I think, therefore it might be

international | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis Sunday July 09, 2006 00:08 by Seán Ryan

Chapter 9 of Book II.

Been a while since I last published from Book II. This time I have a go at proving the existence of God, as was promised in an earlier chapter, in which the groundwork was laid.

In the last book, I bashed poor old Rene Descartes somewhat. It is not my aim to undo this. I think little of his supposed "proof of existence" and it's as simple as that. However I think the poor fellow was onto something special and that it is probably the case that time or people, or both put pressure on him to publish before he finished understanding and wording his "proof". Of course I do not rule out stupidity either.

I believe Descartes stumbled into a greater truth than he tried and failed to recognise. This truth being, that the only justification or proof of existence is consciousness. It is my contention that this truth is not limited just the biological components of the Multiverse.

To prove that anything exists I must assume I exist and act accordingly. To assume that this proof of me exists, I must also assume that this proof of me is in some way comprehendable. Something that is comprehended is intelligence and furthermore it is a product of it.

Intent is a word I dislike when speaking on this subject.

Does consciousness intend? Without doubt it does, but not always. Consciousness sometimes acts out of curiosity too. What I mean is that consciousness will sometimes just observe events without wishing to interfere, out of simple curiosity about probable results. Similar to Science itself.

I suppose an example of unconscious creation is the discovery and creation of penicillin by Pasteur. To recognise what it was and what its potential was took intent and intelligence, however its creation didn't.

If we consider the Big Bang to be the creative force from which the universe arose and we relabel this event as God, we can see how unintentional creation can occur. It can also be suggested that the Big Bang was an intelligence. The reasoning behind this is quite simple and it is this: if intelligence exists, it is possibly derived from this event or else from before it, which means its existence was allowed for at the instant of the Big Bang or was subsequent to it, either way the Big Bang contains an intelligence of some description.

Some religious folk might be offended by the idea of a God who might not necessarily have intended to create.

Let's examine this in some detail.

What would have been God's primal thought?

Surely it must have been, self consciousness. This is itself an example of unintentional creation. This requires little proof, in that one's primal act of self observation cannot imply intent, it must be an act of discovery, otherwise we are faced with a paradox, where one can intend before one is aware that he exists. In other words I need to exist and to be consciously self aware before I can consciously intend to do anything or at least before I can use the word "I."

It is my belief that the summation of everything that exists and everything that can potentially exist can be called God. This at first sight may seem to contradict the notion that is commonly applied to the description of God. But if we consider the "Alpha and Omega" description of God then my description of God is self evidently correct.

Harping back to a very old argument it can be observed that if the concept of creation is a valid concept then indeed a creator is self evidently required. Again the only logical argument that remains is whether creation requires intent.

Looking closer at the idea of "Alpha and Omega," we must observe that this cannot be isolated in a moment of time, but must encompass all of it too. This is where intelligence and more importantly intent can exist and allows for a conscious and intentionally motivated God. When we look at the "Alpha" ie. creation in isolation from the "Omega," it can be seen that the idea of creation without intent is not a blasphemous idea.

This can be simplified by thinking in the terms that I described in the last chapter, where I described a primal act of self observation as God.

Why is it that this primal act of self awareness can be considered God?

How can such a simple concept be considered the "Alpha and Omega," without seeming to be blasphemy?

I said earlier that God cannot be aware of anyhthing apart from himself. If he is "everything," then nothing exists apart from him. It can be therefore considered blasphemy to believe otherwise. For if this entity can observe something apart from himself, then it is not of him.

To have a memory of an event, or a series of events, such as self realisation, is to create a contimuum where all histories are known, but at the same time, individual components cannot be said, to be able to know what the future holds in store. Again this is self evidently correct, in that, the observation of a chain of events, implies knowledge changes, and that each subsequent history must reflect this and that at a certain point the level of knowledge must continue to increase, and at some point become somewhat predictive of the future, otherwise there exists a unique point in space and time, and we know this idea is incorrect.

Also as was said earlier, unintentional creation allows for free will, the deliberate construction of a memory is fantasy and it is where everything is the responsibility of the creator, the individual components having no ability to express themselves.

Unintentional creation means that the existence of Good and Evil are not mere random acts of labelling. Good and Evil become part of what God would observe within his creation of Self. When this is considered, the idea of labelling God as good or evil becomes redundant. No thought police. The only suitable label that would aptly apply to a God can only be created and envisioned by a God. I can only describe some facets of God, but because God is the sum total of all facets, this act too becomes redundant.

