Friday, May 30, 2008

• My bottom line re: the God question

  Many religions say God is the Self.  I agree.  This is the main reason I waiver back and forth.  This is the reason why I sometimes even illogically conceive that I can - and if I can't, I will anyway - in my mind reject and affirm the existence of God simultaneously.  Why it is possible to claim that, in refusing to answer the God question altogether (this is not the same as agnosticism), I essentially both reject and affirm the existence of God.  I think it's valid, i.e. possible, to be neutral and also claim that God exists and yet that he doesn't exist. 

  I say I agree that God is the self, our self, with tongue in cheek because if you take away the self, would there be a God?  It's like the question whether if a tree falls in a forest and you're not there to hear it, does it make a sound?  The crucial difference is I know there's such a thing as sound because I've heard it before, but I've never experienced God, which makes the subject even more uncertain.

  Can God exist outside of the self's perception of it?  No.  My problem with people who debate with me about whether God exists or not does not concern the possibility, the moral reasons, or how he came about.  My problem is whether without me or anyone else saying it's possible, that is, without me or anyone else existing physically in this world, would it be possible to claim that God (objectively) exists?  There's a difference.  This is the best test for the argument that God's existence is objective, that God exists outside the constraints of time, place, and ourselves.

  All ideas originate from the self, the individual.  The self is always situated in something.  Heidegger called this dasein, which is the inevitable situatedness of the self in some kind of abstract place.  It's the act of being itself.  To be is to be grounded in some contextual environment.  That's the definition of being. 

  The concept of the self itself emerges from the individual person thinking it.  For every individual person, there is only one perspective.  Even though we are aware of collective perspectives, these are essentially just one individual person's idea of the idea of collective selves.  No one person can vouch for the perception of another self.  Therefore, the notion of a collective mindset that corroborates objective reality and truth really consists of just one individual person's mindset.  I see through my eyes and others see through their eyes and this awareness of the existence of and dialogue with other selves constitute my idea of "objective reality." 

  But take my self away, and everything disappears with it.  Without my self to do the perceiving/thinking, I cannot say this is this and that exists.  I can try to argue that God can exist even if I don't exist to acknowledge his existence because God doesn't need acknowledgment, that's why he's God.  But this idea is problematic because if I didn't exist at all, I wouldn't be able to make that argument - let alone to prove its truth - and thus make it public to others.  Other people's existence required my existence because I "know" it through perceiving it. 

  Even the truth of the argument that I can try to argue (above) metaphysically cannot be proven if my or your or your neighbor's non-existence is the default position.  What this means is God's existence does indeed depend on my existence.  Because I exist I can mentally go back and hypothetically "cancel" it.  But if I never did exist, God wouldn't either.  I am willing to entertain the notion that God does exist and his existence preceded ours.  The ironic catch is, however, he needs us to say that.  As a matter of philosophical fact, the God question is a self-centric one.

  My ultimate objection has always been that, due to this real ontological dilemma or trap, no one is in the position to make any assertions either way.  But as it so happens that we in fact do exist, we need to deal with this existence because we have no choice.  Therefore it is okay to say in one breath, "I believe God exists and that he does not exist, so I'm just not going to answer the question."

  If a Christian criticizes my hypothetical by arguing that there would be no purpose in there being a God if there were no people, I'd refer her to Genesis.

  • 11:30 PM
  • 44 views
  • 2 eprops
  • 6 comments