James The Lesser

Having a yelling match with a 15th-century drunken German man over the proper temperature to cook a split pea pottage broth is not an effective way to communicate. While this may seem redundant, this is how many conversations sound when discussing even some of the most rudimentary topics, such as a wife and a husband having a not-so-civil discourse over the open bag of Miss Vickie’s spicy jalapeno chips left open on the sofa last night. However, it is excruciatingly apparent in non-colloquial discourse. More so, the coup de gras of anti-colloquial civil discussion nowadays is over the existence of God. 

God, moreover, the idea of a God, has always existed throughout all time periods, civilizations, and societies. God has always been a de facto driving force uppermost in the minds of not only peasants, slaves, plebians, and laypeople, but especially in the minds of many world leaders, trailblazers, and historic philosophical headwinds all throughout the existence of man. Plato is famous for his depiction of the demiurge, a divine craftsman who smelted, molded, and formed the world with careful design. Despite not having any knowledge of Judaism or the ancient Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament), he still, with his brilliant mind, could theorize the hypothetical necessity of a creator. Aristotle learned from Plato and brought his idea of the unmoved mover to life by stating the cosmological necessity in Metaphysics that everything in motion is moved by something else. Furthermore, the Stoics, as steadfast and even-minded as someone could be, believed in pantheistic reason; The theory and belief that the universe is one connected being unified and illuminated by the infusion of divine breath, breathing life and reason, originating morality. They called this Logos. Lastly, the Holy Bible states in the Acts of the Apostles chapter 17, St. Paul, in his evangelistic journey throughout the Middle East and Mediterranean areas and churches he notes something minute but substantial in this context. In Athens, St. Paul meets with the prominent council of leaders who are described as doing nothing except sharing their latest ideas (verse 21). Luke writes that St. Paul says in verse 22, “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.” They note that their altars were dedicated to “An Unknown God.” Later in this chapter, St. Paul tells them that God is not like Gold or Silver and is not a resident of a human temple, but it is God who gives us life and makes us move, as Paul says: “For in him we live and move and have our being (Verse 28). Later, St. Luke writes in verse 30 that in the past, God forgave this ignorance, but now he calls all to repent. While not exhaustive nor limited to these examples, my point is that there is a natural inclination and attraction towards the existence of God. These people have each respectively left their footprint on philosophical thought to be examined and theorized further till the end of time. 

My previous examples are to illuminate that the idea of God has always been a cornerstone in philosophical thought. I would go as far as to say a necessity for order, functionality, and virtue not only to an individual but for a society as a whole. In order to preserve respect for all the wonderful arguments for the existence of God, I will refrain from attempting to make a short, half-witted summation of any of them, although I do look into them. Instead, I am interested in the underlying fact that God and his existence were always the default belief in human history. It says a lot that in “Godless societies” or ones who have no knowledge of any revelation of God, will turn to worship almost the same as an animalistic instinct. Human beings have since the beginning of time been subordinate to what we do not understand, as we would worship river gods merely because we did not understand water. Or the Sun on the childlike basis of awe for something greater than I. I believe the inherent subordination of submitting ourselves in a hierarchical sense to something greater is fundamental to the fact that we are image bearers. In the same way, we do not look at a small tree which contains just enough wood to make one chair and say, look, that is a chair. Rather, our conscience develops to desire a specific need for a chair, and actualizes this desire by creating all parts necessary to formulate what is a chair. Furthermore, a chair is not a subjective abstract definition for a chair; we all adapt to have the cognitive coherence to decipher what is actually a chair. What does God have to do with a chair? If the true eschatological end of man was truly death and nothing more, why would we evolve to desire a need for more? What purpose, if we are only meant to survive physically, would we set aside survival of the fittest instincts and be able to willfully die for something transcendent beyond human comprehension? In juxtaposition of God and our chair, the difference is that we do not take materials to formulate the actualization of God like we do with wood for a chair; rather, it is God himself who actualizes the inclination in our conscience to desire the necessity of God. It can only be this way due to there mostly being no material benefit to setting aside our strongest momentary desire for that which is beyond our understanding. Lastly, if we are just slightly more complex beings than other mammals, under no circumstance would it make any rational sense to desire anything greater than comprehension. This is the truth about humanity, that we always have and always will be in a hierarchical subordination to that which we do not see or hear, contradicting our materialistic nature of survival and pleasure and to hold reverence for that which is unknown. I believe it is an atheists burden to try and mustard up some semblance of evidence that we should go against our strong inclination and attraction to God and defy the very feature which makes all the difference, that we are image bearers. 

