Does God Exist?

Does God Exist?

A Story by spence

 

The following essay is written for a contest on writer’s café and is based around my existing knowledge and research I have undertaken to inform my fictional musings.

Due to the nature of the challenge, (I had a 24 hour deadline), I have not referenced any of my findings and I have spoken about theories and concepts in the broadest context and have refrained from quoting sources.

This is a somewhat subjective overview of the eclectic knowledge that I have liberally culled from a variety of sources, but which supports my general world view. I intend to extend the following content more objectively at a later date, so any feedback, good, bad or indifferent, would be greatly appreciated in helping me achieve that goal.

…………………………………………………………..

The question posed to me was simple to ask and relatively easy to reply to, in terms of subjective belief and reactionary gait, yet it is seemingly impossible to answer conclusively in terms of offering indisputable evidence.

The question was this: ‘Does God exist?’

As someone of existentialist/atheist/humanist/anarchist persuasion my answer would be ‘no’, but I am fully aware that there are many more who would answer ‘yes’ and their answer would be just as valid, or invalid, as anyone else’s, in these terms.

 Having spent much of my adult life attempting to answer this question for myself, I have read a wide variety of literature, both ‘professional’ and ‘amateur’, from mediums as diverse as poetry to prose, fiction to non-fiction; interdisciplinary studies including philosophy, the physical sciences, theology, spiritualism, the supernatural and scientific journals that have attempted to answer this question both implicitly and explicitly. After years of this self-directed learning I eventually arrived at the conclusion that no argument holds or offers any conclusive evidence whatsoever. So the question, ‘Does God exist?’ becomes arbitrary and impractical in almost all fields of attainable human knowledge, in my view.  With the exception of that which is considered to be ‘esoteric’, but ‘evidence’ from those sources is mainly anecdotal and generally unreliable.

I did, however, arrive at the position where I felt that both theism and a-theism require pretty much the same substance to support their opposing world views. This substance renders the atheist contention ironic and the theist assertion smugly content of this fact. The substance I speak of is faith.

Although atheism and humanism are growing systems of belief, one must still believe, against seemingly insurmountable odds, that there is no God to believe in. This is true insofar as there is no evidence that can be quantified or qualified within the extent of existing knowledge that the human species thus far possesses. There are things that we simply cannot know, (especially as the Bible purports that ‘His ways are not your ways’ and thus tells all that we cannot know anything beyond the spectrum of physical reality that He has created for us). This is very convenient for some.

So, after trawling through countless and endless contexts, meanings, arguments, discussions and discourses it felt much safer to opt for agnosticism and to sit firmly on the fence between these polarised belief systems. But fence sitting has never been satisfactory to me and so I came to a fourth contention that, while not being completely satisfactory, lends itself well to my faith based disbelief in an omnipotent creator.

My contention is based, primarily, upon the principles of liberty and autonomy and, secondly, on the basis that religion, per se, has been the cause of much human suffering, conflict, confrontation and confusion. In short I believe that the belief in God has stunted human evolution to proportions large enough to now threaten our mortal existence.

In its most explicit manifestation this appears as ‘Holy War’ or ‘Jihad’, but it’s more implicit influence throughout history has been in the minds of people and, consequently, the suppressed development of provable facts such as the physical world we live in. The species has and is enduring an inquisition into all aspects of our lives that prevent us from knowing certain truths, depending largely on social status, class and inherent wealth. Some enjoy freedom, but only as long as they adhere to the principles set in the Ten Commandments that have informed law. I have considered the possibility that these commandments are taken from the time of Hammurabi of Babylon, (1792-1750 BC) and his code of law.

I will expand upon these points presently, but for now suffice to say that I contend that religion has had its day and most of the say.

I will begin my argument with anecdotal evidence that was largely influenced from my reading of philosophical history throughout the world.

