Wow, I haven't done one of these Sunday Theology posts in a while, I don't think. So yeah: God. What about God. How about God's existence? God's existence / God's nonexistence! We can't settle it here! But let's try a little thought experiment.
WHAT IF God was just some sort of conceptual koan, some weird thought - a "meme," in fact - an idea that, situated like a prism in my mind every day, that focused everything that I thought of to do, and made all sorts of things in life come out positively awesome for me? What if? What if that were all that there was to God? What if God had no actual existence to go with it?
Okay!
But now also, the other half of the thought experiment: what if on top of all that, the fucker ACTUALLY EXISTED? On top of all that?
Crazy.
Because of course: there would be no way for me to know. EITHER WAY. I'd never know which it was! Because as has already been established in previous Sunday God Blog Theology Posts: proof of God does not exist (but wait - if you DO have proof of God, post it in the comments already! No wait - sorry, 'proof' doesn't post, a proof is not mere text, not mere testimony - testimony is that drunk guy, telling me our minds are all controlled by aliens. Proof on the other hand, is something concrete, something that can be examined and tested and that produces irrefutable certainty. If you have proof of God, don't post it here, cut it in half and send half to the Vatican, half to the Smithsonian!).
I got lost on the way to that close parentheses. So anyway, there would be no way for me to tell, one way or the other. I wouldn't know whether God actually, absolutely, really did exist or didn't exist. In that case.
I'm not sure this qualifies as a thought experiment. Perhaps it's closer to a rolling out of bed in the morning and typing experiment.
I think that humility is important. My thoughts on any matter do not determine any thing's existence or nonexistence. If God exists, then God's existence is a fact; if God does not exist then God's nonexistence is a fact. The fact in a given case may not be subject to establishment, to verification, but one's mere belief or disbelief doesn't alter whatever the truth is. What kind of solipsist kids himself (or herself) with the power to create or uncreate vaster realities than he or she can describe - and using what means? Merely by the certainty of their own belief or disbelief!
Crazy.
Hopefully nobody's that egotistical. I'd like to think that most atheists, for instance, in a thought experiment, could admit that if within the thought experiment, the fact is that God DOES exist - that God exists, but for some perverse reason simply refuses to permit proof of God's existence into the universe anywhere we can see it in permanent, testable form - I think most atheists would concede that in such a setup, their mere strong, unshakeable belief in the nonexistence of God would not wipe God out of existence. Right? I mean, how could they not concede that?
I guess it's possible they might not concede that. I don't know how. It happens sometimes, though.
Some people have no business in a thought experiment.
3 comments:
You seem to have created Schroedinger's God.
A counterpoint, though: if we think of God as not a physical object, but instead a force or energy, can our belief not affect that? Is it not possible that our belief in something--whatever that thing might be--sends some sort of energy to it, thereby causing it to exist merely by believing in it?
And if that is true, could we conclude that more belief means more existence? Would a God become more powerful depending on how many people believe in him?
That's sort of how I see theology. (I read Pratchett's Small Gods and Gaiman's American Gods at a very formative age.)
Schrodinger's God! I love it. Except - if Schrodinger actually had run that experiment, he would have it in has power at any point to open up that box and see for himself. Which we cannot do at any point.
I'm not necessarily thinking of God as a physical object, I'm more using the core traditional theistic conception of God (omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, that existed prior to and created all physical existence). Call it Plain Vanilla God (or "PVG"). If I'm going to take a run at the theistic premise, I try to use the most essential core version. For if as a thinker or a skeptic, I want to demonstrate a premise is flawed, I must first accept the premise and then demonstrate where it a) violates its own logic or b) conflicts with observable reality.
Sure I can discard the premise and come up with a different premise of my own, and I do! It's fun. But it doesn't really knock the validity of the original premise in any way.
Now your version, here. Well, I have to say a thing that never existed, until we believed in it, is pretty radically not the God of the traditional theistic premise. That doesn't mean yours doesn't exist, of course! Nor does it make it any likelier that the other exists.
In your setup, I believe more belief would mean more existence - seems like a logical next step. I don't think the same follows for PVG, though - for whom energy is as trivial a concern as matter itself.
It's an interesting point though, that given a PVG who is essentially non-interventionist, and who allows competing, not-very-compatible conceptions of Godself to exist side-by-side in the populace, each competing conception of God does indeed become more "powerful" depending on how many people believe in it. Especially as they put their beliefs into practice!
Thank you for your comment, Edana! Very few people deign to comment on these God ones. Not sure why, I never jump down anybody's throat or anything!
God's, maybe. Occasionally.
Hey! Speaking of Schrodinger's God.
I knew that sounded familiar!
Post a Comment