How to Define the Existence of
'GOD'
"GOD" has three levels of meaning.
Atheists argue there is no such thing
as God. But their arguments are muddled because they cannot build a coherent alternative to moral goodness, science and religious
beliefs that are associated with the common all-encompassing concept of "God." Their arguments usually vamp into
hate-filled rants against religion; particularly fundamentalist Christian beliefs.
It's time to clear the air
of frustrating religous arguments by defining "God" on more meanigfull terms.
Find
which of the three definitions fits your needs.
1. Grand Original Design (GOD) Synonyms
include: Existence, reality, laws of the physical universe, time and space, organic life (biology) and the Big Bang Theory
(not the TV show). Science is not in conflict with GOD because it is through scientific discovery that we gain greater knowledge
on how reality (GOD) works.
Grand Original Design defines reality through the laws of physics and biology.
2.
GOD (Abbreviation for "goodness") Synonyms include: Transcendent love, opposition to evil, well-being and
happiness, spiritual optimism for a better future, compassion and helping others to a better life.The location of Goodness
(GOD) is in one's conscience. The conscience is a fluid mixture of reason, beliefs and imagination. It forms a moral compass
to guiding behavior. The Moral Compass is composed of four points: Good; Bad; Strong; Weak. We can plot our leadership style
by using the Moral Compass. Everyone is biologically endowed with spiritual energy (the will to live) and that propels our
behavior to survive and thrive. Our concepts of Heaven and Hell are states of mind through which we struggle daily. Our living
spirit ends when we die. Heavenly peace, after we die, is the end of all awareness.
Goodness resides in your
conscience.
3. GOD of the Bible: The mythic God of the Bible is not a divine revelation
of a supernatural power that fundamentalists believe. History shows us how the stories in the Bible were created by human
hand over many centuries of interpretation. The best use of the Bible is to take its parables as a moral guide to better living
and triumphing over evil. Thomas Hobbes' famous saying: "Life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," summarizes
well the human condition; yet the stories in the Bible teach important values that helps the reader to generate a moral compass
that guides behavior toward a better life. The consequences of sin and the rewards of goodness are felt by the living and
not a final judgment after death. The Bible's strength is about belief in personal goodness triumphing over personal evil.
The creation myths in the Bible (e.g. The story of Creation and the Garden of Eden, etc.) have long been dispelled by scientific
discovery.
The GOD of the Bible resides in your imagination. (That is why there are so many
variations and abuses of "Biblical Truth.")
***
Is there
an intelligent design to the universe?
Yes, using the impeccable laws of logic, one can only conclude
that without a Grand Original Design., the universe would not exist--only incomprehensible random chaos would exist. Put another
way, GOD. gives rise to intelligent thought (e.g., mathematics) and behavior. If there is no such thing as Grand Original
Design, there would be no basis for biological or artificial intelligence.
It is the fundamental nature of GOD that
science seeks to discover. Design Consciouness is caused by the four laws of thermodynamic expansion that form an isolated
system in perpetual motion. (For a fuller explanation see my paper: "The Grand Original Design of the Universe.")
***
GOD is not the mythical god of conflicting religions and philosophies; historians can trace the development of religious
beliefs without the special cause of "divine intervention."
By separating the meaning
of "GOD" into three distinct levels, one can gain clarity and purpose in life--even in the most trying of times!
***
My thinking on this subject is inspired by St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica: The Five Proofs
of God's Existence--though he would disagree with my conclusions.