THE SPIRIT GOD AN INTOLERANT CONCEPT
God is spirit. By definition the being that is the origin of all but
itself would need to be.
A spirit is an entity that has no parts or shape. It is non-material. It is not
like a gas for gas has molecules and parts and ingredients. When people think of
spirits they think of something untouchable or undetectable like gas. This error
leads to them failing to see how strange the notion of spirit is. It is totally
unlike gas.
Particle physics talks about massless particles.
They are called massless not because they are spirits but because their
invariant mass is zero. But these particles are not spirits. In fact
that they look like nature's attempt to make spirits shows that spirits are
nonsense. They are still particles. The photon is a particle and it
carries electromagnetism. The gluon is another example. If you want to
call them spirits then do so but no longer pretend that science and religion are
separate. If physics finds spirits in nature and these spirits are more
like things than ghosts or goblins or gods then that says something to religion.
It is not what religion wants to hear!
Keith Ward says we do not understand how mental or spiritual causes result in
physical effects. We cannot understand how the mind moves an arm. We do not even
understand how physical causes result in further physical causes and effects.
Ward would say that if we cannot understand how a spirit can affect material and
physical things, we must remember that we do not even know how physical can
affect physical. But we know physical affects physical. We cannot know if the
mind is non-physical and still able to affect the physical. We are only guessing
that our minds are like spirits and can affect the physical.
Some of us think that our minds are not material things but like spirits. The
first and main thing you will ever experience is your own mind. You cannot
measure it or weigh it so it is like a ghost living in your skin. This causes
the intuition that there are other immaterial or spiritual minds. But this
intuition is caused by an error. If a primitive brain was made in a lab and had
an eye it would think there was nothing to it but sight and would be unaware of
being physical. It would experience existence as if there was sight but no eyes.
It would feel like a ghost just because it cannot know or sense that it is a
material being.
Believers in spirit look into their minds and think their thoughts are spirit.
But we experience them as if they were not. For example, when you see a cube in
your mind's eye it looks real. It is not an entity without parts and without
shape. But where is it? There is no evidence that it exists except in your inner
perception. Science says there is no cube inside your head so people conclude
that it was some non-material force, your soul or spirit, that was able to
create the image. You will notice that you need second-hand evidence that the
cube is not "real". Even if you are spirit, you cannot know this by experience.
You have no direct evidence that spirit exists. You deduct it from the fact that
the cube you see in your head is scientifically unverifiable and nobody but you
knows you see it. But it would be wiser to say that you don't know how you could
see the cube in your head and leave it at that. Attributing it to the agency of
your spirit is just making a guess. In fact, spiritual powers making a shape
would be a contradiction. Spirit by definition is formless.
I can watch the activities of my mind without getting involved. In meditation,
instead of emptying your mind you simply let the thoughts happen. You do not
make them happen. You take the role of a spectator and not a participant. It is
said that this proves that you must be a spiritual being. The believers say you
are your mind and you take the role of spectator of your brain. You have your
brain working by itself as you look on as a spectator! But this denies that the
experience could be an illusion. Any experience can be. It may be that you turn
off your perception that you are a participant.
You cannot know if you are spirit or a soul and so you
cannot know if God, who is spirit, exists. You cannot even know if the concept
of spirit makes sense because you cannot experience spirit. So why do you say
spirit exists? It is all down to metaphysical speculation. But such a doctrine
should be based on experience and nothing else. Spirit cannot be experienced so
we should not waste time speculating about it or telling people that it exists.
Those who say they experience the Holy Spirit actually mean they feel good and
feel an influence in their hearts. But their religion tells them that what they
feel is the result of the Spirit's work and not the Spirit himself or itself.
The bottom line is that there is no reason at all to believe in spirit. There is
no excuse even. It is people who pretend they know more than they do who go on
about spirit. It sounds humble to say, "Spirit. Maybe it's possible. I don't
know." But that is agnosticism. It means you cannot affirm if God exists or not
as far as the concept of spirit is concerned. Spirit is the most basic and
essential concept in relation to understanding what is meant by God. It is a
waste of time trying to prove God when it cannot be proven or adequately
verified. But is the I don't know as humble as it seems? You are still claiming
that it might be possible. But you cannot know that. How do you know it might
be? You are still claiming to know what you cannot know. The sensible view is
that you have no reason to even consider spirit to be a possibility and so you
don't accept it as such. You will then be accused of pretending you know that
there is no might be as far as spirit is concerned when you cannot know that.
