We can never know whether God does exist

Since eons ago, when humans started to employ reasoning based on what was observed and perceived, they attempted to make sense of the macrocosm they resided in. With some sense of curiosity (and ignorance), humans tried to explain the many natural phenomena, which, at times contradict their pre-conceived notions (best reasoning based on what is known at that time) of the world. Observing no conspicuous cause, humans naturally presumed the causality1 of all things to be effected by a superior being. Inevitably, it evolved into religion. With it, we induce certainty by comforting ourselves with a belief framework (that is supposedly divine) which attempt to explicate the conundrums of the existence of nature and us, that is, God created us. Unbeknownst to most people, regardless of what they believe (including science), regardless of how they bolster their belief (even by means of empirical study), that belief remains an inconclusive interpretation of this world. Saying God does exist, or saying God does not exist, implies concession of absolute truth, but since absolute truth can never be found (a posit I shall explicate later), we can never know whether God does exist.

An article entitled “A Help In Understanding What God Is” gives the following argument to support God’s existence. An inhabitant who lives in a two dimensional world can only perceive length and width, but not thickness. A sphere which goes through that world will be perceived as a dot that appears out of nowhere and grows to be a circle, and then vanishes. That inhabitant has just observed a violation of a physics law stating that matter can not be created nor destroyed. The article concludes by saying “God is so superior to us, he exists in such a higher dimension than do we that what is natural and ordinary to him is miraculous to us.” Put it simply, the article implies that God exists, but in higher realms to which we have no access in any way.

The article “A Practical Man’s Proof of God” maintains that the atheists are wrong in saying that the cosmos has no beginning, and hence, God’s concept and existence are redundant. The article bases its logical argument on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which simply states that entropy2 increases as time passes, which is also why the universe is expanding. If we rewind the time back, we shall see a time where the cosmos is just a point of singularity, which is the beginning. Ultimately, if there is a beginning, there has to be its cause. And this ultimate cause, which conforms to most mainstream religions’ assertion, is what theists term as ‘God’.

Atheists, though appear anti-theistic, also implicitly state that they have found absolute truth by explicitly saying that God does not exist. One notable reasoning raised is that every religion, especially mainstream ones, asserts that their God(s) is the only God, and that they offer absolute truth of nature and our existence. Assuming that religion offers absolute truth, therefore their assertion aforementioned must be true. But if their assertion is true, then their assertion can not be true, for if one’s God is the only God, then it can’t be that all other’s Gods (which are starkly different) is the only God. The quote “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”(Roberts, S.F., 2001) is apt in describing this situation. Since all the religions are contradicting each other (and therefore their conviction is flawed), atheists conclude that God does not exist.

The arguments put forth by both theists and atheists ostensibly support their tenets, but in actuality they prove otherwise. The first argument, which utilizes a thought experiment to explain the nature of God, already assumes God’s existence. Assuming that God already exists to prove that God exists and to subsequently explain God’s nature is circular3 at worst, and a homunculus argument4 at best. It proves nothing and is thus fallacious. The second argument, interestingly, employs scientific theories to account for God’s existence. One scientific article, however, conjectures that the universal constant, which determines the laws of physics, may have varied gradually as time passes. (Webb, J., 2003) Put it simply, the Second law of thermodynamics only applies to the present, not the past where the laws of physics may be different. As for the atheists, their argument of theists’ contradictory premises is also flawed. In “The Presumption of Atheism”, Bertrand Russell is quoted as saying “I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God…The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.” It’s not that all the religions are absolutely wrong, it’s just that we can’t determine their veracity. Ergo, we do not know for sure if God exists.

René Descartes (1596-1650), a famous French philosopher and mathematician, showed that there were many uncertainties in philosophy (Humphrey, C., n.d.). He attempted to establish philosophy as a priori with full certitude and found that the only thing he was most certain of was that he was thinking. That was the essence of his famous quote, “Cogito Ergo Sum” (I think, therefore I am). In his “automata” theory, Descartes also implied that there exist uncertainties in our perception of the world. While such uncertainties can be eliminated by empirical means, empiricism can only be as accurate as our perception allows. Thus how can we be sure of the world which we resides in? To make this clearer, consider the Virtual Reality technology. It’s possible to utilize technologies to impose an artificial world upon our perception, thereby effectively blanketing our perception of the real world. The Matrix trilogy, a film about a simulated world run by sentient machines, exemplifies this. At any time, we will never know what is real and what is not, and that includes the reality we are in now. Therefore we can never determine if everything is real, and so is the existence of God.

