Letter 10: Who Is God?

I ended the previous letter by stating that the root of the argument between science and religion is not really the question “Is there a God?” but rather, “Who is God?” (though I doubt science will ever admit that). I also stated that I don’t blame science for not believing in the Gods of religion.

 

Science may have holes in their theories, but with respect to being organized and unified, they are quite impressive. Their standards and systems are well-orchestrated worldwide.

 

Religion, on the other hand, ends up being the very thing on their side of the argument that doesn’t add up. They offer details about God like he is all-knowing, he is all-powerful, he is unchanging from all eternity to all eternity. Religion claims “He is perfect,” yet they themselves are the near epitome of imperfection, or at least disorganization.

 

Now, I know I am being hard on religion, but I am trying to make a point. When I can go to a website like ‘religioustolerance.org’ and read:

 

“According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations."

 

Let’s just say that it is easier to believe that a single cell organism formed by chance than it is to believe that a perfect and unchangeable God is responsible for all of that.

 

So, where does this leave us then? If we hit a dead end on both sides of the argument, do we just give up? I meet people all the time who have done just that and who don’t know (or won’t admit) that they have done such, but they prove it when they say ridiculous thing like “truth is relative” or “many paths lead to God.”

 

If God really is “whatever I believe him to be in my heart,” which I’ve heard far too many times, then science is right. He doesn’t exist, but is rather just a self-help concept. However, I suppose this brings me at last to the statement that I started these letters off with: “The pieces of the puzzle are finally available to put the picture together.” Thus, it is finally time that I put them together.

 

To do this, I will continue adding to the Matrix Theory, and in so doing, I first need to expound upon its four assumptions.

 

Assumption 1 is that there is a God. Okay, but who is He and what is He like? Part of Assumption 2 is that He is our father, but this is something that the different tenants of religion do not agree on. Thus, before we go too far, let’s see what religion does agree on with respect to God. Here is what I can find:

 

-He is omnipotent (all-powerful)

 

-He is omniscient (all-knowing)

 

-He is omnipresent (able to be simultaneously aware of all things at all times)

 

-He is eternal (always has existed and always will exist)

 

-He is perfect (a summary of the above 4 points)

 

-He created all things in the universe including this Earth

 

-He has ultimate command over the universe and Earth

 

-He dwells somewhere above the Earth (in the Heavens or some higher realm of    existence)

 

-He is the author of all that is good

 

-He is perfectly loving

 

-He is perfectly just and honest

 

-He wants us to do good

 

-He is aware of us and everything that we do, say, think, and feel

 

-He wants us to move up from where we are now and eventually be where he is forever

 

-The way that we live our lives will determine (He being the judge) if we will get that chance to live with Him after death.

 

That is the extent of what I find religion agrees on, and it offers a fairly good idea of what God is like. However, it offers nothing about who He is. A common answer is that He is our father, which amongst the various thoughts out there makes the most sense to me. When I consider the points listed above, I can’t help but ask myself, “Why would someone like God, who is infinitely more capable than me, have any interest at all in me, let-alone full interest such that He is aware of my every move, word, thought, and feeling? Why would He care what I do with my life? Why does He want me to eventually live with Him?”

 

The only thing that I can conclude is that I am important to Him, and I have no idea why that would be the case except that I am very close to Him, like a son. In other words, if He is acting like a father, then why not be a father?

 

Some religions do not accept that God is our father, yet they share in the beliefs listed above regarding Him. I would ask, “What does it matter if God is our literal father or someone who is acting that way?” The only thing that makes a surrogate parent different from a real parent is how good of a parent they are, and given that everyone in religion agrees that God is perfect, then would it not stand to reason that He is also a perfect parent, be it by birth right or adoption? And why would I care how I acquired his undivided attention and unconditional love? Such becomes irrelevant and I am consequently labeling God as our father in my theory and thereby declaring who He is.

 

That is enough for now. In the next letter, I will continue expanding the assumptions of the Matrix Theory and moving towards completing the picture.

 

Until next time,

 

Joshua

Reviews

[eatmills]

The one big difference between religion and science is disclosure. Science will present the facts for interpretation whereas religion does not offer full disclosure, has misinformed and has kept secrets. Both science and religion are based on faith except that science is based on faith of theoretical numbers and measurement.

I enjoy your food for thought. It is very tasty.

[Lizzy]

This is fairly well written, but can be torn apart. "In other words, if he is acting like a father, then why not be a father? " - God would already be a father in the sense that he is the Creator, the Maker. Saying that religion in general never explains who God is weakens the argument. There are many religions out there that have some sort of book, for example, the Bible. The Bible not only explains who God is and what he does, but also why things are the way they are. If you want to discredit all religion, you must give specific examples of holes in certain major religions. This letter elucidates that not enough research has been done.