Lets take an apologetic approach to the existence of the God, it is interesting to note that all our mores are derived as a consequence of the existence of the higher being. As Immanuel Kant would say, the existence of knowledge is a consequence of the Christian god. Knowledge including arguments to the contrary are because of the fact, that god exists. It is inconceivable that God played dice in the creation of the Universe or the world within. There is decorum in the madness, and if that is the case, it proves the existence of the creator. However, nowhere is there an argument as to what , or who the creator is and they needed a middle man, the messiah, the king of the Jews, who lived some 2000 years ago.
However, when it comes to God, the caveat is that E=K: one's evidence is what one knows, this proposed by Timothy Williamson is a statement made more in line with the Evidentialism, where every query on existence is to followed up with a clear definition as well as evidence to support the claim. This theory is interesting in many ways, as it helps us to understand the skeptic way of understanding phenomenon, including the existence of God. The fact that we need to substantiate every and any observation or claim may not always be possible and may become difficult because of the way we perceive evidence. It becomes that much more difficult to argue the case of existence of God or in case any subjective clauses. For example, would we argue on the fact a fact like someone is bald, there are two observers and both of them notice that the person is judged as being bald or not bald. However, in the absence of a commonality as to what constitutes baldness, it becomes that much more difficult to come to an conclusion as to whether the observation is valid or whether the fact can be stated. Similarly it becomes pretty difficult unless a commonality is achieved on the aspect of God and what constitues the evidence being collected and agreed upon. The reason for the same, is because of the major hurdle for the theists to justify their case, wherein the atheist does not bear the burden.
Well , You might have wondered, why the argument is veering of course, but the idea of the article to have a well built case study as to existence of the creator, if he exists, what or who it is? Is it something that we think it is? How do we explain the esoteric pages of material we have accumulated over the years, to justify the case? However, more than the existence of God or his non existence, the idea behind religion or any communal set up is the same as in the animal world. Power is a consequence of how much of reserves are brought under a single fold, how many can be moved into this congregation. It is show of strength, Many a times it is a common banner that is a prerequisite for a successful society. In the name of religion or in the name of the king, resources are moved including the subjects , it provides an impetus for people to be herded, just like a shepherd brings together his herd.
The fact of life in this world is that there is a wide range of people with different intellectual capacities, there is a limitation as to what can be understood by a lay person, the common man. Even if content can be dumbed down to a level that it is understood by all, not every one is interested. As I am not interested in for example baseball or School football, even though, I have the intellectual capacity to understand. I refrain from it. I cannot be force fed something I am not interested in it, same way there is a large population that cannot digest the information over load, humans to succeed as a society needed to resort to division of this labour, in whatever format it evolved, the class system evolved over time, based on the economic impact of the group. The thinkers moved up the ladder, as they knew best to shepherd the common class. However, the alphas of the society, inorder to restore order, and to justify the case of their economic class differences, needed a system for the differentials and at the same time restore order. Thus was born a super human, a judge, friendlier as he was in the same league as the men who he was ruling over, but an all pervasive big brother. We see this evolving in the form of technology, With Cameras, Internet, Key Loggers, the God in society, the Government is the de facto God. Secularism, Protectionism, are the new Zeus and Poseidon.
We are in a self serving world, the concept of even so called Philanthropy or the so called human traits are just self effacing and at the end, the need for charity is driven by self aggrandizing non profits. They feed on the common folks gullibility. In the name of God, (Most Charity) or Guilt ( You have fun, when the some of the Africans dont) and the so many cliches we hear. There is no reason as to the reason for the money and funds to flow to those community. It is the collective consciousness of a group of people to feel bad about their consumption patterns, and stripping the natural resources of other countries, just because the money raised could be used to feed millions or to satisfy the need to control the resources by consuming it.
However, I have belief, just like the old pantheon of Gods were replaced as required over time and as the society demands. People would replace these systems and dismantle governments, we would have outlaws, we would have people breaking away from Government. May be there would become people who do not want to be online, for the fear of being tracked, a new world evolves, those Networked and those that are not.
