|God & Existentialism
Author: Yorik PM
What is God? Ramblings.Rated: Fiction K+ - English - Spiritual - Chapters: 2 - Words: 1,507 - Reviews: 2 - Updated: 01-05-13 - Published: 02-16-11 - Status: Complete - id: 2891927
|A+ A- Full 3/4 1/2 Expand Tighten|
An e-mail rant about god
Apologies, feel free to not read this. I am mostly ranting because I spent a couple of hours (weeks, actually, if you count all that election crap) watching Americans debate religion. Love and miss xox
ps: How are your lives? The sun set at 3 today. It was traumatic and made my tummy-clock go haywire. I ate dinner three hours early.
A rant about evolution vs. creationism
I spent a while watching vids/reading about the evolution vs creationism debate. The problem is, they only pit extremists against each other instead of moderates who are able to compromise their views and come to some sort of agreement - if only the agreement to disagree. Though I suppose that doesn't make very entertaining television. Most of the creationists' arguments were bullshit - I'm not even going to bother questioning the authenticity of the bible, or the existence of Jesus as the Messiah, or the fact that any kind of extremist is a lunatic (because they indisputably are) - however I have one question:
Even science believes in certain laws that govern physics, and certain trends in the biological design of organisms - the simplest example being that all material occurs/is formed in layers, from skin structure to rocks to planetary crusts - THEREFORE is this repetitive design/laws of movement not evidence that there is something larger out there influencing the formation of life and the universe?
But, as many have pointed out, CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Therefore just because it LOOKS like someone's painstakingly constructing the universe one block at a time DOES NOT MEAN that it is definitive proof of intelligent design.
The fact of the matter is that 'God' seems to be a convenient construct that seeks to fill the gaps in our understanding of the universe - an unromantic, anti-climatic finish to a heated debate. And while I hate the idea of life simply existing for the sake of existing (because it takes the 'meaning' out of living, in some ways - like you're nothing special, only an irrelevant drop in the cosmic ocean) you have to agree that objectively, it makes sense.
Though I wonder about all those things I believe in that can't be objectively and quantitatively measured - things like believing in spirits and bad dju-dju; things like instinct (despite its biological basis, cannot be objectively and accurately measured); things like good and bad vibes - I intrinsicly and instinctively believe in these things; in the power of thought and emotions, both animal and human...so why not God? Truth: science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. At least not right now.
You already know that I personally believe in God - though I feel that my understanding of 'God' corrupts the canonical belief that he(?) is this merciful father-figure and we are his(?) favourite babies.
No, my understanding of God is this:
Every living thing - ie: every organic existence in the universe - is connected. Rocks and planets and stars and snails and humans are all linked together by repeating elements, chemicals and genetic makeup. This connection; this sense of unity between all things; this energy that is recycled and becomes us - this is what I call 'God'.
However, in light of my understanding, consider this dilemma: which came first, life, or God?
Most people will call me retarded and say that God (whatever that is) created all life. Even scientists who agree with my theory that God is essentially some form of energy (spiritual or otherwise) will say that the energy that exists in life needs to come from somewhere to begin with.
But by this logic, the argument becomes cyclical, chicken-or-the egg and Escheresque - where did 'God's' energy come from anyway?
The only way I can explain this to myself is thus :we exist; therefore God exists - and vice versa. Both life and God need each other to survive. Energy and information is transmitted back and forth in an endless loop. We are part of a massive self-sustaining system.
I am not trying to disprove the existence of 'God' - rather I am saying (and please lets not burn me at the stake) that we are a part of God because we are a part of the system; the endless loop of every organic thing existing together that as a whole make up the system known as 'God'.
To put it simply (as Douglas Adams suggests in 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy'): We are all little parts of a massive multiverse-sized programme (or maybe even several of these programmes) collectively called 'God'. God's immediate purpose is to help maintain order within its system; in turn, we as blips in the programme exist to recycle the energy within it so that the entire programme can run at full capacity.
What is the end purpose of the programme itself? Why does "God" need to exist in the first place? No fucking clue. I haven't thought that far yet. Feel free to call me on my shit. I think I just contradicted myself. Oh well. THE JOYS OF SEMI-SCIENCE 3