While it is shown that even empiricism does not offer definite conclusion, religion does not necessarily offer absolute truth, too. Galileo Galilei, for instance, was punished by the Roman Catholic because he maintained that earth revolved around the sun (Galileo Galilei 1564-1642). Yet, we now know that Galileo is right. Being in a modern era does not make things any better. Holy manuscripts are misconstrued to create concordance with scientific evidence. Take, for instance, a Pakistani scientist who misinterpret a holy manuscript verse to calculate the velocity with which the heaven is receding from earth (Mckanzie, D., 2005) Yet, we don’t even know if heaven exists in the first place. Truth in religion is therefore subject to multiple interpretations and not absolute. People have differing views on a matter, including religion. And the view can only be corroborated as much as our perception and logic allows. Yet, as aforementioned, our perception can be artificial and flawed. Uncertainty arises. Therefore we can not know the absolute truth.

Unintelligibility, one of the argument posed by theists, holds that our understanding of God is limited, which is why we can’t find proof of God’s existence. This is conspicuously similar to the first argument mentioned earlier by theists, but likewise, it also supports the notion that God’s existence can not be determined. Blaise Pascal once said “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.” (Holt T., 2006). Clearly, it explains that if God is truly incomprehensible, then how can we affirm either theism or atheism? We can therefore conclude that, given God’s nature of being incomprehensible (assuming God exist), we shall also come to the conclusion that we can not determine God’s existence.

To sum everything up, our reasoning can only be substantiated as far as our perception will allow, and if our perception is susceptible to manipulation without us knowing it, then we can never find absolute truth. But our knowledge of whether our perception is manipulated is again determined by our reasoning and perception. By this circular corollary, we have come to the conclusion that we can never be sure of whether God does exist. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Terminologies:

1. Causality (OALD): the relationship between something that happens and the reason for it happening; the principle that nothing can happen without a cause.
2. Entropy (OALD): (technical) a way of measuring the lack of order that exists in a system
3. Circular (OALD): (of an argument or a theory) using an idea or a statement to prove something which is then used to prove the idea or statement at the beginning
4. Homunculus argument (wikipedia): accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain. Homunculus arguments are always fallacious.

*OALD: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

References:

1. Webb, J. (2003). Are the laws of nature changing with time? [Electronic Version] Physics World. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/4/9/4

2. Mckanzie, D. (2005, October) End of Enlightenment. [Electronic Version] New Scientist., issue 2520. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18825201.200

3. A Practical Man’s Proof of God. (n.d.) Retrieved April 2, 2006, fromhttp://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html

4. A help in understanding what God is. (n.d.) Retrieved April 2, 2006, from http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Flatland.html

5. Cogito Ergo Sum. (March 26, 2006) Retrieved April 2, 2006, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

6. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). (n.d.) Retrieved April 16, 2006, from http://www.zephyrus.co.uk/galileogalilei.html

7. Humphrey C. (n.d.) I think, Therefore I am…NOT! Retrieved April 2, 2006, from http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.com/files/return2.htm

8. Roberts S.F. (2001) Brief History of the Quote. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.htm

9. Holt T. (2006) The Argument from Unintelligibility. Retrieved April 2, 2006, from http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/unintelligibility.html

10. Holt T. (2006) The Presumption of Atheism. Retrieved April 16, 2006, from http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/presumption.html

Enigmatic Conundrum

• Incongruous Quasiparticles
• Lagrange 2
• Ostensible Confession
• Viscera Galore
• Euphonous Cackle
• Monumental Abjection
• Innocuously Bizzarre
• Marinated Cattus
• Intel Inside
  

therein lies a statement.