Discussions about the existence of
God are intriguing as much as they are confusing. With so many arguments to grapple
with, this subject is surely not for feeble hearts. I encourage anyone who is
not ready to objectively dwell on positions, especially those with discrepant
and maybe “divinely” profane postulations, to abstain from this debauching dialogue
between atheists and theists. Anyone who will not tolerate his/her “God” being
bashed and subjected to various laboratory tests will never survive a round in
this sempiternal bout without being libelled “confused” or “irrationally
dogmatic”.
In antediluvian civilizations, YHWY
was considered (and as it is today) to be the proper name of the God of Israel
by Jews. This “all-consonant” word, according to them, is “His” and it was forbidden
to either pronounce or write it wholly. They claim that whosoever utters this
name in his own letters would have no share of the World to come. Although
today, we know that the Tetragammaton is pronounced “Yahweh”, the vowels “a” and “e” do not exist in Hebrew alphabets
however. For communication purposes, Jews chose to refer to the God of Israel
by another less consequential name in prayers - “Adonai” (meaning My God). “HaShem”
(The Name) was chosen to refer to Him in third-person expressions.
Early German/English scholars found
the opinions of the Jews difficult and, somewhat, extreme. They marvelled at
the reason anyone would not be permitted to pronounce or write the name of God
in full. And so, they decided to create a new name by which the same God of
Israel would be referred to. This name would be pronounceable and writable
without attracting blasphemous wrath of the Jewish beliefs. Yet, it would carry
the same weight as the Jewish ineffable God’s name. The word “Jehovah” was
created and ascribed the same meaning as “Yahweh” – “I am that I am”.
“Jehovah” is a composite cognomen
resulting from the transposition of the vowels in “Adonai” (My God) to the
Tetragammaton. “Y” changed to “J”, and “W” changed to “V”. This is the name
that has been adopted by the Jehovah Witness and used by many other Christians
as the true name of the only true God. Regrettably, this name is concocted by
man and therefore, cannot be assumed to wholly define “Him”; although it is the
name that majority have agreed to call Him by – Jehovah.
So what is the essence of this exposition?
First off, let me state that I am
neither a theologian nor historian. In fact, from the cursory perusal of the topic above, it
won’t take much to deduce that I am not. However, I
cherish the aftermath revelations of exhuming “dead” stories. It is my notion
that without yesterday, there won’t be today; and to fully appreciate what is
today, sometimes we need to know yesterday’s contributions. This is the
singular drive behind my fact finding mission into history. So far, though I
have many questions unanswered, it is important that I share a few of my recent
impressions.
Man has been in an endless search
for Divinity. Many claim to find. Some others, who did not find, said it does
not exist. A lot are unsure and confused. Those who claim to find have,
thereafter, been engaged in arduous campaigns to spread the “Good News” that
Divinity exists and purposeful for mankind. Amongst this sect (the theists),
there are over a thousand models of Divinity. They also offered deities – some
of them intercessors, some themselves divine. But the inability to produce common
and empiric basis for their “discoveries” become cataclysmic to the course
itself as many conflicting views about divinity have been tendered. Meanwhile,
those who did not find, just laugh off the comedy; which leaves the confused
worse in their instance.
The first problem with atheism is
its huge (though not total) reliance on the divinity propositions by theists, which are often skewed,
inadequate, inappropriate, and biased. Apart from Darwinism, the harbinger of
the concept of transmutation of species (otherwise called evolution), which
itself has irreconcilable scientific missing links, atheism thrives upon incongruent
definitions of god(s) by theists. Without prejudice and eliminating the farce
of assumptions it puts forward, (constructive) atheism seems to me like an efficacious
verification platform for the many purported models of gods. Although one does
not begin to see the grotesque fallacies it accuses theism of until its specious
arguments are also examined. Both suffer from drawing conclusions from
undecided premises. They usually neglect the particulars that stupefy them and overly
exaggerate the ones that exalt them.
But what does or will it take to be
an atheist? Nothing; absolute nothingness! While I acknowledge that most of our
finest researchers and inventors do not believe in divinity, far too much is
required for their academic gymnastics than is required to disbelief in a
“God-Figure”. When you consider the emotions and subservience of religionists
towards their purported gods, most of which are unseen or worse off, unknown,
atheism is a comfort zone and Ground Zero. After all are said and done, nothing
exists. If expressed mathematically, all the efforts of all atheists,
irrespective of approach, depth and methodology, amount to ZERO since they are
exerted to prove NOTHINGNESS! No work done. Therefore, my attention shifts to
the theists, who define God in and on their own terms.
God is good. God is wonderful. God
is living. He creates all. Nothing created Him. He is the most powerful, the
most merciful. He is the start of life and would be its end. Before, with and
after Him, nothing compares. He is Everlasting. As He was yesterday, He is
today, and so He will remain forever. Religious panegyrics of God are inexhaustible.
Although religionists defer on some terms, the baseline assumptions of God
across all sects remains intact: God is Supreme!
