God versus God

There are two types of people in this world, those that believe in a God or Gods, and those who believe they are God.  The latter does not imply the same dominion and power as the former however.

What I mean in the sense of the latter is that those who deny the possibility of a God or Gods are ultimately people who assert that they are God, as far as their own lives are concerned at least.  While some may have delusions of grandeur that extend beyond their own life the majority are more self centric.  Being God of their own lives they assert that every single thing that they do is either the result of their own action or the action of others and that this is where the puck stops.  It goes no higher.  While this is based on logic and reasoning it does not account for many other things which they often assert as being random or coincidence.

In my own experience I quite like the quote of Sherlock [BBC Series]:

Mycroft Holmes: "Oh, Sherlock, what do we say about coincidence?"
Sherlock Holmes: "Universe is rarely so lazy"

This is my reasoning for many things - what is random is rarely random it may appear as such but it is not, it is part of a larger sequence that you have not rationalised.  As a programmer I assert this more than anything as I know for example with computers it is not possible to generate a random number at all it is only possible to produce pseudo-random numbers through increasingly complex algorithms that derive results that create a series of numbers with a distribution that is ever more increasingly closer to a truly random sequence even to the point where the two can become mathematically indistinguishable however the point remains persistent never being dismissed - with the algorithm in hand and seed used to commence it you can systematically reproduce the exact same series of numbers as many times as you wish.

To extend this beyond programming and the restrictions of computing, entering instead into the realm of Physics this same idea has been proposed in the field of determinism, in the form of Laplace's Demon whereby, however unlikely, if you were to know the exact position of every single atom in the Universe at this moment, and where to know their previous positions, you could predict their every movement from now until the end of time.  While there are many problems with this theory as too with the pseudo-random limitations of computing the same point still remains: complexity does not negate connectivity.  Two points should not be considered disconnected even if their connection is infinitely complex.  Limiting the validity of connectivity by complexity is naive and shows a lack of reasoning - or to be more accurate, a limitation of reasoning.

This all relates to the God v God concept insofar as to say that those who believe that they are entirely responsible for actions are attempting to exempt themselves from cause and effect, refusing the idea that their actions can be the effect resulting from an outside cause unknown to them.  This by definition is to assert that you are above the laws of this Universe - in other words you are a God.  To accept your humanity and deny the inference of deism is to accept that you are not accountable for every single action you take and that others are not accountable for every single action they take either.  While those of a religious disposition label such coercions as demonic, their reasoning is an abstract realisation of the reality that many actions we undertake are not the result of our own reasoning, but the effect of an outside cause.

There is a third type of person however it is one that has not yet been realised.  It is one that is slowly emerging in the world with the growth of agnosticism, but they are yet to bridge science and religion successfully.  While I consider myself on the religious side more so for the spiritual element, less so for the organised religion component [of which I do not follow any] I am not in a position to bridge the two.  While I have strong beliefs that stem from both sides and I have found harmony and resolution between many of these points, there are many more that still sit in stark opposition.  Until there comes a time when the two can converse without resorting to conflict they will remain in opposition.  That time is drawing nearer however with the growth of agnosticism and with the realisation that both sides are guilty of causing conflict.  Religion and Science have both attacked one another like warring nations.

A balance can be found.  Only those who are willing to accept peace can resolve conflict.  Sadly conflict is in human nature and as much as we have strived to overcome our animalistic impulses this nature is one that we still find hard to escape.  Those that say one side or the other have spawned conflict and assert that in the absence of it, there would be no conflict are naive.  In the absence of either side people would simply find another reason to cause conflict - Science and Religion combined are not the sole causes of Wars throughout history, there have been many others, territory, culture, race, ethnicity, and economic paradigm, to name but a few.  The real issue is conflict itself and the sadistic side of human nature that desires it.