Atheism 3 - Does God Exist?

Note: At this point, it might be a good idea to start mentioning that, if you haven't already, you should read over all previous posts before proceeding.  These posts build upon previous information; they do not stand alone.  Starting at the end is like criticizing the selection of a hip v. gable roof without knowing anything about the walls and foundation.

I was 20 years old and decided that, for better or worse, I was going to create a personal philosophy based on logic as I understood it.  No tambourines, no rolling in the aisles, no condemning others for having different views, no "I'm right, you're wrong."  No emotional involvement of any kind.  I believed I was in the perfect position to do this because, at this point, I had no emotional investment in religion or any other belief.  I'm sure this was all just the cockiness of youth, but that's how I saw it at the time.

It was obvious here at the beginning that I would get nowhere until I settled the fundamental question "does God exist?"  As I mentioned in my previous post, at this point I was not only atheist, but militantly atheist; I knew the answer here was a definite "no," but I wasn't satisfied with knowing it.  I wanted to be able to rub my nutty Christian acquaintances' noses in the truth.  After all, I reasoned, look at what the Church had already done to me!  They deserved a little of their own "holier-than-thou" medicine.

No, I reckoned, that's not right.  What had Dr. Hanks said?  The first rule of logic: "never assume, never imply."  Ok, so those stupid Baptists assumed there was a God.  I couldn't logically counter them by assuming there wasn't.  That would make me the hypocrite I accused them of being.  Gather the evidence, let the facts fall where they may.

So, what did I know about God at this point?  Well, nothing, really.  And apparently neither did anyone else.  How many different ideas are there floating around about God?  Some religions teach a belief in a masculine god, some teach a feminine god.  Some religions have an entire pantheon of different gods, each in charge of a different aspect of human fate.  Several eastern religions famously don't even see god as a sentient being, but rather some sort of cosmic energy that guides the paths of humans (karma, ying-yang, etc.).

To complicate matters even more, I was finding it more difficult than expected to simply dismiss the matter out of hand as the ravings of children and lunatics.  As a militant atheist, it was hard for me to admit, but many of these beliefs were shared by some of history's greatest minds; men and women who, otherwise, had my highest respect. Galileo, DaVinci, Newton, Kepler, Einstein.  People who certainly had the abstract reasoning skills to know when they were being hoodwinked.  You know, non-morons!

For several months, I was very frustrated with the whole experiment.  It seemed there was no way to apply logic to this question.  Then, slowly, I realized the dilemma arose from a basic assumption (I have since learned how commonly assumptions bury themselves into our processes).  You see, I was attempting to determine an answer to the question of the existence of god by comparing various religions' ideas regarding the nature of god.  Existence versus nature.  These were not the same thing.  It was as if I were attempting to determine a shirt's color by reading its fabric label.  I needn't compare religions' differences, I needed to seek their commonalities.

So, what do the world's great religions have in common?  Is there a definition that we can apply to the word "god" that will satisfy all beliefs simultaneously?  I checked out a couple of books on the subject from the library (The Religions of Man, Smith, Huston; Religions of the World, Hopfe & Woodward).  Not exactly doctoral level research, but I thought it wasn't too bad for an undergraduate who was already reading another dozen books for the classes in which he was actually enrolled.

After studying what I could of world religions and their beliefs about god, I concluded that the only statement you could make that would be all inclusive was that "god is that which created and is actively re-creating the universe and all within it."  That hit me like a bombshell.  It was brief, it was to the point, it made no assumptions regarding the nature of god, it encompassed virtually all the religious beliefs discussed in my library books, and it even satisfied that other great pillar of modern logic, Occam's razor (law of parsimony; "plurality should not be posited without necessity"). [ed. note - it is now 2025, and over the years the single biggest issue expressed by interlocutors involve the word "create."  Allow me, therefore, to insert the following, more scientific alternative (it will in no way alter my thesis): "god is that which caused and actively changes the universe."]

As an atheist, it was also annoying as hell.  Assuming one believes in the existence of the universe, there is simply nothing in this definition to which I could object.  In simplest terms, it means that if we agree that the universe exists and changes we must acknowledge that something causes that existence and change. Ex nihilo nihil fit.  Out of nothing, nothing can come.  If we consider the rules of logic as laid down by Aristotle - specifically the rules of causality and non-contradiction - we find that everything must come from something, including the universe.  To say that something can come from nothing is simply absurd, logically speaking.  In this case, we simply choose to label this something as "god."  At this most fundamental level, the question of god's existence is moot.  Without adding any more connotation, of course god exists, because the universe exists!

Years later, as I was explaining this to another friend who was also atheist, he grew rather indignant at this point.  He said, "Jeff, that just doesn't work.  If you define the term that loosely, then I could simply say that god is just a cosmic bowl of Jell-O salad and be just as accurate."

I smiled and said, "that's right.  Because, you see, at this point we're still just discussing the existence of god.  If god exists at all, then the label you choose is irrelevant.  Labels attempt to describe a thing's nature, not its existence.  In fact, unless a thing exists, it has no need for a label.  For now, we're still  just talking about god's existence, and god's existence is the same whether you prefer the word God or Allah, or Jehovah or Great Spirit or Nature or Big Bang or Sheer-Dumb-Luck or Jell-O Salad.  You call me 'Jeff' because that's my name; the way by which you can distinguish me from others.  But 'Jeff' doesn't describe my existence.  You could call me any other word of your choosing and I'd still be standing here talking to you."

One cannot logically discern the question of god's existence until one can mentally separate that question from that of god's nature.  If you're still with me and have trouble with the Santa Claus-type God of your elementary Sunday School teacher or the warmongering, wrathful God of many Old Testament studies, then congratulations!  You've achieved the stage of critical reasoning necessary to move on (frankly, I don't believe any of that stuff, either).  But those are, again, questions about the nature of God, and for that, we must wait for subsequent posts.

Pax

P.S. A bit out of sequence, but, as the blog has evolved, now would be a good to (a) read the comments below, and (b) skip to September 20, "Words, Words, Words."  Then come back and continue in order.  It'll make more sense after you do it, I promise.