Why God can't be found

The shortest, simplest, and likely most accurate answer to the question, "Why can't God be found?," is: because God doesn't exist. We also can't find unicorns, leprechauns, or the Tooth Fairy (hope my granddaughter isn't reading this post) for what almost certainly is the same reason.

They don't exist.

But for the sake of argument let's assume that some entity which reasonably could be called "God" does exist. Don't ask me to define that term, "God," because it isn't possible. An understanding of God comes at the end of the search for him/her/it, not before.

And that brings us to the biggest problem in finding God. There's no preferred direction in which to look. If you doubt this, pick up the book that I've been reading, "God is Not One." 

The author, Stephen Prothero, clearly shows how different Islam, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Yoruba Religion, Judaism, and Daoism are. These aren't just superficial differences, either.

In each of these major faiths, countless dedicated seekers of truth have labored long and hard to pierce the veils that supposedly separate humans from an ultimate divinity. These saints, mystics, yogis, monks, sages, and wise men/women have meditated, prayed, chanted, mortified themselves, and otherwise engaged in an amazingly wide variety of spiritual practices.

End result: no agreement about the nature of God.

Some faiths say that God (using that term as loosely as possible) is personal; others impersonal. Some faiths say there is only one God; others many Gods. Some faiths say that God is a perfect being; others that God is as flawed as we are. Some faiths say that God is transcendent; others that God is immanent within every atom.

Recently a commenter on this blog said something familiar: "God is to be found within." Well, that tells us absolutely nothing. What isn't to be found within? Name one entity in the cosmos that can be known by a human being outside of that person's consciousness.

Everything is found within our consciousness. The trick in finding something is having some idea where to look. In everyday life, as in science, almost always there are preferred hypotheses that enable us to narrow down the range of search options.

If I can't find my watch, it's unlikely to be in Mongolia if I haven't visited there recently. If our dog won't come when I whistle, my first thought is to check her favorite squirrel stalking locations, not to drive into downtown Salem and look for her at the mall.

When it comes to finding God, though, I've reached the conclusion that there aren't any search techniques which are demonstrably more likely to be effective than any others. I've read countless (almost) descriptions of mystical and spiritual experiences by people from all sorts of religious backgrounds. Also, non-religious.

Everything seems to work for somebody, somewhere, some time. Putting in effort. Utterly relaxing. Eyes open. Eyes shut. Finding God on your own. Trusting a guide/guru. Purifying your body/mind. Embracing drugs, sex, and rock & roll. And so on. And so on.

When people say, "I'm a seeker of God," they aren't really telling the truth. Again, how is it possible to seek something that (1) probably doesn't exist, and (2) if it does exist, leaves no clues where it can be found?

What they actually mean is that they've decided, for no good reason, that God is most likely to be found by following the precepts of a particular religion, spiritual path, mystic practice, or such.

Without any demonstrable evidence that God is to be found on a particular section of the 360 degree Possibly Divine Truth Circle, they confidently head off on a certain "degree heading." Meanwhile, other people all over the world are choosing their own preferred paths.

Underlying what I call my Wu Project is a sense that this is senseless. Now, I can't prove that no one finds God by searching in a certain direction. But in return, no one can prove that this is possible -- so I'm sticking with my null hypothesis:

God can't be found.

Here's the funny thing, though: I'm still open to the possibility that God exists. Yes, I think this is exceedingly unlikely. But unlikely isn't impossible. So every morning I sit down and meditate for a while.

I don't search for God. I'm simply open to the possibility of God. I say "hello," wordlessly. To nobody and nothing in particular. It's the same thing I do when I answer the phone. Except in this case, there's no signal to alert me that God is calling.

Only silence. And, when I have my eyes shut, darkness.

I figure that if God exists, it isn't possible for me to find him/her/it. It's up to God to find me. If that never happens, I won't be surprised, since I think it is extremely unlikely that an entity anything like our human conceptions of "God" exists. I simply enjoy being open to the possibility.

Surprises are fun.

If God ever surprises me with an answer to my "hello," I'll be sure to let you know. You can either reply via a comment on this blog or -- another possibility -- with a visit to the mental institution where they're treating me.

Comments

[Suzanne]

Difficult to find much of anything, really, once you truly start digging. Just ask the particle physicists that see matter disappear.

[Harold]

This makes sense to me. My issue with avowed atheists is that they simply represent the flip side of the same theist coin. Neither side can prove their argument so they argue ever more loudly and tend to silliness or cruelty.

