My rather grammatically incorrect rant about the theories of God’s existence whether it be Ontological or not, and the Pompous people that attempt to formulate them.
After reading countless of arguments for and against the belief and existence of God, I am not only annoyed, but thoroughly baffled that the greatest minds are arrogant enough to belief that they can form a singular argument that proves or disproves such.
Why is it that Philosophers try to prove the existence of one type of God? The word God itself has different definitions varying from person to person. So to create a unifying argument to prove or disprove something that nobody can agree on a unifying definition is like trying to find the last number in the world.
Then, whether you accept it or not, most people would not be aware of God if it wasn’t for someone presenting them with the idea of God. Otherwise, the only way you would know of God is through a miracle. For example, imagine never hearing the word ‘God’ or being presented with the idea of God. Our rational mind says it is human instinct to wonder how we got on this earth, but that would probably be as far as wondering how the stars came to be and so on and so forth. So unless you had a spiritual encounter, you would not know that something beyond you existed. I would go as far as to say, even with having a spiritual encounter (not a Moses flaming shrub answering all questions kind of encounter) , you still would only be aware that you are not alone. Your mind wouldn’t jump to there being one singular being over powering all.
This is where I want to side note that I do have a “religion” and I am spiritual and do believe in God, but this is just a mere rant in which I will attempt not to mix my religious beliefs completely in.
Now, where was I? Yes. The idea of one unifying God, would not instantly jump into your head, you would have to be introduced to it. Think about it, the word ignorance goes a long way in this section of my rant. We are all ignorant until given some kind of knowledge. So now that we have accepted (or have been introduced) to the fact that ,without being told, you would have no idea of the concept of God or who God is; we can move on to my issue.
Imagine a puzzle, a big huge puzzle with an elaborate number of different pictures that create once magnificent scene. You don’t know the entire scene or the order of pictures in the puzzle; you don’t know if you’ve ever seen a representation of these pictures in real life. For all you know, the puzzle could be of a unicorn and you have never even heard of the concept of a unicorn, much less seen one. You just know it is a puzzle because you know what puzzle pieces look like…but you don’t know if the entire scene is made up of puzzle pieces, or whether the rest of it is completed by leggos that somehow connect to these pieces. You just do not know. This puzzle is so large that more than half of it is missing and there are still several pieces there. Now, imagine everyone trying to solve the puzzle.
As you know, since it is a puzzle, several pieces will fit into each other, but there is only one way to solve it. One. When solving a puzzle you know its wrong when there are pieces left over and/or the picture does not look like the one on the box. Now what is the problem? We do not have all the pieces and we have no inkling of what the ending result should look like. At this point a rational person would think
a) How do we even know there is a complete puzzle somewhere? What if this was an incomplete puzzle created with half of it meant to be missing?
b) How do we even know that this is one puzzle? What if these are pieces from three completely different puzzles?
c) If the puzzle can contain things we cannot even fathom to imagine, then why should be trying to use the puzzle to recreate things that we understand?
I know what you’re thinking. How do we know that the puzzle is missing pieces? Well, we know because there is only one way to solve a puzzle (this is like a jigsaw puzzle if u haven’t caught on) and when you solve it incorrectly there are pieces missing. The entire world is trying to solve this puzzle, and not even the brightest minds can find a way to place the pieces together without any being leftover. So, either everyone is rather thick, or there is something missing from the puzzle.
Naturally, there are groups of people who think the same, and naturally we will try to solve the puzzle with images we have seen and make sense to all. So now we have many groups fitting pieces together saying that this is the right way to solve the puzzle. So everyone is fighting over which way is right because they all have different ways of fitting together the pieces. However, in each faction, there are a few pieces leftover…but each faction says that this is the first step to solving the puzzle, and their method of thinking is correct.
By now if you haven’t caught on to what the puzzle represents then this isn’t the rant for you.
Faith is the act of believing that your way of thinking and your assembly of the puzzle is the most accurate to representing the whole picture. You believe so strongly in these guidelines that you are willing to base your whole life on it. Then you ask, is that Faith or stupidity?
