I'm going to take the plunge and write about God. I realize that, like all subjects of this scope and magnitude, a simple little blog is not going to do justice to Him or anything like that. I know that having a rational debate about metaphysics is almost on par with herding kittens and draining seas with teacups; therefore, instead of bringing the old arguments to the table, let's take a look at some of the common "proofs" that God cannot exist, and then see if we can move into the realms of how God does.
First things first, though not necessarily in that order. Let's define "God" as a term - that way, we can start tearing apart His existence. God is, in simplest terms, an omniscient, omnipresent entity whose major characteristic is love and whose motivations are purely life and goodness. We could go into the theological benchmarks of "God is a Spirit" and "God is restrained by his character," but instead of all that (it's a simple blog, people, and my degree isn't in theology), let's just picture Him as non-Lovecraftian otherness, too alien to be comprehended, but a very pro-life force.
So this definition automatically leads into the ages old question, "If God is so powerful and limitless, can He make a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" Simple logic mandates that if the answer is either yes or no, He is not omnipotent; therefore, since omnipotence is therefore a contradiction, it cannot exist. As omnipotence cannot exist, God cannot exist.
But let's look at the question a little more deeply: the heart of the question lies in the definition of omnipotence. If we merely restrain the question of omnipotence to the ability to "do" only two tasks, we subtract from the definition itself. Instead, I look at it as a valid paradox that a truly omnipotent being would have no trouble fulfilling. After all, what is omnipotence but unlimited ability? And why limit the ability by staying within the bounds of the comprehensible and rational? This tidily sums up the issue of the creation of evil, as well: a wholly "good" God can create "evil" through the same way that He can paradoxically create something that should not exist and yet does.
The nature of evil ties into the paradox suggested by Epicurus. This noted Greek logician supposed the following: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" (Source) I see this often, especially in people who have been hurt by a death of a good person or a child. Heck, I see it in myself almost daily: how could a good God allow my child to have died? I believe in a God who named Himself "The Lord Who Heals," I can quote Scriptural proofs of healing with the best of them, but where was He when my daughter was born? Where was He when my daughter died? What kind of "good" is it when so much personal pain exists in my life? The history of humanity throws up this question many times: 9-11, the Holocaust, any number of deaths that happen to "good" young people who are taken before their time.
It's not my place to salve over these personal tragedies. I cannot say that God is fair. But this much I do know: He darn well better exist, if only to set things right like He promises.
On to proofs of existence: they've all been done before. The causality of creation, the extreme improbability of EVERYTHING happening "just so" only on this planet, man's ability to only explain and create things up to a point... All of these have been used in the past to prove supernatural, and by people smarter than I. I might explore some of them later, but before I do, I feel I need to tag this blog with a disclaimer.
I believe in science. I am a rational person. I cannot discount or disprove anything that has been factually laid out in front of me. However, science is not, and cannot be, the ultimate authority on anything, just because it is always changing. Man couldn't fly until about a century ago, and before that, science believed that Listerine cured gonorrhea. Science, by nature, must continuously evolve and measure that which was immeasurable until technology caught up with it. But how much can science measure now? How accurately? How much detail slips through their fingers, despite their protestations to the contrary? And how much more is there to measure that hasn't even been conceived by the minds of scientists?
No comments:
Post a Comment