God on Trial

God on Trial
(written in haste)

Hmankind is responsible for many a great farce. Perhaps the greatest spectacle ever inflicted upon the world was when the theists, the atheists and the agnostics put God on trial.

Many years earlier, a bill was introduced, and in it discussed the necessity for a proper definition of God, so that it may or may not be included in the legislative process. The scope of the bill was debated, and it was agreed that just in case, such a definition wasn’t such a bad idea. After referring the bill to committees and various think-tanks, the motion was put forward to have a trial in which God was to be proven.

The results of this trial were to become consensus and law, which would in turn define God’s place in society as decided upon by the judges of the highest courts. Cases would be argued by those fluent in arguing about God: the theists, the atheists, and the agnostics. If the theists were to have their day in court, and the judges were convinced that God existed, the word God would be used throughout the legislative process, and the Bible would be authority. If the atheists put forth the better argument, and the judges were convinced that God did not exist, he would remain absent from any legislative process and society, free from divine authority. The agnostics were against the trial altogether but were strangely one of its most vocal proponents; and wanting to have their non-opinion of God heard and thus mandated, sought to have their day in court, even without any specific outcome in mind. Any other opinion would simply be unheard.

God was subpoenaed. Because God has no fixed address, mass prayers were set up to pass on the message.

The debacle began on the world stage with all manner of bourgeoisies, politicians, pundits, celebrity and intellectuals tweeting their predictions upon the hungry masses. The outcome of this case was sure to set off a domino effect across the world. The fervour invoked ideological violence amongst fundamentalists—blood was spilt; and in the more passive-aggressive violence of liberal herd tendency, group-thought inspired movements took to the streets to bang drums and wave pithy signs in a display of indignation and enthusiastic esprit—property was vandalized. People of all walks of life revelled in dogmatic opposition, at the same time losing their humanity in a fit of ideology. All this in preparation for the proceedings.

The logistics of such a trial was immense, and of course, no expense was spared, with intellectual, emotional and rhetorical currency being syphoned from more practical interests and concerns to the vain-glory of such a spectacle. Each faction involved put forth their brightest minds, scientists and rhetoricians, who, while previously concerned with the important goings on of the world, would go on to focus their energy, talent, and life-long study on to what they must have rationally concluded were more important matters, that being the attempt to prove once and for all the existential reality of our favourite deity. Stocks plummeted. Industry ceased.

The trial began on a Sunday, after church. Of course, it was televised.

The theists entered, represented by various priests, scientists and intellectuals of varying monotheistic religious denominations. Because of the sheer variety of denominations, there were many of them, leaving their differences aside while unified in the conviction that God exists. Atheists followed, represented by the most vocal of atheists, consisting of people who had spent most of their time arguing the non-existence of deities on the internet. The agnostics wandered in last and took their seats as sure as possible.

Court proceeded and the factions would begin their preliminary arguments. A representative of the atheists, a physicist, spoke first.

“Honourable justices of the court, we are prepared to supply any and all scientific data ever compiled. Upon our own scientific analysis of said data, there has never been any indication or evidence of a supernatural being governing the states of affairs in nature. Of course, if such a being were to prove itself today in this courtroom, there is room for it in our scientific data and model of nature, but until that void is filled, there is no reason to suppose that it is actually there in the first place.” The atheist cleared his throat.

“The first piece of evidence we’d like to bring forward is this rock.” A large granite stone was brought in and placed on the desk.

“This rock is a product of natural processes and law. The theist simply refuses to interpret the evidence. Evidence shows that this rock’s existence has been formed by geological processes such as plate tectonics and climate. Further, this rock is evidence of nuclear synthesis in the early universe, which predates the account of creation as told by such canons as the Bible by billions and billions of years. The rock is, in fact, existing as it is due to the Laws of conservation, atomic structure and electron interaction, and is the result of a long chain of causal occurrences that extend back to the beginning of the universe.” He looked to the other atheists for assurance. They nodded, some of them stroking beards.

The physicist continued. “The stone is, therefor, evidence of many things, but none of it is evidence of anything more than the laws of nature, with no evidence of God present.”

An agnostic yelled, “Objection your honour! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!”

“Overruled.” said a judge. “Absence of evidence is exactly evidence of absence, especially in the face of no evidence of presence. Please continue.”

A marxist smirked. “Thank you, your honour. That is all we have at this time.”

A bomb exploded outside and many were killed. Court was adjourned until the situation was sorted, and the mess was cleaned up.

On return, and after a light lunch, a theist, a man of muslim faith, began his argument.