To the best of human knowledge the oldest creation myth is the "Eridu Genesis", written in cuneiform hieroglyphs upon a fragment of a clay tablet, dating to circa 18th century BC. This story becomes known as the ‘Enumi Elis’ in later centuries of the Babylonian Empire and is thought to be the original basis for the Hebrew creation story, which, in turn, has influenced the main religious beliefs we have in the world today.

The original Mesopotamian texts assert, in general, that the world is a circular disc surrounded by sea and involves the Gods ‘An’, ‘Enlil’, ‘Enki’ and ‘Ninhursanga’ creating the Sumerian people and the animals, before descending to Earth to oversee the creation of the first cities.  Important pieces of the original texts were never fully recovered and so there is much missing from this point, but when the story resumes the Gods have flooded the earth and a chosen one is given the means by which to survive and preserve the animals on an Ark aided by a sympathetic God.

The links to modern religion are glaringly obvious to any person with the basic understanding of theology and this, to me, is evidence that the ‘sacred texts’, as we know them, are little more than an amalgamation of hearsay, superstition and doctrine doctored and engineered by dogmatic tyrants that sought to extol their world view and so control their domains through fear of divinity.

In this context alone, ‘God’ is irrelevant. ‘He’ may or may not exist, but if he does the human hand has marred any intentions ‘He’ may have had in leaving his tale of creation behind for us to behold.

It can be roughly summarised that the Hebrew texts are direct descendents of this and it is well documented that successive faiths, Christianity and Islam in the main, are derived from these. To use Christianity as the case in point, it is also well documented that ‘clergy’ of the time wilfully intertwined the religions known to them to create a doctrine that would be more accessible to the uneducated and less civilised masses that were being torn asunder by conflict due to conjecture in more pagan/barbaric belief systems, (and changed their view wholesale to suit the requirements of their current conqueror).

Christianity was, theoretically at least, an opportunity to bring peace to the world that, in turn, allowed intellectuals to guide the species toward greater development. So it followed that the ‘written word’ of the Bible was taken from the Hebrew orthodoxy, (minus the ‘chosen people’ ethos, so that anyone could be a Christian), the separation of clergy from the lay was taken from the Egyptian elite and the idea that the world was created by Gods was taken from Babylonian texts, but amended to fit the notion of the Hebrew ‘One True God’. Further, eastern beliefs in karmic life cycles were amended to fit the doctrine and became the basis for virtue and sin. The actions of a person in the physical world would now determine their afterlife of paradise or perdition making the masses entirely malleable to the decrees of the church. Since that time, some two centuries following the death of Christ, the world has largely adopted monotheistic belief over pantheism and this general mindset reigns supreme in the developed world.

What followed, however, was not nearly as fruitful as any intention may have been. Life in the west was engulfed in darkness for millennia. The saviour of some became the persecutor of many and countless people and peoples were oppressed, dehumanised, enslaved and put to death for their apparent ‘heresy’. This trend has followed us from then to the present day. Barbarism did not abate other than in latter times of enlightenment when advances in science and reason were finally permitted by a church that had lost much of its power and control over state affairs.

To this end it is worth pointing out that an increase in state power, over the last two centuries especially, has coincided with a resurgence of barbarism. This time around, with the development of new technology in an arena of superstition and fear that has cultivated hatred, envy and war between ‘believers’ in contesting faiths, the savagery is worse than ever.

It seems wholly futile that 2000 years have passed and the species still bows to definitions of ‘virtue and sin’ that are dictated by other human beings. I contend that, if there is a God, this is not ‘His’ word. Many practices are contrary to ‘His’ word and if there is a hell then we are creating it as we speak.

This is my first case for abandoning the notion of God. If He does exist then He will not thank us for what we have done to his creation, (his Eden?). It is very conceivable that our species will become extinct through egotistical pursuits that hold ‘the flock’ as ‘the chosen ones’ and the churlish arguments that amount to ‘oh no you’re not- we’re the chosen ones’. In reality, if there is a God and we were created on this tiny mud ball in a seemingly infinite universe, then surely we are all ‘chosen’. If we are merely an accident of circumstance then that is just as amazing and life is so much more precious for that coincidence of happenings.

