“If God would concede me His omnipotence for 24 hours, you would see how many changes I would make in the world. But if He gave me His wisdom too, I would leave things as they are. J.M.L. Monsabre
In this day and age there appears to be a universal conspiracy to attach culpability for the actions of mankind to a specific deed done by some deity deemed to exist by large segments of modern society. Whenever an inexplicable event occurs there is always discussion bandied about where the deity is exalted for he/she/it’s omnipotence, or, questions of why the deity did not step in to intervene for the good of mankind. Practically, this phenomenon evolves into two paradigms: there is no God, or God is good.
Discussions about or on the existence of a deity have been comprehensively investigated throughout the intellectual, religious or atheistic factions of the world. Large religious institutions seem enamored of proving their point in spite of being the recipients of mass membership. Here is one example from the Catholic Church:
“Saint Anselm’s Ontological Argument
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
(5) God exists.”
On the opposite side of the ontological coins are atheists. Here is one argument offered as proof of their principles:
The Anti-creation Argument (D1, D6):
(a) If X creates Y, then X must exist temporally prior to Y.
(b) But nothing could possibly exist temporally prior to time itself (for that would involve existing at a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction).
(c) Thus, it is impossible for time to have been created.
(d) Time is an essential component of the universe.
(e) Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have been created.
(f) It follows that God, as defined by D1 and D6, cannot exist
As with any discussion and argument offered on ontological queries there is ambiguity and perplexity dished out in healthy portions. It is most disconcerting to begin such a noble quest as attesting to or refuting the veracity of a being that has (if he/she/it even exists) made a near industry out of being physically absent.
Both factions seem pretty confident in maintaining their archetypes by creating as many proselyte’s as possible. There are differing proofs, as shown, but there is a question that supports the non-belief. How can there be a loving God when there is do much pain and misery in the world? One large faction maintains, in defense that the behavior of mankind has brought the horrific circumstances we suffer through as a direct result of negating the conviction that a deity does, in fact, exist. Credence for this manner of thinking is usually cited from ancient tomes written in languages that are no longer spoken, written, or even…exist.
One issue with either side of the conversation on existence of or denial of a deity must certainly be the tenets each side adheres to and hoe those canons are or will be relevant in today’s society. The largest religion, Christianity (http://tinyurl.com/ex6w4) has at its foundation a set of rules popularly referred to as the Ten Commandments. Sent down from on high and given to Moses in the form of two stone tablets for dispersal to the masses. Originally there were three tablets. What did God exclude once he got a look at the way people acted? Perhaps it was an amendment tablet that went something like this:
“Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.
Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.
Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin’ pocket. I wouldn’t mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.”
Albeit these were offered to us in modern time by a stand-up comic, doesn’t it seem, perhaps, a little more useful in the world of school massacres, antidepressants, Teas Party Traitors, and multiracial politicians who are the target of hate and scorn?
On the other side of the coin there is this to be said for nonbelievers. What exactly do atheist hold sacred? Check this out:
An Atheist’s World View: 15 Principles of Atheism
I. The Material World
A. Fundamental Principle of Atheism: There are no spiritual forces in the universe (1)
B. Atheists do not worship the devil. (2)
C. Life is physical matter in a biological configuration (3)
D. There are deep properties of matter (4)
E. Death is real (5)
II. Determining Truth
A. There are no good illusions: Atheism requires courage (6)
B. Principle of Rationality: Truth is determined by logic and evidence (7)
C. A mystery is not a miracle (8)
A. Ethics derives from human nature and social discourse (9)
B. Religion does not promote ethical behavior. (10)
C. Atheists cannot avoid responsibility for their actions. (11)
D. Atheism promotes a respect for nature and humanity. (12)
E. Atheism promotes social action for a better world (13)
IV. Being an Atheist
A. Atheism is a powerful liberating experience (14)
B. Atheism is fun. (15)
So it is easy to say that the issue of belief is a complex and convoluted issue. While delving into but two of the belief systems, for the sake of expediency, the entire issue has not been truly addressed. Perhaps it might be best to try what the famous philosopher, Fr. Tom Jackson once cited in his musings. Quite simply, why don’t we all believe in the “The-Church-Of-What’s-Happening-Now?”