Every religion proclaims its model
of God as superior to all of others whether they believe or not. If the
substance of this statement is true, then Atheism is correct – there cannot,
possibly, be a God. There cannot be a million and one true God(s). Even if we
suggest that different gods have different responsibilities, the question of
superiority would mean that some are inferior and thus, subservient to the
bigger ones among which we must, again, sieve by superiority. Logically, if
this system goes on iteratively, it would make sense to conclude that “If there
is ever going to be a God, He must be an Absolute One”. Meaning that amongst
the numerous models purported by religionists, only one can be Absolute Truth.
The onerous question thence is “Which One”?
As stated earlier, names and attributes
are the only elements opened to scientists to put God to test. It is my opinion that
if “genuinely” constructive atheism is applied to the purported models of gods,
one might be able to deduce the only true one. Most of our expectations of God
are based on our perception of Him (and vice versa) rather than how He
describes Himself. Irrespective of religion, if we look at the details of His
revelations in the scriptures, it won’t be long to notice a God that is fierce
in punishment and wrath. Oxymoronically, we would also find a torturously
merciful God strengthening us through pains and tribulations. To think and
believe that He couldn’t have used other ways are also tantamount to proposing a
God limited in powers and options; a God who can’t and didn’t create
everything!
And if God is limited in powers and
options, cannot and did not create everything, will He still be God, the
Supreme? This and many others are questions thrown at theists and
religionists about the existence of God. Atheists really don’t have to prove
anything. They lurk at the base of known knowledge to disprove your concept/model
of God; not God Himself. Although our climacteric position will never ever
change the verity of God’s existence or non-existence, it is imperative for
theists and religionists to proffer answers to these daunting posers of
atheists.
Until germs were discovered and scientifically
proven, there were ceaseless arguments, incertitude and fierce rejection of its
existence. In fact, Pierre Pachet, a Professor
of Physiology at Toulouse made a public statement in 1872 (almost recently)
that became renowned amongst the doubters of Louis Pasteur (the spotter of germs):
“Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is
ridiculous fiction”
Regrettably, millions would die afterwards
due to denial, disbelief and procrastination. If only the world knew “saint”
Louis was right, it would have spent all it could to promote his “gospel”. That
Louis Pasteur was deficient in expressing his discovery and would later be
struck by paralysis changed nothing about the reality of germs. Early “preachers”
like Girolamo Fracastoto, Agostino Bassi, and John Snow, all before Louis
Pasteur, proposed the existence of microorganisms by which diseases spread,
“atheists” like Pachet would still openly deny the “hypothesis” about 400 years
after Girolamo without any proof.
While it is rationale to disbelief
whatever lacks proof, it is essential to keep an open mind through the incredulity. It is
absolutely impossible for our mind to receive new facts when it is stone-hard
and impermeable. Having stated this, glaring truths are difficult to refute.
Hence, the burden of proof continues to rest on the theists and religionists to
disarm the atheists; and this journey commences from proper attribution of
qualities and names to Divinity.
Attributes like “the Lion of Judah”
suggest armorial bearings of genealogical roots. That God whose patriarch is the
fourth son of another man, I believe, does not exist. God, if One and Only, would
be of no caste, tribe or nationality. I have read also in the scriptures where
tribulations, sickness, diseases and wars were used by God’s men to overcome
following divine revelations. Yet, we prefer to describe Him only as “All Merciful”
although he also describes Himself as the “Consuming Fire”. Fire is not pleasurable. In our hedonistic
nature of iniquities, we love to think of Him wholly as “Forgiving” rather than
the “One fierce in punishment”. For Zoroastrians who believe evil come only
from “Angra Mainyu”, the poser is
“How else are punishments meted out to
transgressors that would not be evil, if in strict sense, evil means anything torturous
and unpleasant to our nature”?
If God punishes, then (good?) evil
emanates from Him. These are some of the valid analogies drawn by (constructive) atheists to evaluate
our models of God. In the end, it is all based on our personal (mis)understanding of who/what
God is. On personal account, I believe God
exists. I believe that:
“He is the
Absolute One and Only. The eternally Besought of All. He begetteth not, nor is
he begotten. And there is none comparable to Him”.
That God, from whom no evil emanates
at all, I believe, does not exist. He created ALL including Satan, his armies and
permitted their evils. Alternatively, He had the choice of either never
creating us or making us all saints after creation. Alas! He had other plans for
us that are strenuous than the tranquility of Eden. This is the position I hold today. With new
facts, this might change. If it does, I will write about it.
Foot note:
If there is Divinity,
“there” (in the irresolvable place and state) He is. Likewise if there exists
none, then what else could be said? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It is
therefore safe to conclude that the non-belief in “God-System”, when it actually
exists, has more damning consequences than a belief in God-System, when
actually none exist. This is one of the numerous baits for me to want to accede
to the existence of a God-System. In doing so, however, I will stick to that God, whose attributes and definitions make the most logical sense.
