Does God Really Exist?

Although this may seem difficult or even impossible, try to imagine what it might have been like before there was an Earth, before there was a universe. Then ask yourself, what was there before that? If you come up with an answer, accept it and ask, what was there before that? Keep going back until you can go back no further.

Now try the same exercise forward in time. What comes after this universe that we live in? What comes after that? Clear away whatever comes up and ask, what comes after that? Keep going until you come to a stop.

If you go back far enough, there are only two possible answers to this question; either there was nothing, absolutely nothing at all, or else this universe is eternal and had no beginning. Likewise, looking forward, either there will be nothing left, absolutely nothing at all, or else this universe is eternal and has no end.

If there was absolutely nothing, the question is where and how did the universe spring into existence? If there was absolutely nothing, there was no need to do anything and there were no resources to make it happen. Nothing would just continue to be nothing. The only power that could possibly create something from nothing is Consciousness.

Consciousness means: an awareness of self, environment, and mental activity, and the ability to determine choice of action. So, in saying that Consciousness is the only power that could create something from nothing, I am saying that awareness and an ability to determine choice of action were the prime qualities needed to precede the creation of something from nothing. Science has no credible explanation of how nothing could suddenly become something. Scientists start with the Big Bang, not before it.

Just as an idea might be created out of nothing (though this seldom happens), so conceivably a powerful enough Consciousness might create the universe out of nothing. So, if there was nothing at all, there at least had to be Consciousness existent in order to create the universe of which we are now part. Man has decided to call this Consciousness “God”.

The other possibility, that the universe is eternal, without beginning or end, also seems to imply some sort of eternal force that underlies the whole process. We know that nothing physical lasts forever, so there would need to be a non-physical force underlying the universe just to keep it maintained. This force is best described as “Consciousness” or “God”.

Now, if we look into the future, either things go on eternally or else there will suddenly be nothing. Where will everything go unless it is dissolved back into Consciousness (God)? If God switches off and dies, there will be absolutely nothing, and no chance of a new start. It is very unlikely that if God started out eternally (in our past), that He would not continue into the future eternally too. And if He didn’t, and there was absolutely nothing left, it wouldn’t matter, would it? So, if there is eternity, there has to be something that is eternal. That something is Consciousness or God.

Does God really exist? Of course He does! Our concept of who or what God is may be inaccurate. But there had to be something, Consciousness in fact, to pre-exist the Universe. We may as well call this pre-existing Consciousness God, because in essence that is what being God is all about.

(This is the essence of the opening chapter of The God Franchise)


6 comments on “Does God Really Exist?

  1. Brendan McGrath says:

    Actually I do have a question…. How does the spiritual act on the physical? They are clearly of different ontologies, of different metaphysical types, have different attributes, physical stuff has size, colour, weight etc….. spirit stuff I guess has other attributes? Only things of the same classes interact with each other. Colours interact with colours, things with different weights interact with other things of different weights. It’s basically the mind-body problem restated, to something like “Spirit-physical”, (does that make sense?). Simple enough? how does spiritual stuff actually have action on physical stuff, at what level does it interact ?

    • Alan H. Dawe says:

      I see everything as being spiritual, or, if you like, Consciousness. I believe Consciousness is the true foundation of the universe. Physical stuff is a concretisation of the spiritual into form. Why shouldn’t this be the case? Why shouldn’t these things interact, even if we don’t see it happening?

      What we see as solid, is, as you know, not solid at all. Most of matter is space, and as you go deeper and deeper into the minutiae of matter, it starts to take on qualities that we don’t experience at the macro level. This is how Newton’s Laws can co-exist with quantum theory. They are talking at different levels. They are incompatible with each other, yet they co-exist. The more you go into science and the discoveries being made, the less sense it makes that we are made up of just bits of matter in the form of atoms, molecules, cells, etc. It rolls of the tongue so easily, but what does the inside of an atom look like? Scientists don’t know – it is too small. They started with theories of electrons whizzing around protons and neutrons (as it was when I was at school), and nowadays there are things like the following, which I quote from The God Franchise: “As we delve deeper into quantum theory, we discover baryons and mesons, made up of quarks, bosons (force-carrying particles), and W+, W- and Z0 particles. Mesons are an unstable particle consisting of a quark and an anti-quark. The stable baryons (including protons and neutrons) consist of three quarks (with three anti-quarks forming the anti-particles of the baryons).” I say this tongue in cheek in the book – I am pointing out that scientists easily catch themselves up in a cloud of detail, and they often can’t see the wood for the trees.

      They are trying to explain what is essentially spiritual or Conciousness in a physical way. At its greatest depth, when science is taken to the limits, scientists cannot find the ultimate answers. They cannot explain what happened before the Big Bang, how the first cell got started, how life started and what consciousness is. I think scientists are great, but they will in the end have to accept that Consciousness is the foundation of the universe, and that Consciousness is actually God.

      This is what The God Franchise is all about.

  2. Brendan McGrath says:

    Rather too long a reply is required, but a few very simple ideas to throw into the mix… It is not true that because science cannot explain something that its valid to posit a “God”. Many many things that were once well beyond scientific reasoning, some pretty big things, are now within our grasp, electricity, gravity, etc. It’s not a set of scales with science at one end and God at the other, and shortfalls and strengths that tip the scales, not at all. Yes in some places science is weak, that says nothing about the existance of a God.