Let's bring evolution into this argument. Evolution proposes improvement over time; adaptation and superiority of successive generations. This contradicts both the generally accepted idea of a universe derived from a perfect God and the general idea of God, as I see it.

Evolution, I believe is viewed incorrectly. It is seen as a competition between separate entities, eg nature and man. I believe this is a blinkered way of looking at it. I see it as a symmetrical relationship where all components change but keep common points of balance between them. For instance, the idea of man changing, to adapt to and surmount his envoirnment, is acceptable, but equally acceptable, is the idea of the envoirenment adapting in order to overcome man. To take either idea in isolation is to consider the purpose of evolution, to be, to do away with the reason for evolving, and this is obviously stupid. Evolution must be tied in with both entropy and the increase in the history of information. Herein lies its purpose.

In the last book I described man as a God. I'd like to talk more about this idea at this point.

When I as a conscious being first self realised, I put in place a mechanism by which I can experience my created notion of the universe. My every experience of it is of my own creation, and it is really a further glimpse and understanding of myself. I am responsible for the creation of everything I experience except perhaps for this responsibility itself. In simpler terms; am I responsible for self realising?

Or am I merely a component of a greater act of self realisiation?

To me this brings in the only palatable idea of faith. I must take it on faith that my concepts of Good and Evil derived from within and without myself, reflect a greater truth that is independent of me. It is an act of faith that I believe that the concepts of Good and Evil, be self evident to anyone I could consider to be sentient and legally sane.

This notion of Good and Evil being independent of the observer is very good evidence in the existence of a God. The fact that it is also pure information and a thing apart from the physical universe is good evidence of a conscious God.

This brings in the religion bashing section in the proof of the existence of God.

Religion and Science clash violently on the topic of eternal existence and mortality. Religion says man has a soul, Science says "prove it."

Religion speaks of a life after death, Science is skeptical.

Is life after death a possibility? Since it cannot be truthfully labelled an impossibility it must be possible. Let's bring this arugumet further. Is life after death probable? The answer again is an obvious "yes," simply because, man himself has the potential to technologically lengthen life and possibly some day "uploading" the consciousness's of those living and the dead, and subsequently granting eternal life, all this even if God does not exist.

What of the soul? Science would like to know what it weighs. Since it has been shown that it is probable that the consciousness of man is eternal, then it is probable that the soul and the mind of man are one and the same. And by the way it weighs lots.

Suppose in a few centuries or maybe even a decade or two after my death, that someone ressurects me into a computer. Hopefully shite like Microsoft will be a thing of the past by then. This person can put me into an existence where I myself would be a supreme God over my own universe, not to mention that he could also put me in every other state. The athiest call, stating that, "God is dead" becomes meaningless as man in his utter simplicity has the potential to create a God. It is only fair and logical to assume that a God would have the potential to create man. Since we can truthfully say that it is possible for a God to create a universe with sentient life in it, and because we have no other complete explanation as to the creation of everything, it is logical to conclude that God exists.

If God is the great and at the same time simple "I am," then God is self realisation. This goes to the invalidity of supremacist religions, where individuals are coerced into sharing a singular sense of self realisation between them, and that this sacrifice of will elevates them above others. This is nothing more than false pride.

Belief in God is an act of faith. This being the case, believing that one's self is due some eternal reward, whilst others deserve eternal damnation is firstly presumptuos and secondly, it is also an act of faith. It is to presume to second guess their God.

Don't get me wrong here, I understand that one may believe oneself to do good, based on self evident knowledge of Good and Evil. But to proclaim one's own blinkered version of morality and version of God to be infallible truths that are self evidently truthful for everyone else, even when they don't see it, is an act of pure arrogance.

Let's go to the Bible itself to show what I mean.

Jesus describes the kingdom of God to be a similar notion to the idea of a wedding. He says that man should approach this, much like a guest at a wedding. Rather than perpetrating the arrogant act of assuming to go to the room reserved for special guests, one should go to the lowest room and wait to be elevated should it be warrented.

Another point I take issue with is the deification of Christ. When one of the apostles commented that Jesus was "good," Christ rebuked him, and told him that only God could be described as "good." Christ's purpose was not to promote the worship of himself; it is not the messanger that is the point, but the message itself. I'm not catagorically stating that Christ is not God, I'm denying its importance or relevance. If God is everything and Jesus is some part of everything then yes he is part of God, point observed to be obvious and unimportant as we still cannot assume to understand God. Drop it and move on.

