God Ain't Dead

People are convinced when they are young that fairy tales like "Billy Goat's Gruff" are true. They are persuaded to take the troll under the bridge as real. They believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and Peter Pan. And the boogeyman, and Hookman. Not to mention the monster under the bed. Not to mention the giant at the top of the beanstalk. Not to mention God.

These people, some of whom later become Christians, are still convinced that God is real even further into their lives because the concept of a God, as a father figure and protector, is by then harder to shake. One reason is people can relate to God as a father-image because they have an earthly, human father, whom they know is a real being. Another reason is fairy tale characters are not generally attributed omniscience, or omnipresence, or infiniteness. And fairy tale characters, the good and the bad, generally don't make promises of everlasting life like the God of the Bible does.

God has endured throughout history and throughout durations of individual lives and consciences because of Its grandiose attributes and because of the promises spake by God in God-literature. The effectuality of the attributes and promises of God is directly proportional to the duration of God in consciousness.

***

The philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz came up with the idea of "the best of all possible worlds." The philosopher Voltaire rightly ridiculed and satirized it. Leibniz's theme was that our existence must be the best existence possible because God is in charge, for He would not give us a shitty existence. The implication here is that even for all the shitty things that happen, God must have a good reason for their happening. Yeah, right. Any God that lets the congruent lines of history merge to a certain point in space-time which leads to the music of Michael Bolton is not blessing us with the best of all possible worlds. Any God which lets Dallas, Texas come into existence and continue existing sure as hell doesn't have our best of all possible existences in mind. These two aspects of our possible world and a plethora of other negatives indicate the best of all possible worlds does not even come fucking close to being on our planet. The only conclusion we can make from the idiotic "best of all possible worlds" theme of Leibniz is that any God who cannot give us the best of all possible worlds is in no way the best of all possible Gods. Was Leibniz serious? Or was this a philosophical joke? Surely he didn't think Planet Earth was the best of all possible worlds. I cannot have the presumption of sincerity when considering this notion. Surely philosophers were not always dead serious, and in this case I say Leibniz is fucking with us.