Life's Second Question: What Or Who Is God? Part I

    If we assume that there is a God, one of the first questions we ask is, How do we know which God is the true one?  This question is in need of a little modification, because the question is not which god or gods exist, but which religion if any has identified correctly the supernatural force which created the universe.

    First we must establish that God will be referred to in the singular, as even in the polytheistic religions there is always one God that is supreme above the rest.  In the end, everything centers around one God.

    There is always the possibility that, if the agnostics have it right, a God exists, but does not concern himself with the affairs of man.  In other words, he does not watch nor intervene.  The first issue that is brought up in opposition to this argument is the problem of: if that is the case, why create man?  Why would God cause there to be a kind of creation if not to observe and/or influence it?  

• This question is a weak point for the opponents of agnosticism because it assumes that God has the nature of man, to wit, he operates with motive, and we do not know this to be so.
• Man always operates with motive.  It is what convicts criminals.  No human will ever do even one time what he has no motive to do.  I will go so far as to say that it is not humanly possible!  Even things which have been done that seem 100% disadvantageous for a person to do have some real, albeit irrational, impetus behind it, even if it is merely to prove a point.
• We cannot assume that God works as man does because his reality is so far removed and advanced from ours so as to preclude even the slightest of human comprehension.

    Nevertheless, some agnostics have attempted to explain God's apathy toward man as a result of his attention being enveloped in other matters, perhaps other creations.

• This argument is flawed as well because it imposes boundaries upon God, while, prior to the universe*, it is not at all probable that the concept of boundaries or limitations were in God's vocabulary.  God cannot be made busy by any number of events because he is infinite.  He equally inhabits not only all space, but all times and can do and know all things.  The scientific words for these properties of a being are omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience.
• We do not have a word for being in all times equally, but if occupation of all places is called everywhere, then the word for occupying all of time would be everywhen.  Perhaps the scientific word would be omnitemporal, if the English language would bear it.
• These are attributes of one who experiences no physical, mental, or spiritual boundaries, and as such, they must be ascribed to God

    There being insufficiency on both sides to prove accurately whether God is concerned with this world or not, we must assume that he is indeed concerned, for 3 reasons:

1. It is not unlikely that the principle of operating only with motive permeates through our reality to God's reality, and therefore He created us to watch us and extend his will to our realm.
2. The idea that God is completely aloof and either apathetic or "an observer only" leaves much to be desired.  The questions will remain, what then will become of the Earth and mankind?  Will there be an end?  Will anything follow our end?  There is no way to know these answers and therefore: The whole of agnosticism rests upon the one principal that there is no physical evidence of a God.  This is why it is often and properly categorized next to atheism.  The premises and conclusions are identical (the premise listed above, the conclusion being: Man should do whatever he pleases).
3. The consequences of being a deceived agnostic are grave.  The consequences of believing God is involved when he is not are light.

    The purpose of this dissertation is to establish that there is a God who is interested and concerned with the affairs of man.  From this we can say that those who seek after him are classified as members of certain religions.  How then do we know which is correct?  This will be discussed next.

Final thought: On which side of this discussion is it best to err?


*The phrase "prior to the universe" is nonsensical and only used for lack of more accurate language.  This will also be expounded upon in a later article.