God is real. And we did not create Him.

My friends in law school seems to be staunchly atheistic, agnostic or simply against the idea of God. Prima facie, that seems like an intelligent take on things. Science is the new demigod, we don’t need a god in this modern age or some myth to tell us how we came about. Science told us, it’s evolution. Plain and simple. First there was water, the atmosphere created the conditions needed for living things, oxygen and all. Then there were cells, which became fish, which became reptiles and then you have amphibians and which in turn became monkeys as is their wont. I am not denying the process of natural selection. I am aware of a certain degree of natural selection, but to trace the whole human DNA to one cell takes a lot of faith. Almost more than believing we were created by an Almighty God.

And what about hell? Why would a good God decree that He is the way, the truth and the life? Isn’t that a little egoistical? Does he have an ego issue? Does he need his creation to worship him? So that he can go to sleep at night or something.

It’s the idea of objective reality. Even if you don’t believe that there is gravity, it doesn’t matter how much you don’t believe in it, or dislike it, it’s there whether you believe in it or not. And so is God. He’s there whether you like it or not, whether you believe in it or not. And with God comes the idea of justice.

Justice. Then each should be judged according to his works and his deeds, and one wouldn’t have to bring in Jesus Christ and claim that he’s the only way to God. But there is a glitch with God’s standards and our standards. There is a huge gap between the two– our good deeds are perhaps tainted with self-interest, so that you can feel good about yourself or something. So Jesus became the standard, and you only need to believe in Jesus and his standard will be your standard.

And the idea of worship is something that is instinctive in a person. Even if the person is an agnostic or atheist or free-thinker, they will still worship something in their own way, be it cash, their children, the latest fashion, other people’s opinions. So it’s not that God needs our worship, but that we need to worship a god.

So are we God’s toys?

Given that God is supposedly all-knowing, so he knows what’s going to happen in the future too. Then what’s the point of praying to God when he has already determined the outcome? In that case, we don’t really have a choice, just the illusion of a choice. But think about it, just because God sees into the future doesn’t mean he’s going to control the future. He’s an observer, the choices are your own. What he will do is to give you strength for the present. And it is the present that will determine the future anyway.

11 Responses to “God is real. And we did not create Him.”
  1. shiuan says:

    tell your law mates to go read paradise lost la.
    Milton would be so proud of you. =P

  2. ben says:

    Pardon for the perhaps harsh tone, but you are just being unreasonable.

    First :
    “I am aware of a certain degree of natural selection, but to trace the whole human DNA to one cell takes a lot of faith. Almost more than believing we were created by an Almighty God.”

    The idea of requiring faith to trace the whole human DNA is absurd. The premise is a lack of understanding of theories. Theories are not truths.

    Theories are only useful for explaining things. Wikiepdia says, “In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.”

    So evolution, which I see quite seperate from natural selection, as a theory does, more than the idea of God (whether you believe it as reality or not) is more capable of predicting future occurrences etc and is capable of being tested through experiment.

    Second: The example given about Gravity is somewhat confusing and is clearly circular.

    Gravity the theory is used to explain the observation that apples fall from trees. The observation is that apples fall from trees. Whether you like it or not, apples fall from tree.

    The question is then what is the best explanation for this phenomena. Gravity as a theory explains this phenomena. The understanding allows us to predict and build certain instruments. It is useful.

    The truth is that phenomena exists. Whether Gravity exists as a truth/fact is besides the point.

    But, as I have said, Gravity does not exist as phenomena.

    If likewise, as you seemed to assumed somewhat by comparing Gravity with God, then God is a theory, God must fulfill the requires of theory. The ability to explain and best predict phenomena. That does somewhat fail.

    If you assert then that God then must be natural phenomena, I suggest that natural phenomea requires empirical evidence of certain sort. Of course the Vatican Council have thought that it is possible to reach God through reason and evidence, many have disagreed and debates is still open ended.

    The confusion is that comparing God and evolution is comparing “God” usually asserted as both phenomena and theory, and the other evolution as merely theory.

    Third: And with God comes Justice? Theories of Justice vis-a-vis reasons from the old book have been associated with of course, the altar of retribution which you no doubt agree, and other forms of vicious punishments in the past you will excuse as human weakness. I agree but what if we were wrong? And those “intolerant” folks, those people who believe in the stake, the burning, witches, were “right”? How about change? Punishment in the 1400 and 2007 is radically different.

    Fourth: I agree that desire to worship is instinctive. So is the desire for sex and many other so called sins. If that is an excuse to do anything, then why are some christians still so adamant about pre-maritial sex, and homosexual acts. Because the bible say so. Why use instinct as argument on one hand and reject it at other times? Is that not somewhat hypocritical?

    Fifth: Same old debate about determinism, Of course a person who at once said that things are already determined and assert free-will is often called a ? There are of course greater difficulties which YOUR theologicans have considered for so many years.


    Sixth: The only good thing is that your religion has given you optimistism and perhaps happiness. Whether this is God given or self illusion does not matter to me. That is clearly the chief advantage of your religion. Please leave truth and the pursuit of it alone.

