God - the creator of the Universe and of all its laws, necessarily possessing, among whatever other qualities- the qualities of energy, matter, life, intellect and consciousness.
It has been said that it is the modern day scientists that will prove, beyond shadow of a doubt, the existence of “God” and that it is the scientific method that is “divine”. Such an idea appears rather farfetched today, now that man has gone to the Moon and all…
However, if we consider one of the origins of scientific thought, the great Aristotelian “A=a”, we can clearly observe the mathematical manifestation of the prime concept in physics: cause and effect. We can also conclude, if we prove that “A=a”, that the magic concept of “A=O”, or that a “nothing” could be moving, causing, inventing or creating a “something” – is not possible. Thus, at this point in man’s history, it is safe to argue that the plethora of ways which science has used to gradually prove the phenomenon of cause and effect makes that concept “observed” and therefore, from the standpoint of the scientific method, beyond the shadow of a doubt. So strongly is the concept ingrained in sciences, that if it were rendered untrue, it would render all science invalid.
As such, consider how science perceives the very existence of energy and of forces and of existence as a whole. Science argues that a “nothing” or vacuum fluctuations etc…, are the cause of energy and of the forces that guide it and consequently all other that exists. The argument is that energy and the forces, or the non-matter, then formed matter. Further, matter, or the non-life, has begotten life. And then animal life, or the unconscious, has begotten man, who is conscious and intelligent.
It is interesting to observe then, how the modern scientist assumes that cause and effect violates the concept of “God” perceiving God as the conceptual “0”, or the immaterial nothing, and hence that it would violate the very axiom of cause and effect and that of God being the origin of all existence.
One could argue, on behalf of science, that since energy is matter and matter is life and life is man and the fact of the observed progression, or evolution, from energy to matter to Man is subjective and does not indicate a greater value gained from a lesser value then it is, in fact, a “something” that is causing the other “something”. It is however a tough sell to argue that no greater value is gained from vacuum fluctuations to a conscious man but that is not the crux of my argument. There’s greater and obvious flaw in the stated origin of energy and therefore of matter, life, and Man. It is implied in mathematic calculations in physics that as the state of absolute zero receded the fist spec of energy (later to cause the Big Bang) formed. Also, mathematics implies the existence of two very hypothetical concepts of a 0 and of a true random value to be valid. So is this not the very contradiction of sciences own fundamental axiom, that A cannot equal 0, that less cannot be more, that “nothing” cannot beget “something” and the basic philosophic argument as to the non-existence of God?
The law of causality, or cause and effect, cannot be argued for it can be observed in all things. However, if one truly examines the claim of science, its ideas on its own origins and of origins of all existence, it is the origins of magic, of hocus-pocus manifestation, of an “A=0” that modern science describes. On the other hand, the claim that “God” operates on those very mystic basis seems unfounded since there surely is no evidence to man of how “God” would accomplish anything.
Thus, at this point, I will make a claim that that which has begotten a reality where a conscious and intelligent man could exist must, by virtue of cause and effect possess the very same qualities of energy, matter, life, consciousness and intellect. These may or may not be the sole qualities of the origins of our reality but are those that presently matter to us. Therefore, if the single, original entity did posses among other things consciousness and intellect it is fair to state that Man`s modern monotheistic concept of God is valid.
Disclaimer:
The above is not written to validate or to invalidate any form of morality or religion as the reality of existence of God is surely independent of Man’s politics. It is also fair to note that the above idea of God is a logical extrapolation done throughout all religions beginning with Animism on through Polytheism and to Monotheism. It is easily seen that Animism invalidated itself as worship of that which is inferior to Man. Polytheism invalidates itself through the inevitable and illogical struggle between “Gods”, best observed in Greek Mythology, and the contradictory laws they set which are never observed in nature. Monotheism, which was arrived at through the reasoning of Zoroaster and, biblically, that of Abraham has partially invalidated itself due to the preached dichotomy of spirit and body, mainly for political reasons. However none of that invalidates the existence of a single God.
