"So," they say, "nobody's perfect!"
But the Vinedresser won't buy that.
Given the opportunity, He will trim the unproductive suckers and shape the branches so each one will bask in Sonlight.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Objective Proof of God’s Existence

Nonsense! Despite this essay’s title, objective proof that God exists does not exist. Honest believers will admit that faith in God produces its own proof. Nonbelievers have no faith, so they are incapable of perceiving what faith makes obvious to believers. However, while those who have faith can never be truly objective about the object of their faith, they can, by careful avoidance of cliché arguments, participate in a reasonable discussion of the issues surrounding it.

      Cosmologists and physicists, as well as us normal folks, stand in two theological camps: Theistic, and atheistic. Yes, theistic scientists actually exist, though their atheistic colleagues seem the more vocal of the two. Both theistic and atheistic scientists recognize the universe’s delicate balance. What they do not agree upon is the existence of a supernatural or spiritual component in the universe. As neither side has any way of “proving” their position empirically, we must call it a presupposition, or worldview.
      Theism covers a wide range of, primarily monotheistic, religions that have evolved through attempts to explain the material universe’s cause, either by a personal Supreme Being or by an impersonal, Causative Force. Atheism theorizes a variety of cosmic-scale, spontaneously generative events, with either a natural but unknown cause, or no cause at all.

      Two foundational categories of differences exist between theistic and atheistic ideologies: The first lies in their positive or negative experiences with, or observations of, religion. The second lies in their relative willingness to accept the existence of entities that scientific inquiry cannot detect.
      My mother was a “Type One” atheist, at least partially because of an uncle who was a Methodist deacon and “enjoyed” bouncing her on his lap in a way that gave her the creeps. Her mother refused to believe her complaints. Then she converted to Romanism so she could marry my father, and a new series of questionable experiences began. To my knowledge she never managed to disassociate the religion of Christianity from the personal Christ.
      Most atheists like to view themselves as the “Type Two” variety, generally skeptical about “the god thing,” and especially religion. Many of these folks are perfectly sincere in their non-belief on ideological grounds. Either they invest their confidence in “Science,” or they simply refuse to be persuaded by a belief-system they don’t understand.
      Theism is an extremely broad brush that attempts to cover many different philosophies, theologies and religions, bound loosely by the common acceptance of one or more supernatural, or spiritual, supreme beings. While theism’s greatest strength is its diverse appeal, atheists see that lack of unity as one of its greatest credibility gaps. Reasonably, atheists ask, “Why would a sentient, intelligent supreme being who is capable of communicating with its subjects, not tell everyone the same thing about itself?”
      Of course, they've answered their own question: “Either no such supreme being exists, or it’s playing cruel games with its subjects.” What, no third option?

Other Options
      To assume that humans can be privy to all knowledge and understanding, accountable to no one and absolutely sovereign, is to elevate those select folks to godhood. Of course, those who possess such esoteric knowledge must impose their rule over the rest of us, as we aren’t bright enough to rule ourselves.
      Absurd? What other ultimate conclusion can come from believing that humans are equipped to observe and understand all that exists? Is it not possible that such marvelous knowledge is beyond our finite imaginations and scientific state of art?
      Not long ago, cosmologists and physicists discovered something missing in the universe. They knew it must be there because the universe wouldn’t work without it. For lack of a better name, they called this theoretical necessity, “Dark Energy,” because they had no way of seeing it, and even now they can only detect it indirectly. Then of course, since energy and matter are just alternate states of the same thing, they coined the term, “Dark Matter” to go along with it.
      Since they are certain that nothing of a supernatural or spiritual nature can exist, as Science would have surely seen it by now if it did, relating that theoretical, cosmic necessity to “God” is out of the question. Is a measure of theophobia at work among Big Brains in academia? Why else would such brilliant scientific minds deny that something exists, whose existence cannot be scientifically proved or disproved?

      Does God exist? The debate has persisted over the centuries, both sides “proving” their arguments in their own eyes with little impact on the opposition. Yes, theists have become atheists, and vice versa, but those changes have nothing to do with the debate. It’s all about disillusionment and enlightenment.
      Despite the complete certainty both sides maintain, one ultimate truth stands: Death will decide the issue. If atheists are right, what a hollow victory that will be, as in their oblivion they will know nothing. But if God exists as he said in his word, the Bible, believers will rejoice in unison at their faith's fulfillment, while tragically, nonbelievers will learn of their error the hard way.

No comments: