Is God Real part 1

This will in theory be a two part blog, although I am sure there will be many more. The first part will detail why exactly I am so confident there is no God. The second part will delve more into how provide meaning to your life without God. I think that Blog will probably be the most important one I will ever post.

Ok, so God. The religious are so sure of his existence, and the non believers so sure of his nonexistence. The problem I generally see is most religious arguments is that both sides maintain that you must assume their side is correct, thus the burden of proof lies with their opponent. This is an incredibly silly way to go about testing a hypothesis. When you seek to prove something beyond doubt, you always start with the assumption your opponent is correct.  Therefore, I urge all of those who are religious to approach the idea of God with the mindset that he simply does not exist. Atheists should start with the belief that God is in fact real. As a religious person looking at this way, you can clearly see that any religious text is not proof of God’s existence. Belief in these texts is based on a system of blind faith. That does not make them wrong, it just makes them unusable is the God debate.

At this point, to prove God necessary to our existence without help from holy text really is a Herculean task. Now we are discussing the God of philosophical thought. This God, which is representative of the God in Abrahamic religions can only be proven with logic. This God is easy to define as well. He is perfect. Meaning he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and good. There really is only one of these that we could possibly deduce through logic are not real. That is the goodness of God. Hence the most prominent argument against God, the argument from evil. Atheist argue that the presence of evil in the world (such as the holocaust or 911 or even a regular murder) simply make God’s perfection impossible. Therefore he cannot exist. That is absolutely correct. Therefore, Religious folk must prove that there is in fact no evil in the world. There are two ways in which this is attempted. The first one technically may work. It argues that the actual spectrum of good and evil is not the same as our spectrum. Things that we perceive as evil are actually good on the real spectrum. While this is in fact a valid defense, you must consider the implications of its use. You are pretty much recognizing every act ever done as actually good. Two things are the result. If this is in fact true, I would argue that God must in fact be real. Seems great! In my book you potentially have a genuine argument for God’s existence. But clearly then, as I said before, we have two choices/results. We can accept this God and adopt the actual moral code. Thus, all behaviors considered illegal and immoral (such as rape and murder) must be legalized and accepted as moral goods. The other choice is we can renounce God as the evil Demon he is. If God does in fact think Murder is good, well, that’s not a God or world I want to live in. I really don’t want to live in either of those scenarios. That’s why I encourage people to consider their argument’s implication before committing to it. The other a Evil defense is far more intriguing. It is called the free will defense. That says that God’s gift of free will is such a good good that is outweighs all evil in the world. Furthermore, this evil is not due to God, but due to human’s exercise this will. This is a completely valid defense so long as you can prove free will exist. I don’t think it does, but we will get to that in another post.

When I learned all of this the first time it got me thinking. The argument from Evil is very strong, but it was almost Earthly for me. I wanted an argument that relied more in questioning God’s very nature. Those thoughts, combined with my knowledge of the free will defense allowed me to produce this.

By definition, God is perfect, thus perfectly good. If God is bounded by his nature to act in single way (goodness), then he cannot choose to act in a different way (evil). Thus if God is in fact Perfect and good, he does not have free will. If he does not have free will, then he is not perfect. If God is not perfect, well then he is not God.

I still have not found any holes in this, so if you do please alert me to them. For me at least and for everyone unless they can prove me wrong, this is a proof that God is not real. That is why with part 2 I will discuss how we proceed from here. Primarily, how do we live happy and meaningful lives now that our religions, which previously gave us these, are now proved to be false.

Is suffering Necessary?

A couple days ago I came across this quote inside the dean’s office at Lehigh University. It was just printed in black ink and was hanging on the wall with now mention of from whom it originated. I immediately looked it up and found that it was Osho. Well who the fuck is that? Apparently he’s some sort of Buddhist Indian godsman or something. I honestly don’t really give a shit. I decided almost immediately that this quote is how I want to live my life. When you put this quote up against almost any sadness you can experience, I think this quote explains why that feeling is bullshit. I am not exactly sure how, but some time in the last year I’ve pretty much concluded this on my own to some degree. I really just don’t care what people think about me. I’ll explore that further in a different post. What I really want to get on with here is, “Is suffering necessary.” I think there are three kinds of people with regards to suffering. Most people are of the opinion that suffering is an inevitable hardship in life and just something that must be dealt with. Other people, particularly Buddhist, believe that suffering can be eliminated entirely and happiness can prevail. They seek to do this through enlightenment, which will eventually end our cyclic existence. The third group also believes that suffering inevitable. They however can’t comprehend a future in which it is at least minimized to a degree. They therefore kill themselves. So two of these three groups’ solution is the end of existence. The other just sort of deals with it. I really don;t find either of these answers appealing. I ask then, Why is it that general suffering and sadness don’t occur on the same plane as physical pain. We see both as inevitable in life, yet we only see physical pain as a crucial human function. When you look at human survival, we usually equate it to our ability to think beyond what other animals could ever do. But we’re forgetting something. We also have the ability to feel with our minds. A human’s emotional intelligence allows them to thoroughly connect and work with other humans. Without this magnificent ability we likely would never have survived. Both pain and emotional suffering are necessary byproducts of their respective kind of feeling. So what is this necessity of emotional suffering?  Well it’s just what Osho said. “A certain darkness is needed to see the stars.” Suffering sets the lower bounds for emotional feelings. You can think about it in terms of Calculus. If you know anything about indefinite integrals, you know you that you always have a lower bound and and upper bound. This is not too difficult to calculate. But you leave out the lower bound and make it from x to 5 than that make no fucking sense. It’s literally impossible to get a number out of that. In order to judge happiness be must have an opposite to compare it too. Because of this simple fact, I believe we should be more receptive to the challenges of life. Sure of course we should still seek to persevere past our challenges; but we should in the process be grateful for our struggles. I honestly could keep going on this issue, but I’m kinda tired. I’m just gonna leave it here and probably have a part 2 at some point. I will also have to address some of the other problems brought up here (such as depression). So as they say, “the struggle is real.”

First blog post

This is my first Blog post! Except for the occasional lost soul, this blog is really just for me. I understand that a blog not meant for being shared is quite unusual, but hey, so am I. This blog is really just a place where I can dump my thought without them being lost in the void that is my mind. So as you might expect, I like to think a lot. Like a lot a lot. I also hate the modern convention of respectfully disagreeing. If you think something I say is unfathomably stupid, please tell me. As long as your point isn’t lost in insults it will be of great help to me. That’s really all I ask of the few that find their way here. I will at some point post a rules page which will go into more detail on how to approach this blog. Thanks and enjoy!