  3. angelkitana says:


    darling, when i told you tt i was agnostic, the reason is simply because (1) i do not doubt tt there is a god; it’s just tt (2) i fail to see the relevance of a god in my own life as a personal belief; and (3) i am opposed to the idea of an institutionalised morality.

    basically, i am not opposed to the idea of god per se. i do not wish to impose my own values or belief system on other people. but as i have said before, being a subscriber to maslow’s hierachy theory (which i don’t see as having been disproven in human life; just tt many societies, including singapore, fail to reach even the middle of tt hierachy), morality is something tt may be internalised. i believe tt humanity is innately moral. this concept of right and wrong is something tt exists inherently and does not require an external force to so dictate it. (i.e. if you do not want to be punched, do not punch your neighbour.) the idea tt internalised morality is in self-interest, whereas morality by jesus’ standard, i see as a fallacy. because many people who subscribe to a religion such as christianity, believe tt by being ‘good’ and following christ, they will be saved and redeemed and spend eternity in heaven with jesus, rather than burn in hell with satan and the like.

    i believe tt people do take to religion because they need something to believe in. it makes sense; for some to find a meaning or purpose in life; for others to find answers to questions such as why they suffer; and for yet others a justification to make pain and suffering acceptable. yet while i accede tt religion, especially christianity, has for the most part, made some people’s suffering bearable, on the flip side, with certain people i also see (although this is in a large part due to a subjective inflexible mindset) a perpetuation of misery and suffering under the guise of religion. think self-flagellation. heehee. whoopie. whipping myself is soooooo much fun!! (for more arguments on this you can nietzche’s ‘beyond good and evil’.)

    that being said, i don’t believe tt an absence of religion will naturally result in finding so-called false idols to worship. it is entirely possible tt you can turn from religion and to worshipping things from money, power, maybe even chase the 5 C’s (watch ‘singapore dreaming’ by the way, it’s depressing but good stuff). but it could as easily be a confidence in yourself, to be able to realise tt you are not meant to be a slave to anyone or anything, and tt you are in control of your own life and your own dreams.

    i generally don’t see any reason to blame god. someone who blames god or who is angry with god already believes tt there must be a god in the first place in order to have someone to direct his anger to. basically because i just don’t see the relevance. i don’t see us as being god’s toys. i am not sure what god wants to do with us. *shrugs* i’m still waiting for him to enlighten me.

    lalala. see ya in the cafe again babe!

  4. ben says:

    and yes, we must all have enjoyed the nobility of Satan in paradise lost, and the excellent summary of theological opinions of free will in what was it.
    the middle ages…? or is it even before that?

  5. Nick says:

    This will really sound stupid in the midst of all these intellectual debate but… why can’t everyone live happily together without the intrusion of religious faith and scientific ideas?

    I think the human race is destined to kill each other off with the conflict of ideas.

  6. lorelai says:

    i do not want to be drawn into the “intellectual debate” as i do not believe that i need to argue against people’s belief to make them agree with or acknowledge mine. however, i do want to clarify what diana means when she meant by “Jesus’s standard”. i’m assuming here that the central message that salvation is by grace and not by works is not completely understood here when it is stated in a post above that Christians think that by being “good” and following Christ that they will be redeemed. well partly true if by following Jesus, it means that by faith, you believe that God has sent Himself down in the likeness of flesh (aka Jesus) to be everyone’s sacrifice on the cross, you believe that His blood is the final cleansing agent for your past, present and future sins, you believe that because of His finished work that you need no longer to work/be good to earn your salvation, because His righteousness had been imputed onto you and you need no longer to justify yourself because He has. you may wonder based what is He qualified to be the ultimate sacrifice? Jesus being a man without sin is able to take on everyone’s sin on His shoulders bear them and pay for them. So, we don’t pay for it because Jesus paid it all.

  7. ben says:

    I believe I do appreciate the Christian take on Jesus role as one of biblical proportions.

    It is one thing to defend faith or to possess faith. It is another to trash science or use analogies that are misleading. If one chooses not to engage in intellectual debate, one must see God as objective facts, but as subjective experiences or beliefs tied in to faith.

    And that is the crux of my comment. To assert that God is like the theory of Gravity, or the fact that apples fall from tree is prone to be rather confusing.

    And regarding original sin, why do you think the sin of the father visited on the sons?

  8. Haha, I think you managed to create quite a stir here. Shouldn’t talk about race and religion.

  9. lorelai says:

    before the “original sin”, man were in perfect relationship with God in the garden of eden. after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, they hid from the Lord because they felt ashamed that they were naked. Genesis 3:21 recorded the first killing in the bible, because God made garments of skin for Adamn and Eve. this is the analogy of the blood, meaning that the blood sacrifce of the innocent becomes atonement for the guilty and provides a covering for them. anway, so they were chased out of the garden of eden (so yes, we’re living on the other side of eden) and into the fallen world.
    impact of the fall – when man disobeyed God, he gave up his dominion over all things on earth, his relationship with God is broken and the fountainhead of his power to rule is severed. beyond that, his disobedience to God and submission to the serpent’s suggestions, man’s rule has been forfeited to the serpent, so the domain originally relegated to man now falls to satan who now becomes adminstrator of this fallen world. this indicates a continual line of evil off-spring extending satan’s rule. therefore, the sin of the father is still visited on the sons.
    however, we are offered hope because God worked out a redemptive plan in Jesus beginning with the first sacrfice in Genesis 3:21. that Jesus’ blood would be the ultimate sacrfice to cover us all, so that the judgement on the innocent can atone for the guilty and reconcile man with God.
    therefore, the importance is not place on the original sin, no doubt it is what made all of us separated from God thereafter. what matters is that God offered a way to reconcile us to Him and it is up to us to choose whether or not we want to accept His offer.

  10. Hey guys, thanks for the comments. I’d admit that this is a controversial topic, so the best thing would be to agree to disagree. That’s what the marketplace of ideas is all about. Feel free to drop any further comments and I have to say that this is a welcome change from the usual peace and quiet at my blog. Lol.

Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] In the Human Condition, humanoidinterface talks about the idea of God in contrast to secular alternatives. She attempts a stab in the dark to be ironic by stating, “Science is the new demigod.” And asserts that a belief in the theory of evolution requires faith “almost more than believing we were created by an Almighty God.” […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: