hand of god

it seems every day i question the presence of God. it is worth noting that his existence is a different question altogether, and i have chosen to arbitrarily believe in that. arbitrarily. because there is no form or function to this logic. and, truth be told, if i were not born into religion, i would by now be an atheist, or at the very least, agnostic. yes, i do believe agnostic would be more appropriate. there is something about the irony related to not caring, rather than not believing, that demands more command than actively not believing (which, in itself, i reckon is a steadfast belief, giving hypocricy to atheists, anyway).

but, that is not my intent to question one's belief or non-belief (as opposed to disbelief). it is to question the presence of God. i have reiterated sporadically in my posts, about how fatalism is probably the greatest argument for and against the presence of God (at least for myself). but, always, as a child is not guilty of being unable to fathom the consequences of his actions, so is he not absolved from responsibility. such lamentable laws do not confine the hand of God, the believers tell themselves, and for those who argue that a double standard (of any sort) is justification for the non-existence of any form of a higher power, can anyone really fault that kind of logic?

this leads on into a circular argument, which is why i best leave logic out of the whole equation, and go back to something i have held for many years - that faith is faith. belief is not to be argued for or against. it is a privilege, a curse and a boon. it is an arbitrary assignment, that loses and gains meaning with time and experience, but always it is something, at least to me, that i can never understand. but, thankfully (or perhaps unfortunately), understanding is not a prerequisite to having it, and neither is it a requirement to retaining faith.

the correlation, if any, between effort and reward has always been another question. this transgresses the simple boundaries of obvious observation, to the greater scheme of life itself - the subjectivity of deserving is in itself a core issue to be debated. socrates once postulated a simple set of four arguments which would logically negate one of the primary attributes of God, and along similar lines (though i do not agree entirely with the simplicity of such arguments relating to the vastness of such scale), one can already see simple, if not convincing or compelling evidence of why God remains too mystical and too covert to be an entity of belief. a child starving to death begs to differ the haughtiness of conviction from a conservative concerned for today's celebrity gossip - when religion becomes a luxury, then choice is of no value, when religion is a necessity, the absence of choice is the only thing driving life for today. who could care less about menial questions when there's other, more direct, more pressing, more immediate issues at hand?

already, i truncate my arguments, as this is not (though unfortunately has become, unwittingly,) the purpose and gist of this post.

instead, i leave myself with this valuable insight that my future self will most possibly laugh at - if all is destined, then worry is a choice. but when action is the gauge of choice, and especially one that influences, if not determines destiny, then fatalism is moot, and the promise of God is irrelevant (or, perhaps it is even more relevant, that the paths we take are those that God wills us upon more than he measures us by?). on the whole, i think this is why miracles are meant to be - and by observing one, particularly one relevant to one's (my) interest, only then will i be able to lay to rest this question of presence of God.

god as a bystander. God as an omnipotent puppetmaster. god as a benevolent giver. God as a merciless dictator. in all forms and sorts, his presence is possibly the most compelling of all inquiries we, as humans and as want-to-believers, need to ask ourselves.

it is unfortunate that i think i will no longer come to believe.