Chapter 29.
Does God Exist?
It is the final proof of God’s omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.
Peter DeVries, American Author
Does God exist? This is an age-old question with profound ramifications for humanity. If a God—defined as a deity, creator, or Supreme Being—does exist, what form does he/she/it take? These questions have been debated by humankind since the concept was first espoused in ages past by newly sentient humans. Who, and where, it originated will never be known. That the question exists to be debated is a monument to humanity’s sentience and our ability to think and reason.
The existence or nonexistence of God is a classic dilemma, and can be demonstrated through a simple, logical proof. The proof has been presented under many names, but it is described in Figure 1. below as the “realm of knowledge argument.” The basis of the argument is that human knowledge is finite and has limits, even though it is continually expanding. At any point in time the concentric circles can represent all present and future knowledge.
Figure 1.
Innermost circle A represents the realm or extent of your lifetime knowledge and learning to right now: science, literature, languages, psychology, religion, cooking, auto repair, gardening, directions to a friend’s house, etc.
The larger concentric circles represent, respectively:
B: the collective knowledge of all humans to right now
C: all collective existing and future human knowledge
D: all knowledge that is knowable in the physical universe
E: all knowledge there will ever be in all dimensions
To demonstrate to yourself the existence or nonexistence of God, answer the following question: Does God exist in the realm signified by circle A, B, C, D, or E? Make your selection! Now prove it to the satisfaction of any and all doubters, or those who made a different selection.
If God exists within the realm signified by circle A or B, that existence should be physically provable. There should be some physical or temporal method to conclusively prove that a superior being or deity defined as God exists and can at any time exert total control over humanity’s fate or condition. If God exists in the realm signified by circle C, D, or E, existence of such a being is not provable because it is beyond the realm of humanity’s present knowledge. Therefore:
If you claim that God exists at the realm signified by circle A or B, demonstrate physical proof of God’s existence.
If you claim that God does not exist at the realm signified by circle A or B, then the possibility of the existence of God still remains at the realm signified by circle C, D, or E, which is presently beyond the realm of humanity’s knowledge.
Either way, the argument demonstrates that the existence and origin of an omnipotent God—however defined—can be neither proven nor disproven. It is a true dilemma. Quantity of documentation for one side or the other does not constitute proof. There are libraries full of books and documents purporting to “prove” the existence or nonexistence of God, yet none can pass the simple test of proof described above.
Inferences can be made about the existence of God or anything else for that matter, from patterns of behavior. When we experience an effect, we must, therefore, be able to postulate a cause. E.g., if your body is bruised, therefore you fell down and hurt yourself. Our sentient thoughts tell us there is something more to our being than just physical existence, so it is ascribed to a spiritual dimension wherein an entity called God resides. By choosing to call the spiritual entity “God”—or whatever name a religion may use—we establish a perception of reality based on an arbitrarily defined physical frame of reference. The sentience paradox* at work?
This representation could be the spiritual monolithic monarch (God) of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or a collective society wherein all spiritual entities are equal. Even the idea that a god or deity is a monolithic leader presumes that the spiritual realm is an empire and emulates its earthly counterparts. This metaphorical representation then becomes a physical interpretation that governs perceived behavior within a religious doctrine. If there is a spiritual dimension that exists beyond the physical reality we know and live in, does it possess “supraphysical” laws similar in nature to those we are familiar with in our physical reality? If so, then that dimension exists, whether or not we believe or cannot prove it exists. It merely occupies a different (time and space) continuum beyond our knowledge. Therefore, sentient belief or nonbelief in its existence as an “entree” to that dimension is irrelevant.
Regardless of the representation of the composition of the spiritual realm, if there is a spiritual realm, everyone is asked to accept solely on faith that it exists. After acceptance, only the form of the spiritual realm remains to be defined. With the tendency for humankind to extrapolate a spiritual realm from known frames of reference, it will probably follow a physical pattern. Heaven and hell are physical representations of good and bad spiritual realms, with God and Satan leaders of their respective empires.
The primary issue is not that a God, creator, or Supreme Being does or does not exist. Its that the possibility of such existence has given opportunistic people throughout the history of sentient humankind license to postulate frames of reference and make unsupported claims of exclusive spiritual access on behalf of their religion. Those claims include dependency of the individual on a system that permits an enlightened few to identify and interpret the doctrine and messages of God.
In the Empire Era, religion followed a leadership pattern similar to rule by kings, paralleling the secular empires of the day. The state and religion were run by groups representing opposite sides of the same coin, and both were driven by innate human behavior—our selfish biological drives and rule by dominant leaders—and the unrequited quest by every person for spiritual knowledge and security about an unknown and uncharted hereafter.
From my book The Inevitable Decline and Fall of Empire. c 2000
Notes:
Underlines added
*The sentience paradox: Reality and the perception of reality are mutually independent principles.
Follow-up story tomorrow; The Greatest Scam Ever...