Is God Is Just Pretend?

Speaking About the Unspeakable

Many will question why I would want to write about such a controversial subject as this. After all, Religion and politics are said to be the two subjects we should try to avoid; if we do not want to offend others.

I have never been one who cared much for political correctness. Also, religion and politics are the two subjects I most often like to talk about. One of the main reasons is because I am a non-conformist. I don’t act in a particular manner because society says that I should. If society decides something is taboo, chances are that is the exact thing I will talk and write about. Be warned, I also write on the subject of politics. So, if speaking about the unspeakable is something that is damaging to your delicate senses, you should pass on anything I may write because those are most likely going to be the subjects.

You should know, I will be writing this from an atheist’s point of view. But I would also hope people of faith who are not afraid to look at other views without feeling threatened or offended might read it as well. You should never be unwilling to look at other points of view; no matter how much you believe you already know what the truth is. Many people of faith have never taken the time to really even investigate their beliefs; instead, they just accepted them … after all, that’s why it’s called faith.

Although my main purpose in writing this is not to cause offense that is almost certain to happen. I can understand why this would be. No one likes to have their beliefs called into question; because it may make them appear to be foolish or stupid. This, of course, would be the main reason for people getting upset and not even be wanting to discuss the matter. Because deep down inside they also know it does not sound believable. By not talking about it, they do not have to try and defend the indefensible. But, is it better to hold onto beliefs that you may have not examined in full or be willing to examine them and determine if they are really worth holding onto at all?

This is written from an atheist’s point of view and will be critical of many things sacred to religious people. There is no way to discuss these topics without offending someone. As a Libertarian, I believe people should have the right to believe in anything they want to believe in; no matter how silly or implausible others may believe those things to be. With that being said, I would like to point out that having a right to a belief does not void someone else’s equal right to have an opinion opposite yours or be vocal about it. You do not have a right to not have your beliefs challenged or to not be offended.

I have tried to write this in what I feel is as least offensive tone as I could because it was important to me for atheists and theists alike to be able to read this. But, please understand, I am an atheist and as such, it is hard for me to be as non-bias as some people reading this would like. Just as it would be hard for someone who is a theist to write about atheism I am sure. But, with that said, I am sure most will agree that for the most part that it is as non-offensive as is possible.

Atheists who may want to use this or any other book should be aware that it’s not very likely you will succeed in convincing a person of faith to change his or her opinion of their faith…if that is your goal. You may feel frustrated and annoyed because the person you are talking to cannot easily see what you see so clearly. Most likely this person will be as equally frustrated that you cannot fathom the greatness of their God.

What’s Your Purpose?

You may or may not agree with what is presented here. If you are religious, chances are very good you will want to dismiss everything you read. Before you read this, I think it’s important to ask yourself what you hope to get out of it. If the goal is to seek knowledge; even if it takes you places that you may find uncomfortable, then by all means continue.

But, if you are only interested in reading material that furthers your own self-interest of propagating a belief that you have. Then there is no amount of knowledge or evidence that could sway your belief or cause you to reconsider. If this is the case, then stop now and save yourself a lot of time. You can continue about your day knowing that your mind has not been subjected to anything; that might chip away at the safe little world you have created for yourself.

If there is no amount of evidence that could be presented that would sway your opinion or cause you to reconsider your position; then what possible reason would you have for trying to gain knowledge or further your education about this or any other subject? If you are convinced you already know all there is to know already, you should cease trying to further your education at all on this or any subject. Just tell yourself you have reached the maximum capability and capacity of your mind, and it is closed for any further progress from this point forward.

If your beliefs are so fragile that they cannot stand up to challenge or the slightest scrutiny, would this really be something you would want to continue to believe in any way? Are your senses so delicate that you are not even willing to listen to someone else’s point of view? Does the thought that someone might disagree with you, cause an immediate desire to place both hands over your ears while closing your eyes and repeating loud chanting noises as to avoid listening? If this is the case you should not waste your time here, you should look for something else to read that will help to further the beliefs you have already.

However, if knowledge and understanding are what you seek and you are bold enough to follow this road no matter where it might lead, then please do continue. If you do decide to continue, ask yourself what makes more sense to you?

To be clear, I do not profess to have all the answers, nor the truth. I simply will lay the facts out as we know them to be; you will have to decide for yourself what sounds more rational and logical. First of all, I cannot force you to believe anything, nor would I try. Secondly, I would hope you possess the ability to weigh the evidence and decide for yourself if there is a case against God.

