Why God Doesn't Exist - Concept
_______________
Is God a physical object or an abstract concept? Until we decide which, we can’t even begin to ponder whether God exists.
_______________
The Old Testament regards God as an anthropomorphic being who made Man in His own image. The word anthropomorphic comes from the Greek meaning 'human shape or form'. It alludes to the physical aspect or architecture of a living entity, suggesting that it has acquired a human-like body.
Of course, such a hypothesis is quite vulnerable. Does God have a penis, go potty, or suffer headaches? Does He eat, sleep, get dirty, and take showers. Is God made of atoms? Does blood run through His veins? Does He grow old or in size? Did a woman give birth and a belly button to Him? Is there a way to kill Him with a kryptonite rock or a silver bullet of sorts?
Thus, the theist was compelled to modify the meaning of 'anthropomorphic' to include only behavior. Dr. Bruce Prescott, a self-described, born-again biologist testifies that:
"God is not an "object" that can be observed, tested, manipulated or controlled by any conceivable experiment... God is not an organism. He does not have a genetic structure. God is Spirit. The image of God in man does not refer to our physical form or body; it refers to our spirit."
(Evolution and Religion: Do They Conflict? Dr. Bruce Prescott, University of Oklahoma Zoological Society, April 8, 2002)
There is at least one biblical passage that supports Prescott's argument. John 4:24 certifies that "God is a Spirit." However, the passage serves more readily as evidence that a major shift occurred in theology from the days of the Old to those of the New Testament. The religion changed completely. Whereas the people of Old Testament fame explain Creation by invoking a human-like creature, the folks of the New converted God into an abstract concept. Genesis documents that God rested after creating the world. He spoke to Adam, listened to Moses, and materialized to hundreds as a flaming bush. These characterizations invariably point to a physical object. 1 John 4.8 would rather have you believe in a more ethereal deity: "God is love."
Theists are proposing two different and irreconcilable Gods here. Either God is a physical object (call 'it' a spirit or ghost or whatever) or God is an abstract concept such as love, 'spirit', or intelligence. An object has shape. A concept doesn't. We can make a movie with shapes. We cannot make a movie with abstractions such as love or conscience. Objects like trees and rocks can be conceived to move. Concepts do not perform actions. Justice does not walk; beauty does not jump. The ability to move is circumscribed to objects. God cannot simultaneously have and lack shape, move and be unable to move. The theist has to tell the audience whether God is an object or a concept. Are we asked to pray to intelligence or to an anthropomorphic being?
The issue of whether God is a physical object or an abstract concept is pertinent to the question of whether God exists because all concepts were invented by Man, and we would hope that God did not begin to exist after Man came aboard. If God is a physical object that looks somewhat like a human, we can conceive of His existence, no differently, I may add, than conceiving the existence of Big Foot or of an extraterrestrial alien. This doesn't mean that Big Foot or the alien exist. It just means that we can imagine such creatures standing before us. If God is an abstract concept, it will be impossible for the proponent to form an image of God, let alone to convey it to others. The theist who proposes God the Concept has summarily rendered his or her personal god inexistent.
A physical object is that which has shape. An abstract concept is that which doesn't. If God can BE both, a physical object as well as an abstract concept, have shape and not simultaneously, then God is more than just remarkable. God is a totally invalid hypothesis. This has little to do with us petty mortals being unable to comprehend the ways of God. It has more to do with the contradiction inherent in the irrational presentation that the proponent just finished giving.
________________
Other articles in this series...
.
.
