This is the first in a series of postings called, “Controversiesâ€, which examine various sectors of my current beliefs, opening them up for the comments and criticisms of my readers. For a more explanation, please view The Introduction.
It is my partially-justified observation and understanding that there is likely some sort of being that exists that can be defined as “god†or at least some proximity thereof. I have come to this conclusion through a long series of examinations of my life, experiences, visions, examinations, and gut-feelings. These mostly center around experiences for which I have no other plausible or even slightly implausible explanation to account for it, given my knowledge of cause-and-effect and general scientific principles.
That being said, I cannot be said to be 100% sure of this (nor of anything, really) and it is entirely possible that my experiences and observations are explained by knowledge hitherto-unknown to myself or to modern science. There is much room left to explore in the quantum mechanics realm and the behavior of very tiny particles and how they interact and affect us on a macro level is yet uncharted.
So, in this matter, I might be called agnostic; I cannot prove the existence of God and am open to the idea that it might not exist at all. However, based on observations of things around me, particularly the intricate workings of humans, their connections, bondings, coincidences that seem directed, and so forth, I currently believe in a being called God. For now, I am semi-comfortable with this determination.
Based on this as a foundation, these are the logical conclusions I have come to about God and its existence. I base these on what properties God must have if it is to perform in a manner that fits my experiences and observations:
I believe that this being is the creator of the current reality we all experience. Exactly how or why this god created it, I do not know. I believe God (as labeled) is a non-gendered, higher- or pan-dimensional being whose basic essence resides outside of our world of perceptions. I believe that God is possibly omni-present but only in a higher-dimensional matrix; in other words, to us it might be omni-present simply because of the nature of our four dimensions. If we existed in a higher dimension, we may find God to be non-omni-present at that level.
I believe that God is likely omniscient to our reality, based on the above omni-present property. I do not believe that God is necessarily contradictory in this sense – the age old question of, “Could God create a rock that even it couldn’t lift?†is only answerable in a dimension where rocks make sense. The answer is, therefore, “noâ€, because there is no rock that God cannot lift, as long as that rock is created within our reality.
I believe that God’s involvement in this reality is neither all invasive nor all negligent. Reality is what it is per its nature and, much like a clockmaker, God can choose to involve itself in whatever it chooses — whether to intervene or let reality play itself out per the design. God’s involvement or lack thereof is simply a function of the caretaker of the machine of reality, much as a gardener cares for flowers. The flowers will grow and produce by themselves; God just tweaks or trims the bushes occasionally.
Some of my thoughts of God follow the concepts of process theology. In this theology, God is not omniscient in terms of knowing what will happen, but knowing what can happen. God only knows the infinite possibilities available to each and every situation at any one point in time and can manipulate those possibilities to render one or the other more likely to occur. However, it does not have the ability to state the future insomuch as the future has not occurred yet. That being said, God’s perception of reality and the infinite possibilities and the current conditions and tendencies almost certainly enable it to guess the action about to happen. This allows for free will without compromising the omniscience of God.
Some of the specifics I’m not entirely sold on yet, however. Process theology goes on to render the actions of the world directly affecting God itself and I am not sure that fits into my belief system, simply because I’m unsure of God’s involvement in this reality to the extent that it is a direct part of the rendering of God itself. It would seem to me that an omni-SUFFIX being wouldn’t necessarily allow its creation(s) to affect it, but I could be wrong about that.
In general, for some reason, God makes itself the keeper of us and this reality, although we are not necessarily the primary concentration of God nor its entire prerogative. Thus, I do not believe that all other aspects of this reality are forfeit to the might of humanity simply because we are God’s “chosen†species; instead, the entire system is inter-related and acts as a system together and we happen to be a very integral and controlling part thereof.
We exist both at the whim and the ignorance of God; we are neither all-important nor insignificant. And I think that makes me feel pretty comfortable right now.