But of course, that will be up to you to decide…

A Quest For Knowledge

Since man first crawled from the cave he has been on a quest for knowledge. Not having the ability to understand the universe early man invented Gods to explain their world. There were Gods for everything, from water and fire, to Earth and the cosmos. Thunder and lightning meant that the Gods must be angry and if it rained they were sad.

This would all seem to make perfect sense for the mind of a caveman since they were not capable of conceptual and rational thought. They simply replaced one unknown for another in their world. Rain = Gods sad, Thunder and lightning = Gods angry. This ‘caveman logic’ explained everything they needed to know and because of their limited logic and reason worked fine for them.

Just as in the movie “The Gods Must Be Crazy,” when a native in the Kalahari Desert encounters technology for the first time–in the shape of a Coke bottle. I found this to be very amusing, but I also began to see parallels between his thought process, and that of the modern day Theist. Both are using caveman logic to explain their world. The native using caveman logic thinks, “bottle fall from the sky, must be a gift from the Gods” and the modern day theist thinks, “see that tree, that proves God.” Both of them simply have replaced one unknown for another, but still, have not answered where these things came from.

It is easy to understand how this method of replacing one unknown for another was passed down through the generations as a means by which to describe our world. It is also easy to see how someone of such limited capacity could accept this line of reasoning to define their world.

As mankind evolved, man’s logic and reason evolved as well. This ‘caveman logic’ did not seem to work as well as it once did. Science and math had now replaced ‘caveman logic’ and we demanded proof for the things we believed in. Through using logic and reason, and applying science and math we replaced caveman logic and learned that:

Rain = ‘Gods sad’, was replaced with science and we learned that rain is caused by; “Precipitation that forms when cloud droplets (or ice particles) in clouds grow and combine to become so large that their fall speed exceeds the updraft speed in the cloud; and they then fall out of the cloud. If these large water drops or ice particles do not re-evaporate as they fall farther below the cloud, they reach the ground as precipitation.”

Thunder = ‘Gods angry’, was replaced and learned to be caused by; “The sudden expansion of the air around a lightning bolt’s path. The deep rumbling and sharp cracks of thunder are produced as the air around the lightning bolts are superheated – up to about 54,000° Fahrenheit (about 33,000° Celsius) – and rapidly expands. This rapid expansion creates an acoustic shock wave that manifests itself as thunder.”

Through science and math and by using logic and reason, mankind had replaced ‘caveman logic’ and was able to explain his world in more rational and sensible ways. Man now relied on the rules of evidence to validate a claim and demanded proof for things he was willing to say he believed in … except in one area.

Where faith was concerned ‘caveman logic’ seemed to still be the method of which to explain our world. God was proven in the mind of a theist simply by pointing to a tree, flower or an insect. This ‘caveman logic’ was more than enough proof in their mind and it did not matter that all they had done was to replace one unknown for another, to them the question had been answered and it was not up for debate or challenge.

It is sad that with all of the mankind’s greatest achievements that we have still not crawled that far beyond the cave…and ‘caveman logic.’

The quest continues …

What Is An Atheist?

Atheists are amongst some of the most hated people in the world, but why? Many people misunderstand the term “atheist” and associate it with Devil worshiping or people that sacrifice small farm animals. This, of course, is completely ridiculous. Theists do not have a higher moral code than do atheists. Indeed no one has ever killed in the name of “no God” yet many have killed in the name of a “God.”

Theists will argue that someone like Stalin was an atheist and that he killed in the name of atheism, but this is false, Stalin killed in the name of communism. In fact, Stalin actually rejected Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. In short, Stalin opposed Darwin’s theory in favor of Trofim Lysenko’s Lamarckianism

Atheism is not a belief system, it’s a rejection of theism … nothing more. Atheists do not worship Satan anymore than we would any other God or demon. Indeed an atheist rejects God and Satan as well. Because an Atheist does not believe in God, this does not mean that we do not believe in anything as some theists will claim. A belief in nothing is known as “nihilism.” Nihilism is a philosophy of an extreme form of skepticism: The denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth; nothingness or nonexistence. I am not a nihilist … I know I exist.

In the discussion of theism, you either are a theist or you are an atheist, there are no other options. Think of it this way, a thing is either symmetrical or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then we say it’s asymmetrical. Adding the “a” simply means “not.” Since no other definition has been given to describe something that is not symmetrical in shape, other than it is asymmetrical, we cannot know what it is, only what it is not.

