APPROACHES TO THE GOD IDEA
AGNOSTICISM
The denial that one can know if God exists or not or the assertion that one
doesn't know yet if God exists or not.
If God existed he would make sure it would be observed that his existence is at
least plausible. A person who believes there may be a creator but which is
impersonal or amoral is not an agnostic for this being is not God for it is not
all-good and all-happy. It is most likely the creator, if any, is not a loving
God for there are hundreds of alternatives to the loving God hypothesis.
Agnosticism is very offensive for God is basically a misanthropic principle and
it should not be suggested even that he might exist. At least Agnosticism tends
towards the idea that God is just an opinion and accordingly that God should be
taught in school as an opinion and not as a fact. Agnostics do not like the
dogmatism of religious schools.
ATHEISM
The denial that gods exist or that there is a God is one form. The other form is
that there is not enough evidence for the existence of these beings and thus no
reason to believe. One form says you believe there is no God and the other says
you believe there is no reason to believe. Both forms in practice advocate that
one should pay no attention to alleged divine revelation.
Agnosticism is not a viable or possible option and neither is Pantheism
therefore Atheism is true.
People believe in God out of habit and they tend to copy other people and
believe what they believe. They believe because they want comfort. They think
people who don’t believe have bad morals. Habit is not a reason. You can get
comfort without belief in God – belief in nature spirits would do. And belief in
God has nothing to do with a good life because atheists can do much good
therefore belief in God is not needed. Since God is supposed to be the supreme
good it follows that to believe in him we have to pretend that taking comfort
from the idea of nature spirits is bad if not sinful. We have to say that
atheists are only pretending to be good people. That shows you that belief in
God is intrinsically dishonest and bigoted.
CREATION
Creation is the act by which God made all things out of nothing. Nothing means
that which cannot become something. It cannot become something as it is not
something. It is nothing.
The Church is clear that all that existed was God and he did not make creation
from himself or his power but by his power.
The Church says that nothing can come from nothing unless there is a God to make
something come out of nothing. It is a trick as it contradicts the definition of
nothing. Nothing is that which cannot become something. It is impossible for there
is nothing there. Even a God cannot make any difference.
Believers say that if the universe popped into existence without a cause that is
absurd and we would be wiser people if we would say the cause was God. But
something coming from nothing is another way of saying it did pop out of nowhere
and nothing!
God or not, if the universe came from nothing then he had nothing to do with it.
The notion of things popping out of nothing by themselves is impossible. God
causing things to exist is far more impossible. Why? Because if God can do the
impossible that makes God irrational and he should be able to create a being who
though it has no free will is still able to use free will to become good. It
would make God fundamentally evil and bad. The doctrine has the hidden meaning
that God is evil and should be worshipped for that evil.
Buddha said we would never understand how the universe and ourselves came to be
and so not to waste time on the issue. He was right in relation to religious
speculation. The matter should be left to science. Science should be taken more
seriously than religion for science is about experimentation and checking things
out.
Some have said that there are so many insuperable difficulties with explaining
the origin of the universe that the only solution is to invoke the supernatural
as maybe providing an answer. Better to offer extremely unlikely answers than a
supernatural one. Strange things do happen. The extremely improbable can happen.
FREE WILL DEFENCE
An attempt to salvage God from the charge of cruelty when he allows innocent
suffering - it works by blaming us for it. The logic goes that God made us to
love him and gave us free will to do right or do wrong because love cannot be
forced. But even that would only be right if love could surpass evil. Religion
takes it on faith that it does or will. Faith is not a good enough reason for
saying that as far as God is concerned evil and suffering should be tolerated.
Suffering is too serious for that.
Even if we have free will it could be that it is not about God. A creator that is more like a non-material intelligence that does not have any awareness that it exists could give you free will but it would not be giving it so you can choose the right way or the wrong way.
You can have free will to decide if you are going to help or
hinder another person but this is not free will that is about God.
Those who make their will about God may be abusing it or lying to
themselves. My dinner is about feeding me. If I say my
dinner is somehow the body and blood of God so it's about God, not
feeding me, that is only in my head. Same idea.
Religion says that love is voluntary. Only a being with free will to do extreme
evil can give it. So they say God gave us all this freedom but we abused it of
our own volition and so he is not to blame for evil. This reasoning is called
the free will defence or the freedom defence. It is meant to clear God of the
blame for evil. But it is obvious that God could limit our free will. It is
limited anyway by our feelings and what we can remember and what we can think
of. In short, it is limited by our mental powers. Hitler disproves God.
Religion says that to be free we have to be free all the way. We have to be free
to do tremendous harm like Hitler was.
