I love adding to this site's diversity of blog topics, it gives avid gamers a chance to consider "the bigger picture of life" with OTHER gamers.  I consider my line of reasoning in why I question god for all to criticize.  And tempt others to refute my logic.  So without any further introduction...

---

I take the idea of "what is god?" and I try to consider the possibilities that others have set before me.  Most religious denominations tend to apply characteristics to their god.  Such as they'll say god is all loving and all powerful (I will get back to these).  They continue to say that god exists eternal, meaning basically that he exists outside of time itself, which implies he was there before the beginning and will be there after the end.  In a sense they are saying he doesn't have a beginning and doesn't have an end at all.  Its really belittling if you think about it. 

But the same denomination (of Christianity - namely Catholicism) believes that god is all loving (implying he is all forgiving too).  This is where I begin to have problems.  While I can accept that god is eternal, for one would have to exist prior to creating the universe to actually create the universe (and even many ancient philosophers, Aristotle included, contend that there probably was a god but usually refer to "him" as a force), I have trouble believing that an entity who has created everything - all the evils in the world included - could be all loving.  The idea that god could be all powerful is acceptable in my eyes.  In fact, I find the denial of the possibility that there is a entity more powerful than you kind of absurd.  Because if said entity did exist, how could you know?  Which finds you falling back into the position that its possible god exists, how could I know? 

Even Christianity gives hint that there is a level between god and humans - namely the angels.  While Christianity names them servants of god, which I tend to interpret as an extension of god, isn't it possible there is some kind of entity that is akin to god, that is not god, that is powerful enough to act as god in some capacity, that could very well imitate god to our ancient ancestors?  If god came up to you right now, how could you be sure that he is god.  How could you be sure that he is not god? 

I am kind of stealing this idea from Descarte, but maybe there is a mad scientist that dominates the world and controls what we see.  Consider if a demon appeared before you with the appearance of what you envision god would look like (assuming it can read your mind and take that shape or form).  What if he did acts of what you would assume a god could do.  How much "magic" or "miracles" would it take you to think this thing may be god.  ****, I am sure if someone could create a miracle like reshape matter I would be convinced that this thing may be god.

But how could I be sure?  The answer is another christian idea (or atleast somewhat christian related although it may not have originated from christianity).  Thats the idea of omnipotency.  Omnipotency is a god-like attribute.  The main idea behind it is that if you are omnipotent, you see and know everything to know about everything in the universe(s)* (read: existence - as noted below).  If I were omnipotent I could discern if the thing before me is a demon or angel or god (or merely hallucination or illusion).  I would also know instantly without searching if there actually is a god-like force or entity that began everything.  Or maybe theres two god forces.  Maybe theres an infinite number of distinct and unique god forces.  Alas, I am not omnipotent (literally I see omnipotency as a philosophical fiction).  That where my ignorance can never ever be removed.  I cannot know existence therefore I cannot know if the being before me is god or some devil merely pretending to be god or if somewhere in existence such a force exists in some form or matter.  Its very well possible god exists outside of any concept we, as humans, could fathom.

So where does that leave us agnostics?  Maybe god exists?  As humans, we can never know.  What can we do?  We can keep searching if we desire.  Theres nothing wrong with the pursuit of knowledge and ultimately perfection (even though perfection is merely illusion).  Or we can be satisfied with ambiguity.  One of the most eye opening revelations I ever had was that of ambiguity.  We (agnostics) can embrace it.  Before I knew of a relatively new philosophical trend (that of embracing ambiguity) I felt that you either believed or you did not.  I did not consider myself agnostic until I really considered the fact that I may be.  Which was when I learned that there are certain decisions in your life that you can embrace the ambiguous position and still operate as a normal human would. 

In fact, I find that the agnostic may even operate better without certain restrictions**.  But at the same time, embracing ambiguity is not simply just saying "oh I'll take the middle ground always from now on, I don't really need to consider anything else".  I find this faulty because its not a realistic approach to life.  However, if in the progress of determining a solution to a difficult answer, you expend all available resources, and you have the option to stand neutral because neither side has convinced you and the matter is not pressing, embracing ambiguity as an answer may be the thing to do.  Some would say that finding your own understanding of god and your relationship with him is one of the most important decisions you can make in your life.  I say, why can't you choose the route of least resistance. 

Its not blind faith so I don't have to convince myself of a "leap of faith", its simply not necessary.  Because my reasoning, in my opinion at least, is based on my own reasoning and not some 2,000 year old doctrine which I hardly have the chance of evaluating*** simply because at that time I was not in existence or at least I do not have the same memories/thoughts etc I do at this time****.

Clearly spelled out (for those who have a short attention span), agnostics share two basic beliefs.  That (1) we do question the existence of god and (2) that we are ignorant and can not determine if god exists.  This is vastly contrary to what one might initially think an agnostic is about, that perhaps he questions god because he hasn't found an asnwer but the answer agnostics give to the existence of god is that "we do not know due to our ignorance".  Its not very applicable in the question of "does god exist?"  However, its our embracing ambiguity which allows us to leave this question unaswered (at least temporarily).  By doing so it could be said that we prefer matter over form (potential over actual), for you Aristotilean thinkers out there.

---

Perhaps next time - applicability of subjective morals or an attempt to tackle eternal return (from a few perspectives jumbled into one)

---

end notes:
*several prominent physicists claim there may be more than one universe, but read this as EXISTENCE in its entirety
** a reference towards the subjectability of moral standards and not the total rejection of moral standards
*** determining credibility based on a cold (read: really old) doctrine is really hard to do since over time revisions are bound to be made (and have been)
**** simply refering to the possibility of reincarnation or perhaps plato's allegory of the cave