The same thing applies to Atheism, either you believe in the theist God or you don’t. Just as nudity is not just another form of clothing; it’s no clothes. Not believing in the theist God isn’t another religion; it’s not believing in the theist God … and that’s all it means.

Other than a non-belief in the theist God, atheists are free to believe in whatever they choose. For example, you can be male or female, white, black or any other race, gay or straight, a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or an Anarchist. You can literally have any other philosophy you like and still be an atheist. The only thing that is required to be an atheist is the rejection of theism … period.

Atheism is not a belief, nor is it a belief in nothing. Atheism is simply a rejection of the God of theism based on the lack of evidence. This does not mean that atheists can’t believe in a lot of other things, including things that cannot be seen like, air and gravity. Although air and gravity cannot be seen, they can both be measured and proven to exist.

Atheists do not have a special day once a week that requires they get dressed up, and then gather for meetings with their friends to compare fashion, and discuss magic, folklore, Gods, Demons and the existence of things outside the natural universe. They do not have a handbook with special rules to obey, talk to imaginary friends or worship idols … those people are known as theists.

Atheists do not disagree on atheism. Many will confuse what I just said to mean atheists do not ever disagree. Atheists, of course, are free to disagree on almost anything except atheism itself. As I said in the beginning, atheism is not a belief system; it’s a rejection of theism … nothing more. If you disagree with atheism, then you are not an atheist period.

Now let’s contrast that with theism, which is a belief system. You can be a theist and disagree on many points about theism itself and what it means to be a theist. A Catholic and a Baptist, for example, are both theists but disagree on exactly what that means. This is why there are so many different sects of the same religion. With atheism, this is not a problem as all atheists agree they reject theism. This makes our position one that is not only more definable but agreeable as well. Just trying to define theism and what it means is hard enough, finding two theists that agree on what it actually means is next to impossible, even within the exact same sect.

Agnosticism

I have heard it said before that an agnostic is an atheist with an insurance policy. This would be true if it were possible to be agnostic towards the possibility of Gods. I don’t believe it is possible to take an agnostic view towards this position anymore than it would be to the possible existence of, Unicorns, Santa Claus or The Tooth Fairy.

What does it mean when someone claims they are an ‘agnostic?’ Some claim that agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims are unknown or unknowable.

I would ask anyone who claims to be agnostic towards God … more precisely the theistic God of the Bible if they are also equally agnostic towards other mythical beliefs such as Zeus, Apollo or any other past Gods. If the position of agnosticism is, “the view that the truth value of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims are unknown or unknowable “ then how could the belief in other Gods or myths of any kind be known or knowable? I am sure they do not hold an agnostic view towards Zeus, I am sure it’s an atheistic view. So why does the God of theism get special treatment? There were just as many stories told of ancient Gods as there were the God of Theism. Why would someone claim to be agnostic towards one God, but not of all others?

You are either a theist or you are an atheist, those are the only two options, there is no middle ground. If you dismiss the belief in most myths based on the evidence, you must do that with all myths as well. It is not logical to take a position of agnosticism towards theism, yet take an atheistic position towards all other things for which there is no evidence or proof of.

The term “atheist” (‘a’ theist) means non-theist. When an ‘a’ is placed in front of a word it means “non” or “not.” So if you are not a theist, then you are a non-theist … or said another way you are an atheist. Just as we use the term “asymmetrical” to describe something that is not symmetrical or non-symmetrical, the same is true of atheism. Something is either symmetrical or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then we say it’s asymmetrical. By adding the ‘a’ we are saying it is not a symmetrical shape. We know nothing more about this shape, just that it’s not symmetrical. It could be a square, triangle, octagon, rectangle or any countless number of shapes, but it’s not symmetrical. This is all we know based on the definition we were given. We do not have enough information to determine what it is, just what it is not.

So, if you define yourself as a non-theist, you are by default an atheist. You may have different reasons why you are not a theist, but this does not matter, the fact is you are an atheist. You are free to be anything else; it just means you are not a theist. Everyone who claims to be an agnostic is also an atheist; it just makes them feel better to label themselves an agnostic.

This does not mean you cannot believe in any other spiritual or religious view, just not theism. It would even be possible to be a Buddhist and an atheist since all atheism means is not a theist. So when someone says they are an agnostic they are usually unknowingly saying they are an atheist. For an “agnostic” to say I don’t really know, so I am not willing to say for sure, is admitting they are not a theist (someone that does claim to know) so by default this makes them an atheist.