From a theological standpoint, it is my view that the miraculous actions of Jesus constitute more a need to prove the credentials of the message, than a need to prove the divinity of the messanger. Even the alleged ressurection. It goes to proving the divinity of the message, not Christ. If Christ were God and he knew it, why would he need to prove he existed. In fairness most of what Christ says, is based on an assumption that God exists and that this fact has already been established. Christ's purpose was not to prove that God existed, but to promote peace and unity between men. This simple fact is stripped from most theological thinking and debate, and this concerns me, as I see it as being simplistically obvious.

John 3:16 is often quoted by and is the mantra of "Born Again" Christianity. In 3:16, Christ describes himself as the way and warns that none shall enter if not by him. I'd like to point out some stuff to these people.

3:16 is not where Christ proclaims his divinity and demands worship. In fact it's almost the opposite. Christ is describing himself as a gateway or a portal to a divine kingdom. My point being that if one stops to admire the gate for eternity, one has not, nor can one, enter the kingdom.

In one of Christ's biggest gatherings where he spells out the tennets of his faith to an audience of thousands, "The Sermon on the Mount," why is it that his divinity doesn't figure into what he says. This is where he gives the "Happy are the……….." speech.

Happy are those who get the point of this speech. For it establishes conclusively that Christ's message was his mission and that deification was not important enough an issue to be worth mentioning. It also adds much clarity to 3:16. The message is the way.

In Luke 9:49 and 9:50 we learn that John has met another person who was going around and "casting out devils" and in the name of Jesus too. He tells Christ that he has forbidden this man to act thus, because he follows them not. Christ rebukes John for this, telling him that, those who are not against them are with them. Again this shows that the message is the point and not the persona of Christ. Not to mention that it shows that conformity is not part of Christ's message.

Then again I'm not the first to point this out and I suppose I'll not be the last. It is a human trait that we take pure philosophies and mold them to our heart's desires.

Here's a point that isn't aired as often.

Most religions are pretty simple to understand, they hinge on what are generally accepted as self evident truths, that reflect how man should and should not act and think. If this is the case, and I believe that it is, then the only purpose man can choose to exercise via his religion is to condemn another who believes differently whilst at the same time predicting his own elevation in the eyes of his God. This is the paradox of religion. All religions proclaim that a God has created and will judge man, and that this God is the only creature capable of doing this. Yet the religion itself is solely a mechanism built for individuals that they may judge and re-create themselves and others.

What really amuses me about this is the fact that most adherants become intolerant at the beliefs of others and yet allow their fellow countrymen and believers to butcher and burn their fellow man.

"Such is war," they shrug.

"Even heaven needed a war to sort it out," they helpfully add.

The Christians add that Jesus will be coming with a sword next time. No more Mr. Nice Guy. That's why it's ok to totally ignore the message of his first coming. Yup die for the sins of the world first time round and then come back and exterminate the fuckers just for the hell of it.

Sounds like revenge to me. Or at least that Jesus's mission failed.

People I suppose will think that I blow hot and cold at religion. Allow me to clarify this.

If you believe that God created the universe, I don't have a problem with that.

If you believe Jesus was the son of God and that he was ressurected from the dead, then that's fine too.

If you believe I am a lesser being in the eyes of your God than you, because I choose not to believe what you believe, then you are simply an arrogant yet mindless sack of shit. And I'm not saying this because you bother me, I'm saying it because I know some of you will consider it, and that's as much as I can ask for. I can't expect to help everyone, I can but try.

Anyway, let's get back to proving God exists.

Before I go further I'd like to dissassociate the creature I intend to prove exists, from any written evidence such as the bible. The reason for this is simple. The dogma and rhetoric of any such work serve only to confound the understanding of any logically derived proof of God.

If such things as the bible are nullified before a logical proof of God begins, it makes the proof more logical and much harder to disprove.

Allow me to illustrate this by pointing out some of the contradictions and downright stupidity contained in the so called "Word of God." And before I start I'd like to point out that it is issues like these that athiests and others regularly use to disprove the existence of God.

Let's look at the order of creation.

God creates light and seperates it from darkness. Then he creates the sun and after that the stars. Any one see the problem with this? Surely this is a case of God getting his arse about face.

