Five Problems in Contemplating God

1) Assuming God to necessarily exhibit specific personality traits, and then using though traits to prove God's existence or non-existence.

"Life is terrible and therefore, God is a myth, because God, who would be wonderful, loving, would make the world a perfect."

Your perception of perfection has failed to cling onto the foundation of reality. You need to prove that God having certain traits, and the nature of reality in light of those traits, proves or disproves his existence. Reality can still be if your percetion of God is false.

If you see that the sky is beautiful and the grass is green, you only know that the skiy is beautiful and the grass is green. You only know that you feel good. You may think God is there, but you've yet to see him. You have what you call evidence of his existence--and this evidence is the product of life. For evidence, however, you need a visible culprit to pin it on. Where is God, visible to us all (in a literal sense, not metaphorical)?


2) Assuming absense of evidence to prove God's nonexistence.

"I see no God. Therefore, God doesn't exist."

It's like saying, I have never met George C. Hoover or heard of him, or seen a photograph, though I have stories. Therefore, Hoover is a myth. He does not exist. You only know that stories about God have failed to convince you of the being's existence. You nothing showing direct evidence of God's existence. You have science, and test evidence to affirm this lack of direct evidence. Also, however, you understand that there is a lot you don't know. You knwo there is a big shadow out there, the unknown. And the only way to understand that shadow is to jump in it. So, never mind guessing--test it. Jump into the shadows, and shed light on it. Then: repeat, for infinity. If God exists, okay. If God is a myth, okay. Either way, you've poked at the truth. Just remember that self-proclaimed rational atheists who assume anything are just theists playing a different song with the same instrument.


3) Assuming God to be male. Or female. Or both. Or neither. Or everything.

I was almost going to ask, "What would got need a pair of genitals for?" And then realized that I would falling into the same trap.


4) Confusing attacks on religious establishments as attacks on God.

Just because a person criticizes a policy of the Pope, may not mean that the person aims to personally talk smack about God. But a traditional Catholic would be inclined to view direct criticism and insults against the Pope to be sinful and displeasing to God, regardless of the criticizer's point. To some sects of believers, the earthly institution of worship is inseperable from the heavenly overcast.


5) Assuming that every religion reveals a path toward understanding the ultimate nature of reality.

The similarities may say more about humanity than about our environment. A multidisclipinary study on this subject would be fascinating--psychology, biology, history, political science, literature and religion. Anyone recommend really good books? The closest thing I can think of now that I have already read is America's Constitution: A Biography, by Akhil Reed Amar, which covers a legal, historical, and political aspects of the US Constitution and its relationship with the nation itself.