People who refer to themselves as agnostic do so because it sounds warm and fuzzy and the word agnostic is not as looked down on by people of faith as is the word atheist. To most people of faith the word atheist is a vile and offensive word, so some people would rather use a less offensive term to describe their beliefs, as not to offend anyone.

Agnosticism just seems a little intellectually void to me as the term relates to theism, because the person is claiming they are having a hard time deciding if the belief of theism seems plausible or not, but are completely sure they are atheistic towards Zeus, Apollo, Unicorns, Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy and other myths of equal standing. You are either a theist or you are not a theist, and if you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. I would like to take this time to welcome all those who have defined themselves as agnostic to the world of atheism.

What Is Faith?

Why is it considered a virtue to have faith? Faith by definition is believing in something for which there is no proof of. Would it also be considered virtuous to believe in other things without proof or is faith the only thing that lacks proof that it is considered virtuous to believe in?

If someone were to claim to have an invisible friend hiding under their bed that only they can see, would this be a virtuous belief as well or would this be considered a delusional person? What exactly is the defining factor that separates ordinary delusion, “I have an invisible man under my bed” from that of faith, “God is talking to me” and could they both be delusional?

The Webster Dictionary defines faith as:

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

So if we were to combine the meanings given in the second definition it would mean faith is: a belief and loyalty to a God, which is the traditional doctrines of a religion, and a belief in something for which there is no proof, but that you have a complete trust in.

When a theist says they have ‘faith’ in God, they are really saying they have a belief and complete trust in something for which there is no proof of. Faith by definition is a belief in something that cannot be proven, so when a theist claims to have complete faith in a God, they are admitting they believe in a fictional being. How then could they claim to have proof of something that is not real? Faith is just that, faith. If it was anything else it would be called something other than faith such as a truth or a law.

When we have determined that something is a fact we call it a law, as in “The Law of Physics.” Until then is known as a theory, as in “The Theory of Evolution.” I would like to point out that The Theory of Evolution is widely accepted as fact now, but is still referred to as a theory. For more on this see:

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

Source: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

To say “you have faith” is not a law, it is not even a theory, it’s a belief. Beliefs do not rise to the same level as do laws and theories which is why it’s called faith. People of faith should stop trying to claim they have faith, while also trying to attach some credible basis to that faith because faith has no basis … it’s faith.

If you have faith in your God, that’s all you have as a claim, you have nothing in the rational world of laws and theories to use, so why would you insist on trying to use the laws of the rational world to try and describe your faith? You reside in the land of faith … the belief in things for which there is no evidence or proof of, this is your world, and you accepted it. Please don’t try to attach the world of logic and reason to this world, the two cannot coexist.

Blind Faith

Fear of the unknown can be a frightening thing. So people believe because they want to have hope that there is something more beyond this life. No one likes to believe that this could be all there is. Even I will admit that I would rather be wrong and a place exist that would be like heaven because their heaven (in some ways) certainly sounds like a nice place to be, but I cannot accept this on faith alone, I require proof.

I have had people of faith ask me if I do not believe in God, then what do I think will happen to us after we die? I answer this question the same as I would answer any question that I do not have enough knowledge to answer, I say, “I don’t know”. Of course, I wait in anticipation for their reply, which is usually something like, “see you just admitted you don’t know!” It is true, I don’t know, but neither do they. They have fooled themselves into believing they do, and that when they die they are going to a much better place where there is no pain and suffering, a place of complete happiness…a place called heaven. Of course, they do not really know what happens after we die anymore than I do, they simply believe in something that they were convinced of, and they have convinced themselves it’s a fact.

I don’t know what happens after we die or what it will be like, no one does. If I had to guess though I would imagine it will be a lot like what it was before I was born, and I don’t remember that either. It makes more sense though that we might go back to the same state of non-existence that we were in prior to our birth.

No, theists have no greater knowledge of what happens after death than do atheists, we just choose not to replace one unknown for another one…or said another way, we do not make up fairy tales to take the place of our lack of knowledge. There are things for which we do not know and understand, we may one day, but as for now we do not, and atheists accept this fact.

Lack Of Evidence

“Philosophy gives us unanswered questions; religion gives us unquestioned answers.”

Theists will often claim they have proof of God. They will usually ask you to consider the intricacies of a tree, an animal or an insect. They will then ask how could these things have come into existence without a Creator or a God? This, of course, does not prove God anymore than it might prove The Flying Spaghetti Monster created these things. It never occurred to them that all they had done was replace one unknown for another equally unknown.

God is not an answer, it’s another question. Think of God as ‘X’ in a mathematical equation. If you were given an equation to find out what ‘X’ is and you simply made up a random number as your answer, would you have solved the equation? Of course not, all you have done is replace one unknown for another. Actually, their math is even worse than this example, because they are claiming ‘X’ equals ‘Y’… okay, so what is ‘Y’ then? They have answered the question with another question.

I do not like to use the word “proof” because it is used in so many ways and by so many people who really have no proof at all; and for the fact that nothing can be really proven. Theists will claim they have proof of God, but of course, they do not. Although I would say though that there is more evidence that there is no God simply by the lack of evidence. Of course, everyone will have their own definition of what evidence is and is not, and people of faith would most likely dismiss anything that would challenge their beliefs without even considering it … as it would destroy their beliefs if they did.

Yes, there are things for which we do not know the answers to, but making up answers to fill in for this lack of knowledge is not an intelligent way to try and understand and define these things. Would it not be better to just admit there are things we do not have enough knowledge to understand yet, rather than try to replace this lack of knowledge with equally unknown answers?

The Burden of Proof

In legal matters, as well as most other things in the real world, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. If someone accused you of murdering someone and you were charged with the crime of murder, during your trial it would be up to the State to “prove” beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the murder that you have been accused of. Indeed as it should be the ‘burden of proof’ would be on the person or entity making the claim. It would not be up to you to prove you did not commit the murder, and this, of course, is how it should be.

Most things in life operate this way … except in the area known as religion. I have been asked before to prove there is no God, and although I believe the evidence weighs heavily in my favor, I can’t prove a negative. I also do not have to because the burden of proof in this lies with the one making the claim, the theist. Someone could not claim to be an atheist had there not been a theist first. I could not claim to not be something without knowing what it is that I am claiming not to be. It stands to reason the theist made the claim and has the burden of proof in this matter.

If I were to make the claim that I have little green men living under my bed, and at night they come out and talk to me, most people would assume that the burden of proof lies with me to substantiate this claim. It would not be up to others to prove I do not have little green men hiding under my bed; because it would be impossible for them to do so, you can’t prove a negative. I might say they only talk to me or that only I can see them making it impossible for anyone to prove that I am wrong. But since I am not able to prove my statement, most sane and rational people would discount my claim as the ramblings of a mad man.

Should we give any more credibility to someone making the claim for a God without first demanding they give proof to their claim? Why do we not demand the same proof for this claim as we do everything else in life?

God On Trial

Should we question the things we have been told to believe or should we just believe them without evidence out of fear of punishment from some cosmic cloud deity? In the legal world evidence is required to support all claims, why do we give religion a free pass?

What evidence could be presented to validate this claim? Many would say the Bible, but the Bible is not proof of anything. A book that was written by a few men based on the writings of a handful of people from thousands of years ago that was translated hundreds of times into many different languages should not be considered as anything more than a book of fables. Do you know anyone that actually witnessed God or Jesus? As far as we know there are four main people that can testify on behalf of these stories, but they are nothing more than anonymous fictional characters with no last names. The entire story relies upon four men who all we know are named Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark. I say they are anonymous because nothing else is known about them.

Imagine a police officer filing a police report about a crime and naming four people named Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark … no last names, no addresses, no phone numbers … nothing more than just first names. Then to make it worse, these 4 anonymous people cannot be called upon to even testify because no one knows where or who they are. Would this case hold up in court? Would this case even be charged by a competent district attorney?

If this case were brought to trial, who would we call as witnesses? What evidence could be presented other than the written testimony of 4 anonymous men that no one knows anything about or how to locate them? Could God Himself be called to testify on His own behalf?

If we were to examine and treat this as we would any standard judicial proceeding this would be thrown out of court, so why is this any different? All other things in life we require evidence for except in this one area where we are expected to accept it on mere faith alone.

If we were to treat faith and religion in the same manner as we do with matters of the legal world and our justice system, what would happen if using those same rules of evidence that we do in any other judicial matter we put God On Trial?

