Concerning The God Argument
Concerning The God Argument
The very concept of a God outlies, by its very nature and fundamental elements, any form of tangible proofing. To dismiss it as rubbish because one cannot be furnished some tangible proof is analogous to denying taste simply because one cannot hear it. With taste, one ought to use one's taste-buds to find evidences of the flavor or lack of flavor of a thing. With a God, one ought to use one's non-physical faculties to find evidences of the metaphysical being or non-being of that thing. That being said, it is sillier to rest one's opinion concerning the existence of a God upon a burden of proof, using means that are inappropriate for that proof, than it is to simply accept that there is a God without having considered the topic for oneself. The author states this, with moderate to probable certainty, because the latter at least accepts that there is more to the nature of things than He has had the opportunity to understand thus humbling Himself in the face of factual ignorance, while the former both adamantly maintains an absolute which cannot be absolute (that absolute being His own understanding and knowledge of the nature of things) as well as maintains that a lack of evidence is evidence to the contrary which is a well-known fallacy. Therefor, it would be wiser to simply take another's word for it that there is such a thing as a God than to make such unfounded claims as objective naturalism that is based upon a fallacious argument; Wiser, still, would be to maintain a middle-point of sheer skepticism targeting both parties, simultaneously, and equally. However, no matter what form of argument one might take, it cannot be denied that metaphysical things be. One only ought to think whether one is or is not, in order to furnish proof that metaphysical things be for one is, by their very nature, a metaphysical thing. What is meant is that to explain that physical things be as separate from the metaphysical and non-physical experience known as inner-sensations or thoughts already requires a leap of faith, so to speak, as it does not necessarily follow, in order of logical deduction, that it be the very case (at all) and is, thereby, as much a belief as that of Him whom accepts that a God is without having examined the subject with any form of inquiry and has taken another's word for it; in that, the objective naturalist and the spiritualist are indistinguishable for the God of the objective naturalist is Nature, Herself, and she is a cold, unloving, and unintelligent God that should not be worshiped if she is the God that be for those are not qualities worthy of worship for anyone with an iota of self-respect or value. Albeit inadequate to simply accept the existence of an intelligent-designer, when weighing in terms of sheer reasoning and scientific-ness, more inadequate, still, is to simply accept the state of objective naturalism as, at the very least, such a God, as aforementioned, fulfills the same metaphysical qualities as oneself and that metaphysical quality is a self-evident, known truth of the nature and state of things that be and, within, one might, thereupon, make further inquiries and come to increasingly complex understandings. That this facet is relatively disconcerting for many wishful thinkers is beside the point for no manner of emotions have any bearing on whether a thing be True nor false. Additionally, that these things are seldom considered, in conversations or speculations over whether there be a God, is outright criminal for the injustice one inflicts upon Himself and other, in terms of intellectual advancement and seeking Wisdom, is glaringly obvious and exponentially evil with each exhibition of negligence participated in. The author does not maintain that there is or is not such a God but the thoughts hereby examined have been mere criticisms of how others tend to go about such inquiry. The reader ought to absorb these things and meditate upon them before jumping in to refute claims that are, likely, products of their own invention and straw-men. No riposte is necessary, in that regard, thus no argument need be held, henceforth. However, here is one assertion: it is more likely, things considered, that oneself be God than that there be some other God that be outside of and aside from oneself. If the reader is troubled by this and unconvinced, the author appears to be compelled to challenge that very reader to deduce things for Himself, beginning a logical deduction from a point of origin that is the most fundamental and self-evident truth - after the fashion of our well-famed but often misunderstood Descartes (RIP). If the reader can do that and successfully find a line of reasoning, from that initial point, which proves necessary a matter of things and affairs which are beyond the scope of that solipsistic, the author shall welcome such assertions and remains, now, in wait for such a brilliant discovery that will be novel and groundbreaking, in the way of academic and Philosophical history. Thank you for reading.
