Approval Not Required

God does or does not exist with or without our approval.

Todd Beal

For all things there exists a source, with each source converging back unto one; the source of all life, apart from which there is no other, is therefore absolute, and contains no contradiction.

If God is the source of all things then he is the source of all life and is therefore living and absolute; apart from whom nothing exists. If he is not the source of all things, and is therefore not living, and not absolute, then the word God is just a name for rejecting someone’s idea of him.

If we are not our own source, then we are not absolute and therefore not God, who does not require our acknowledgement or approval to be our source.


About Todd Beal

I love truth and its facts. I love thought-provoking conversations that give both the other person and me a better understanding of a particular topic. I love to find answers to life-long questions; answers that let me see things for what they are instead of what they seem to be. I truly enjoy being in the midst of a group of people where all individuals are joining in, where everybody is enjoying the company of each other. I relax in the company of individuals who are competent yet humble. I like to catch myself doing or saying something ridiculous and then laugh my head off. I enjoy my church and being involved.
This entry was posted in By Title [A], God and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Approval Not Required

  1. Todd — I like this but I must admit I am still struggling with the second sentence of your second paragraph. Can you expound upon it a little? Are you saying that if God does not exist as an absolute being that the word “God” has no meaning? Or that if I BELIEVE God doesn’t exist, my using of his name becomes a rejection of the beliefs of those who DO believe he exists? There are certainly many throwing around his name in a direct violation of one of his stated commandments (Judeo-Christian). If he does exist as an absolute being, and delivered that commandment to Moses, these people condemn themselves with their utterance. If he does not exist and made no such commandment, then the name spoken in vain only serves to offend those who believe. Am I anywhere near what you were thinking?


  2. Todd Beal says:

    First, thanks (really) for plowing through this argument. Yes, you are very near to what I am thinking. However, the argument itself is not specifically based on the Ten Commandments, but is wholly rooted within both the entire Judeo-Christian scriptures from beginning to end, and the subordinate fields of cosmology and biology: cosmology, ‘the universe points back in time to a single initial spark of existence, before which nothing existed’ (as proven by cosmologists Sir Roger Penrose and Professor Stephen Hawking, and written about in Hawking’s book “The Universe in a Nutshell”); biology, ‘all life comes from life’ (law of biogenesis) – while taking into account that every historically recorded human civilization, including our own, is by default compelled to find a god to either worship or hate.

    Now on to the second sentence of the second paragraph, “If he is not the source of all things, and is therefore not living, and not absolute, then the word ‘God’ is just a name for rejecting someone’s idea of him”. My point is that when the word ‘God’ is used in one’s denial of God’s existence, the word ‘God’, to that person, is the representation of his or her understanding of the idea of God, not God proper.

    For thousands of years, philosophers, logicians, and theologians have argued for and against the existence of God, but one thing stands at the core of this debate (regardless of which side one favors); the word ‘God’ and ‘what does that mean’. Two can argue all day about whether God exists or does not, but unless those two individuals agree upon the meaning of the word ‘God’, the argument is essentially about apples and oranges – they’re not debating the same issue.

    My argument is that all things, including life, converge back upon one source, which then is the source of everything – meaning that that source is pure life, the absolute origin and sustenance of all things. This is God; whether I accept or reject addressing God with this particular word is not the issue. If a person does not have a personal relationship with God, then that person’s idea of God is simply that, an idea, or head knowledge and is not experiential (the basis for the revered scientific method). To that person, the word ‘God’ is meaningless and holds no value; consequently then, neither does his or her argument – either for or against God – because it is based on nothing (no experience, no evidence). This also applies to many people who call themselves Christians but who have never personally accepted God into their heart (no experience, no evidence). Logic and reason, along with observation, can only point toward God or turn us away from him, but only personal experience (evidence) proves that God exists, internally to self and consequently externally to others.

    Finally, if God doesn’t exist, why do we passionately hate and deny something that does not exist? If God does exist, why do we passionately hate and deny our creator?


  3. That makes sense and I appreciate the detail. I truly believe that while God wants us to accrue all the “head knowledge” we can during our mortal sojourn, he wants our knowledge of him to be experiential. The New Testament is replete with mentions of the Holy Ghost and its ability to impart knowledge of the most important kind — the kind that can change human nature and alter the course of lives as we align with truth. I personally believe this is the only form of knowledge I can rely on completely. People are constantly updating, improving, and revising the body of scientific knowledge, while the bedrock principles underlying the universe go on unchanged, and, in many cases, undiscovered.


  4. Todd Beal says:

    Absolutely. Without truth, life is merely a stab in the dark. Without truth, knowledge is pointless, but with it there is no knowledge that does not lend itself to understanding.


Comments are closed.