The Bible

Most people are not aware of the origins of the Bible. Before the Bible, there was what were known as “Canons.” These Canons were simply manuscripts that were written by different authors (most of them anonymous) over a span of about 1600 years. There were many Canons, and not all were included in what came to be known as the “Bible.” The method to determine what would be included, and what would not be included and left out was the system of voting.

Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered “holy” and thus “the word of God” and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.

Emperor Constantine used what motivates many to action – MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the “word of God” into existence, but The Church leaders didn’t finish editing the “holy scriptures” until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed.

So, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God at all … but Constantine!

Constantine then ordered and financed 50 parchment copies of the new “word of God” which is now known as the Bible. With the financial element added to the picture, the Church fathers were able to overcome their differences and finally agree which “holy books” would stay and which would go.

There are lost books of the Bible, which should have been included in the Canon. These books are cited by writers of the Bible, and they are: Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher, Book of the Covenant, Book of Nathan, Book of Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon, Three Thousand Proverbs of Solomon, A Thousand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Book of Jehu, Book of Enoch.

It would seem reasonable to ask that had the vote gone another way, would people of faith be believing something entirely different than what they believe to be the word of God today?

The One True Religion

There are more than 750 established Religions in the world which are broken out into more the 3200 different sects. Christianity, for example, is one of the major religions but has more than 300 sub-sects, each with their own unique traditions and interpretations of the bible.

The actual number of religions is much higher than this even because a religion can be defined in so many different ways, so there is no way to know exactly how many religions may exist, but even with the example given, how can you be sure you have selected the “one true religion?”

If your eternal salvation relies on you not only believing in God but the “one true God” how can you be sure you have made the right choice? What if the God you believe in is the wrong God. Would you suffer the same fate as the non-believer if you did believe in God, but happened to not believe in the “one true God?”

Of course, most theists believe that they were fortunate enough to select the “one true religion” out of the many religions of the world, but also the “one true God” as well. As I said earlier, they did not pick their religion, their religion picked them. I know many will argue this point with me by saying they went through several religions before deciding on the “one true religion” they currently belong to now. That, is not impressive though. Moving from a Baptist faith to a different Christian faith is akin to saying you once thought Breyer’s Vanilla ice cream was the best, now you think Ben & Jerry’s is the best.

The truth is had you been born in for example Iran, you would be most likely a Muslim, and if you would have been born in India, you most likely would be a Hindu today. But I can say with certainty that had that been the case, you would believe one of those religions to be the “one true religion” today, just as those people who believe in one of those other religions do, instead of the one you believe is now. Of course people’s arrogance will never have them admit to this, but of course, it’s true. Geography had more of a decision in your religion than you did. I will say it again, you did not pick your religion, it picked you.

A Catholic believes they are saved because their God is the “one true God” but then so does the Muslim, the Jew, and the Hindu. They can’t all be right, but they could all be wrong. Each one of these people of faith is convinced that they were fortunate enough to be able to determine not only what the “one true religion” is, but also the “one true God” as well. But, it is not possible that all of them are right, so what about the ones who are wrong?

The Catholic is certain the Muslim is wrong, just as the Muslim is certain the Catholic is wrong, and of course, the Jew thinks they are both wrong. Even among the same faiths such as Christians, they can’t all agree either, which is why there are over 300 sects of Christianity alone.

Would picking the wrong God, be just as bad as not picking one at all?

Free Will

The Webster Dictionary defines free will as:

1: voluntary choice or decision, I do this of my own free will.

2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

When theists are presented with a dilemma such as trying to explain why their God would allow terrible things to happen if he is all loving and all powerful, their go-to response is “free will.” This is not only a cop-out but not even an acceptable answer. A theist cannot truly believe they have free will while at the same time believing God knows their every thought and action.

If God knows what you are going to do before you do it, that would mean it is predestined. It is something that is going to happen and you have no choice in the matter. It does not matter that you have the option of changing your mind, because, in the end, God would still know what your final decision would be. Even if you were to change your mind 1000 times, God would still know what your final decision would be. If God knew yesterday that today you would eat cereal for breakfast, are you free to not eat cereal today? The problem is of course if you are free to not eat cereal today, God would have been wrong in knowing that you would eat cereal today.

If someone knows in advance what you will do, you do not have free will because it was decided ahead of time what you were going to do. Although you might have convinced yourself that you had free will in your decision, you did not because God knew before you did what you were going to decide.

Either we truly have free will and God (or anyone else) does not know what we will do tomorrow, or we do not and our future has already been decided and you are just playing out a role that had already been predetermined.