 So, I conclude, the basis of the conflict that blights the globe is utterly fictitious, regardless of the truth of our existence. Whatever the case for a creator may be, I am certain that this God of war does not exist.

I took my considerations beyond the arena of pure theology however and applied the long held traditions and rituals of our species, (dating as far back as 70,000 BC, by current estimates of Idol building/ worship), to aspects of biological development.

Insofar as we know, other sentient life forms that we share the world with are blissfully unaware that ‘one day they will die’ and so this does not affect their lives until the point where life ends. This is evidently not so with human beings and our ancient rituals that are based around death, burial, (and rebirth), are testament to this fact. The crux of the matter is as simple as the original question; we are afraid of dying. But, further to this, we are only afraid of dying because we do not know what, if anything, awaits our ‘being’ once the body is gone.

My research led me to several avenues of thought that involved near death experiences, (NDE) and theories that a chemical similar to DMT is released by the brain as the body dies. Actual DMT induces feelings of detachment, (outer body experiences), and euphoria and so it can be presumed that the subject, theoretically, is no longer afraid to die once this chemical is released by natural means.

This theory has been used to explain the tunnel/white light phenomenon of NDE and some advocates of this idea believe that the pineal gland is responsible for this release. With these factors in mind I came to think of human evolution and how each and every creature either adapts to its environment or perishes.

Perhaps the evolution of the human brain made us too aware of the inevitability of our mortality and our pineal gland developed with the sole purpose of allowing us to function in the real world without the constant presence of terror, (make of that terminology what you will, but the pun was definitely intended as an inference to and parallel of current state coercion).

Human beings are capable of unbounded thought and imagination and so it makes sense that we would create stories to deal with the unknown. Any science fiction book will show this to be true and quite often science fiction becomes science fact. That is the power of our imagination manifest into physical, and scientifically quantifiable, reality.

The dream world that each of us possesses, (either individually or collectively matters not in this instance), allows us to transcend the mortal coils that keep us earthbound. In our minds we can go anywhere and do anything we can perceive or learn about and this often translates to the real world in various forms.

Books and paintings are the most obvious forms of this expression of self and it stands to reason that all other mediums follow these patterns that were set long before humans had the ability to create a creator in their minds. Cave paintings prove an ancient ability to mimic that we can see and to recreate it as we see fit and all other developments seem to have conformed to that standard.

So my second contention is a simple answer to the original question;

‘God exists because of the thoughts of those that became aware of and were afraid of dying. I suggest that the ancient creation myths were little more than fairytales created to appease the fears of the people and that all religion is based on these fantastical tales’.

Perhaps the real question should be;

‘Can consciousness survive death?’ because I truly believe that no one cares about the existence of God beyond a need for purpose and a deep rooted hope that death is not the end.

As a writer of fiction I have first hand experience of making a tale up from conjectural knowledge, (Dan Brown is a notable example of this; his fictional story ‘The Da-Vinci Code’ perfect for the context in which I am speaking), and also of spinning yarns from out of nothing except my imagination. Although I must accept that my imagination has been influenced by many stories, myths and legends and informed by the ethical and moral assertions that I internalised from my peers, parents, family, culture, society, media, etc, throughout my life. In this light it stands to reason that almost all of my written work will be heavily influenced by the fundamentals of my learning and I sometimes imagine some spiritual being asking the question of me again and again, in everything I do and in everything I write,

‘Does God exist?’

The significance of seeing this query emerge in almost everything I write is a frustrating quandary from which I must constantly disentangle myself. I had a secular upbringing and had declared myself atheist as soon as I knew what the word meant, but I was forced to say prayers in school and persuaded to perform in Nativities and utter thanks for the food I was to receive at meal times. Religion was the cornerstone of my culture and community, even though I rejected the concept at a very early age.

As a sign of my rebellious stance I once sang the words to ‘Anarchy in the U.K’ instead of the Lords Prayer during assembly, only to find myself being berated by my peers for risking descent into hell. Their fear was infectious and, out of fear fuelled respect of what I could not know, I never did it again, but I ask you. What God would hold any child in such disdain and punish them with eternal torment for asking the simple question;

‘Does God exist?’

I believe that the belief in an omnipresent benefactor has hindered the potential of our species greatly and has us on the verge of extinction. I write this in the first month of 2010 and still the world is invigorated with characteristics that are real life manifestations of the four horsemen and the seven deadly sins religion apparently opposes, yet seems to actively create. Wars are fought around the world in the name of ‘Creators’; governments and militant, paramilitary leaders use doctrine and dogma to justify sending countless soldiers to their deaths and asking those same soldiers to cause untold death and destruction in the lands of those that their God despises, when really they want power and wealth... and oil. The misappropriation of faith is a sin against humanity itself and those who send young people to their deaths and condemn nations to slaughter are the true devils of this world, yet they pledge their souls to God and claim divine ascendancy over the masses. Prophet justifies their profit and in my view the whole world is little more than a devils playground.

In relation to this the human brain is persuaded to put its stock in religion and to think to a time beyond death, rather than accepting death as an inevitable consequence of being born. Religion advocates the notion that we are merely children in this life and that those that remain ‘virtuous’ will be saved, or will experience ‘the rapture’ and be taken to a Paradise that none can perceive in mortal form. This belief has mollified the masses and has persuaded most to complicity and apathy while ‘the chosen ones’ go about their business of controlling reality- unhindered by progressive thinking.  

My contention is very simple in these terms.

Were it not for the threat of persecution would Copernicus have forwarded his thesis for a heliocentric version of the solar system before his death rather than it being published posthumously? Many theories were subdued and hidden beneath riddles and disclaimers to avoid excommunication or death because of religious zealots that resisted collective progress in the interests of retaining power and prestige. In this one example, the idea that the earth was not at the centre of the universe was, consequently, not improved upon for another two hundred years, when Kepler and Galileo took up the baton. They themselves had to function within the limited paradigms of a world still largely influenced by so called ‘traditionalists’ and I can’t help, but think that we would have been a far more evolved species if God did not exist.

If we take this further and imagine how many potential Einstein’s, Darwin’s, Hawkin’s, and the like, have died on crusader battlefields, or just as likely fallen into obscurity in workshops and factory floors, then we may gain a truer picture of the affects of curtailing progress in fear of losing outmoded traditions. Much like the God question, we may never know just how much we have lost to folly.

It is often said that science is the ‘new religion’, but this contention falls flat when considering that, unlike the Church, there are no penalties for rejecting or disbelieving in scientific reasoning. This may possibly be the greatest proponent of human development to date. Tolerance, logic and reason allow individuals to explore and learn more of the world around them without divine interference. This ethos should benefit us all, although the shackles of the state often suppress positive invention and intuition in favour of profit and war. Religion, in general, represses the concept of free will beneath a façade of deterministic fear and prevents questions being asked in the first instance.

‘Does God exist?’

I don’t know, but perhaps one aspect of truth is pertinent in the silk robes of the clergy and the golden idols that adorn their wealthy churches, mosques and synagogues.

One final point that I have considered is inherent in the prophecies, parables, myths, legends and fairytales that I have read over the years.

I have read many works of fiction that purport to have found ‘the answer’ to the riddle of the question;

‘Does God exist?’

And I will end this essay with an amalgamation of thoughts and ideas that have grown from my reading of the more outspoken attempts to explain ‘God’ and human existence.

Perhaps it would be beneficial if we could prove that God was an alien astronaut; a humanoid being like us that carried his own seed from another planet to this fertile paradise and then left to allow us to grow. Maybe he returns periodically to see how we have developed and maybe that’s what has informed belief in the second coming, in rebirth and in the rapture. Perhaps this is what the 2012 Mayan prophecy is really about; a predetermined date for His return that the ancients were aware of, but that we have forgotten over time.

