Existence of God

I strongly feel it is important here to dichotomize the words God and Religion in the world today and the concept of God using the mainstream philosophical argument.

The word itself means different things for different people. The common argument constructed by theists to convince their atheist counterpart revolves around some essentials:

• Initial motion

All things in the universe are in motion. However, for there to exist motion in actuality (Kinetic energy) there must exist Potential energy and this potential energy can only be converted to kinetic energy by a stimulus. So everything which is in motion must have an initial stimulus. This stimulus is god.

This is a completely valid argument. My dispute with this argument is that how does one explain the seeming chronological, spatial and conceptual infinity of god? The concept is created to put a stopper to a concept that escapes the intellectual block that we humans face when dealing with the question of infinity. "God is infinite," theists would then claim. Well, if God is infinite and so is the universe, I don't see any reason to believe that one form of infinity is different from the other... both are conceptually the same. So, God is the Universe and the Universe is God. Both interchangeable words... I prefer the former to avoid the ridiculous connotations of the word "God" propagated across society through religion.

• Original causation

Everything we see around us is connected in a chain of causation similar to that of motion. So what is the original cause?... God.

This argument is parallel to the infinity concept. What is the original cause? I don't know. Many call it God. I call it incomprehensible infinity or the Universe.

• The superlative

We have formed in our minds the conceptual framework for qualitative assessment for everything in existence. The man is strong. That woman is honest. The mountains are beautiful. Every qualitative assessment is in comparison to a superlative... an entity that possesses the best of all virtues. Such an entity must be god.

I'd like to deconstruct this idea. The ultimate of all virtues, this argument claims is this singular entity of God. I would simply ask... who sets the standards here?... the standards of virtue. Isn't it humans? Our perceptions of beauty and virtues are different depending on the personalities, value systems and circumstances each of us is subject to. This disintegrates the concept the singularity of God. If each of us were to name our perceptions of the superlative as God, we'd have many more Gods.

• Original existence

We are surrounded my thronging existence. Before existence is non-existence or nothing and for something to be born of nothing is absurd. Therefore, for something to exist in the beginning from nothing, there needs to be an antediluvian (etymological religious connotation unintended, I hope!) something that instigates the creation of everything else.

The Buddhists believe in part of this concept as well. Madhyamaka practitioners stress on the importance of the fact that before existence came non-existence; before something came nothing. However, they add that nothing has the potential to create everything else. The don't detach the divine from existence and non-existence. They believe is is possible for humans to reach that state of nothingness through meditation. That is their concept of nirvana. I prefer the Buddhist way of thought where this is concerned and would like to add that if one were to claim that god was hanging around in nothing to create something and that God is something, then the nothing did not exist in the first place.

On the other hand, when one says that nothing and everything is divine, that implies that every one of us is divine. Using theist terminology, that makes every one of us God. I'd rather call you by your name :-)

• Universal governance

Nature is crafted to perfection. Every leaf, every mountain, every animal is crafted in a way so as to co-exist in functional synchrony and perfection. The functionality is a product of circumstances or environment. All this takes intelligence to design. That intelligence is god.

I feel this is the strongest argument made so far. Intelligent design has been long debated. If God is mystery and infinity and if we as humans are incapable of understanding the true nature of God the only method of knowing whether this God exists is to go by his/her intentions. These seem pretty clear. Building the universe, of which Planet Earth, our home, seems to be of barely importance but means the world to us and us alone. This god went into the detail of creating these handcrafted odds and ends like plants, animals, humans, and so on... and then we have theists who believe that this god had an intention... how? and what is that intention? The planet we're on has an expiry date on it and so does every one of us and the intention of God is an inappropriate phrase given to what it really is... the purpose of life itself. I call it life force... a power potent and intelligent enough to direct the evolution of every being in existence... and as for the non-living things, I call it physics.

True, this raises more questions than answers and that's the point. There are unanswered questions and we could start with seeing things for what they truly are instead of settling in for misunderstood, inadequate and inappropriate nomenclature and conceptual fantasies.

Religion adds more frills to this concept of God further contorting it into a melange of mysticism, customs, rituals, intolerance and shrouded ignorance all sparked by elements of shame, low self-esteem and a lack of courage to face the truth or embark on this seemingly infinite voyage of finding the truth where it isn't apparent.

Experimentation with Expression

“I’m a bibliophile!”

“Oh! I’m just a book lover”

Hmph! Makes me wonder about communication. Expression is simply a method to communicate what one feels. So, the first step in expression is analyzing your audience. Then think about the purpose of the conversation. Then open your mouth appropriately. Then keep room for feedback and alterations. I know this makes it sound like something straight out of an ‘Effective Communication’ course book. But, it doesn’t stop there.

Spoken words communicate a great deal and the same is true for those unspoken. These unspoken words ooze from our eyes, gestures and expressions. Spoken words can be easily faked but it gets tougher when dealing with a paradox in words and body language.

Recently, I started using a different approach to communication. My new teaching job introduced me to etymology and the process dramatically improving my vocabulary in breadth and depth.

Start introducing those words into your daily vocabulary and you’ve reached a different plane. This, of course, is at the cost of getting your thoughts across clearly! The reason I started doing this was simply to add texture to my expression for myself. Though words don’t substitute emotions and experiences, it is my constant endeavor to bridge that gap as well as I can. Communication does not, in that case, necessarily involve two or more people. I could be communicating with myself.

Writing, for instance, could be done for others or for oneself. Most of my writing is for me. That is precisely the reason I can experiment so freely. Otherwise, I would have had to consider the reader and his or her capacity to comprehend my expression.