God: Prove it or Disprove it Man Still Proves Nothing

Better we stop trying, to prove or disprove the existence of god can't be done. You might like that or you may not. In the end, everybody wins or loses. See how in this short and imaginatively tantalizing ditty.

If there is "god" we will never prove it. Hold down your enthusiasm, atheists and agnostics, we will never disprove it either. No science we know can do that. Proposed here are two paths of reasoning. One will be based upon if "god" were omnipotent as he/it/she must be in order to be a "god" we could not prove its existence because science does nothing if it does not give us power over that which we either prove or disprove. The other is that if we did prove the existence of a "god" the entire element of faith would be removed from the equation and that cannot be done to humans.

If there is or even is not a god, science will never be able to show it. This in that if a god does exist that power will be greater than our science; if physical science showed the existence of god that same science whereby us, could gain control of god. That would render that entity not god but a subject of something physical. If god were physical of earth we could prove it, the fact that we cannot prove that scientifically proves only one thing so far, god must not be of earth, so part of what every theology teaches is so far true. That is, they teach that god is not of this earth.

Of course, that would be a lame basis upon which to run around taunting that there is a god. Just because scientists have not disproved a physical god does not mean they one day will not. Yet, even if they do, the god of all primary theologies is taught to be not of this earth...save for a few earth borne god concepts, which are as yet, again still not proven. That leaves the problem of discrediting the value of existing theology based on having proof that something they never claimed in the first place is not real. That's like accusing a guy of stealing your gloves, finding out you never had any, learning someone else stole the invisible gloves, then telling the original suspect, "See, I told you so!"

If the god were proven, god would fall into our control if he/it/she were discoverable by scientific evidence and formula. That would render that god not god at all, even though "proven", which means that it cannot be done.

If god were proven the entire basis of existing theology would be eliminated. This in that faith is the means by which men are taught to approach god. No theology on earth promotes a doctrine of existing fact of god's existence. None do that, not one. The reason is that without the intrinsic inherent element of faith which enables an act of choice we would be like every other thing on earth. We would be born of seed, do as we are programmed exactly and precisely to a predictable rhythm just as every other living thing with which we share this earth and universe.

We are vastly different than every other creature. We can be like the other animals, or not. We are the only critters here that can make a choice about behavior. We can even choose higher behavior than that which is programmed into our nature and reach for an imagined or unseen by which we act in that unique characteristic we define as faith. That is a concept no other creature on earth can even entertain. Some of us choose to be different than our most innate nature; no other animal can go against its very nature, only man can.

We can devise and use computers while our closest chromosomal relative thinks it's a big deal to dig ants from a hole with a piece of stick. That is two different worlds of the same science, tool use. Yet one is so advanced from the other that the similarity is barely recognizable. Humans are far advanced from their nearest monkey relative. The ability to call upon and practice faith is the defining factor of that. Squirrels hiding nuts for winter is about the closest that the other animals come to a faithful act, and they do that not with reason, but with instinct.

If simple tool use can be such distant worlds apart from each other then why would one think to assume that the differences in the elements of faith, imagination, hope and spirituality cannot be equally distant from those of our distant cousins? To "assume" such a thing in the negative would be a scientific shortcoming more than an assumable fact not worthy of further investigation.

In that, even if the human act of faith is instinct, where did that come from? The squirrels learned to bury nuts for winter because if they did not, they would starve when winter came. That being so, why did man learn to have the instinct of faith? It may have been a result of some occurrence from back in more primitive times when he was first learning what happened when he tried to go on without paying some respect to his creator. Science should figure that out rather than posture to think of the precepts of spirituality and religion as mythology. Maybe science will just find out that man got lonely so to stave that off he invented an invisible friend. I don't know, but I do know man can have faith and aside from watching squirrels bury nuts and my Border collie staring at the door anticipating that it will open soon to let him outside I see no other traces of faith in the animal kingdom.

The element of faith being common to every "religion" (which would likely be to god what a box is to shoes) it is safe as well as sound to say that without that one common denominator all religion would collapse. Then to prove god exists would be not only the best way to eliminate religions, but it would be theoretically impossible as well because by proving the existence of the very entity, god, which is the basis of the theological concepts in which the entity, "Faith" abounds, would be destroyed. It just does not work, the thinking to prove or disprove god. If science were to prove god exists, that very act would destroy the actual foundation upon which man depends in order to approach that god, faith. Also, man would no longer have a viable condition of choice. If we "knew" we would be reduced in stature, not glorified, this in that we would be like animals of only reaction to our base programming. We would "know". We would become "subject then to the greater power of that creator" rather than allowed to exist in a freedom to choose either harmony with that creator which would make us highly prized, or in a state of ambivalence in which we do as built and designed, or in a state of denial which is a stubborn refusal to look further into ourselves for that we wish to disavow. So, in the absence of "proof", if science does not prove god exists, then the status quo will be maintained. God will be as god is known. Some will know that one way, and still others will know it another way.

That would render it in God's favor, and arguably ours as well, that he be inaccessible to man's science. That would support my theory above that if god were susceptible to man's science he would not be god in that he would be subject to science and subsequently to manipulation by man. A good leader is not subject to the manipulations of his subjects, he leads in the best interest of those subjects. Often that is something best left to the subjects themselves. I can think of no intelligent way to work around the base conclusion that a power such as God would subscribe to any other school of being. A god subject to his creation would not be acting in his or his creation's best interests. I have not met many scientists that I would want god to be answering to. First thing they'd want to do is extract dna and try to clone another one... or worse yet, mix him up with man's dna and try to make a mangod. I can just see them scurrying around in their little laboratory trying to cook up another Jesus or something. Anyway, you can see the gist.

Would that give substance to or take substance from religion? Maybe to prove or disprove an actual entity fitting the concept of god would actually raise more questions than it would answer. It is arguable that religion is the first effort by man to control god, and if that is so then science is the next effort by man to control his creator, god. In that scientific method I must say the approach is clearly from a different angle. Religion supposes the existence of that unseen force, God, and then works to manifest it into a tangible and teachable science; inversely, science supposes there is none and approaches it at risk of proving itself wrong. Rightful science would approach the issue blind and prove whatever comes, without bias or prejudice. Few scientists approach the god issue with their mind open and willing. That makes their work suspect. It can still be said that both work to prove there is some god. It would be interesting to witness the day in which those two schools of thought collide.

It is by and thru these simple means that I choose to live as if there is a God, and I will be content with the outcome in that because in either case, whether I leave here alive or dead, there will be a funeral. That will be the same for those who live as if there is no god. They too will not get out of here alive albeit that if there is a God and there exists an option to leave alive that second proposition offers no option to take advantage of option one. Option one is only available to those who excersize and act upon the one act that separates us from "every" other creature on earth.

That makes the thought to at least look at faith and it's accouterments a very compelling one