The God Hunt Continues

The time seems right to approach and consider a very fundamental question. God. First a quick review. We have established the type of god that cannot truthfully be believed in. An inconsistent god; a god that is unknowable, incomprehensible, indefinable, contrary to law, imperfect, undeserving, vengeful, unduly merciful, or in any way deficient. Conversely, the God that can be believed in is perfectly consistent; a being that is comprehensible, definable, real, operates according to universal law, perfectly just, and in every way deserving of admiration.

But first a more basic question must be dealt with. What reasoning is there for the existence of any god whatsoever? The denial of all the inconsistent gods that have been suggested leaves two remaining options. It's either a perfectly consistent God or no god whatsoever.

First, let us examine the main tenants of atheism. Atheism proposes that no god exists. There are many implications that follow from this premise. Among them are the following. First, man is merely a part of a logical progression of natural law; another species among billions. Second, man's existence begins with birth and ends with death. There is no suggestion of an immortal soul or special significance. Third, no ultimate progressional goal exists, only our experiences in this life matter. Obviously there are more implications, however, these three will suffice for the present discussion.

I will examine these points in order. First, man's existence as a coincidental result. The study of science is essentially the study of causation. Science inquires over and over, how does this happen? What makes this occur? Why does it occur in this particular way? Chemists concern themselves with the causal relationships and interactions of different elements and molecular structures. Biologists examine the interactions of species. Physicists characterized and attempt to understand the laws of kinematics and electromagnetics. Each of these sciences works from simple causal relationships back to more and more basic conclusions. However, eventually, the chain runs out. The first cause (essentially the "why" question) in any chain has never been explained. If humanity is simply a inevitable step in a progression of causal relationships resulting from natural law, what set off the progression?

Second, the finite existence of man. Atheism argues for a definite beginning and end to a person's existence. There are a number of problems with this approach. There is not sufficient room to fully consider these problems at present. Currently, only two points will be mentioned. First, the eternal nature of causality and consistency (both of which have already been established) would be violated. The absolute end of an intelligence would supposedly release it from all causal obligations based upon prior choices and negate the consistency of the universe. Secondly, as previously discussed, happiness is my aim. The postulate of an immortal existence of my intelligent self will increase my happiness both in this life and allow for an infinite excess of happiness in futurity. As already shown, a perfect understanding of truth and life consistent with it will result in maximized happiness. Therefore, the postulate of immortality must be true, otherwise a deception would result in increased happiness, an impossibility. I take the immortality of my intelligence as a true premise.

Third, the lack of ultimate aim. Removing a perfect God from the equation results in a life without any necessity for ethics or progression. Without God, everything that exists is completely and utterly pointless. The universe degenerates into essentially a waste of time and hedonism should result in absolute happiness. As hedonism does not result in absolute happiness and a pointless universe could not come into existence according to the law of causality, there is a purpose to this life.

Therefore, I conclude that atheism is not consistent, not logical, does not increase happiness, and is not eternalism. In all truth, atheism as it is generally practiced is lazy. The common atheist has managed to conclude that some particular popular god has an inconsistency and then somehow manages to extrapolate that no god can exist. Rather than explore alternative possibilities or believing in a God that is worth believing, the atheist quits looking. Often the name of science, the most logical of human pursuits, is somehow invoked in this irrational decision with a supposed air of authority. Worse yet, agnosticism entirely denies the ability to know, conveniently releasing a supposed proponent from the obligation to try. Both atheism and agnosticism are simply an incorrect response to the fear of not understanding. The correct response is to think, the only way to understanding.

I conclude, that atheism is false. A multitude of daily evidences speaks to the existence of the consistent, scientific, and logical God. God exists. Now it's time to try and better understand God's attributes.