Here it is �

The philosophical problem, wether or not one can justify belief in God, is quite possibly the oldest problem ever pondered. The answers that are given are not really answers at all, but rather ideas that stimulate discourse away from the primal question. If the answer given is yes, then the answer argued is no, and vice versa. The game continues, getting smaller and further away from the original answer, or question, until one begins to wonder if he exists enough to ask questions of existence. Is humanity unable to comprehend a greater being? Can infinity only be glimpsed in the peripherals, and never stared in the face? Will there ever be an unarguable answer? This gradual breaking away from the original question, can one justify belief in God, is the reason humanity has so many religions, so many schools of thought, and so few answers.

The heavy question becomes still heavier when it is understood that it can have only one of two answers, yes or no. Either one can justify his belief in God wholly, or one cannot justify his belief at all, there is no grey area in the answer. Also, it is not difficult to birth a belief in God at any one point in time, the difficulty comes when those points join together to form a lifetime. A belief has to stand the test of time, like all things, and it is easy to lose sight of beliefs when something stands in front of them. Beliefs are constantly shaping and reshaping, both in the individual and in the whole of society, but those beliefs are subject to the society they are shaped into. God, if His existence can be justified, exists both in society and in everything else. This means that those beliefs that center around God cannot adjust like any other belief, they must remain static and they must cohere.

There is a poster in a grade four class that has a picture of the world in space, the caption reads, "Either we are alone in space, or we are not; both answers are unbelievable." The poster refers to the idea of extraterrestrial life being fact or fiction, but the question parallels to that of God, either there is a God, and ones beliefs in Him are justified, or there isn't. Both answers are unbelievable, and perhaps that is why the question remains unanswered. Perhaps humanity does not want an answer; perhaps there can never be an answer because the ones asking the questions are human. The philosophical problem has been argued many times, by many different people, and still there is no answer. Perhaps in the future, an answer will be agreed upon, and the answer could easily be that there will never be an answer. The implications of the answer would be incomprehensible, and far from believable.

 Belief has been established, many times, but never maintained. The arguments presented in favour of God's existence have been refuted over and over, and nothing has been gained. The arguments presented by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anselm, and William Paley have all been justified and believed. Their arguments made splashes in the pool of theological discourse, but their ripples soon melted back into the still water, and the justification of belief in God is still a question in need of an answer.

St. Thomas Aquinas' approach, or the cosmological argument, attempted to reason God's existence in five different steps. The first step, the argument from motion, tried to reason that God exists because objects are in motion. Some objects are in motion, and some are not. Objects that are not in motion cannot initiate motion in themselves. Every object that is in motion was put in motion by something else in motion. This cannot go on infinitely, and therefore there must be a first mover. The first mover is essential for anything else to be in motion. God is the first mover.

The argument from motion is not reasonable, as it asks humanity to believe in an infinite God, but not an infinite process. Why can the process of motion not continue back infinitely? How can God be the first mover? Could something not have moved God to begin moving? The simple fact that the argument leaves these questions unanswered is reason enough for it to fail in its purpose. One's belief in God remains unjustified, but this is only the first of five arguments.

Aquinas' second step, the argument from the nature of the efficient cause, is quite the same as the first, it asks humanity to forget the idea of an infinite process, and embrace an infinite God. The third step, the argument from possibility and necessity, relies heavily on possibility, and is therefore not necessary. In Nature, there are objects that can either exist or not exist. If it is possible for all objects to have not existed, then it is possible that at one time they all did not exist. If this is true then nothing could exist right now, since only the actual can give rise to the possible. This means that there must be something for which the existence of all objects is necessary, something like God. Clearly, step three asks a lot of the readers imagination, and therefore is unacceptable as an answer.

Step four, the argument from gradation, asks humanity to grade all things as good or less good. This is far from humanities abilities, but if it were not, humanity would see that the idea of the perfect being is God. Humanities inability to agree has already been grounded in its inability to agree on its belief in God, Aquinas must have over looked this idea.

Step five, the argument from the governance of the world, and the last of Aquinas' steps implies that fate is understood as true. It is not. Perhaps all things in nature are guided towards God, but merely saying so does not make it so. Aquinas' lack of evidence creates a lot of problems with his philosophy on the belief of God. It may reinforce an idea already present, but it does not create one in the mind of an atheist.

St. Anselm wanted to create a philosophical argument, on the justification of belief in God, that would be capable of convincing an atheist. He came up with three premises. Premise one states that everyone has a concept of God. Atheists must know what it is that they do not believe in. Anselm reasoned that it would be virtually impossible for a child to reach adulthood without having the concept of God explained to him. Premise two states that one's concept of God is that of the perfect being. Premise three states that, since it is more perfect to exist then to not exist, God must exist because he is perfect. St. Anselm failed to convince the atheists. His third premise asks if it is more perfect to exist then to not. Existence is not a property of an object, but rather a condition that is necessary for an object to have properties, therefore God can have the property of perfection and avoid the condition of existence. Since St. Anselm's philosophy is refutable, it is therefore unbelievable.

William Paley tried to answer the question, of wether or not one can justify his belief in God, using an analogy, or the argument from design. Paley asked, if one were to find a watch in the middle of a meadow, what would one presume of its origin? If one were to find a watch, they would first notice its order and design. One would then infer that there had to be a purpose to the design. It is not necessary to know what the watch's purpose is, but the mere idea that it has a purpose suggests that it had to have a designer, or a creator. This analogy parallels with the universe. If one were to stumble over the universe in its entirety, one would form the same ideas about it. One would first notice its order and design. One would then infer that there had to be a purpose to the design. It is not necessary to know what the universe's purpose is, but the mere idea that it has a purpose suggests that it had to have a designer, or a creator. Paley made a great leap forward with this argument, but he fell short of the goal. The argument presents an interesting and viable idea, but it leaves many questions behind it. What exactly does it prove? A watch could be thought of by one person, designed by another, and actually manufactured by a whole team of people. More than it proves, the philosophy actually disproves monotheism. There could be a whole committee of Gods. The man that makes a watch is hardly the man that runs the country. This universe could be a child's toy. The philosophy actually proves how small and meaningless humanity could be.

The question remains unanswered; can one justify belief in God? The arguments that exist do less than answer.

 The philosophical question, can one justify belief in God, is perhaps the most pondered question in history. The existence of humanity seems to depend on its answer, but can humanity exist if the question is answered. If the answer is yes, what will change? Will God start to listen? Will God respond to prayers? Will we no longer die, but accept a new consciousness in heaven? Will nothing change? If the answer is no, who will we be? What will we become? Will we still pray? If so, for what reason? Perhaps these questions are the reason the primal question remains unanswered, too much depends on God. Too many people live every day of their lives trusting that God is with them, and that he is watching, waiting for them to join Him when the time is right. If humanity could not find God -- no longer fight to justify His existence -- why would we continue? If there is no higher being, what purpose do we serve? Could we just be? Purposeless animals floating through a meaningless space, is that who we are?

Perhaps there is another way to answer this question. Does the perfect being need to be a perfect size? What is this perfect size? How big is an atom? Perhaps God exists on a different scale; perhaps He is right in front of us, and under my typing fingers. Atoms make up everything, exist everywhere, have existed forever, and will exist long after humanity has passed. Could God exist in the atom? Could science shake hands with philosophy, and perhaps embrace religion, on a quantum level? A medium can be found where an answer is lost. Perhaps in the future, a peace will be made. Perhaps a peace will be made, and that peace will consist of many pieces. The pieces will be very small, but they will bond together, and form something that we can all believe in.

Can one justify belief in God? The question is as timeless and meaningful as the answer it yearns for. Can I justify belief in God? I can right now, but my justification will have changed and drifted in and out of existence many times before you read these words. Perhaps that is who He is; a spirit in our hearts. A reason when we need one; a shoulder to cry on when we are all alone. God is all we need, when we need it, wherever we need it, and nothing more.

All we know, all I know, is that I am here, we are here. Perhaps we created ourselves. Perhaps there was a creator, a consciousness that willed itself into existence. Perhaps we are that creator, that consciousness, and now we're lonely. We need somebody to watch us, to look after us, when we are alone.

Microcosms, macrocosms, circles in nature, in space, is this justification? When I was smaller, my body a microcosm of itself now, I would go shopping with my mother at the mall. I would explore, run, play, and get lost. I'd cry, I'd search, I'd try to find my mom, I wanted my mommy, I needed the reassurance that I was not alone. When I found her I'd feel relief, happiness, and assurance that my existence in the mall had a purpose. That feeling, acceptance, love, grew with me as I grew. A macrocosm to that one situation, that one feeling, I now look for that reassurance in different people. When I'm lost I'll find someone who knows where I am. When I don't understand, I'll ask a teacher. When I'm lonely I'll look for a friend, and when I'm alone, I'll talk to God. I need to feel relief, happiness, and assurance that my existence in the world, the universe, has a purpose. The microcosms follow the golden spiral, and turn into macrocosms that grow smaller as I grow. I do not believe in the belief in God, but He's always there when I need him.

Well, wasn't that worth reading? I would appreciate any comments you may have on it, as I always appreciate your comments (whoever you are). I am off to Italy in under 24 hours. I hope you miss me, because you know I'll miss you. I don't want this to be my last entry before I go, so you may have found this in the older section, in which case I'm surprised your reading it. Take Care �

PEACE - Tristan