[Brian Hines]

Harold, atheism isn't the flip side of theism. Theism is a positive belief that God exists; atheism is an absence of belief that God exists. In science, as in everyday life, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive statement. So it is up to theists to prove that God exists.

How could the non-existence of God be proven? How can I prove that they aren't any pandas in my back yard? All I can say is that I see no evidence of either, so I assume that they aren't present until there is conclusive positive evidence of them.

Yes, some people do make good arguments for the non-existence of God. But almost always these are debunkings of the attempts to prove that God does exist. Every atheist would be willing to consider real evidence for divinity. It just doesn't exist.

[Richard]

is it possible that 'god' is 'everywhere', so cannot be discerned 'anywhere'?

[DJ]

Here's a quote from that fool Sir Issac Newton from his manuscript 'A short Schem of the true Religion'-"Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors.[Times have sure changed!] Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared." How can a man be a super-genius in physics and mathematics and such a bonehead when it comes to God?

[Dogribb]

Anything that you can convince yourself of and believe is subject from the minds view to disbelief a dissuasion

[Brian Hines]

DJ, what the Newton quote shows is that he was a genius in some respects, but didn't have a foreshadowing of the Dawinian understanding of evolution that was to come centuries later. But this doesn't take away anything from Isaac Newton's greatness. He simply saw some truths about the world clearly, and was mistaken in others due to the limitations of the science of his time.

[elizabeth w]

The unforgettable quote by Isaac Newton:

"To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me."

What more to say?

[DJ]

Newton and other creationists of his time were well aware of evolutionary teaching
that had been handed down from the ancient philosophers. And when you
analyze the quotes in his Optiks you can see that he understood evolution
much the same way it is articulated today. He understood that part of
the story had the universe arise out of chaos by means of the natural laws.
If Newton were alive today he would of
course believe in evolution, but a theory of Intelligent Design that has God as the cause of evolution. After all he only believed what he did
about God's creation because everyone else in his day believed the same.
But this is a handy argument for evolutionists because they do not then
need to feel any discomfort from Newton opposing Darwinian type "blind force" evolution in his day. There is, of course, no reason
to believe Newton would accept evolution today as atheists propose.
As far as the vast oceans of truth that Newton was ignorant of, not a single scientific fact has ever proven life could be created without God

[Brian Hines]

DJ, regarding your last point: there also isn't a single scientific fact that has proven life could be created WITH God. And there isn't any scientific fact that has proven life could have been created without Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Matrix, or Voodoo.

So what's your point? As I frequently point out on this blog, someone making a claim has to provide positive evidence for it. Thus if a theist claims that God created life, rather than natural processes, convincing evidence has to be provided for this claim. So far, there isn't any.

Scientists are getting closer and closer to creating life from inanimate substances. If and when they do, will this be the death of God? Those who believe that only God can create life seemingly would have to answer, "yes."

[Willie R.]

Dying will settle the God issue. You can count on it.
Don't believe me? Go ahead and kill yourself.

Uh huh. I thought so. I'm as chicken shit as the next person. I will tell you this - if I find my self existing somehow after my death, and I feel basically they way I do now, and I discover that there actually is a God, I'm going to be rather disappointed. Pretty sunsets and a few orgasms cannot make up for the fact that life is uncomfortable and ridiculous.

[DJ]

I know that you can't prove God created life."Scientists are getting closer and closer to creating life from inanimate substances"-absolutely false! There is no milestone to gauge how close they could come such as a race measured by time and distance. On the face of it, duplicating the conditions on prehistoric Earth that supposedly led to the "accidental" start of life would be extremely easily; just start with early atmospheric gases, throw in some naturally occurring amino acids, provide a electric spark and Voila! Man can never "get close" to creating life;you either have life or chemicals that make up life'

[Suzanne]

Hey Willie, IS life uncomfortable and ridiculous? In a twinkling, that judgment can change.

[Willie R.]

Suzanne - I will further qualify my statement: MY life is uncomfortable and ridiculous.

[Cyfer]

Exist means to stand out. Of course god doesn't exist. You're never going to get with your mind.

[Brian Hines]

Cyfer, if God doesn't exist, then what is there to get? With the mind or otherwise. Also, if you mean God can be known to exist with something other than the human mind, what is this thing?

[Cyfer]

" if God doesn't exist, then what is there to get"

what words do you want to use ?

or just keep making noises.

