It may seem paradoxical that even recently, during our comparatively secular contemporary age, focused on humanism, science and technology, many have attempted to prove that God exists. However, none of these ideas seem incongruent with the idea that God exists. Mankind has learned to use the wisdom contained within these various subjects first to improve the civilization in which he lives, next to admire the greatness of some living God. The great tragedy of the centuries previous to ours is that humanity first admired God before improving their own lot. The successes humanity has achieved during the current aeon were not the result of the murder of God. Although a loud contingent of atheists like to take credit for ushering in our current age of reason, it was not the aggressive rejection of God which allowed humanity to turn its attention to more immediately important manners, but the passive acceptance of God. The Church no longer had the authority to enforce the doctrine of God’s existence upon the people, whom didn’t require it any further. Believers willingly anointed it upon themselves, while atheists and agnostics were free do as they wished without fear of chastisement. Humanistic and scientific ideas could exist both alongside and separate from the religious. Science and academia were not clandestine studies done only to supplement religiosity. They were complementary and accentuated one another.
Assuming that it was not specifically God who gifted the world with the truth of these ideas, it was still often the idea of God which lifted up the hearts of the men and women who contributed to expanding the knowledge and understanding of our world and universe. The chemist in the lab still went to church every Sunday. The civil rights activist still asked God for strength. The psychologist still admired God’s design of the mind. The philosopher still contemplated the question of God. All of these people made no mention of God in their work or publications. Yet, it was still the idea of working to do good in the eyes their God which motivated them. Of course, many of recent history’s greatest luminaries have also been stalwart atheists. The number and percentage of atheists worldwide may be greater than its ever been in history, however it is still small compared to the number of percentage of people who believe in some kind of unseen spiritual power. Atheism did not spawn the prosperity of recent decades. It was the egalitarian principal which allows people to freely express their beliefs which did so. In the daily work done for the benefit of oneself and those around, God was left out completely. Rightfully so, because those who do not believe still want to participate in society and improve it.
The question of God’s existence is entirely dependent how “God” is defined. Often, God is depicted as the Grand Master of the Universe, seeing all, knowing all, controlling all. Perhaps he (it) is all of these things, however it is also possible that God is none of these things, or is these things only to a limited extent. Perhaps it sees only some, knows only a fair amount and controls just that which is within its domain. The philosophers and mathematicians whom attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God are misguided in that they search for a force in the universe whose magnitude of greatness is beyond comparison. There is no stipulation that God must fit this criteria. Instead, God could be the smallest of things. To find proof of God has been the quest of many, however defining God as the largest and most powerful entity in the universe explicitly suggests that he must dwell in the universe. Instead, God may be an energy of unknown size and power, existing outside of the universe. To prove its existence one may only have to discover a single particle, or anti-particle of matter, or anti-matter, which exists our known plane of living. God is not a man, and even if it did at one or several times embody itself within a human or living creature, it still existed simultaneously around that being. To prove the existence of God, one can merely alter its definition. To alter the definition established concretely by the dogma of the church was once the worst type of heresy, however recently embraced wisdom teaches us that we are allowed to do so. In this case, one may consider God not a person or entity, but a substance, floating around invisibly, though still lording and connecting all beings and objects. Perhaps there are humans who have achieved some characteristics of a God or Lord, including omniscience or omnipresence. However, no human could ever compare themselves to the grander God, the unseen energy which exists outside of understanding.
There have attempts to prove through the use of advanced mathematics, obtuse to the average person, that the theorized creation of the universe could not have occurred without external influence. Philosophers have also used logic, expressed in writing, to argue that in order for the universe to exist, God must have existed prior. Even art has been used to persuade humans of God’s existence. There are countless artworks which attempt to represent visually God’s majesty and persuade their viewers of it. It is important to distinguish that mathematics, writing and art, man’s greatest endowments, were discovered, rather than invented. Humans discovered language, then later invented specific languages. They discovered mathematics, then later invented methods of communicating numbers. They discovered art, then later invented various art mediums. All that humans fashioned were modes of representing these ideas visually. That other creatures living on the planet have even been shown to have created animalistic versions themselves proves that even if humans never existed, mathematics, writing and art would still exist. Many studies have suggested that animals have their own forms of these ideas. They are able to count, able to communicate and express themselves emotionally, the only necessary tenet of art creation. These ideas did not require the contribution of humanity in order to exist.
Even if Earth was totally barren, empty of a single living cell, mathematics, writing and art would still exist as ideas. Furthermore, even if the universe contained no life within it, these ideas would still exist. To go even further, even if the universe was never created, by God, a big bang, or whomever, these ideas would still exist. A reasonable definition of God is that which exists outside of the universe and before the creation of the universe. If there is no universe, than nothing exists except what we call God. If these ideas also exist, than through the transitive property of mathematics, we can state that God and these ideas are the same thing. Not just mathematics, writing and art, but any and all ideas: Charity, Respect, Honor, Hope. These ideas exist outside the plane of existence and would exist even if the universe did not, which is an acceptable characterization of God. No idea is invented, it is discovered already existing in the realm outside of the universe, where God dwells. Therefore, when we contemplate new ideas, we are searching for God. When we attempt to enliven our minds, we are worshipping God. Behold your God, it’s thought. Even if in the distant future our understanding of the universe become nearly total and complete, ideas will still exist outside of the universe, the same place where God lives. To say there is no God is like saying there is no Math.
