I've grown bored with debates between atheists and theists. More and more they seem like watching cats play with balls on a billiard table. They have no idea what the table is for but the balls are fun to knock around. And if one of the balls actually gets knocked into a hole, like it should be, from the cat's point of view the fun is diminished.
That's my way of saying the debates miss the point and those participating in them seem to actually be determined to keep missing. The point you see is one where a decision must be made at the core of our being. It's a place where both reason and emotions must merely stand at the door. Only the heart can go in.
The debaters also talk past each other. That is they operate with incompatible definitions. But considering the point they seem determined to miss, this makes sense. If they found definitions of key terms like "god" that they both agreed on the debate would be over, rendered moot. At least if they found definitions I could agree on.
You see once one starts to debate the existence of something that is bigger than the universe, transcends the universe, and is at the same time omnipresent in the universe, certain standard logical relationships turn inside out and outside in at the same time, that is as they relate any postulated existence of such a god.
"Can God make a rock so big he cannot move it?" is a question intended to point out a logical flaw in the idea of omnipotence, but instead illustrates how the positing of an omnipotent god requires a special logic in order for logic to be relevant to the subject. And I for one believe logic must be relevant, so thus it needs special rules that account for the posited god. God isn't the question but the given, for if the god were the question the answer would be impossible to reach either in the positive or negative. For if the posited god exists the rules of logic must be modified to account for that god, and if the posited god does not exist, the logical quandary proves nothing other than maybe that someone's god is the current rules of logic without any modification. And there lies the rub as they say.
I would suggest that there are three states of deity, or I could say three ways that a god exists, all of which are pretty much beyond rational debate. They're beyond debate because they are definitions of godhood, and any debate over definitions is outside empiricism, generally though practical perhaps, they are still subjective.
One of the key points about these states is that each one by itself makes something or someone a god.
The Three States Of Deity
(1) Perceptual
(2) Practical
(3) Independent
Perceptual State
If someone sees something as a god then whatever that is, it is a god. Even if everyone else in the world insists whatever it is isn't a god it is still a god to the person who perceives it as such, and the relationship to the individual is all that matters for godhood. Unless or until their perception changes, that god exists.
Practical State
Many people defer to and/or revere someone or something almost completely without question. This makes whoever or whatever that is a god. Even if one is an atheists and insists there are no gods, if their deference to something goes almost completely without question, they have a god on their hands. This god is one by practice or i.e in the practical state of deity.
Independent State
Now if someone actually is a god then they are such whether anyone perceives them as such or if anyone treats them as such. Thus all three of these states of deity can constitute a deity independently.
And so what's the point of these states? It is that whether we care to admit it or not, gods exist. The only question left for us to debate is do some of them or at least does one of them matter. Or perhaps more to the point is why has it always mattered to human beings? Is the god question just a chemical fluke of genetic origins that wastes our time? Is it an early state of an advanced trait we have yet to fully evolve? Is it a residue of a more oppressively collective past, or as I have come to believe, a universal awareness of the ultimate champion of us as individuals? That would be the God of the universe who created us.
That's my way of saying the debates miss the point and those participating in them seem to actually be determined to keep missing. The point you see is one where a decision must be made at the core of our being. It's a place where both reason and emotions must merely stand at the door. Only the heart can go in.
The debaters also talk past each other. That is they operate with incompatible definitions. But considering the point they seem determined to miss, this makes sense. If they found definitions of key terms like "god" that they both agreed on the debate would be over, rendered moot. At least if they found definitions I could agree on.
You see once one starts to debate the existence of something that is bigger than the universe, transcends the universe, and is at the same time omnipresent in the universe, certain standard logical relationships turn inside out and outside in at the same time, that is as they relate any postulated existence of such a god.
"Can God make a rock so big he cannot move it?" is a question intended to point out a logical flaw in the idea of omnipotence, but instead illustrates how the positing of an omnipotent god requires a special logic in order for logic to be relevant to the subject. And I for one believe logic must be relevant, so thus it needs special rules that account for the posited god. God isn't the question but the given, for if the god were the question the answer would be impossible to reach either in the positive or negative. For if the posited god exists the rules of logic must be modified to account for that god, and if the posited god does not exist, the logical quandary proves nothing other than maybe that someone's god is the current rules of logic without any modification. And there lies the rub as they say.
I would suggest that there are three states of deity, or I could say three ways that a god exists, all of which are pretty much beyond rational debate. They're beyond debate because they are definitions of godhood, and any debate over definitions is outside empiricism, generally though practical perhaps, they are still subjective.
One of the key points about these states is that each one by itself makes something or someone a god.
The Three States Of Deity
(1) Perceptual
(2) Practical
(3) Independent
Perceptual State
If someone sees something as a god then whatever that is, it is a god. Even if everyone else in the world insists whatever it is isn't a god it is still a god to the person who perceives it as such, and the relationship to the individual is all that matters for godhood. Unless or until their perception changes, that god exists.
Practical State
Many people defer to and/or revere someone or something almost completely without question. This makes whoever or whatever that is a god. Even if one is an atheists and insists there are no gods, if their deference to something goes almost completely without question, they have a god on their hands. This god is one by practice or i.e in the practical state of deity.
Independent State
Now if someone actually is a god then they are such whether anyone perceives them as such or if anyone treats them as such. Thus all three of these states of deity can constitute a deity independently.
And so what's the point of these states? It is that whether we care to admit it or not, gods exist. The only question left for us to debate is do some of them or at least does one of them matter. Or perhaps more to the point is why has it always mattered to human beings? Is the god question just a chemical fluke of genetic origins that wastes our time? Is it an early state of an advanced trait we have yet to fully evolve? Is it a residue of a more oppressively collective past, or as I have come to believe, a universal awareness of the ultimate champion of us as individuals? That would be the God of the universe who created us.
No comments:
Post a Comment