But what is the least arrogant? A person who says there might be no magic is
more rational than a person who says there might be magic simply because he has
no reason to suspect magic exists in reality. When you take the default position
which is to exclude the possibility of the supernatural you are in fact not
arrogant at all for you have no other option.
Descartes thought, "I think therefore I am." The argument is that I must exist
because I can think and there must be somebody there to have the thoughts. In
reality all I can know is that thinking is occurring. I have to reason, "There
must be something to experience the thinking." If I have to reason I could be
wrong. The problem with reasoning is that I could be programmed to think
wrongly. Maybe I am programmed to think 2 and 2 are 5? Descartes thought his
argument indicated that I am a mind not a body. The argument fails.
"I think" is my most important and most basic activity.
Thinking is the the thing that matters most. It is the ultimate value. It is not
God who is the ultimate value. It is my own thinking and reasoning.
Belief in spirit is intolerant because -
It means that a person who knows there is no indication at all that spirit
exists will not be accepted as a good Catholic for example. He will be dismissed
if he teaches in a Catholic University.
It is intolerance to emphasise spirit as important when
there is no evidence for it. It is bad enough to do that if the evidence is
inadequate. But it is worse when there is none at all.
It is intolerant to try and use emotional highs as
evidence for the presence of a spirit. An emotional high is just a pile of
feelings and our feelings can lie all the time to us. It is intolerant of our
right to know ourselves.
It is intolerant of believers to say there is an infinite
spirit called God. He is infinite intelligence.
It is intolerant if spirit is a contradictory idea and being promoted. It opposes our right to avoid contradictions so that we can serve truth and help others through being realistic.
It is intolerant even to be agnostic about the existence
of spirit. That means you don't know if it can exist or not.
The reason people believe in God is that he is spirit and did not need a creator
so they think he is the only possible explanation for how things came to be.
Spirit is the opposite of matter for it has no parts. It’s like a circle whose
centre and circumference is everywhere. Spirit does not need to be made because
there is no need for anybody to put it together. The first alarm bell regarding
whether or not God is a good belief should have sounded by now for it is clear
that God flouts the laws of mathematics. If God’s circumference is his centre
then good can be evil and evil can be good.
If God was matter then there would be no need to believe in him for you might as
well believe things came to be as they are by themselves.
So when God is spirit it follows that he is one entity without division which
means that his powers of love and his justice and his intelligence are all one
and the same power in him. It is like the Trinity, three persons and there still
being only one God. The result of this belief is that God and goodness are
regarded as the same thing. For the Atheist, goodness is not a being but for the
religionist goodness is a being. God is a being who is also an abstract,
goodness. This is totally incomprehensible and unintelligible. An abstract is
not a thing. 1+1=2 is not a thing. If you say a being is an abstract then either
it is not a being at all or it is. If it is not a being it cannot be worshipped
for it is an abstract. If it is a being then the abstract of goodness is above
it and separate from it. Then it is not God. The concept of the God spirit
itself opposes the distinction we make between good and evil for it opposes
reason and urges us to pretend that our contradicting ourselves is not
contradicting ourselves. The concept is evil and should be abandoned. You will
see a reply to the view that we need God to explain creation in my online books,
There is No God and God is a Self-Contradictory Notion.
If God exists he must be good because he causes goodness for our existence would
be worse than Hell if he were evil. A spirit can’t be both bad and good for it
is one power without parts and that power is either bad or good. Only a
perfectly sensible being can be supreme.
Now if God is goodness itself as the spirit theology states then it follows that
Atheists and agnostics and those who don’t take their faith in God seriously are
evil people. They don’t know or see what real goodness is, a person, and so they
are bad news. They are turning their back on a person who is goodness and so
they are totally wicked. If God is goodness then it follows that if you don’t
see that he exists then you are blinding yourself on purpose for the good in you
should make you see it. You are silencing and trying to pervert the good in you
so you would be a thoroughly bad egg. People should be chosen for jobs only if
their piety is strong for these are more sincere and trustworthy. Even if an
unbeliever seems trustworthy this is only an act or he or she would love to do
the dirty on you but can’t for some reason. It is accepted that genuine people
should be preferred for jobs (even if the false person who does an excellent job
at pulling the wool over the eyes of others will do as good a job) for it makes
everybody more comfortable working with them. So believers cannot tolerate
Atheists. Atheists who know their stuff should find the doctrine of God the
Great Spirit to be very offensive and threatening. We will not stand by and let
ourselves be insulted.
If God is goodness and a person then he comes first not people. We should help
people not because we want to help them or ourselves but to please God. If God
comes first we should be glad to see Atheists dying tragically and prematurely
because they do not honour him. We should put them at the back of hospital
waiting lists. You might think that hospitals are for curing the sick not for
judging but if God comes first and should be put first then everything should be
done his way. After all the hospital would not exist without him and neither
would the desire to help the sick.
God is said to answer all prayers that plead for the enlightenment of the
Atheists and others for wisdom is one of the most important gifts. So prayer
accuses Atheists and agnostics and believers who barely believe of resisting his
light if they don’t convert to theism or to whatever faith the one doing the
praying thinks is the true religion. This is insulting and arrogant.
Anybody that attracts people to faith by claiming miracles have happened is
opposing our rights and our right to a sound reputation.
God for Christians is a being without parts - that is spirit. The danger is that
we think of God as a gas that is not made up of atoms or parts. But then this
gas would just consist of one part. It is its part. This part does not consist
of any other parts. Do you see the implication of all that? A God without parts
is no more existing than a square circle. He is a something that is a nothing.
The idea that nothing consists of two or more nothings would make more sense
than that for something can never be nothing to any degree. Christianity
degrades everybody especially children by playing conjuring tricks with words.
The idol worshipper adores a god of wood or stone or so the Christian says. They
bemoan how demeaning that is. But how much more is it demeaning to adore nothing
and call it God? At least the idol worshipper adores something real. And he
adores something that is more understandable than a being that is supposed to be
pure spirit. Christianity demeans all whom it gets to adore its God. To the mind
of a child, God is just like pretending the naked emperor is wearing clothes as
in the children's tale The Emperor's New Clothes. It's pretending that something
that cannot be seen or examined or verified by the senses is real. The God
concept is disrespectful and therefore an abuse of the mind of impressionable
people.
To worship such a contradictory God in such a contradictory way means you are
really just interested in what you feel and that is what you worship. In reality
you worship what you want - you worship your desires. What God really is does
not matter to you.
Belief in God is intolerant for it implies you believe he is Spirit. It is
equally intolerant to insist that we have a spiritual component too - that you
have or are a spiritual soul.
An ontological argument, like the one St Anselm seems to have developed, is one that is based on the study of existence (ontology) - it argues that God's existence is proven for God by definition is existence itself. Such an argument is clearly an attempt to argue that thinking there is a God proves there is one! The believers do use an ontological argument without realising it when they say an entity can exist and have no components. Believers imagine it is possible for something to exist and have no parts or material composition. But they only imagine. There is no way of learning anything about spirit or if it is possible. You cannot sense it. And as a material being nobody could expect you to. You cannot expect a being who only sees black and white to understand what pink is. The believers are guilty of thinking, "I can imagine such an entity therefore it exists." That is even worse than arguing that if God makes sense he exists. Behind all ontological arguments or arguments for God based on Anselm is the dreadful and arrogant attempt to imagine God into existence! If that is what you have to do to believe in God then the argument leads to you doing evil in order to believe and no seriously good God would accept worship from you! No unbeliever could be expected to respect your belief in God for the belief does not respect God either!
Jews at the time of Jesus thought that the Old Testament should be taken at face value where it says God has some kind of body or form. Some thought he was incorporeal. Since the time of top Jewish influencer Maimonides, Jews have virtually all thought God has no body or form and the texts that say otherwise are in fact talking about God using images and visions to communicate so they are not to be taken too literally. The spirit God comes from Greek philosophy not the Bible which is why Christianity with its spirit God should be considered a new faith and not merely as a spin-off from Judaism.
The notion of a non-physical God was not a core or standard Jewish doctrine even if some individual Jews held it. Benjamin D Sommer wrote The Bodies of God and the World and the World of Ancient Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2009 to document that. It became a standard Christian doctrine. No it became THE standard Christian doctrine for creation from nothing and God as creator are the rocks theology is built on. In time it was thought to allow for the notion of an immaterial being, God, being three persons. This shows that Christianity is a new religion pretending to be in line with Judaism.
Spirit God does not have logic behind it.
Only a few really think God is spirit and the rest just say the
words. This does not inspire confidence in the concept.