Christianity says that too. But it does not really believe it. Christianity says
that we are all sinners meaning that we do not have the free will to live a
sinless life. So we only have choice in relation to what sins we want to commit.
We have no choice about being sinners or not. This implies that God doesn't give
us enough free will. A God who refuses to give you the power to live a sinless
life but you gives you rein to commit whatever evil you wish after making sure
you will sin is a God of evil. The freedom to live a sinless life is not as
important to him as making people inclined to commit any sin even extreme ones.
The defence asserts that we have free will in order that we might use it to
accept God in love.
The defence then argues thus,
We have free will.
#God gave it to us in order that we might have a relationship with him.
#We can abuse this free will and God does not interfere.
=Therefore evil is our fault not God's.
This argument is a circular one. "God gave us free will therefore there is a
God." It is an insult to humanity considering the terrible things that visit
everybody on earth.
When we chose evil, God allegedly made evil things like killer viruses so that
sacrifice could be made in love and we are told that this is our fault, not his.
But when I am most sure of my existence (that I exist now is the one thing I
cannot doubt), I have to put myself first and so I should not suffer but be
happy all the time and a God should make that possible. I am not advocating
having no concern for others. We occasionally need to suffer to be happy because
of the way things are. I am saying this should not be the way things are in the
first place if there is a God. God is evil when I suffer and when he demands
sacrifice. To invent a God and then accuse people of causing all the evil in the
world means that belief is being put before people, what you can touch and see
is put second to a concept and perception that might be wrong. That is barbaric
and the free will defence is an insult to us humanists and to those whom we
cherish.
We are told that being good is freedom and being bad is bondage. If God wanted
us to have a lot of free will he would have given us the power to live without
sin. Instead of that he lets us have a bias towards sin that we will give in to
and then lets us become Hitlers if we can. So he gives us too much free will of
the wrong kind. The free will argument that evil is compatible with God's love
is wrong. To worship God is to close our eyes and hearts to his evil.
Good actions are caused by good desires. We are supposed to be most free when we
are free from sin for sin is irrational and what is irrational means you have
lost your reason and your freedom is diminished. So God takes away our freedom
by giving us bad desires! Is it not better to be so free that you never feel
interested in sin than to have an interest in it? And especially when this
interest puts others at risk of being hurt? The Church instead of saying yes
argues that we need to be allowed by God to do harm. What is happening here is
that the Church sees how nasty we can be and are. It puts the cart before the
horse. Instead of asking if God can let us be that nasty it looks at the
nastiness and guesses that God must be right to let it happen. Why not go
further? Why not reason that the paedophile is right to abuse the child just
because we see him abusing her?
Religion implies that the most important good is having freedom to take away the
freedom of others by hurting them!! So immorality is good! And it suggests that
Satan was more good when God put the suggestion of sin in him! When actions are
caused by desires it follows that the more good desires you have the better. But
God’s treatment of Satan implies otherwise, meaning if Satan agreed with God’s
ways then he deserved to be thrown out of Heaven.
The free will defence is rejected by astute scholars such as Brian Davies OP. He
says that it denies that God is the maker of all. It says we make our sins in
spite of God. But if God is almighty we make our sins because of him. He argues
that God is right to do this so it does not mean God sins with us. We have here
an idea of God which means he lays out everything that happens to us. It is a
form of fatalism and predetermination that is as vile as that taught by Islam.
Islam often reasons that if you want to kill for God, go and do it for he is
predetermining your actions so it is up to him to worry about it not you. And it
is the only real view of God... anything else only looks like God but is not God
for it is not absolute and the reason everything is.
GOD
To be God, God needs to have all power or there is something he cannot control.
To be deserving of worship God needs to have this infinite power and to use it
with perfectly good intentions. He has to be absolutely good and holy. He has to
be the reason all things exist. A supreme being is not the same as God. God
means the origin of all and the being who is so great that he is the reason he
exists. Thus it is wrong to ask who made God.
God cannot exist because evil exists. The God concept goes with the activity of
worship for only what ought to be worshipped can be called God and only what is
worthy can be worshipped. As God is perfect and the maker of all and we owe him
everything he alone matters. We should prefer even self-destruction to
displeasing him.
If God never wanted evil to exist and it is our fault then it follows that he
puts up with it for a purpose. This is to deny that he is almighty or even
competent because he could arrange things so that we are less likely to choose
evil. Yet we have this bias towards evil. Some are born with less bias than
others. It is proven that God must want evil to exist.
