When discussing God the conversation normally and quickly turns to theology. I would like to avoid theology and have an discussion that is outside the confines of theology. Here is my theorem I would like to discuss (and it's really someone else's theorem that just made sense to me): Either God necessarily exists and exists regardless of the belief of people. Or God does not exist and cannot exist in any circumstance regardless of what people believe. Now…I'm not going to arrive on one side or the other of this idea. I'm just trying to clear this up because I've had conversations with people who thought that God could only exist if people believed in Him/Her (remember...I'm not addressing specific theology).
In addressing that particular idea, if God only exists when people believe in Him/Her then is that really something worthy of being called God? Are you going to admire/worship/ponder (whatever you do) something that, if you simply stop believing in It, then It ceases to exist? Doesn't that put the existence of God on less stable plain than that of humans? The problems that this view causes are immense. So it seems pretty obvious that if God exists then He/She exists regardless of our beliefs. Much the same as you or I still exist even if no one believes we do. If I kidnap you (which I'm not going to do) and drop you off in the middle of the Jungle and everyone on the planet thinks you are dead…are you dead? If you were born in the middle of nowhere and everyone in your family dies except for you…no one knows you exist…do you exist? Yes. So, if God exists He/She also exists regardless of what people believe.
Now…the same argument can be made for God not existing. If God does not exist then no amount of belief or faith can bring about existence. I can believe, all I want, that a rock is going to sprout legs and walk across my room. I can even convince others that this is going to happen. But is that rock going to sprout legs and walk across the room…No. It seems absurd to think just because we believe in something…that something is automatically true.
Whether God exists or not is something that you are going to have to decide for yourself in so much as your relationship and interaction. But know that you could possibly be wrong and if you are wrong no amount of faith will cause your belief to manifest into reality. Also, if you think that God only exists if people believe that He/She does…then is that something worthy of being called God? Is a state of existence based on the belief of people really existence? I would say no on both parts.
9 comments:
I haven't dealt with anyone who believes that God only exists if people believe in him. Thought provoking post.
I hadn't either and it seems to incredibly illogical that I had to write about it. In the discussion it seemed that to even admit that God would exist even if no one believed, it would somehow fracture their universalist approach to religion. Now, in this post I really tried to stay away from any theology. So I just don't see how accepting that God either does or does not exist would fracture that.
If you drop me off in the middle of the jungle, I definitely live because there is no meat on my bones for the animals to enjoy. I befriend the apes. And I definitely start believing in God if I don't already because he blessed me with no meat for animals to enjoy.
Well put Scott. I agree with both points.
Scott, Do you think before you can discuss something like that with someone, First they might have to know what reason is? Isn't it reason that govern our thoughts? Are there laws to reason or thought?
By the way, hows it going? Havent heard from you all in awhile just see how things where going?
Is God Ralph the Lettuce Head?
It's an interesting position, but it seems to have some problems. In philosophy and logic, the statement that something is either "A" or "Not A" is considered meaningless because it isn't saying anything. "It's either raining or it's not," doesn't tell me anything. The statement that God either exists or doesn't exist also doesn't really say anything. I do agree that if God is real then it doesn't matter who believes in Him or not; belief won't effect the reality of His existence. Much in the same way that if I don't believe in gravity and step off of a tall building, my lack of belief won't change the reality of my falling to my death. I also haven't encountered anyone who thought that God only exists if we believe. The other thing that is curious about this idea is that it seems like it should lead to the far more interesting question of how do I know if God does exist? Interesting stuff though.
JC
JC,
When talking to most people saying that God either exists or doesn't exist is a waste of breath because most people will accept that idea. However, I wouldn't say "God either exists or doesn't exist" is useless in this case because I was refuting an idea that said otherwise.
Also, having just taken a logic course from a prominent CS professor, I'd also have to disagree that "A or not A" is meaningless. I disagree because knowing that helped me get many answers correct on tests and homework. Which means that I got better grades. Which means that I have a better GPA. Which means I'll get offered a better job. Which means I'll be able to provide for my family and to help people around the world. So ultimately, knowing "A or not A" helps people around the world...and that my friend is never meaningless.
Dude I love your chain of effects from that one little cause. I'm glad that you were aided in your academic pursuits AND that you are going to help people around the world, that is indeed always a good thing. That being said however (you knew that was coming right?) in logic a proposition that is either true or false is called a statement. A proposition that is ALWAYS false is called a contradiction. A proposition that is ALWAYS true is called a tautology. The only of the three propositions that can be determined to be true or false is the statement. That is why it is the only one useful in an argument (the philosophical version NOT the "I disagree with you" version). The tautology is considered meaningless because it cannot be negated. Either way it is fun to hash this stuff out, I haven't talked about this stuff since I was at ODU (I was a Philosophy minor). Good times!
Post a Comment