 Maybe the scriptures were left as warnings to us by our forbearers? I am aware that the ending of the last Ice Age (9,500 BC, approx), corresponds to the date set by Plato as the destruction of Atlantis. Is it conceivable that our planet once called Atlantis and was largely destroyed in the flood? Is it possible that the people of that time build a protective Ark to preserve life after the big melt? I would almost like to believe that the wisdom inherent in the doctrines of man are warnings from a time before the great flood.

Perhaps the parable of Adam and Eve in Eden tells us of a world that was left in our care and told us to beware of the devils that seek to corrupt our virtue and create a world akin to Hell. Perhaps it has happened before and the last humans that ruled the earth left behind the stories of their world in the hope that any successor would not repeat their mistakes and taste the ‘forbidden fruit’ of consuming flesh, creating war and aspiring to power.

Do humans have a fundamental choice to make that defines all other potential purpose? Did we inherit ‘heaven’ with the option to protect and serve as Angels or destroy and rule as Demons?

Is our purpose as simple as being either the caretakers or destroyers of our home?

These suggestions may seem ridiculous, but to me they seem no less ridiculous than believing in an unknowable creator who made the world and everything in it and then set us off on a predetermined course. If there is a God then He is far and away superior to us, so I can think of no purpose that such an act would serve to one so great. But then again; ‘His ways are not our ways’, so I couldn’t possibly understand such futility, (though I can comprehend the reasons for creating something and then observing the outcome. Maybe…just maybe.)

Given all of the factors I have mentioned above I contend that the species must go on as if the answer to the question were,

 ‘There is no God’.

If some one(s) were to ever prove that there was no God I believe the human species would evolve at an astounding rate. I believe the world would develop thus.

At first there would be the reaction. People would be polarised to two general schools of thought. One school would react with utter despondency, depression and hopelessness and would simply stop living with meaning while their opposites would respond with sheer nihilism, hedonism and narcissism and would portray a ‘nothing to lose’ attitude and individuals would fluctuate between the two at various times. These factions would pose a threat to themselves and all others and would simply self destruct or waste away until their death. Between these extremes, however, there would be those that accept their ultimate and unavoidable end and would work to improve life while it dwelled and extend life spans as far as possible. All aspects of human knowledge and ingenuity would be greatly increased and eventually the ‘third perception’ of improving reality would be joined by the survivors of the first two as the species tried to attain immortality through enlightenment.

Perhaps this is how an evolved species becomes ‘Godlike’?

My overall conclusion to the question can thus be summarised as this:

There is no known method of either proving or disproving the existence of God.

Belief in God is necessitated through mortal terror and culminates in cataclysmic human error.

Belief in God is the fundamental cause of prejudice, terror, suffering and conflict and belief in an after life fosters attitudes of apathy, which results in inaction in bringing atrocity to an end.

Atheism is a concept that, while unproven, by definition values human life as unique and inherently works toward the improvement and enrichment of all life.

The species should not be tethered by restrictions and repressive practices that religion puts upon us and so it is in the best interests of the species to act as if there were no God.

Once this is achieved the species can take affirmative action to avoid a ‘fate’ or ‘destiny’ of untold misery, death and destruction.

 The inquisition laid upon the masses, by those claiming to know God, must cease so that the human race can grow beyond its adolescence and survive to a more enlightened adulthood.

© 2010 spence


Author's Note

spence
This is not complete, by a long shot, so any feedback would be great. Written for a contest over 24 hours.

My Review

Would you like to review this Story?
Login | Register




Featured Review

Hey. I know i probably pushed a bit too much on my belief that there is certainly a God, and not only does he exist but He is able to be touched.......what i mean is, he craves for relationship the same as us......but still, we can be friends......this is well written, even if I do not believe in it's thesis!.

Posted 14 Years Ago


1 of 1 people found this review constructive.