It’s A Miracle!

Do you believe in miracles?

Miracles seem to happen almost daily in the lives of a theist. These miracles may be something as trivial as remembering where someone left their car keys to someone being pulled from the brink of death at the last minute. Of course, these things could only mean it was ‘God’ that performed these ‘miracles’ to the believer.

Never does the believer ever question why their god would be so discriminate in His choices of where to perform these miracles. A young child dying of cancer is not ‘Gods’ fault, nor does the believer not only question why, but goes further in giving their God a free pass on the subject entirely. The go to answer is of course that ‘God’ works in mysterious ways and had a much larger plan for why He did what He did, and we could never fathom the brilliance of such a plan. We should not question this plan because it’s divine.

God seems to have time in his busy schedule to find someone’s car keys, have someone’s favorite sports team win the Superbowl or make sure they get the job they applied for, but can’t seem to be bothered with things like curing cancer, stopping hunger or stopping that plane from crashing killing everyone onboard…but if by chance there is a lone survivor this could only be ‘Gods’ work and it’s no doubt a ‘miracle’…Hallelujah indeed!

Any ‘miracles’ of monumental proportion all would seem to have taken place many hundreds or thousands of years before man was capable of documenting these ‘miracles’ and today there are no ‘miracles’ at all of this magnitude. Parting sea’s, flooding the Earth, turning people into salt pillars, talking snakes, virgin births, all seemed to have conveniently happened at a point in time before such things could be examined scientifically and documented.

Of course, the theist would make the argument that ‘miracles’ still happen all the time. These times would include those rare occasions when someone somehow is cured of a disease, an abducted child is found, that one person survives an airplane crash, or someone finds their car keys….these could only be ‘miracles’ and ‘God’ is most certainly to credit for these things…but what about when in the majority of other times things do not have a happy ending, why is ‘God’ not to blame? The person dies of the disease, the abducted child is found dead, everyone on the plane dies and you never find your car keys.

It would seem that ‘God’ gets all of the credit and none of the blame. Of course to anyone of a rational mind we understand that this is just how it is…sometimes things work out well and sometimes they don’t, but in either case there was no divine intervention.

Who or What Created God?

Theists will say that everything needs a creator, but then who or what created God? Theists will try to make the claim that God has always existed or that He created himself even after also making the claim that everything must have a creator. If God existed before the creation of time, space, and matter…how did He exist? How could something exist before there was something to exist in? Theists seem to be the one’s making the claim that nothing created something, not atheists.

This same claim would not be accepted if a theist were to ask an atheist who or what created the Universe and the atheist were to answer that it just created itself. Then why is it that this same claim is acceptable to them when it comes to explaining how their God came to be?

Theists like to make the claim that atheists believe that there was a Big Bang and then everything was just created. This, of course, is not true and nothing more than an attempt by theists to discredit Evolution. The Universe was created through millions and millions of years of evolution, not all at once. Anyone that is really interested in learning the truth about Evolution should read The Blind Watch Maker by Richard Dawkins.

So, why is the same argument good enough to a theist when trying to explain the existence of God to an atheist, but not good enough when an atheist using that same argument is trying to explain the existence of universe, matter, and energy to a theist?

The Unknown God

Theists say that anyone that accepts God will be forever saved from a life of torture and misery. The problem with this is most of the world never heard of God.

There have been billions of people that have died in the years leading up to the story of Jesus and the formation of Christianity. Those people would have never heard a word about the Christian God’s existence or Jesus. Would all these people be burning in hell for simply having the misfortune of being born somewhere else or in a time before Jesus? Are they all condemned to eternal suffering only because they were born in an area, where the Christian story was not known and they were never familiar with the Jesus story, nor had they ever heard about this Christian God? Are they doomed because they never had a chance to become Christians, as these continents were not “discovered” until many centuries later?

What about all the people that were born and then died hundreds and thousands of years before Christ? Are they doomed simply by chance of being born before Christ? What about babies that died before being old enough to understand the requirements for eternal salvation? What about animals that are not capable of the comprehension of a God? What about societies such as Aborigines and other people who were never given the opportunity to know the Christian God? Are all these people simply doomed by chance?

It would seem logical that God would inform them of His existence if he didn’t want them to go to hell. Could this be an all loving God?

The Unknowable God

Most theists will say that the true nature of God is unknowable, that we can never really know what or who God is. This is actually one of the only things that I would agree with. Only things that exist can be known, if something is unknowable, it means that it does not exist.