    That’s just a minor point, I think the real weakness in the foundation of this argument is the definition of “Consciousness means: an awareness of self, environment, and mental activity, and the ability to determine choice of action.” It’s that notion that the argument then seems to forge ahead on, “determine choice of action”….. and wind up in “something from nothing”.

    Don’t agree with that at all. You’ve not established that definition at all. “Determine choice of action” simply opens up a huge, vast area of argument around free will and deterministic universe, that occupies the entire lives of some philosoprers and God type people. It appears to be the underpinning of your argument but “because the dictionary says so” is not a great fall back.

    On the side of science and its inability to answer the big questions, science has done some pretty nifty stuff, has rather a lot of explanatory power, I think you’d agree that? Solves rather a lot of problems, when I turn the key and the car starts, or the surgeon finishes my heart by-pass, all pretty nifty. I for one really am pretty happy with it as a way to work and understand the cosmos.

    The great thing is that some stuff is so monumentally complex, such as say mapping brain function, we don’t even know where to start, we don’t know if the “brain activity” that we are looking at is the actual brain activity or just a by-product. Now there are even more astounding problems,,,, the universe is expanding rather fast, in fact it’s accelerating in its rate of expansion, this means that in a mere 13 trillion years when guys on radio telescopes look out into the night sky they will see nothing, as the physical matter will be racing away at such a speed that no signal will return. Their cosmos will be empty, they simply will not be able to observe it or do any science on it, (that doesn’t mean it’s not still there and made of matter), our little human standpoint just won’t give us a position to do any science on it!

    Lastly, word games, mind games, arguing over semantics, etc really are not informative, trying to prove important stuff from simple mental tensions (how much “how much does “red” weigh” ) . They are just playthings of 1st year philosophy students. But if we did want to indulge.

    1. If this is the case (“yes but I dont agree”, “oh just for the sake of argument agree “, “oh ok”)
    2. If this is the case ( (“yes but I don’t agree”, “oh just for the sake of argument agree “, “oh ok”)
    3. Then this must be the case ( “oh so you’ve taken two statements neither that I agreed with and now are trying to say you’ve proved something to me!!)

    That’s the typical “just suspend your disbelief for a moment” argument….

    So a lot to absorb! This blogging is great.

    • Alan H. Dawe says:

      I agree that God must not just be a “God of the gaps”, a God to fill in where science cannot explain something. My blog is saying something very different if you think it through carefully.

      Scientists don’t know a lot about what consciousness really is, and perhaps I need to blog on this next. Chapter 4 of The God Franchise is titled Consciousness, so I am aware of the problem you are having with this concept. The subject of free will and determinism is also covered at length in the book. Essentially, I believe that we have free will, because otherwise God would have created a bunch of automatons, and that wouldn’t have served His purpose. These are probably other topics I need to cover in new blogs.

      In essence I agree with science. In fact in the penultimate chapter of The God Franchise I take on the challenge of Stephen Hawking with regard to what makes a good scientific model. I show that in my estimation The God Franchise is a good scientific model of the universe/God/reality.

      As far as satisfying you on your comments, may I respectfully ask that for a few moments you put aside all the science and all the philosophical arguments you have learned, and all the noise of the mind, and just sit with the very simple scenario I have painted in my blog. See what better, elegant solutions you can find. I have presented my thoughts on what I feel the solution is. I would be interested to read what other answer you can find to my scenario.

      Thank you for your comments, Brendan. I appreciate them.

    • Hi Brendan
      (sorry Alan if I’m butting in but I tend to agree with most of what you’ve said),

      I like your analogy with the scales – they are two separate scales and one does not prove or disprove the other.

      There is a great book called the God Theory written by an astrophysicist that explains (partly in my view) exactly how something can be created from nothing using the zero point energy field. In fact it goes as far as to say that mathematically matter can be dervied from energy rather than matter being a primary element. In other words energy comes first, and then matter follows it.

      If you think about it (hey you’ve just proved it but I’ll explain…) the words on this screen started as thoughts which sprung from my consciousness, and then my brain created energy which created movement which created substance and the actual words. The thought came first and that came from consciousness. It wasn’t that the words came first and then I thought about them.

      There is a deeper explanation of how consciousness creates energy but I don’t want to steal any thunder from a new book and am interested in what is going to be said and how without spoiling it for you or myself. I already disagree with some points but will wait till they are expanded till I make a final judgement.

      I’m hanging around to find out what happens.

      • Alan H. Dawe says:

        Thanks for those thoughts, thirdobservation, and for letting me know about The God Theory, which I must get hold of and take a look at. In the last analysis there can be, and could never have been, any state of absolutely nothing, including no consciousness and no God. There would have been nothing to motivate nothing becoming something, not even a “zero point energy field”. There would have been no raw material, not even consciousness. No energy. No nothing!

        So if we started with something, particularly something before the creation of the physical universe, then Consciousness sounds like the best candidate to me, as that is non-physical. Any Consciousness who can get a universe started is worthy of the name “God” in my book!

        To quote from The God Franchise: On the fundamental question of why there is something (i.e. a universe) instead of nothing, Stenger(*) argues that since simple systems of particles are very unstable, and “nothing” is the ultimate simplicity, the state of nothingness is inherently very unstable and so can easily flip into something! The transition from nothing to something is therefore natural. He then says, and I must quote this: “Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there was no God.”

        (*) Victor Stenger, scientist and atheist, writing in God:The Failed Hypothesis – How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Prometheus, New York, 2007

What do you think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s