If suffering has a purpose then it follows that it must be intended so that we
will be able to make sacrifices for love. This implies that the more God lets us
suffer the better for the more we sacrifice the more we love. This shows the
doctrine of God to be morbid and degrading and enamoured of fanaticism for the
allegation that God wants suffering is the only plausible assumption to take if
you want to believe in God.
Should we feed the beggar because he needs food and we care? That is the same as
doing it is because it is good. Or should we do it because God commands it in
which case if he forbade it we would let the beggar starve? If God comes first
then we should do it because God commands it for in so far as we do it for the
beggar we are not honouring God who is more important. The solution that God
commands us to care for the beggar doesn’t work for the question is asking what
matters: obedience to commands or concern for others. If God commanding is what
is important and not good then religion is about power and control even when it
seems to do good. God may be called love but all he is good for is destroying it
for since we have to put obedience before caring for an unfortunate human
being. The person who believes that caring is more important than obeying is an
atheist in practice. The only message the concept of God gives out is that God
and therefore religion must be served and put first and that human beings and
yourself are dirt and good for nothing at all and all must be manipulated for
him and those who resist him must be punished.
Priests who condone the ways of God when he lets the children suffer are doing
so in honour of a belief that thrives on a hidden kind of evil and that is
totally repulsive.
NATURALISM
Naturalism is the view that there is no God or magic or supernatural. Religion
says that we need to believe that our origin is God who has personality and
awareness and who is pure intelligence and pure love in order to ground our
trust in our reason and our values. If we are the products of chance or blind
natural forces how can we trust our reason? How can we trust our perception that
some actions are to be forbidden and some are to be praised? Some say that
naturalism undermines trust in reason and science and values and morality.
Others say that it does not but merely fails to support them. The latter view
says we may have values and the power to think even if there is nothing but
nature.
In fact, we treat our perception of values and our trust in thinking as brute
facts. That cannot be changed. It's intrinsic to us. Brute facts are things that
are just the case and there is no explanation for them or at least none we can
think of. Perhaps we will never explain and they need to be treated as brute
facts as long as we do not understand. By being dissatisfied with our reasoning
faculty and our values as being brute facts, religion is in fact saying, "We
oppose the human intrinsic instinct to accept them as facts that are simply
facts." That is an onslaught on our nature. They defy their own nature to pay
homage to religion. They purge integrity to embrace self-deception. They are on
a par with the man who denies the existence or the power of gravity. They
cruelly try to make others addicted to the same self-degradation.
The notion that blind forces can't produce moral beings or beings that value
goodness is as absurd as saying chance cannot make a basic machine that adds up
2 and 2 to make 4. Of course that is possible. Seeing something as good and
something else as less good is like maths in the sense that you see that ten
apples is ten apples and three apples is three.
If natural forces cannot produce moral beings, God can't do it either. He is not
like us at all but more like a mind without personal characteristics. He is not
a moral agent for he cannot be punished if he does wrong. He can't do wrong but
that is not the point.
Good exists whether there is a God or not. If there is no creation and nothing
at all exists, that is good for it means there is nobody around to suffer. It is
bad other ways but that is not the point.
Natural selection causes us to tend to adopt beliefs that are advantageous in
the natural selection processes. Some say that it follows that if we believe God
is not behind our evolution then we are saying is very unlikely that we are
programmed and made properly. In other words, we will have untrue and true
beliefs that are advantageous. But surely natural selection would have us pick
out the true beliefs that are best for us at least when it comes to the major
things such as thinking and working out what values we have? An untrue belief
never confers an advantage when the overall picture is looked at.
Another complaint that naturalism is counter-intuitive. It is stated that
"intuition is sometimes wrong but still it is unwise to pay no heed to it
without having adequate evidence that what it is saying is incorrect". Intuition
does not come from nowhere. It comes from how we apply reason and learning to
life. If we misuse reason, our intuition will mislead us.
Naturalists and believers in God alike assume the trustworthiness of human
reason - when learned properly - in order to work out their view. The notion
that you need to believe something that indicates that reason is reliable is
silly and is assuming the thing you aim to prove. We simply go along with our
reason. How can we look for arguments to prop up reason when we have to use
reason to come up with the arguments?
PANTHEISM
The belief that God is not a spirit outside the universe but that the universe
is this spirit behaving as if it were matter so all things are God. This is
absurd for it would mean the child killed by the car is the same being and thing
and person as the car. A God like this is insane when he morphs into a world
such as ours. He is therefore not a God for he is not in control of himself so
he cannot expect sincere worship. Many Atheists claim to be Pantheists for they
believe that God is a material thing, the universe. They see God as
non-supernatural and just another word for the universe.