Let’s use the example of a “”. What is a “” you will probably ask? Good question, because I have actually said nothing, which would be the only thing that could possibly be unknowable. Once you name something or give it characteristics it becomes knowable. The fact that a theist gives this mystical creature a name “God” and then tries to describe it automatically makes it knowable because if something can be described it can be known.

So in reality, if ‘God’ is unknowable it means he does not exist, so when someone moves their lips and utters this strange sound known as ‘God’ it is as if they have said nothing at all, much like “___” would be … I have said nothing.

So either God is knowable, or God does not exist. So, is this God really The God Who Wasn’t There?

The Omnipotent God

Theists will agree that God is all powerful, all loving and all knowing. In other words, he is an omnipotent, omniscient and perfect creature incapable of evil. But is this possible? If he created everything did he not also create evil?

If he can do anything, can he create a rock even he cannot move, or a mountain too high for him to climb? This, of course, creates a problem either way someone answers it. If God can do these things, then he has created something he cannot do, as in moving the rock or climbing the mountain. If he is not able to create these things, then he also faced with an impossibility and something he cannot do.

Jeremiah 32:27 and Matthew 19:26 says that God is omnipotent (all-powerful). But Judges 1:19 says that the Lord was unable to help the men of Judah drive out the people from the plains because they had iron chariots. But, in Joshua 10:12, God makes the sun stand still in the sky so that Joshua can get all his killing done before dark. One would have to ask themselves if God can make the sun stand still for Joshua to attain a military victory, why did he not do something as simple as destroying a few iron chariots?

It would seem that iron to God is akin to Kryptonite for Superman.

If he is all good and he is all knowing, then he would know when something bad was going to happen, if he allows it, he cannot be all good.

The premise of the believer is “Don’t think, don’t question, just believe.” Most people of faith have never given any rational thought to the things they believe, they believe it because their Bible tells them it’s so, or because they read it somewhere else or their priest or their preacher told them to believe it. They then simply repeat what they were told or what they read and assume it to be true. After hearing and repeating this dogma over time, it leaves little room for doubt in their mind that it’s not true or at least open for discussion and critique.

God Is Omniscient

Omniscient – knowing everything : having unlimited understanding or knowledge.

According to the Bible, God is an Omniscient God. God, being the all perfect and knowing being that He is according to the Bible has foretold the future many times in the past. Through His omniscience, He knew in advance that Eve would disobey Him and eat the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. He also knew that there would be the need to destroy the world He created with a great flood and start all over again. He knew in advance that all of mankind would disobey Him and there would be a need for Him to send His son (himself) to die for everyone’s sins (that He knew in advance of) before creating us. If this is the case, why would he go to all the trouble to do all these things in the first place if he knew it was going to be a failure? By doing this, did he not almost set mankind up for failure?

If this is true, then He knew from the beginning every person who would believe in Him and deserve to go to heaven and which ones would not.
If God was aware in advance of our every thought and action from the time we were born up until the time of our death, and He knew all this for every person that had ever been born or would ever be born, while at the same time knowing in advance we would never be able to live up to the standards for which he placed upon us, would this not be an act of futility?

Why put us on Earth in the first place knowing in advance that we would fail and fall short of his plans for us? Would a Father who loves his children condemn them in advance to an eternal agony in hell? Would this be someone deserving of our love and respect?

Omnipresent God

Omnipresent God – Webster defines Omnipresent as – Present in all places at all time.

According to the Bible, God can be everywhere at one time. Omnipresence is a theological term that refers to the unlimited nature of God or His ability to be everywhere at all times.

Psalm 33:13-14 says that God exists outside of our created world: “The LORD looks down from heaven; he sees all the children of man; from where he sits enthroned he looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth.” Yet God is also everywhere within our world. Psalm 139:7-10 says, “Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.”

I guess being Omnipresent should not be looked at as anything unbelievable, after all, he is also Omniscient and Omnipotent as well. So God knows everything with unlimited understanding and knowledge, He can be everywhere at the same time and He has complete and unlimited power. God also existed before time, where or how exactly no one knows of course.

Conclusion

I expect this to create much controversy on both sides of the argument. People hate to have their beliefs called into question. No doubt many will become angry and start posting insults or questioning how I could dare question theirs Gods. After all, Gods are fragile creatures and need defending.

To be continued…