Who is to say that your way is the right way when you have no idea of the puzzle or the grand picture. All you have is somebody’s word for it. Unless you yourself have had that divine intervention from the puzzle maker telling you how to solve the puzzle, then you are listening to what someone else has said. Most likely, the first person to get to you, will be the first guideline you will follow. Who is to say one person is right when in reality, everyone is wrong because if it were a complete puzzle, we would only be able to come up with ONE UNIFYING SOLUTION.
Besides my little analogy of religions using puzzles, I call into question the idiots that attempt to tell u that one puzzle is right.
If I was the first person to see the puzzle, I could form my own solution and say that the creator of the puzzle told em this was true. The next person to see it takes my word for it, afterall, why would I lie? Then so on and so forth, now…I have people who believe my form of thinking because of me introducing the concept of a puzzle maker to them. Then, another person says the same thing…but instead says that the puzzle maker says it’s a different way. Now, more people believe him. Soon there are ten people who claim the puzzle maker told them that their way is the right way.
a) One person is telling the truth, and the rest are lying. However, there is no true way to know who.
b) They are all telling the truth and the puzzle maker i said all their ways are true because they are. How can we refute this? We have no idea of what the puzzle is supposed to look like.
c) None are telling the truth and this is just remnants of something that resemble a puzzle and we are not sure of what once was.
The only people in this scenario that know what is certain, are those that said the puzzle make told them. Now, even such, who is to say that the being or other spirit (if it did approach them directly) was not lying themselves? Who is to say that the puzzle makers’ friend didn’t approach them and say he was the one that created the puzzle? How would they know the difference? They are ignorant. They know only what somebody has said and must thus take their word for it.
This is life. This is religion. No matter how much u say u have a “relationship” or “faith”, all you have is someone’s word for it and what you were raised believing, or whatever personal experiences you’ve had that affected your way of thinking towards another person’s. I can’t pretend to evaluate this problem because how can I evaluate something that is impossible. The only thing you can be certain of is uncertainty.
Which now brings me To the climax of my annoyance.
How pompous must you be to think you can prove the existence of a puzzle that no one has ever seen or even sure exists. How can you expect to convince others that your idea of the puzzle is real when you aren’t even sure if it is a puzzle, you do not KNOW! You have only been told. You say you feel, but you only feel what you have been told. Many long ago, before you, might KNOW because they saw firsthand , but then their words might have been misconstrued throughout time.
Faith is based on man’s belief in God, not God’s belief in man. We can read lines from books and quote what we think God said, but who told us these things? Man. Who told us God said this? Man. Man is a being that cannot be trusted. In those rare occasions that God told man one thing, man can tell another man another. Once again, is it faith? Or Stupidity? I can’t answer because I am not arrogant enough to believe that I know.
So my dear Philosophers! Ye of oh so great minds! An Ontological argument (a priori argument; this is an argument based on reason attempting to prove the existence of God by logic alone) is perhaps the biggest waste of time. How logical is it to attempt to prove that a puzzle exists when you are not even sure it is even a puzzle that you are proving? How logical is it to prove that your picture is the correct picture when you aren’t even sure it is a picture you are building? How logical is it to try to make plausibility out of implausibility? You can’t solve a puzzle unless you have all the pieces. You cannot make a single priori argument for God’s existence because you do not have enough knowledge to do so. You just don’t.
Equally as idiotic is the man with the posteriori argument (based on experience). Your divine experience was catered for you and you only, not for everyone, otherwise we would all have the same unifying belief. So unless everyone had that defining experience, you cannot base an argument on divine intervention because once again all we would be doing is taking your word for it, instead of experiencing it ourselves.
Our world and the God that created (or didn’t create) it is full of wonders. I can’t attempt to bring a single fact that can prove to everyone that my beliefs or any beliefs are correct. I can only say what is correct of me, and my rationale. Only God can prove to everyone in one singular argument that he exists, until then, Please, save me the endless passages and expository papers of your bullshit.