[DJ]

"Do you feel blame? Are you mad? Uh, do you feel like wolf kabob Roth vantage? Gefrannis booj pooch boo jujube; bear-ramage. Jigiji geeji geeja geeble Google. Begep flagaggle vaggle veditch-waggle bagga?"-Charles Manson

[Brian Hines]

Cyfer, I figured you didn't have an answer, but wanted to ask you anyway. You're using words, as am I. You're making noises, as am I. We're the same. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you claim to know something about God or ultimate reality that the rest of us don't?

[Dungeness]

Scientists are getting closer and closer to creating life from inanimate substances. If and when they do, will this be the death of God? Those who believe that only God can create life seemingly would have to answer, "yes."

Igor: I'm getting closer, Master. A few more experiments, some whiteboarding, a minor combinatorial tweak, maybe even a bit of, um, divine inspiration and we'll have him. Yes, our Frankie will walk (slight limp or lurch only). He'll talk. We've done it... God is dead! His tyrannous grasp is no more. Think of it - no more fire and brimstone, Guilt, tiresome catechisms, or Holy Wars.

Hail Science! We're free... free at last.

[cyfer]

for some reason my reply didn't post and i'm not to re-write it all. It's just another bovine question. "what is there to get" - same as my first answer. So shallow as to presume "god" is an object of knowledge like a unicorn. What's he made of ? how old is he ?

So you know god doesn't "exist".. do you know something everybody else doesn't ?

Explain to us all what "god" should "be" and that's why "god" doesn't "exist".

Let's all take another trip around the mobius strip.

[Bharat Bhushan]

If God or the concept of Gog bothers someone to that extent, it is better to forget about god and concentrate on peace of mind and peaceful life. The ultimate of research of all religions, saints and sages is peace. A peaceful life, even if it is devoid of God, is better than ‘God’, if any.

[Jonathan Elliot]

I really liked this post, thanks. It seems to express an agnostic point of view which I tend to hold.

If I may be so bold
"Again, how is it possible to seek something that (1) probably doesn't exist"
does present an assumption. However, maybe it's just as good an assumption as any other.

Jonathan from spritzophrenia

[Bharat Bhushan]

I agree with you Jonathan. Though I am a believer, I am sure God is an assumption. I feel comfortable with that. The idea of God does not bother me. It saves me from many Sadhus, Samnyasis, Saints and Gurus being beamed by TV channels and other media. People worship 'God' for it gives prosperity. But non-believing people living in communist countries also became prosperous, that too without a God.

[Al]

I find the discussion most interesting and like Brian I have also sought answers from both religion and Radha Soami amongst others.

There can be many differences between religion and spirituality, and I am not one who believes in rituals.

After much soul searching I do believe in a higher intelligence and call this God. When I look at the multiple forms of life I feel that this cannot happen by accident. Look at the composition of DNA, atoms, etc, surely it took a greater intelligence to design these. So to me God proof of exists all around by inference.

Of course there are those who look at negative aspects like suffering and claim the converse, but I have not dismissed karma or similar 'laws' as a possibility.

Also when it comes to events outside the physical our minds are limited so that there are areas I believe in which we cannot use a mind to comprehend. Albert Einstein held this view long before me.

I am also of the view that God and evolution are compatible if this is the plan.

As for man creating the complexity of what we see around us, I really don't hold out any hope even given what there is to work with (DNA, etc) and which should make things easier as things don't need to be created from scratch, which I believe is the domain of a higher force, call it what you will.

My own beliefs (yes that's what they are) is that God exists in a form of energy outside our dimension and understanding of time and space) and cannot be examined in a test tube environment with a relatively crude instrument like the mind which only has and understands 'physical' points of reference.

I even have difficulty in dealing with infinity. It is said that our universe (and there may be trillions linked by Black holes, is infinite yet expanding? How can something infinite expand? I have a simple mind please explain because by definition they appear at odds?

It is also true that the existence of God has a subjective benefit for me as it makes me feel that there is the possibility of hope and meaning otherwise what is the point of life if its simply live and die?

What are the probabilities that in all the time that the world has been around that I will be alive and 'conscious' for just 80 years or so. Or have I always been 'conscious' in some form?

So whilst I don't believe in religion or a given definition of God I definitely believe in a higher intelligence than mankind. For me that is God.

Best

Al

[Brian Hines]

Al, my mind also is blown by infinity. Here's a post I wrote on the subject which might give you some insights into infinity:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/09/a-mind-blowing-fact-about-infinity.html