fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
This is a question I have been thinking about quite a bit lately. This is primarily because I have been reading a lot of older arguments for the existence for or against God for a class I will be taking. Through all that I have learned, this is my take on the answer.
For me, I believe there is a god (which I personally call God). That is almost as far as it goes. I do not try to pretend that I know who God is, or even what God is. I do find it possible for God to exist though.
If God exists, it is possible that God was the catalyst for the beginning of the universe. How the universe exactly came into existence is not known. The Big Bang is a good explanation, which has a lot of support. However, where this initial energy came from is not fully known. What or if anything existed before the Big Bang is not known. There is the possibility that there have been an infinite amount of previous universes in which goes through a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. Now, this is not an argument against the Big Bang, as it is a good theory that is supported. It is an argument for us simply not having all of the information (and maybe we never will).
That being so, it would be possible that before this last Big Bang, there was God who put everything in motion. There is also the possibility that before the first Big Bang (assuming there were many), God was the catalyst that put everything in motion. It is a possibility, and until we have more information, one can not simply rule out such a possibility (at least not scientifically).
So it is possible that God exists, or existed. It would also be possible that God was the creator as well. I am not talking about creationism though. It God was the catalyst for the universe, it is also possible that God provided the catalyst for life. The theory I personally like best about how life first originated on Earth is on the back of a meteorite. It is a theory that is becoming popular, makes sense, and does have support (on a side note, according to a new study, there would be the possibility that on another planet, life could have evolved very similar to what we have on Earth. If life did come to Earth on a meteorite, it is possible parts of that meteorite, or the origin of the meteorite also laid the same building blocks on another planet. Which I find quite interesting). It would be possible that God was the catalyst (or directed), this course of events. It does not take away from science.
But some have claimed that humans have a history of creating gods, or that they create gods in our image, to fit our needs and culture (which is a very old argument). Neither actually suggest that God does not exist though (especially since one is partially or even wholly untrue). The first objection is actually quite easy to explain if God does exist. For me, I believe in a monistic idea of God. That being, there is one God. That God, knowing that people need different things, appears in different manners. So all of these supposedly different gods really are just manifestations of the one actual God. Hinduism has a very nice concept of this.
Why God would do this is quite simple as well. People are different. People need different things. So God provides just that. It makes sense that a God would do such as what worked for someone a thousand years ago, does not necessarily work today. People and time change. Thus our understanding changes. And how we see God would change (the same is true with pretty much everything. The way we view the world around us, and science has greatly changed in just the last hundred years. A hundred years from now, it will have changed as well).
As for humans creating God to fit their culture, or what they need, that is not quite true. If we look at the Hebrews, we see quite the opposite. In fact, God is often the opposite of what their culture is. And we see this portrayed throughout the Hebrew Bible. Over and over again, we see people rejecting the Abrahamic god and taking a different god. Yet, in order to get people back to worshipping God, God did not change to conform with the culture. People had to change there ways to fit what God wanted. In that way, the culture changed in order to fit God, not the other way around.
We see this in the New Testament as well. Just looking at the numerous epistles, we see people going against what God wants. Instead of following God, they partake in their culture. God really does not fit into that culture, and thus, humans change their culture in order to fit into what God wants. So really, culture changes to fit God, not the other way around.
None of this proves or even suggests there is a God though. It only suggests a possibility, one with no actual evidence. However, the opposite also lacks evidence. Many of the arguments against God tend to focus on mythology, while not understanding what mythology is, or for claiming that Christians, or God claimed something (through the Bible), that is not true. Recently I saw the claim that theology (one can read Christians here as well) and/or God claimed that the sun revolved around the Earth (The God who wasn't There makes a similar claim at the beginning of the documentary). What is forgotten though is that it was also science that claimed the same thing. The idea came through observation. What is also forgotten is that it was also Christians also helped break that idea and provide evidence for the heliocentric view.
There is also the fact that the Bible makes erroneous claims. Many of such claims though are either taken out of context, taking something not literal as if it was meant to be literal, or simply not understanding the text. However, with that said, there are many contradictions and errors. This does not suggest God does not exist though. It simply suggests what many Christians and others realize. The Bible was written by humans. Maybe it was inspired by God, but that does not mean it will be perfect, or without error. After all, it was a man made book.
As with taking mythology literally, or simply not understanding it, that is something both theists and atheists have in common. Take the creation stories for example. They are mythology. They were not meant to be literal explanations of how the universe came into being. We can see this since there are multiple creation accounts (this is true for most ancient societies) that do not equal each other. Yet, the composer of Genesis does not seem to care that there are problems. And that is because the story was not meant to be literal. It is mythology, which helps relay "truths" (which is a very simplified explanation) They are not meant to be literal. And theists and atheists get that wrong quite a bit.
So what does this all mean then? I think it means that we simply can not know if there is a God or not. Sure, there are very intelligent people on both sides of the debate, but I think they all fail for the simple reason that they have no evidence. Both sides are based on faith, and usually blind faith.