The idea of symbolism is an integral component to most, if not all religions. In the reading of a religion’s holy books, objects, places and people are first read literally, then interpreted ironically. A story professes a certain amount of usable knowledge when analyzed superficially, however the beauty of these stories is in their depth, the wisdom which they can relay when analyzed with a more calculating eye. Many if not most scholars have abandoned the idea that any of the manifold holy texts passed down from ancient history should be read as instructional histories. The Bible, Torah and Koran do not exist to teach about events or provide biographies, but to provide framing devices for contemplation. The story of Job, for example, is not included in the Torah in order for more people to know about Job. He may have been an actual historical person. Regardless, his story is included because it is an opportunity for learning. He is not a man whom showed courage in times of adversity, he is a symbol for showing courage in times of adversity. Each of the characters in the holy books can be expressed this way, as archetypes of personalities each contributing to the grand universal self.
Jesus Christ is a figure whose mythological selflessness should surely be emulated by all, whether he existed or not, as man or prophet. However, it is merely that such a being could exist which can cause an even greater amount of awe. To suggest that God could come down to Earth and embody a person is an idea which cannot be truly fathomed by any. Therefore, to those whom his story is told, the mind is activated. Indeed, one not necessarily even need to believe the story, for in order to reject the veracity of a story one must first assess its plausibility. To many millions of true believers, Jesus is the son of God with whom they share a deeply personal relationship. To every person who has heard his story, including both believers and atheists, he is the character who in his story is the embodiment of God in human form.
Many of us rightfully condemn the missionaries who were so quick to kill or dismember those of the conquered tribes whom rejected the story of Jesus Christ. However, in our modern sensibility we are surely unable to understand the mindset of these proselytizers of centuries ago. To them, rejecting Jesus Christ may have been tantamount to rejecting the existence of Math, deflecting the usefulness of language, or the validity of artistic expression. Reaction to the story of Jesus was an unnatural evolutionary test instated by man. The heathen doesn’t believe the story of the Creator embodied in a man because he has no reason to. He is impaled. The heathen is not impressed by the idea that the Creator was embodied in a man because he has no capacity for contemplation. He is beheaded.
The modern English language poses the question of whether we “believe in” God, or not. How this differs from one who “believes of” God, or “believes out” God is not clear, nor is the etymology of this grammatically illiterate phrase. What’s even more puzzling is that colloquially, the phrase “believe in” means to have faith that someone or something is capable or worthy of fulfilling a task or job. A person who says they “believe in” their boss means that they are certain or optimistic that their boss is competent. They are not saying that they believe their boss exists, which is what the phrase means when used in reference to God. Without knowing it, according to the more popularly accepted definition of the phrase, a person who says they don’t “believe in” God is really saying their don’t think God is doing an adequate job at his position.
“Playing semantics” like these may seem pedantic, inconsequential or unimportant, but one should never underestimate the way which language shapes the way which we think and interact with reality. Specific languages evolve as a result of the ways which the brains of those who birthed them operate. The development of a language, therefore, should exactly match the development of the brains of the society in which it is used. Centuries ago, educated Englishmen spoke without slang, literally, correctly and eruditely. If we are to judge ourselves based on how English has changed over this time, our minds must be on the brink of insanity. Much of our daily vocabulary consists of invented brand names, words without definition, onomatopoeias, “buzzwords” (itself a buzzword), acronyms and guttural utterances. It is too depressing to believe that we have really devolved so much to automatically match the sophistication of our brains. These changes were not our own, but instilled upon us, without our consent or input by the society in which we live, lorded over by the television.
Language is how humans express their thoughts to each other. Through spoken and written words, we fill the sky with ideas, invisible but nonetheless there, each a different color, shape and texture, sounding a ring perennially dynamic. Each letter is a symbol of a power far greater than the vowel or consonant which it represents. The cross of Jesus is a shape too, so is the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim Star and Crescent, the Freemason Square and Compass and the Communist Hammer and Sickle. Magicians use devices called sigils, really just shapes of any kind, to seal the intent of their casts. A creation of geometry can possess a special place in a human’s heart and soul. The cross represents Jesus to us, but perhaps mystically it represents something completely different. Ideas are what we worship, not Gods or heroes. To truly worship God is the most impossible of all tasks. So, instead we create symbols, visual or literal, to approximate that which we wish to worship. Towards these symbols we extend our emotional energy, contributing to the expansion of the unseen in unknowable ways. On Earth, these energies fester, bouncing from one idolatrous image to the next, sometimes embedding in a living thing, releasing out of one, or grounding into the soil. Constantly working with and against all these forces is the single most powerful source of energy in our universe, the Sun. Not a symbol or an idea, it may be the only real thing. It can be felt, seen, feared, missed. To truly worship God is to send one’s energy through the firmament, past all the clashing plasm moving so chaotically around Earth, straight towards and into the Sun.