Challenged by the God concept!

Image

One of the questions that most humans will wrestle with in life is the question “is there or isn’t there a God?” I know I do.  There are Atheists to claim to know there is not and there are the religious that claim that they know there is, they can’t both be right can they?

Perhaps the question isn’t so much “is there or isn’t there a God?” but rather “is God in your life or not?”  This would mean that both sides are true in some way, to the atheist who claims there is no God in fact has no evidence of God in their life and the religious that claim God to exist perhaps do know as He/She is in their life and the evidence is what convinces them.

Either way I have many of my own questions such as “If a God made everything surely He/She could communicate with us?”  “If there was a God, which God?”  or “If we all have the same God why has He/She told us all different things?” perhaps “If there is no God why is there a concept of good and bad?”  or even “If there is no God why has every civilization got stories of a God or God’s?”

I find that many of the religious old teachings have been utterly disproved by modern scientific facts which leads me to believe that if God had in fact communicated with a man to tell mankind all about Him/Her then He/She made a lot of mistakes about His/Her creation.  Then there are other religions that have many factual events during the time of their conception making the religion seem more plausible and real, however they offer nothing that could be tangibly a divine revelation of the unknown which leads me to believe that they might well be incorrect too especially if given by a Higher all-knowing being.  Then there are the religions where they have twisted the meaning of their writings in order to relate to modern science so that there beliefs come in line and continue to hold validity although not holding to their true meaning.  Finally there are the religions that make claim that their ancient writings are merely poetic in meaning and thus not to be taken literally especially when conflicting with the claims of modern science.

Which leads me to ask further questions “perhaps God does exist but we have incorrectly painted a picture of a omnipetent, omnipresent, all knowing God, that is in fact none of these things and when He/She communicated with man it was a bit of guesswork by Himself/Herself and in order to cover a few bases He/She gave us a few different stories?”

To rule out God completely would be absolutely absurd in any case, when you consider that an argument by the religious with an atheist could always end with “but where did that begin?” or “but who made that happen?”  even an atheist couldn’t be so mistaken to claim to know it was not in fact a God.

So let us look deeper into some of these questions as I have, firstly “surely a God that made everything could communicate with us?”   if Alexander Graham Bell had made the first telephone and failed to ensure his creation could actually communicate at both ends that wouldn’t be much of a feat now would it?  So I must assume that a God did make a way that He/She could communicate with mankind. If that were true then someone through history must have actually been connected and perhaps tell others or even write it down.  If some one or some people had heard from God then they would need to have pretty precise with information unless the God that made everything wasn’t all-powerful in which case the information might still be incorrect but our opinion of an all-powerful God would be incorrect and wouldn’t exist but not that the real God didn’t exist.  Let us assume that God did make all things, we could assume that He/She did know what He/She was doing and therefore be able to share the truth with people or someone.  If God wanted to share such important information about Himself/Herself I often wonder if He/She would be naive enough to only tell one person such vital information?  This would mean that God would then ensure that He gave His information too a few people, that would also mean that the information would need to be the same considering it came from the same source.  If God then wanted to prove Himself/Herself trustworthy He?  She would need to make sure that all of the people He/She told the information too would tell the same story to make them all viable and trustworthy witnesses.  This concept leads me to the Bible, a book that claims to be the inspired word of God that isn’t actually one book at all, it is a Library of books based on hundreds of writings found spread across a large land mass and over thousands of years.  There are 40 writers and 66 books in the Bible, all of them recorded over 2000+ years, each of the 66 books have been carefully selected by the fact that they have over 200 different  verification by other writers over this period.  That makes for a lot of witnesses, if you read the works themselves you will find a slinky string effect of a repetitive theme and information.  On top of this at least 30% of the Bible is not a record of history but actually prophetic future events of which could be argued that at least 90% of them have occurred years after they were recorded.

Am I saying that the Bible is then the inspired word of God?  I’m not saying anything of the sort,  am merely stating the facts as they present themselves to the arguments.  But what about science that disproves the Bible accounts?  This is where it all gets very interesting, based on the previous arguments it would seem that if there is a God He/She is either not all-powerful and therefore science still couldn’t disprove God isn’t real just because of His/Her imperfect information, or alternatively God is all-powerful but the Bible is incorrect because it isn’t the inspired word of God that still leads to the questions was much of the Bible just poetic and therefore not literal and therefore science hasn’t disproved it because you can’t disprove something that was poetic or just stories given by God to help us to live how He/She wanted.

The only time that science could even possibly create and argument against the Bible is if the Bible was the inspired word of God and a man claimed it as such.  Let us look at this concept for a minute.  If the Bible is the inspired word of God does science disprove its claims?  That depends on witnesses and the evidence just as it does with the Bible.  So the question is not so much is the Bible true or is science true but more to the fact that are the witnesses true and trustworthy and is the evidence valid to the argument.  The first point to the argument would be the fact that there are multiple witnesses all saying the same thing in the Bible over thousands of years and in the case of science we have multiple witnesses over 100 years all claiming different things although fairly similar.  The Bible writers had nothing to gain from their claims that what they heard was communication from God seeing as most of the writers either lived in poverty, faced persecution and died horrific deaths.  Now let us compare the same of atheist scientists who make a career on their claims, earn money and respect from their claims and usually are honored until the day they day as well as their name thereafter.  Scientists witnesses make predictions of the future based on studying the past yet one thing we can be sure of is that there is absolutely no way that these predictions can be upheld over millions of years due to the extreme changes in environment especially seeing as those predictions are based on post extreme changes over the last millions of years.

Finally we find that even within science things such as the dating process differs extremely between the scientific tests which proves that science is also not an all-knowing God that can be trusted and therefore which one can be trusted if any just like religion we then have the problem in kn owing which is right and has the all-knowing God of knowledge?  It would appear that even science doesn’t have to all Knowing God that has been able to communicate to us the information we can trust.  Which still leads me to the conclusion that there is more chance that there is a God than there isn’t, the only question now is “Is it more realistic that there is a Omnipotent, Omnipresent God that can communicate to mankind or a God that isn’t omnipresent, omnipotent and all-knowing.”  the answer to this question leads to two different direction one to the God of the Bible and the other to the gods of other religions.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s