For me, I believe there is a god (which I personally call God). That is almost as far as it goes. I do not try to pretend that I know who God is, or even what God is. I do find it possible for God to exist though.
If God exists, it is possible that God was the catalyst for the beginning of the universe. How the universe exactly came into existence is not known. The Big Bang is a good explanation, which has a lot of support. However, where this initial energy came from is not fully known. What or if anything existed before the Big Bang is not known. There is the possibility that there have been an infinite amount of previous universes in which goes through a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. Now, this is not an argument against the Big Bang, as it is a good theory that is supported. It is an argument for us simply not having all of the information (and maybe we never will).
That being so, it would be possible that before this last Big Bang, there was God who put everything in motion. There is also the possibility that before the first Big Bang (assuming there were many), God was the catalyst that put everything in motion. It is a possibility, and until we have more information, one can not simply rule out such a possibility (at least not scientifically).
So it is possible that God exists, or existed. It would also be possible that God was the creator as well. I am not talking about creationism though. It God was the catalyst for the universe, it is also possible that God provided the catalyst for life. The theory I personally like best about how life first originated on Earth is on the back of a meteorite. It is a theory that is becoming popular, makes sense, and does have support (on a side note, according to a new study, there would be the possibility that on another planet, life could have evolved very similar to what we have on Earth. If life did come to Earth on a meteorite, it is possible parts of that meteorite, or the origin of the meteorite also laid the same building blocks on another planet. Which I find quite interesting). It would be possible that God was the catalyst (or directed), this course of events. It does not take away from science.
But some have claimed that humans have a history of creating gods, or that they create gods in our image, to fit our needs and culture (which is a very old argument). Neither actually suggest that God does not exist though (especially since one is partially or even wholly untrue). The first objection is actually quite easy to explain if God does exist. For me, I believe in a monistic idea of God. That being, there is one God. That God, knowing that people need different things, appears in different manners. So all of these supposedly different gods really are just manifestations of the one actual God. Hinduism has a very nice concept of this.
Why God would do this is quite simple as well. People are different. People need different things. So God provides just that. It makes sense that a God would do such as what worked for someone a thousand years ago, does not necessarily work today. People and time change. Thus our understanding changes. And how we see God would change (the same is true with pretty much everything. The way we view the world around us, and science has greatly changed in just the last hundred years. A hundred years from now, it will have changed as well).
As for humans creating God to fit their culture, or what they need, that is not quite true. If we look at the Hebrews, we see quite the opposite. In fact, God is often the opposite of what their culture is. And we see this portrayed throughout the Hebrew Bible. Over and over again, we see people rejecting the Abrahamic god and taking a different god. Yet, in order to get people back to worshipping God, God did not change to conform with the culture. People had to change there ways to fit what God wanted. In that way, the culture changed in order to fit God, not the other way around.
We see this in the New Testament as well. Just looking at the numerous epistles, we see people going against what God wants. Instead of following God, they partake in their culture. God really does not fit into that culture, and thus, humans change their culture in order to fit into what God wants. So really, culture changes to fit God, not the other way around.
None of this proves or even suggests there is a God though. It only suggests a possibility, one with no actual evidence. However, the opposite also lacks evidence. Many of the arguments against God tend to focus on mythology, while not understanding what mythology is, or for claiming that Christians, or God claimed something (through the Bible), that is not true. Recently I saw the claim that theology (one can read Christians here as well) and/or God claimed that the sun revolved around the Earth (The God who wasn't There makes a similar claim at the beginning of the documentary). What is forgotten though is that it was also science that claimed the same thing. The idea came through observation. What is also forgotten is that it was also Christians also helped break that idea and provide evidence for the heliocentric view.
There is also the fact that the Bible makes erroneous claims. Many of such claims though are either taken out of context, taking something not literal as if it was meant to be literal, or simply not understanding the text. However, with that said, there are many contradictions and errors. This does not suggest God does not exist though. It simply suggests what many Christians and others realize. The Bible was written by humans. Maybe it was inspired by God, but that does not mean it will be perfect, or without error. After all, it was a man made book.
As with taking mythology literally, or simply not understanding it, that is something both theists and atheists have in common. Take the creation stories for example. They are mythology. They were not meant to be literal explanations of how the universe came into being. We can see this since there are multiple creation accounts (this is true for most ancient societies) that do not equal each other. Yet, the composer of Genesis does not seem to care that there are problems. And that is because the story was not meant to be literal. It is mythology, which helps relay "truths" (which is a very simplified explanation) They are not meant to be literal. And theists and atheists get that wrong quite a bit.
So what does this all mean then? I think it means that we simply can not know if there is a God or not. Sure, there are very intelligent people on both sides of the debate, but I think they all fail for the simple reason that they have no evidence. Both sides are based on faith, and usually blind faith.
, that culture changes to fit god.
