The Search for God Page 6.2
Assuming God Exists
One of the concerns many people will have is the fact that the writing seems to assume God exists. Many people would prefer to take a more skeptical approach. As I consider this, really there are only two options. We either assume God does not exist or assume God exists.
Does God really exist in the thought of man?
If you went on a journey searching for your adoptive parents, would you assume they do not exist? Why search then? If we assume God does not exist, but yet claim to be searching for this being, what we are in fact doing is denying any premise or observation prior to assent.
Rather, the approach I am taking is of a scientist who develops a theory and a juror who evaluates evidence regarding God. I am asking God to prove his existence and I am comparing claimed communications from God to what the theory suggests.
Multiple times throughout the book I dismiss multiple claims of communication and religions that claim their god is the one true God. What I am assuming is that man is rational and desires to seek the truth.
If no being fits the profile or theory I have proposed, then the theory is discarded and must be revised. The conclusion of the book is that the God of Judaism fits all the criteria of the proposed theory of God.
You Are a Christian; You Are biased
That claim is backward. I am a Christian because I went through this process and decided the God of the Bible is true. I did not become a Christian then develop this process. I became a Christian because of this process.
If I am biased in anything, then I am biased that my own reasoning is superior to another, but don’t most make that claim?
Presupposing a Conclusion
Some will argue that I manipulated and ordered the thought processes to reach a predetermined conclusion. One can believe that assertion. I only have my friends, family, and college transcript to support my claim that I did not have a predetermined conclusion, but that the conclusion arose out of study, reason, and a recognition of my own moral failings.
The same idea is that because I am Christian now, that negates the reasoning of the search for God. This conclusion is based on the premises and the theory, not my own desire in the outcome, but my desire for truth.
Problem Based Approach to Death, Evil, Suffering, and Injustice
The concern here is the idea that I am looking for a crutch to make me feel better. Since people are searching for a solution to a problem like
- Death
- Evil
- Suffering
- Injustice
They feel the need to embrace God to satisfy that need. So the conclusion of Judaism is based on this desire.
While death might have been the impetus to search for God, my ultimate goal is still truth, not comfort. In fact, there are many teachings within Christianity and Judaism that are hard to say provide comfort or would be the way I would order the universe.
If you read the book, my search process attempts to consider these problems and emotions, but my submission is not for comfort, but a recognition of truth and personal moral failings. So then the religious crutch is to support personal moral failings.
While some may want to call this a crutch, I say that I recognized that I failed my own moral standard of goodness. This recognition melded with the truth found in Judaism and Christianity. Some might have a moral crutch without evidence.
However, for me, evidence is my crutch, a bastion of reason. The questions of morality, death, and evil are answered by Christianity, they are subordinate to truth.
If answers to death, evil, and suffering are the crutch and primary, then I would search for answers that satisfy my own reason and evidence, and the religion becomes subordinate to answers. Instead, I seek God first and allow the answers to arise from his communication.
Assuming God’s Activities and Communication
There are multiple times in the book that I make assumptions about how God might communicate or act in history. How do I know what God might do? Very valid point. I attempt to keep most of the activities and communication generic and what I consider rational. So I would ask which specific points are disagreeable.
- Wonders?
- Miracles?
- Prophecy?
- Old communication?
- Two or more communications?
- Extant religion?
- Written Tradition?
How do I know?
Do these activities and communication seem unreasonable? Do I need to add more refinement? Again I must ask, is the process and specific point the problem or the conclusion? Or does the entire search ruffle feathers?
If our goal is truth, then what would you propose as a process to search for God? Previously when we spoke of communication, we compared God to a good parent who wants something for his children.
We have established the attributes we expect God to possess, we have established that if God made us, he has a purpose and this purpose would drive him to communicate. If God communicates, he must convince those he speaks to about who he is.
These feats, signs, and wonders would push humans to be in awe. This process cannot be helped, which means a form of worship and awe would develop around the communication, a religion would develop.
People may want to dispute each of these steps but that is because most people don’t want to face the reality of what such a being would be like. What we don’t want to face is an all-knowing and all-powerful being.
Our pride resists, the very nature of our minds rebels against the fear of someone knowing our deepest thoughts. We hide. We often become angry at the thought that we are being manipulated by some omnipotent God, even the term omnipotent sounds like manipulation. We want to be free; we are free.
Given this information, knowing this information, how would God act in time? If God created and if God communicated, then God has a purpose in dealing with free will humans. How would you convince someone you are God?
Would you do it early or late in time? Are you trying to convince a large number of humans or a few? In this scenario, God has a free will just like humans, but does God override human free will by speaking?
Does God force religious adherence? Clearly, we have seen throughout human history that God does not force religious adherence. Man sometimes does. Some religions claim that God tells them to force others to submit. What does all this have to do with an old religion?
Both humans and God have free will. God would know his impact upon anyone he speaks to, and God has a purpose in communicating.