More amusingly God creates plants that require light for photosynthehsis before he creates the sun.

God creates all the animals that inhabit the earth and gives Adam the task of naming them all. Even if Adam spent the whole of his life naming animals at the rate of one per second he wouldn't have even put a dent in the task of naming the hundreds of millions of different types of animals.

What really cracks me up at this point is that only after all the animals have been paraded in front of Adam to be named, does it emerge that a "help meet" hasn't been found and so God makes eve. This can have only two possible meanings. The first being that god was reminded that Adam did't have a mate and must have forgotten to make him one. Or secondly, God didn't find a suitable mate for Adam out of the animals paraded before him. God is made out to be an idiot in either case.

What about where God gets pissed at the serpant and tells him that from now on he will eat dust and will crawl on his belly. Fair enough the, "eat dust" bit may have been metaphorical but the crawl on the belly bit was literal. It makes one wonder how snakes got around before that. Maybe they rolled or hopped.

In fairness to the reader I'll stop here, I mean we are only at the very start of Genesis, the very first book in the Bible, and already the list is big. Hopefully my point has been made, that being, that books like the bible irregardless as to the quality of the contained message, facilitate disproving the existence of God moreso than they could ever prove to the contrary. I may add that I believe this is the way believers in the bible should look at it too. After all they do believe that God exists independantly from the bible too and that he would exist whether it did or not. It is not an article of proof but of faith.

Man has a will and whether it is free or otherwise is highly debatable. Nonetheless its existence need not be proven. This will assumes responsibility for every thought and action of the individual who possesses it. Man is responsible for everything to do with his will. From where is this responsibility derived?

There must have been a primal will. There has to have been a first. This primal will or whatever caused it was God. Of the two choices I prefer the latter. Whatever caused the primal will need not have been sentient or need it have had purpose. This ties in with what I have said already.

When the argument of God's existence is boiled down to its essence it revolves around one simple question. Was "creation" by design or by accident? Was it intentional or unintentional?

Because I have shown (hopefully) that the first act of existence is self realistation and that this must logically precede any intentional and subsequent behaviour, it becomes obvious that creation was not an intentional process. The primal act of self discovery is at the same time unintentional and is an act of creation in and of itself. This argument nullifies most theological arguments at their core. This core being that God has a plan, and that this plan is known to them and that they understand it. Without needing to bring absolutes into the argument, which sometimes tend to blur the picture rather than resolve it, allow me to pull the legs out from under it by stating: if creation was unintended and it hasn't ended yet (it obviously hasn't ended yet) then this plan that is supposedly known and understood is at best incomplete, but more likely is the case that it does not exist at all. Either way the assumption of insider knowledge as to God's purpose or plan is both presumptious and false.

Another point that can be gleamed from this argument is that presumption and arrogance are only removed from the assertation that one knows and understands God's purpose and plan is when an individual interprets the "evidence" that our universe offers and decides his or her own faith and fate. The buck stops there. It's ok to argue or debate one's faith or philosophy with another, but to impose either is simply wrong.

I know the above argument can be muddied if one avoids the point of it. For instance someone might point out that debating philosophy with one's children might not be the best way to rear them. This is quite true, but so what. Every situation is different, I freely admit to that, sometimes debate and rationalisation are not appropriate, for instance it would be quite stupid to go into a lecture about physics and biology just as your child is about to step out in front of a bus. However should you be intellectually situated that you would beat the fear of God into your children rather than teach by example and faith then you are a sack of shit and not fit to be a member of society. God might love you but I don't.

We are back to one of my favourite topics again; fear. And this will be my final proof of God's existence.

I talked earlier about a primal act of self-realisation. This act is an observation and only after it has occurred can a reaction to it and creation take place. If this sentient creature is not God, but the first sentient creature to come into existence in this universe, from where does the fear of death that in turn fuels such actions as eating, drinking, avoiding harm and reproduction arise from?

"Ah!" the impatient ones chirp. They are thinking that after the act of self-realistaion, that fear would arise from subsequent observation and logical deduction. They are thinking that this shows the logical and consequential development of fear. That's very correct, but you need to take it further to see my point. Fear is a logical development subsequent to the primal act of self-realisation, if and only if there exists a higher truth than the primal act of self-realisation allowed for.

It is time for Science and especially for Religion to put the labelling guns away.

Related link:
Chapter VIII - A brief history of nothing - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75484