Essay: Were there a god, I should Hate It

 

Were there a god, I Should Hate It. The universe is constantly increasing in entropy, and has been doing so since the Big Bang. Rewind everything, and it seems logical that the universe was, at some point, at or just before the Big Bang, in a very low state of entropy. It also seems logical, with its ever increasing entropy, to expect the universe to someday reach thermal equilibrium. Bit of a design flaw, says I. But that's not what has me pissed off.

 

As a rigorous Agnostic, I lack the ability to believe in the existence (or non-existence) of a god. But I say - if there were a god, I should hate it. Look down into the atoms and deeper; complexity beyond imagination. Look up into molecules and microbes, and further up into the universe at our level of existence, and further up yet into the universe from the perspective of the galaxies: complexity beyond human comprehension. Interdependent, interactive complexities from quantum level to galactic level.

 

If there were a something, a god, with the mind, power, creativity to have created the existence of our universe, why did it build death into the system? Were there a god, I should hate it.

 

Life eats itself. Microbes at the sea's floor eat each other. Animals in forest or on the steppes kill and eat each other. And humans kill for less reason than any other creature.

 

The life-force is constantly playing one genome against another. Strife, hunger, murder. This whole bloody contest that is life: to be the last DNA strand standing? What fun.

 

Again I wonder, why was death built into the universe, from the entropy disaster, to an individuals' personal demise. It is especially hard for humans. It is horrible to lose a loved one. My cat Silkie passed away this year (2016) at >19.5 years old; very old for a cat. I wept copiously when I discovered her body on the floor. I miss her much. My cat Pippin reached age twenty 06 October this year, so he will be leaving soon. Then it shall be my turn. When I consider my death, it is the transition that bothers me. I hope it doesn't hurt too much! My wish is to go to sleep some night and have a quick heart attack. It bothers me too that my death would ruffle those few who love me.

 

I cannot possibly know, but employing the Principle of Parsimony, the probability seems likely that when I die, I shall cease to exist. That seems the simplest explanation. Life doesn’t give a fig about the individual whilst alive, why should it care about 'em when they are dead.

 

Were there a god, I would hate it for the effing cruel thing it must be. Existence is hard enough without being aware of one's demise, and having to suffer the death of loved ones.

 

When I was a little kid I used to wonder why existence existed. It was too strange. I wondered too, what I was, and why I was here. My imagination offered no comfort. Existence really scared me at times.

 

I had fun with it though sometimes. When a kid, I would suddenly spin round to see if there were really anything behind me, or if I could catch reality in a state of unbeing. It was always too quick for me. But I seriously wanted to know what this place was and why I had been thrust into it.

 

I once read Bardo Thodol; the "Tibetan Book of the Dead" - totally fascinating. It is an eschatological tome of instructions to be read to a person who has recently died, in order to help them navigate the next phase of their existence. The book claims the while on earth, it is to a person's advantage to educate themselves in the ways of Buddhism/spirituality so when they die, they will be able to obtain release from rebirth.

 

In the next phase, the dead person will be offered/confronted with opportunities to realise the truth about existence, to accept it, be at peace with it, and to gain release from the birth/death cycle.

 

The first test is the Clear Light; the soul will experience the naked essence and power of the universe. If an adept in the ways of the spirit, the soul will not be overwhelmed, but will be able to accept and meld with it. The biggest and best test comes first in this after world view.

 

If the soul becomes frightened, the light eventually fades and soul meets The Peaceful Deities; beneficent beings who attempt to aid the spirit/traveller in their journey.

 

If the soul is unable to accept their guidance, he is next put before the Wrathful Deities, which are actually the Peaceful Deities in their other aspect, but only seem wrathful to the traveller due to their psychological/karmic constitution.

 

The soul is still able, at this step of the process, indeed, at any step, to realise that it is their own fears and illusions that withhold them from enlightenment, and in the doing, gain release.

 

There are other tests along the way, but if the soul is not able to achieve release, they find themselves at the end of the process.

 

As the end approaches, the soul begins to hunger and thirst for earthly pleasures and finds themselves in a place of copulating humans. The soul becomes ensnared by a womb, and is rebourn into this world. Bummer.

 

Of course, as an Agnostic, I cannot believe/disbelieve any of this. I do find it fascinating because the Tibetans, living hardscrabble lives in a desolate place of the world, still take time to wonder about existence and their place in it, and to make up fascinating stuff about it. They want so much to know.

 

We all want to know. Another reason for - were there a god, I should hate it: it could have been a little more forthcoming with what the heck is going on here. But no, we are left to our own devices to make up korans, bibles, books o' the dead.

 

The only positive thing I have found to get me through the horror of existence is human love. Thank you all for letting me love you. -Mark Buckles 28 October 2016

 

A few words about Agnosticism and Empiricism as I see them. I think that these are the only logical tools with which to apprehend whatever truth I can about existence/this universe. I reject second-hand news, non-replicable assertions, etc. Agnosticism for me is not a teetering position on a fence with deism on one side and athiesm on the other. The person who believes in a god is to me, the same as an atheist; both are committing similar epistomological fallacies regarding what can be proven/disproven. Agnosticism is wholly seperate from those two bugaboos. It is a stand-alone precept, valid and complete in and of itself.

 

Hey I just thought of something: a-prori home companion :)

 

 

HOME