You might guess that I’ve given this issue some thought lately. My stand, as of today: Any unexplained natural phenomena are only unexplained because they haven’t been explained yet. I don’t feel like I can live my life using the guidance of a being I have no proof of. If/when I get cancer, will I feel better about it because I believe it’s part of God’s plan for me?
nicheplayers last blog post..Happy Birthday, Rachel
Niche: Like you, I’ve often came to that conclusion; as we delve deeper and deeper into the “mysteries” of the world, they become less and less mysterious and more explainable, and they are tending more towards the explainable rather than away. Also, likewise I am uncomfortable with the idea of something directing my life in the traditional sense when I don’t see any direct evidence of its interaction on a regular basis and, in fact, find it hard to find occasional interactions with the world.
Thus, my current viewpoint supports the idea that, if you get cancer, that’s just because that’s the way the world works and it has little if anything to do with what God does/doesn’t do. Of course, this removes the crutch that so many lean upon in times of trouble (“It must be God’s plan”), but when has that ever really comforted someone, truly? I think it tends to be more of an escape from the reality of the situation than a help. The fact is, reality is harsh, raw, and nasty. That’s how it is.
I find the idea of God really only useful as a starting point to further study in a scientific sense. To me, God is like x in an equation. We don’t know what it is, so it’s useful to assign a variable while we try to figure it out.
I think I’m most interested where you say, prior to listing your logical conclusions about God, that these are properties God must have based on your experiences and observations. The things you list are exactly the things I don’t believe about God – creator of the universe, omniscient, omnipotent, consciously making decisions about the universe and beings in it, etc. On the other hand, those “qualities” of God are so embedded in definitions of God I wonder if you reject all those properties if you can be said to believe in God at all? Looks like I’m leaning in the atheist camp.
Do you care to elaborate on the experiences that lead to your conclusions?
Becky Allyns last blog post..Universal Symbols
Becky: I was hoping you’d give me a head-warmer; you haven’t failed, at least, and that’s a good thing. I’ll compose something clear to your second comment after I get time to gather my thoughts.
But first…if you only consider God as a variable in an equation which stands, universally, for ‘unknown’ (or, as Niche said, that which has yet to be discovered), and not as an actual entity, is your using God in this manner simply a confusion to anyone else in discussion? Seems it’d carry too much baggage to make a useful variable. (and maybe you don’t, but I thought I’d say something, as that was my initial reaction)
I mean…that’s why we don’t see equations in algebra like, 2girls = 3guy + 3dick2 — it’d make math interesting, and that’s fundamentally against their union, I’m pretty sure.
Hey Nathan, I don’t claim to be very intellectual but I do have a firm belief on this issue! Just curious if you have ever read the book “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel? You might find it interesting. Strobel used to be an atheist and a legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. He set out to disprove the Bible and the fact that many claimed a man named Jesus was really the Messiah. After YEARS of trying hard to disprove it, he is now a Christian and continues to research historical documents relating to the Christian faith. He couldn’t find any hard evidence AGAINST the fact that Jesus is/was who he says/said he was.
And to comment on your comment about using “It must be God’s plan” as a crutch. I have felt this way in my life and not seen it as a crutch. When our son died only 11 hours after leaving the womb, it was worse than anything I could ever imagine. The pain and suffering my husband and I have gone through is honestly beyond words. We still feel an incredible, gaping hole in our hearts today, almost 9 months later. I do believe that it was God’s will and plan(whatever you want to call it), but that doesn’t make the pain any less. I don’t use it as a crutch. I accept that He does things for a reason and that I may never understand that reason. At least not this side of Heaven. I don’t think we have the capacity to understand the power and beauty of the Lord…. However, I also believe that God doesn’t go around “doing bad things” like killing babies or starting wars. Bad things happen because of the sinful nature of people. Now this is not saying that because I have sinned, God has punished me by not letting my son live. Not at all. I believe that Satan does all he can to pull believers away from our strength and faith in God. And because I am a believer, Satan will try extra hard to shake that faith I have. Satan doesn’t have to work so hard on those who already believe there is no God.
I don’t know if any of that made sense, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents!
Have a great day!
Heh, I think you’ve hit on exactly why I have a difficult time talking about God. But I think it goes further than that – my using God in my defined manner automatically confuses the conversation when talking to someone else who uses God in their defined manner.
Inevitably, I think even the most thoughtful discussions of God can really only involve people laying out their own thoughts and beliefs, maybe asking a follow-up question or two, then going their own separate ways to think about things. Then you’ve had another experience that you can add to the pile of all the other experiences that shape or don’t shape your definition of God.
Thought I should point out that my variable definition of God is really only a metaphor. I probably shouldn’t have used the word “scientific” if I didn’t want it interpreted literally.
To elaborate further, I actually think of it in more of an anthropological sense. A culture knows some things and other things are unknown. There are glimpses of the unknown that people then use to create a framework to define the unknown. So on days when I really don’t believe in God, that’s how I see it – sort of like a “Here be dragons” marking over the unknown part of the map. Some people cling to the framework that was commonly accepted 2000 years ago and are unwilling to change their definition of God based on new evidence (see: evolution). Others incorporate new knowledge into their faith, and their understanding of God changes. I’m cool with the latter and vehemently against the former.
Since I don’t know what we’ll find when we strip away the unknown – and perhaps we will find God – it technically makes me an agnostic, I think. Either way, the only way God really affects my life is through other people’s belief in it. Positively in the example charity, good will, and interesting discussions about the nature of God. Negatively in the imposition of faith in law, the decrying that I’m going to hell – not even just because of the life I lead, but because I don’t believe, and in the hateful venom that’s spewed into our society.
The negative is definitely outweighing the positive for me right now.
Sorry about the long comment. Hope you’re having a great Thanksgiving. I’m off to make the cranberry sauce.
Becky Allyns last blog post..Universal Symbols
I consider myself to be agnostic, but not quite in the same way that you do. I consider myself a pretty literal definition of the term in that I think there may or may not be a god and really, I’m not bothered either way. My basic philosophy is that I’m a (mostly) good person and if there is a god and he/she says that despite being good and honest and trying to live a decent life they want to send me to hell, well, maybe hell is where I want to be.
Courtneys last blog post..I Can’t Sleep, So This Is What You Get
Finally getting around to responding to some comments:
Danielle: Thank you for commenting, I really appreciate it. I have not read Stobel’s book, although I did some brief research just now on him and his work. I will add it to my reading list as it would be a good discourse in thinking, if nothing else. The usual problem that I have with Christian apologetics like Stobel and others is that they tend to come from a perspective of, “Well, if we can’t prove the Bible ISN’T true, then it must be.” I don’t agree with that perspective, because I don’t think the world naturally lends itself to pointing to God, Christ, etc. (others can and will argue that point, I’m sure) That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, but it does help to figure out where we all come from. And yes, Stobel started as an atheist himself, but I wonder at what point he did the 180 around to viewing it from the other way, because his arguments all sit on the side of the fence where a god is assumed. I guess I will have to read his book to find out if that’s clearly delineated.
First off, I want to express my extreme sympathy for you and your family’s loss with losing your child. We lost twins at 12 weeks gestation and I walked around like a zombie for ages, and that’s NOTHING even close to what you had to go through (I’m not making a comparison). I cannot imagine the pain, and you have every right to feel as such. While you may not use the idea that everything is, “God’s plan”, as a crutch, there are many, many people who do and it is those who I address. For me, it is more comforting to realize that the world simply works in a certain way — some people live, some people die, some have cancer, some don’t, etc. — than it is to try to say it’s part of some “greater plan” when that doesn’t make sense to me in my local viewpoint. Sure, maybe it IS a greater plan, but I don’t see evidence of that, so the logical conclusion for myself is that is how the world works, and I should get over it in that way.
Sometimes that helps, sometimes it doesn’t, like everything else.
I got away from the thinking that bad things happened because God “let” Satan and his minions do so to test faith. That seems like an irresponsible god-figure to me and not something that rationally fits with the all-loving, all-powerful God. So I throw that away in favor of simply believing that the world was made in a certain way and it’s running the way it was meant to run; without this way of running, we would not have the ability to have free will and find ourselves and to become more than our primal natures.
Courtney: I definitely agree with the idea as you hinted that good/evil is not necessarily religion-dependent, nor even god-dependent. I can easily be a great person, I believe, without any of that influence, and I think it behooves believers and non-believers alike to do so; in that way, they are not relying upon the laurels of their faith to make them good, they simply are because — well, you shouldn’t be a dick.
[...] here is the continuation of my original posting on the existence and nature of God. If you are new to this series, please read the Introduction and then catch [...]