Reviews

Thanks for your submission to my 'contest' spence! I'll make a few brief comments, take them for what you find them to be worth. I'm sure the exchange rate on anonymous internet commentary is at an all time high. ;)

The writing itself:
Form: For me, there was too little introduction, too many 'conclusions', bumpy transitions, and too few connecting threads. I think it would be better if it addressed each of its topics with a more egalitarian hand. For example the DMT comments were very short and lacked explication while the historical review was significantly more expansive. I think either leave things out, or extend and shorten in turn until each aspect gets a similar degree of attention.

Secondly, as regards to form; things like 'secondly'! You wrote at one point 'my forth contention is', and I had no idea what the first three were. At another point you write, 'my first case is', and I didn't see a clear 'second and third case'. There are more examples of this type. Needs editing in regards to this.

Word Choice:
Most importantly here, I felt as though this essay lacked a unity of style. It felt to me as though you were one of those writers who kept a thesaurus open and periodically consulted it at times which appear random to me. For example: 'churlish', 'extol', 'query', 'despondency', among many others all stuck out to me as though they didn't belong. Now I'm the last person to suggest avoiding 'big words', but the point here is that this felt to be stylistically schizophrenic in its vocabulary.

Also, you use the word 'contention' too many times. Here's where you can use that thesaurus for good rather than evil!

Content:
Foremost for me here, I would suggest you consider that in a persuasive essay of this sort the potential for alienating the audience. If an author makes counter-intuitive or 'unpopular' contentious claims in an absolutist way, in a careless, off the cuff way, more members of the audience are likely to be turned off to your actual thesis. Example: your claims about the 'boundless' capacities of the human mind. Many people disagree, and that you seem to throw something like that out there with no supporting argument or sensitivity to the possibility that you are even making a big claim, can be dangerous.

On a related note, this essay was rife with absolutist terminology, which is even more ironic from someone who labels themselves an 'agnostic'. Examples: 'countless', 'insurmountable', 'certain', 'endless', 'unbounded', 'anywhere, anytime', and 'infinitely' more. These 'absolutely must' be cleaned up, no two ways about it, I am totally 100% sure of this.

More stuff: I am not convinced that this is a philosophical essay. It deals with what is traditionally considered a 'philosophical' question, but not with what are traditionally considered philosophical 'tools'. Do you think there is an important difference between what might be called 'history' or 'sociology' and 'philosophy'? Why are there not explicit 'arguments' in this paper?

At times you seem to realize the difference between 'Should we be religious?' and 'Does God exist', but some of the time you seem to reason from a negative answer to the former to a negative conclusion to the latter. Many readers will not think this follows.

You seem to contradict yourself a few times in here: at one point you acknowledge that 'God works in mysterious ways so we cannot disprove his existence empirically' but you later claim that 'Because I don't like what people do in the name of God, God himself, were he to exist, would not like what people have done in his name.' which appears to me both self-contradictory and poor reasoning. Could not 'God' have a different value system than yours?

Again, thanks for the submission. I intend no offense with this review, trying to help in my own clumsy way. Glad to see people trying to think!





Posted 12 Years Ago


I agree with Jo Pfohl. God does exist. If only you truly believe He does. He is there looking at us. I do believe that He craves for a relationship with the fellow human beings... but that should need human's faith to reach His touch. Otherwise, God will be the shadow among your thoughts.

By the way, I had a good read though. A very interesting read.


Posted 14 Years Ago


1 of 1 people found this review constructive.

Hey. I know i probably pushed a bit too much on my belief that there is certainly a God, and not only does he exist but He is able to be touched.......what i mean is, he craves for relationship the same as us......but still, we can be friends......this is well written, even if I do not believe in it's thesis!.

Posted 14 Years Ago


1 of 1 people found this review constructive.


Share This
Email
Facebook
Twitter
Request Read Request
Add to Library My Library
Subscribe Subscribe


Stats

317 Views
3 Reviews
Rating
Added on January 15, 2010
Last Updated on January 15, 2010

Author

spence
spence

Grimsby, United Kingdom



About
Just returning to WritersCafe after a couple of years in the wilderness of life. I'm a 40 year old (until December 2013, at least) father of two, former youth and community worker, sometime socio-pol.. more..

Writing