Rather, I will veer into the atmosphere of language, and how such a bedrock utility it is for us as human beings to function. However, given such complex methodologies such as lexicography, vernacular, and linguistics, the everyday use of them becomes monotonous and insipid insofar as we rebel against the very essence of language, which is to communicate. Language has been deflated to become a mundane pile of nonsense we use as a defense mechanism to combat the dreaded enemy number one of our everyday lives known by the name of awkward silence. Although over time we have been able to master concepts such as arithmetic, calculus, thermodynamics, and genetics ad infinitum, comprehend these ideas, put them to paper for others to learn, and turn these concepts inside out, understanding everything there is to know, the second we are challenged and open in discussion, all reason flees. 

Often in debates, there appears to be a sort of tug-of-war in between the lines of discussion; many will use logical fallacies to divert from slipping to the low ground of the discussion, or even use ad hominem to make light of potential character flaws in the opponent. Another tragedy is hiding behind impossible hypotheticals that have never, and will never, actually occur, but in some far-fetched way pertain to the discussion at hand. We have become well-versed enough to itch and scratch away from anything that would defeat our belief and pull a pseudo-relevant objection to ease the fall of what would be a punishing blow. Another fallacy in debate and conversation is talking past the opposition, either in an attempt to avoid a challenging objection and tread out of deep water or to lure the opponent into a trap. Similarly to the infinite hypothetical fallacy, talking past someone is a great defense mechanism to avoid being caught with britches around the ankles. It is paramount to keep note of these different methods people use constantly and consistently as unethical ways to gain grounds in debate. 

Now, if we look back to language, it reveals the ways in which we are able to become escape artists in the tribulations of discussion. The English language reaps the benefits of observing thousands of years of language evolution. English is a development of the Germanic language, while taking the influence of both Greek and Latin. Moreover, when we juxtapose Greek and Latin respectively and excavate them to the core, it reveals unequivocally the reasons for which we can make leaps and bounds of discovery using language while at the same time making no progress whatsoever. Latin is the mother of Western languages. Most languages are built around Latin and adopt many aspects for their own language. Latin pioneered the Romance languages due to its ability to be versatile and change meanings of words merely by the endings. In its essence, Latin is a very direct language; it can mediate the gap between saying how one feels about something and, at the same time, answering why you feel that way. For example, in the Latin style of speech, one is able to say to their loved ones, “I love you because you are smart, work very hard, and you treat me so well.” Whereas Greek is a much more illustrious, philosophical, and mysterious language. Whereas one influenced by Greek vernacular would say something like: “I cannot say I love you, because to say Love limits the inexplicable admiration I hold for you, that of which no one else can compare.” Facetiously, I write these examples more to bring light to the point of how different the essence is of the contrasting languages. 

After a quick detour, the point is that by incorporating so immensely each language style into our everyday speech, it makes for quite a thorny problem for us to navigate. The reason we speak past one another so frequently, and synergy is seldom evident in the hot seat of debate, more or less is determined by what basis each party is speaking from. To bring the discussion back onto the existence of God, I notice, along with many others, the lack of coherence in the debaters. In one moment the affirmative makes a historical note of materialistic evidence found to support their claim, and then in refutation of this claim the defendant will bring in an 18th-century skeptical philosophy which presupposes the evidence to not be relevant in the slightest. Then, upon further review, party A comes in with a metaphysical morality point of emphasis which in turn is refuted with a marginally profound anecdotal survey done on a minuscule sample of people who don’t know what’s going on and who disagree.

As unorganized and abstract as this essay was, I am simply attempting to show how the lack of standards set and definitions cleared up beforehand can undermine any sort of progress a debate wishes to obtain. I encourage anyone who wishes to participate in debate to keep it civil, be confident in your stance without making up for bad arguments with ad hominem or any other sort of logical fallacy. Set a basis of agreeable terms, and determine whether or not you will be using hypothetical scenarios or not. Lastly, for observing any debate, do so with an open and honest mind. The most honest position anyone can come from is to be open to having their mind changed, not by gullibility but by critical analysis of the presented evidence and claims. Most of all, I hope we can return to some common sense and lose the skeptical nonsense and return to some rationale. 

May the Lord bless and keep any and all who read this. Remember we are here for a purpose to bring all glory and praise and honor to our God and that he may use us for his will. I hope there will be regeneration in the younger generations to hunger for the kingdom of God and to be fearless servants of him who is greater. Let all glory and praises be sung to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or can imagine. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.