HI HI, if you can make sense of this and read from an objective point of view i think it will speak to most of us. if you can make sense of it or you let your foreknowledge cloud ure perception you'll think im a fool.
God Builder V1.1
My
version of god and the foundations of its religious implications are unique in
some respects and not so different from the stereotypical Roman Catholic
practices in others. The characteristics that I give God are similar in that
God is the creator. The rules and guidelines are similar in the respect to how
we treat and interact with one another. After those two points are conceded the
rest is my invention. God had harmony, tolerance and social utopia in mind when
God put us all on this world. As you might be able to see, these ideals are a
work in progress. That is the beauty of the whole system and creates the basis
for which I will ascribe God attributes.
By
principle you should not create something you cannot control. A good example of
this is free will. God cannot directly control our thoughts but God possess the
ability to intervene in our actions if God chooses. This basic assertion allows
me to believe that god is immensely powerful and incredibly wise. However, God
is not all-powerful because God cannot control my thoughts. It is important
that I do not attach all or omni to what God can do or know. This enables us to
attribute the inexplicable to god but does not force us to either. Since God is
not all-powerful there are things beyond God’s control. God having more power
and knowledge than the sum of the world’s power and knowledge is the base for
God’s traits. It is impossible to know the extent of what God can do. However,
it is not impossible to know that God can do more and know more than we are
able to do. This is an important trait to have because it limits God’s
omnipotence. Most people are troubled by the notion of God not being
“all-powerful” because it means God is not able to do anything and everything.
This then forces many to inquire into the point of worshipping God or looking
to God as a source of guidance. There is something simple that can be suggested
that would perhaps relieve that worry.
We
don’t need God as our source of inspiration or spirituality to be perfect. Just
the same as we don’t need role models and leaders to be perfect either. They
need only to have love for the people they are helping and admirable qualities
for the rest of us to acknowledge and respect. We strive to do good as God does
because we can see God is showing us the way. It is also necessary to add that
there should be no being that can ever exist that is more powerful than God.
God should also exist within time and should not have ultimate knowledge of the
future. Not being able to see the future is not as bad as it initially seams
because anticipation is something that accompanies knowledge. Existing within
time ensures that our actions are truly our own because God is watching the
events unfold just the same as we do. If God knows the future, it is no longer
our free will that dictates it, but God’s own that does so. Another quality God
must have is goodness. God is not wholly good but God does have our best
interest at heart. As I stated earlier God is concerned with harmony, tolerance
and social utopia. All three of which I think are obtainable through the
eventual success of our many trials and failures.
Holding
the belief that we are intended to carry out our lives in the pursuit of peace
and mutually beneficial co-existence has at least two highlights. The first of
which is that our surroundings for the most part are a product of mankind’s
deeds. Aside from the physical planet we live on and the geographical features
it offers us, we are the ones responsible for the places and things in our
lives. God did not build the house I live in, my dad did. However, through
God’s original creation of the world God can be indirectly related to just
about everything. Because God created mankind God is at least partially
responsible for everything mankind does.
This acknowledgement of responsibility then
ascribes the potential for evil in God or at least evil caused by God’s
creations. We can accept that evil exists but that we also possess the ability
to eradicate it in part, if not in whole. God is not directly responsible for
evil but God did play a part. In this case the typically popular wholly good
and omnipotent version of God does not measure up. The second highlight is that
this system of belief eliminates our desperate need for an afterlife. If we can
accept that God put us on earth with progression as a society and as
individuals in mind the issue of death seams to be minimized. An example of
this would be the fear and uncertainty of the good deeds done that death
invokes. People wonder whether or not they have done enough to make a place for
themselves in heaven.
If,
starting at a young age, we all knew that our time on earth was intended for
self and social betterment. Instead of just going through the motions that
admission to heaven requires from us, we would be in a far more prosperous
position. In my eyes the promise of heaven in return for good deeds makes the
good deeds themselves hollow because it invokes a problem found in the
philosophical argument for egoism. Egoism suggests that everything you do is in
your own best interest and that even if you think you are committing an
altruistic deed you really are not.
According to egoism people may fool themselves into thinking there being
altruistic when really they are fulfilling a self-centered desire. If you do
something it should be done because it is the right thing, not the required
thing. A promise of heaven or afterlife causes people to do the required thing
both consciously and unconsciously. Not having an afterlife would mean that
every minute should be well spent and that is something that many of us have
lost sight of. If you take advantage of your time on Earth you shouldn’t need a
life in Heaven as well.
The
teleological argument can be explained as an organized sequence of components
that move or serve a purpose in a system to accomplish a greater goal. A hockey
team attempting to win a game can be considered a teleological system. While
that game is in being played there are 6 players or components on the ice for
the team trying to win. They each have individual and overlapping jobs that,
when completed properly, will produce a favorable outcome. The goalie is
responsible for stopping the puck from entering his net. If he cannot do this
the system breaks down. The center is responsible for supporting his other
players and winning faceoffs. If he is unable to do this with any success it
allows the other team to add pressure on the remaining 5 players which will in
turn, cause further break down. Each part is connected in striving for a
greater goal but the greater goal can only be achieved when the individual
tasks are completed correctly.
The
teleological argument fits nicely with my adaptation of God and the world. We
have all been granted the opportunity to do good and make positive choices.
There however are some common criticisms of the teleological argument. One is
that the world is so vast and our knowledge of it is so limited that it would
be foolish to assume that it is all a part of an intended plan. On an
individual level we are able to take actions and place ourselves in situations
that, by our own intelligent design, will produce the end results we have
envisioned. On a more grandiose scale, I think we have just as much evidence to
believe that God has made and planned everything in the world than we have
evidence that supports other theories to the contrary. Lack of knowledge can
constitute reasonable doubt but using it as a basis to deny the entire theory
isn’t good enough.
The
system has been set in motion and now calls upon us to give it our best efforts
and diligence to see it succeed. A
second assertion in opposition of the teleological argument is that even if the
world is a functioning machine there is no reason to believe that it was God
that created it. The trouble with this assertion is that it forces the burden
of proof onto us. Most scholars would agree that universal proofs are shaky at
best. There are only polite suggestions or repetitions that provide evidence
for a theory. There is a distinct possibility that God did not create the
universe but in my eyes God is the most logical designer of the present system.
The third and final criticism that will be considered is the contradictory
nature of the teleological definition.
The
definition explains that if something is too complex to have occurred accidentally
then it must have a designer. We would like to believe that our designer is
more complex than we are. If God is in fact more complex than God’s creations
then, by the definition of a teleological system, an intelligent designer must
have designed God. The problem of
infinite regression takes place. You must accept that there is an un-designed
designer or you fall into the argument of ignorance as the previous argument
does.
After
all the concepts and ideas above are considered, I believe that they can be
employed just as easily as any other religion that exists at this point in
time. They explain for some of the fallacies and inconsistencies that other
religions, including Christianity, have a difficult time accounting for.
Current versions of God’s power and benevolence are discredited by free will
and evil. I formulated the fundamentals of this hypothesis a long time ago and
even with all the new knowledge I have acquired I have not found it necessary
to drastically revamp it. This hypothesis remains a living one for me. With my
ever-growing perspective on life I can say for sure some aspects of the theory
will eventually adapt to reflect those new perspectives.
| 
