the creator, or for setting the directive for the creator. Again, don't get me wrong. I most assuredly believe in God. But I do not believe that God creates and orchestrates the world that we live in like the bible would have us all believe.
Now, remember our tree... crashing and thrashing to the ground in a violent furry of... ummm... information? Well... its the information that we have to contend with that can enable us to draw a conclusion on the existence of God, and how God exists. If you ask me (I know, no one did... but you're getting my point of view regardless
) our great big God tree is still falling in the forest. We are still gathering and processing the information as it happens. Sometime in the history of humanity, we became aware of the cracking of a gargantuan tree trunk as it snapped... the sound of it is only just beginning to hit our ears. I do not believe that the bible is anything more than the processing of that initial crack in the reality of our world that has announced to each and every one of us that God is for certain, a part of our reality. Every bit as much as the tree crashing. The question is, are we in the right place and time to process the information that God is giving us?
As to the question of whether or not God created the universe and everything in it? What would it matter if we knew the answer to that question? Lets suppose for arguments sake that he didn't. Lets suppose that one day, in the beginning, God awoke and found himself the consciousness of the vast expanse of time and space. My question is, how does that reality detract from Gods grandeur? Not a lot, if you ask me.
