This is the text of my stance in the debate 2/21/08 at MSU Billings. The topic was "Is there a god?" The debaters were Dr. Eric Buck and Allen Hodges. I appreciated the exchange with Dr. Buck—it was honest, thoughtful, respectful and friendly. I post this here for consideration…

Is there a god?

Yes—I say this both from the logical and personal perspectives.

My position tonight is, as well as I am able, to explain both of these perspectives.

I’ll start with the logic of the existence of God and then move into the personal aspects…

No one here, or anywhere for that matter, is able to refute the existence of absolutes in the universe. None of us deny the existence of gravity, nor can any of us suspend the force of gravity. We may be able to use it to our own purposes and even be able to fly or send rockets out of some of the force of gravity. But we all live within its power and effects. Nor is gravity the only absolute we encounter. None of us can operate outside of the laws of physics. None of our theories of the existence or origin of the universe discount or deny these very laws. Now also, none of us, though perhaps some may be able to, can necessarily explain how these forces work. None of us may be able even to see these forces. We can only see the effect of these forces and live taking these into account. The argument that something is true or even exists based solely on our belief in it, is shown to be illogical when presented in the case of physics. These laws of physics exist and act regardless of our belief in them or our understanding of their working. They simply are and we live within their bounds.

Likewise, the argument that there is no god, because we don’t believe in a god are moot. Our lack of belief in no way invalidates the existence of absolutes, nor of god. Some may argue that they won’t believe in a god because they don’t see this god. But each person claiming such, lives their entire life within the bounds of the absolutes of physics unaware of the contradiction in regard to god. Our eyes only register a small spectrum of the known light frequencies, yet none of us deny the existence of x-ray or ultraviolet light. We don’t see these, yet we know they exist. The same is true of god. Our ability to see is severely limited as is our understanding of the forces at work in the universe, yet we each live our lives within the certainty of their existence.

I would posit that indeed it takes more faith to believe in the absence of god than it does to believe in the existence of god. After all, from where did these unseen forces originate?

While we have no difficulty in accepting the reality of unseen forces that exist and operate outside of ourselves, we have trouble applying this same principle to god. While it may be flattering to think or ourselves as existing in god, or god existing within ourselves, we make no such claims to physics. These forces operate in a manner quite distinct from ourselves. They continue to exist and operate whether we exist or not. They were around long before us and will be long after we are gone. They don’t exist and work only within us, they exist and operate from outside of us. It is therefore logical to anticipate that god exists and operates outside of ourselves, as something other than ourselves, much the same as the laws of physics. The understanding that god is separate from ourselves follows on the same logic. No one would claim that gravity is something wholly unto an individual, nor even of a particular species of life. When a tree falls in the forrest with no one around does is not hit the ground? Nor is it logical to say that god is something only of an individual nor a particular species of life. The absolute of god is not something only for a person or humanity. The absolute of god exists quite apart from and separate from humanity, or individual people. God is absolute in the universe, is for the entire universe.

The challenge at hand then becomes attempting to understand what or who this god, quite distinct from us, is…

At this point we need to examine the concepts of identity and otherness. Each of us has some unique concept, or understanding of our individual identities. Who am I? How is it that you would answer that question quite differently than I would? What makes me different from you? How is it that we see ourselves not as one entity, but as separate entities? We each have, or had, more similarities than differences—two arms, two legs, a head, a face, were born to a woman—a mother, were infants, grew to adulthood, eat food, drink liquid, eliminate waste, know the sensation of hunger, cold, heat, fear, love. We live aware of our immanent death. We are finite, we live, we laugh, we die. Our human experiences are more alike than different, yet we hang on to our sense of self distinct from others. Why? Why do we think of ourselves, talk about ourselves, desire to be different than one another?

Couple this with our innate longing to connect with other people, to not be isolated or alone. We spend much of our lives wanting to be close to other people, to be connected to other people. Isn’t this at least some of the desire we have for sex? To somehow shed the loneliness for even a little while, to somehow know in an experiential way we are not alone in the universe?

Karl Marx suggested that the personality of a craftsman is seen in the thing created. Is this sense of identity and otherness not the face of the absolute within us? We were created to be in relationship. One cannot be in relationship with oneself for this does not account for the sense of “otherness”, of distinction from someone or something else. It is this distinctive that makes relationships so alluring and so difficult. We want to connect to someone who is not us. Even though many of our experiences tell us it is painful to do so. We don’t fully understand another person, even though they are amazingly like us. We hang onto, and hang up on, these differences, yet it is this sense of “otherness” that is most attractive to us— like moths to a flame.

I am suggesting that God is distinct from us and that we, like the God who made us, have this same design function of being unique yet made to be connected. We see in our own experiences of life the very nature of God. God is distinct from us, personal yet desiring to be connected to us, as we are to God. This is why secular humanism is no longer a driving force in our culture, nor our philosophy. We have lived trying to believe we are alone in the universe and our very being has cried out in response, “NO.” We are driven to connect with this someone who is not us. Secular humanism has been replaced by neo-paganism, or even nondescript-spiritualism. We know in our core being we are not alone and not meant to be alone. Everything in our experience and desires rejects this isolation.

So, we reach out to others, we try to connect, we pursue people and relationships, we join with others in every imaginable way to somehow comfort ourselves that we are not alone, as our enlightenment culture has tried to convince us. We know better.

In the same way, when we talk about god as some non-personal force in the universe, we only reinforce the very thing we are rejecting in our own lives, creating even more isolation and loneliness. We know it is not enough to simply be at peace with ourselves. We know that is not possible. We know we were destined for more, perhaps more significance, which is a concept that doesn’t work in isolation. Significance implies “other”. Significant to other people, to our family, to our culture, to our University, to our colleagues, to others. One cannot be significant only to oneself, unless perhaps one is a narcissist.

How do we connect in significant ways with this God who is distinct from ourselves? How do we approach, find, know this God? If God is distinct from us, then the only way we can know God is through the process of revealing. We reveal ourselves to other people. They watch us, watch what we do, listen to what we say about ourselves, just as we do with them. We all know the futility and frustration of one-sided relationships. For a relationship to be real, requires the revealing of each party to the other. Not just in knowing, but in being known. In this we see that an unknowable god is no god at all. We know gravity, even though we don’t understand it. We live with it, we know its effects. The same is true of God. We may not understand God, but we can know God, know God’s effects, know God’s cares and personality. A nondescript god is not a god we can know and therefore not a god to whom we can relate.

If you were god and wanted to have significant relationships with people, how would you go about it? Would you speak? Out of the air? Would you demonstrate your power? Would you force obedience to your will, it is after all Your universe? Or would you become human and live among us, show us your personality, show us your care, share in our common human experiences? Paul writes in Colossians that Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God. Jesus himself said, “if you have seen me you have seen the Father (his name for God). What better way to know and be known by the very people you desired relationship with?

Now, some may say, “that’s well and good for Christians” but what about everybody else? Isn’t each expression of god knowable and relevant to each type of people?

Here I would bring us back to the similarities among all people. Are we not more similar than dissimilar? Is not our humanity and experiences more alike than different? Why would this distinct God who desires connection need more than one human experience to connect with all of humanity? Perhaps even here this God would desire that we not only connect with God, but also with each other…

Is it not logical that this relational God would want us to be relational horizontally and not just vertically? By self-revelation through a single human at a single point in history, are we not now compelled by this God to connect with and relate to all of humanity?

Thank you.