COMMENTING IS OPEN: What if proof were discovered that God exists, but that He / She / It was something very different to the traditional western ideas of God. This new anthology which I am privileged to be part of, brings together ten very different ideas from ten authors.
Age of Certainty gives ten authors’s (including your truly) answers to the question, “What if God existed?†Suppose the theory is true that we’re biologically hardwired to believe in God – Brandon H. Bell wonders if that’s evidence enough that He is objectively real. … Imagine the traditional, Western version of God – now imagine along with Patrick Evans if the God revealed tomorrow has absolutely nothing to do with any of that. … David J. Fielding introduces a character who wouldn’t hesitate to kill God for the evil He has brought to bear, even if the result is just another form of an absence of good. … and Nebula Award laureate James Morrow asks if God would exist in the absence of misleading proof planted by a talking, time-traveling cyborg tortoise who shoots lasers out his eyes.
To learn about the authors and find out how to order your copy of Age of Certainty CLICK HERE:
Age Of Certainty: rebelepublishers.com
Â
Dancing With The Cosmos - Scribd
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 80
There is a movement among evangelicals to be more accepting of others' beliefs--a small one so far, but growing. Rachel Held Evans is the one I am most familiar with though there are others who take an almost militant stance.
Me? I'm against anyone being bullied in the name of any deity--the core of my belief in the 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' Golden Rule. Bullying, to me, is evidence of that person's problems with acceptance of self.
I caught the meaning of your comment.
OK, so I am intrigued. I followed the link, put the book in my cart, but couldn't figure out how to close the deal. Or how to start an account. I'd say the site could use some work.
cheers.
Jim
Put book in cart. Cart appears at bottom of page. Check to make sure
what you want is there. Click on Check out with PayPal button. This will
direct you to PayPal where you pay for the book.
Thanks again, and if you go ahead with the order, remember it is in advance of publication and may be a few weeks until you get the book.
Cheers,
Ian
I don't see how God's existence or non-existence would change anything.
Thank you for sharing and submitting to
The Surreal Circus.
The second explorer said there has to be a gardener who cares for it.
The two explorers debated the issue and waited several days to see if a gardener showed up. When no gardener appeared, the first explorer said, "See, no gardener has appeared, and the garden is still flourishing.
The second explorer said, "We did not see the gardener because he is invisible."
As the story goes on, the two explorers tried a series of tests such as bringing in dogs to detect the gardener, using electronic detection equipment, building a wall around the garden, etc. etc.
Each test failed, but the second explorer always had an excuse for why it failed: Dogs could not sniff the gardener, electronic devises could not detect the gardener, the gardener can pass through walls, etc. etc.
God is of the same nature as Antony Flew's gardener. He is beyond proof or disproof.
Your story covers the traditional western idea of God and is entirely the correct way to view that question. Our project was to introduce fresh ideas of a very different God concept. And it is a fiction anthology so the reader is asked not to believe but to suspend disbelief.
In time the computer's power increased, and more people asked it questions about entropy, but received no answer.
After thousands of years, the computer existed only in its own diminsonless universe. People still asked it questions about entropy, but received no answer.
After several thousand billion years there was darkness. The universe had died out. But the computer continued to work on the entropy problem. Finally it found the answer, and the computer said, "Let there be light."
There is a respected physicist however, John Gribben, who has written a theory of what he calls "a designer universe" expressing the idea that the universe is a computer aided design project. (Are We Living In A Designer Universe - Gribben, Daily Telegraph)
Author C. Clark has well known short story called "The Nine Billion Names of God". In this story a group of Tibetan monks believe that the universe was created created in order list all 9 billion names of God, and that once this is completed, the universe will cease to exist. The absurdity of the premise makes the end of the story that much better.
I put up a post on this very idea a couple of years ago. You might find it amusing. (or not).
Morgan Freeman? Then he was an imposter, God looks like Anthony Hopkins.
The best portrayal of God was by George Burns in Oh God.
In a sequal that movie, Oh God, You Devil Burns played the dual role of both God and the Devil. The main difference in the characters was that while playing God, George Burns didn't have his cigar, but he did have it while playing the Devil.
But I wonder why God always has to be an old man, I mean, he's God so he can look however he wants, a David Beckham with infinite wisdom maybe. Or maybe looking like David Beckham would rule out wisdom, could that be one of the unknown laws of the universe?
Oops. Nevermind, I confused this with Greek Mythology.
So not wishing to preach I avoided that possible aspect of the divine. :-)
Amen, Ian!
And I have to work hard to make it go, last summer my son and daughter gave me the bollocking on a lifetime and said "Dad, it's time to stop farting about, you're a great writer and contrary to what you think and we wish, you're not going to live forever. Now get some commercial writing done because we'd like a steady stream of royalties from your work coming in to sustain us in our old age" (That's not really what they said.)
The publishers have asked me to put together a proposal for turning my story into a fill length novel so fingers crossed.
In Kipling's Jungle Book, I got the feeling that when Kaa the python began to sway and inch toward the monkeys, who sat mesmerized just watching, it seem as though they accepted him as some sort of deity selecting a sacrifice, and so they didn't flee.
I might like to read what a group of articulate "non-Believers" think about that potential, especially as scientific evidence seems to actually be mounting that there is a whole lot of "funny business" going on in this joint, so to speak. . . but magicalizing future evidence to rule out this or that idea of a God, is kinda . . borifying, to be creatively frank ; )
Also some of the cutting edge scientific research you allude to is not only likely to attract a hate campaign from The Church of Scienceology who as we know are more protective of their dogmas that are Islamic Jihadists, it also points to a very different universe than that proposed by The Standard Model and String Theory.
So I guess like me the other contributors were too sensible to go walking on quicksand.
And then, us mere scribblers (as someone once described Shakespeare) have to trust the publisher to know their market and select accordingly.
That's an evasive answer of course because as I said above, no spoilers.
I'll pick up your point in a standalone post.
" . . they just advised steering clear of that as the book is science fiction rather than theology."
Well, the distinction seems kinda odd (and to my mind arbitrary), within the context of; "What if proof were discovered that God exists"? . . There seems to me to be no way to avoid it being about "theology" regardless of whether it is "science" fiction. It's like the two are wed . . but get a divorce before the marriage can be consummated ; )
Thing is, within the context of the Book there is an "Age of Certainty", much like what this proposal is suggesting, after the return of my Lord. That return will (apparently) end the debate about the existence of God(s) in some sense . . but not the debate about the nature of God.
As I read it (and don't really see much latitude in this regard), the return of Christ marks the beginning of a (roughly) one thousand year "age of certainty", when it will be utterly obvious to everyone that some form of "God(s)" exist(s), but the Story does not end there, so to speak. And that is what makes it interesting to me, in a very real way, what "non-Believers" make of the potential of clear (including "scientific") evidence that God exists being a reality.
It would seem that the "transition" to that shifted debate state of affairs has already begun, and it seems to me I am seeing clues about how that shift will be dealt with by "non-Believers". I think it is important to realize that within that Story's context, the debate about the nature of God began with beings that are well aware that God exists, so in a sense, the shift is actually away from an "age of uncertainty", that was never really the crux of the matter, so to speak.
This can be seen in the story of the Hebrews, I feel, who knew full well that some sort of God(s) existed, having witnessed many inescapable "proofs" first hand. This did not result in the end of "alternative theories" about what was going on, obviously, and the Hebrews (as a group) were anything but "faithful" to the God of Abraham. They lived in an "age of certainty", for them anyway, and to me it seems a somewhat similar situation will (fairly soon, I believe) be faced by all the people of the world . . .
It would seem to me that "science" as we know it will not stop when that new eon (age) commences, and I see much potential for "science fiction" cast within such an age . . so I don't see the logic in excluding that particular God from the mix. I could myself write such "science fiction" without violating my beliefs in any real sense. I pretty much assume there will be such goings on right up till the "End", when the debate will be settled, so to speak, by Him.
This is how the Book describes the final round of debate;
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
Debate over ; )
If the return of Jesus would end the debate about the existence of God, how long will Christians continue to wait before giving up and saying, "He isn't coming."
Matthew 24:34 says, "I tell you the truth,50 this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." In that story the Savior showed up on the last minutes of the universe's existence.
How long should Christians wait before deciding that he isn't returning?
I know all about that "single day is like a thousand years with the Lord and a thousand years are like a single day," but a thousand years is still a thousand years to us mortals. It has already been two thousand years, how long before a reasonable person may conclude: "He isn't going to return"?
And if he doesn't return, where's your proof?
The was a parody of this in the Science Fiction story The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. In that version, the savior shows up in the last minutes of the universe.
No, that wasn't my "claim" . . that's just a given. What else could one conclude if someone that died two thousand years ago returns alive?
My "claim" was that the debate will (I believe) shift to the nature of God(s), once it becomes obvious that God(s) of some sort exist, which is already starting to happen, among the folks that have apparently discovered scientific evidence that the universe is "designed". That's why this whole discussion is taking place, the evidence is mounting that we are in a "created" universe.
One possible "explanation" is that it's a simulation similar to our computer simulations . . which would mean that the "creator(s)" is/are/were some sort of highly advanced being(s), at the very least. That explanation is extremely weak, to me, and amounts to nothing more than wishful/egocentric thinking on the part of some computer folks, who essentially are making "God" in their own image.
The idea that it's a simulation, ought to provoke the natural question in intelligent minds, I feel; What exactly is it a simulation of? An imaginary universe that only exists within the minds of the people calling it a simulation? That's silly, we have no other sort of "realer" universe to base such a concept on, that is anything but what we can imagine a "realer" universe ought to be like . . What this weak "explanation" does basically, is raise the idea of a universe that does not match the only one we have to go by, to the status of a "real universe", and demote the only real universe we have any actual relationship to, to the status of an imitation of that idea. It's a obvious dodge/blunder to me, and would have been twenty years ago when I was not a believer . . I feel rather sure.
No, I say, just because the time/space continuum we can actually observe is different from what we imagined a universe ought to be like, does not imply we are in a stimulated universe. No, I say, we are not in any position to speak of what a "realer" universe is like . . those are just imaginings . . that need to be dropped as we discover the real universe is not like what we imagined. This "simulation" explanation is as if upon discovering the earth orbits the sun, we decided that this means the universe is a simulation of a "real" universe wherein the sun orbits the earth, like we thought . . A truly dopey and egocentric conclusion to draw, to my mind.
But draw it they have . .
I ask you what should be a simple question:
I.e. How long should Christians wait before deciding that he isn't returning?
and I get a long response which does not answer the question.
Instead you went on "simulations" which may be connected to Ian's and my remarks about John Gribben's "computer aided design" idea. Neither Ian nor I were promoting it.
Your question is kinda nonsensical to me . . Sorry . .
"Instead you went on "simulations" which may be connected to Ian's and my remarks about John Gribben's "computer aided design" idea."
No, I spoke about the simulation concept because that is how I'm seeing many react to "some of the cutting edge scientific research" as Ian put it, which I called "funny business". People have been finding very peculiar patterns in the way some things behave (cosmic rays most notably), and in the mathematics/computations associated with black holes, among other things. Simply put, there is mounting evidence that we inhabit a universe that vaguely resembles our digital computer simulations, as opposed to the analog sort of place we generally experience it as. I thought you were aware of these recent findings in some sense, and was trying to explain what I see as weakness in that "it is a computer simulation" line of reasoning.
It works great for avoiding the "God of Abraham" potential, if one does not understand that potential very well, and facilitates all manner of more science fictiony potentials . . but there's nothing in the Book (that I am aware of) which conflicts with such an underlying matrix-like quality to the universe, and indeed something along those lines is virtually demanded, as I understand what the Book presents. For just one instance, God "speaks" things into existence . . He does not build them or mix them up in vats or whatever. Like in a digital simulation, wherein code/language generates "things" in the simulated environment.
"How long should Christians wait before deciding that Jesus isn't returning?" is not nonsensical. I hate to think that there would be Christians 100 billion years from now still waiting for Jesus to return. How long would you wait for a date before deciding that she wasn't going to show up?
Re Science:
Scientists do not like supernatural explanations to their questions because that type of answer explains nothing. When the apple fell on Isaak Newton's head, head could have just said, "God did it," but instead he developed a theory of gravitation which explained many of the phenomena which previously were attributed to God.
There has always been questions to which scientists have no answer. There are even new questions to which scientists have no answers. Scientists can easily say, "God did it," but that would be telling us nothing. Scientists want answers, not magic.
Re your remark: For just one instance, God "speaks" things into existence . . He does not build them or mix them up in vats or whatever.
According to a literal reading of the Bible, there is only one instance in the Bible where God speaks anything into existence, and that is Genesis 1:3 where God says, "Let there be light." As it says in 2 Peter 3:5 "earth was formed out of water and by means of water." Water itself was pre-existent.
The Hebrew verb "bara", usually translated as "to create", means "to form". Water, being formless, was therefore not created. It was just there at the beginning.
" I hate to think that there would be Christians 100 billion years from now still waiting for Jesus to return."
It's nonsensical . . I won't be alive for more than twenty, maybe thirty more years tops . . The question is totally irrelevant to me, or to anyone alive. I have no problem at all "waiting" for as long as I live . .
You say there is no timetable, but that is just not true. The Book says no man knows the day or hour, but there's a whole lot of clues about the general time-frame involved, and it ain't vast . . Here's a good clue, I feel;
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Does that sound like billions of years to you? The "clock" only started ticking so to speak, rather recently.
The generation spoken of in the verse you quoted, is preceded by a whole bunch of clues, and the "this generation" refers to those who would see what is spoken of, right before that is said;
Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Get it? He means the generation that sees "all these things" he had been describing (clues) come to pass, not (necessarily) the people he was then speaking to.
(I will tell you this much, without going into detail because it's a very complex thing to understand, which folks not real familiar with the Book will not be able to figure out; I will be very surprised if I live twenty more years and he has not come.)
There's no way to explain these matters briefly, it's not a one or two (or even five or six) verses sorta deal. It involves several Prophet's writings, and what Jesus himself spoke of in several places, including parables and symbolism that require real study. I think that's intentional, but it's pretty easy to tell it's nothing like millions of years.
"According to a literal reading of the Bible, there is only one instance in the Bible where God speaks anything into existence, and that is Genesis 1:3 where God says, "Let there be light."
First words of the Book, sir;
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
"As it says in 2 Peter 3:5 "earth was formed out of water and by means of water." Water itself was pre-existent."
2 Peter 3:5 (KJV)
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
"The Hebrew verb "bara", usually translated as "to create", means "to form".
Says who? You? So what?
PS~ You are one ignorant man when it comes to the Book. You ain't foolin' me, or anyone else that actually studies it. You want to discuss it with me, you ask, you don't tell. Period.
You merely confirmed that there is no timetable. We know from 2 Peter 3 that there were even then people who expected the second coming to be soon. The Crusades were proclaimed as a prelude to the second coming.
There have always been people proclaiming that the second coming was at hand. There are people today who claim to have calculated the date it will happen. So far, every single person who has forecast the date of his coming has been wrong.
Two thousand years is a long time in known human history. Compared to the biblical time scale it is proportionately longer. In fact, it has been so long that the thought should have occurred to you that it isn't going to happen.
Re: The word "bara"
I do not dispute that the first words in Genesis 1 are "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." However, that verse is introductory. The heavens (or "sky") is not formed until verses 1:6-8, and the earth until verses 1:9-10. However, the waters were present in 1:2 before anything was formed.
But whether you want to understand "bara" as meaning "to create" or "to form" makes no difference because Genesis does not indicate that creation was ex nihilo. That is merely a later interpolation.
For the meaning of the Hebrew "bara" you can check Strong's #1254, or you could click Genesis 1 and then click the number "3" following the word "created" in verse 1. There you will find the following note:
3 tn The English verb “create†captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb ?????? (bara’) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15, 65:17).
I have some notes on this subject which should make a good post.
Interesting... although I never Needed Proof of a Supernatural Entity nor do I need The Holy Books, Ancient Writings, Prophets, Seers, Guru's, Religious Zealots, Leaders etc. etc. etc.
I instinctively KNOW that there is an Incredible All Consuming - Permeating Intelligent Source Emanating and Projecting All Things Seen & Unseen.
I have known since I was 5.
Your logic is often extremely . . feeble, from my perspective, with connections that are to me obviously not solid or even substantial, but to you seem to be iron clad "proofs" of what is true. You state unequivocally the I have "confirmed that there is no timetable", and then you tell me about some people that incorrectly thought the end was near, as though there cannot be a "time-table", if each and every person on earth that thinks he will return, does not get the timing right.
The concept that a "time-table" could be in the Book that is not super duper easy to figure out, like a list of events with specific dates, like bus schedule, does not seem to be available to you. At least not at the moment you are schooling me on how I supposedly "confirmed that there is no time-table", even though I just told you that it's very complex and not easy to figure out, which to me obviously means some folks could misunderstand where they are in the time-table . . you seemed to just lose sight of that concept, and return to the list of events with specific dates idea, like bus schedule . . Which no one I ever heard speak of these matters seriously ever proposed exists in the Book.
Now, you can demonstrate that you have at least some awareness of what is really in the Book, and have the ability to hold the idea of a "time table" that is not super duper easy to figure out (like a simple list of events with specific times/calendar dates. like a bus schedule), simply by saying you realize there are many places in the Book where sequences of events and time periods and the like are presented, that are not super duper easy to figure out and follow like a bus schedule, but still could (taken together so to speak) constitute a non-obvious "time-table"
That's all, just an acknowledgment that some sort of actual "time-table" could be in there, that could be the real deal so to speak, in the sense that taken together the many mentions of sequences of events and time periods might constitute a sort of "hidden in plain sight" way for people (living when the time is near) to realize the end it at hand. Not something that couldn't be misunderstood or lead some people to "jump the gun" so to speak, but just something that would allow serious people who study the Book carefully, and are actually near the end, to realize the end is approaching.
Can you grasp such a thing? And re you aware that there are several places in the Book where sequences of events and time periods and so forth are given? (Not any super duper easy to figure out, blatantly obvious such that anyone could just be shown a list with dates and know the end was at hand, that's not in there, I agree) but something only serious students of the Book, aware of what was going on in their world (near the end) would be likely to grasp and recognize as the final time period commenced and proceeded?
If you don't acknowledge that, and back off of the absolutist declarations about there being no "time table" at all, I quit, I give up, and conclude you're just an ignorant narcissist full of himself, and full of shit so to speak.
It ain't about realizing any of that stuff, if you wish to remain in the company of that "Incredible All Consuming - Permeating Intelligent Source Emanating and Projecting All Things Seen & Unseen", which is to say remain at all, after you leave this fleshly life, as I understand the Book's implications.
Satan and all his demons realize that stuff you mention. This ain't a test of knowledge, I tell you, it's a test of humility, one might say. If you wish to live forever, you must ask nicely ; )
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
You will find the same teaching in some forms of Hinduism and in Theosophy. To call the Source "God" would diminish it. It cannot be described or defined beyond what has already been said..
Jesus was a mere man who received the subjective Spirit of GOD (not God nor gods), that which was already "IN" him, that which is already IN each of us, just waiting for our recognition!
The very same "Bible" that the self-professed "faithful" use, also tells very clearly the truth of what I am here claiming. All one need do is set aside their objectivity and use their subjective Spirit (called the Holy Spirit) in search for the higher truths concerning such ... there are countless verses that so state such esoteric truths were one able to set aside their exoteric limitations.
IMnsHO and E.
BTW ... the Spirit is analogue and thus ubiquiteous ... digitization is the divisive doings of man.
Such a "Source" would naturally be able to describe and/or define Itself further, don't you think? Wouldn't be much of a "Source" if It didn't have awareness of Itself, and be able to communicate that Self-awareness with anyone/thing else, would It? Doesn't the term "source" imply the ability to "send" information that could (at least potentially) be received by intelligent entities. to you?
A ten year old child can do that, so it hardly seems like "diminishing" the "Source" to think It could . . to me anyway. To think It couldn't, seems like a thoroughly "diminishing" insult, to me.
Speaking of Satan:
Click Here if you dare.
You just ginned up an idiot "Source", that can't describe or define itself, as you or I can . . Explain why the freakin' "Source" of everything, could not do something so simple as communicate about itself to us, please. What the hell kinda "diminished" if called God- "Source" is that?
What other everyday things can't this mute "Source" do? Can it read the words we write? Is it literate? Can it dance? ; )
My comment on the "Source" was intended for Optimus Paradigm, although I mistakenly typed "Ian".
You brought up "Satan and all his demons." I figured that if you would rather play with boogeymen, then I will let you.
"It cannot be described or defined beyond what has already been said.."
Why couldn't the "Source" describe/define Itself, beyond what some person already said? Why?
I've seen some pretty "unstable" posts on this site, but I've never seen anything like this before. It's a total crap shoot when I reload, with no particular rhyme or reason I can detect. It's like a hotbed of quantum entanglement or something, that has not settled on any particular outcome yet. I have no idea it this comment will be "real", or just another potential comment ; )
Please excuse me for presenting TRUTH to what is meant to be all about FICTION. :-)
Please excuse me for presenting TRUTH to what is meant to be all about FICTION. :-)