“Honourable justices of the court, we are prepared to supply any and all evidence of God’s existence. We are quite sure that upon presenting this evidence a reasonable conclusion in our direction can be met, only to be vindicated by God himself when he takes the stand.” Court waited as the muslim paused for prayer, the first of many such delays. After finishing, he continued.

“The first piece of evidence we’d like to call forward is this rock.” A large granite stone was brought in and placed on the desk.

“This rock is product of God. The atheist simply doesn’t know how to interpret the evidence. The laws of conservation state that particular properties of certain systems do not change as systems evolve. Because this is the case, and much evidence supports this, then it would go to show that the laws of conservation themselves do not change. And because the laws of conservation do not change, following that logic, there must be a law conserving those laws, a greater constant, something with enough power to set those laws in motion, and to continually enforce their constancy throughout eternity, while maintaining its own. The law I speak of is God, and natural laws are but the hands and fingers of God.”

“Objection your honour!” yelled an agnostic. “There is no way we could know the absolute truth of these claims.”

“Overruled!” said a judge. “Conjecture. There no evidence for any such thing as absolute truth. I’m not even sure how you seem to absolutely know that we cannot know absolutely. Continue.”

This continued for hours, the theists and atheists going back and forth with their evidence, while the agnostics routinely objected. During that time, some Christian hooligans had destroyed a mosque a few blocks away, while some muslims had destroyed strip club, and gangs of roving atheists defaced various religious symbolism by spray-painting genitalia on the most sacred of artifacts. Agnostics liked to watch, sometimes objecting and sometimes not.

Meanwhile, somewhere along a river in the mountains, half-immersed within the light pressure of a cool water up to his knees, a man fished beneath the sun and the douglas firs; two children sat on a beach against a jungle watching the waves lick the sand, sharing a coconut where the blue met the green; and a lover and her lover held hands, smiling those goofy lover smiles, perhaps concerned with more important matters.

Around the more audible parts of the world, turmoil was in the public eye; and in a fit of the typical collectivism that surrounds every hive mind, where the stampeding people, connected by nothing but the ease of typing text and uploading video and sending it to one another through wires and waves, took to the streets, rioting, looting and preaching end times. Like carrots in front of them, their twitters and youtubes were affixed in their senses, faces buried in the artificial light of their screens not looking up for a moment, and the commercials kept playing in the background, slowly and subliminally weakening the minds who heard it; but the minds didn’t care. God was coming.

The courtroom was in silence. The judges having heard all the arguments, waited patiently. A thin old man who called himself a “pope” struggled beneath the weight of his hat to stand. His robe was perfectly pressed, or steamed, or something suspiciously perfect. Like a wraith, he floated to the alter with his alter boys, who made sure to hold his sceptre while he spoke.

“Your honour. We wish to call God to the stand.”

There was animal sacrifice in the streets. People spoke in tongues or prayed. Others stood, ready to tweet and ready to blog. Black atheist flags shadowed the horizon behind shivering golden crosses and flags of Isreal. Stars, moons, crucifixes, pictures of Christopher Hitchens, old dusty science books and bibles, and every idol beneath which all dogmatists fight beneath, were littered throughout the civilized world. Except for the sounds of dying sacrificial animals, and the clicking and tapping of devices, there was silence. The herd stood still.

“He’s here!” yelled the pope. There was an immediate roar from outside the courtroom, and a few obligatory explosions.

“Wait,” said an atheist. “Where”?

“He is there on the stand! I am not worthy!” The pope collapsed to his knees. He died. The entire world shook beneath the feet of billions of humans. An audible din developed, and the collective consciousness was finally unified, everyone at the exact same moment aware of the exact same moment—the moment they witnessed God. Enthusiasm unlike any enthusiasm witnessed. People convulsed and went into shock.

“Wait a second!” yelled the atheist. “There’s nothing there! There’s nothing there!” Spittle out of mouth.

“You can’t know that!” yelled an agnostic.

“He is there!” yelled a Christian. “He reveals himself in everything!”

Fist fights, rhetoric, yelling, flag waving, contempt of court and contempt of each other; condemnation, cursing, praying for the vanquishing of enemies, idolatry, discrimination, blind altruism, indiscriminate and empty love, ritualistic sacrifice, doctrines of death, barbarism and slave morality; murder, genocide, terrorism—people putting their denominations before real people and before themselves—ideology in its purest form. In the minds of those who always speak of him, God revealed himself as he always has.

Thank you for reading,

Interesting story. It is completely understandable from a point of view from someone who is intelligent, and looking for answers, but can't seem to find them.

It is true that there are "Christians" who call themselves that who act like what you wrote in the story. But not true Christians.

A true Christian would tell you that God has been on trial now for about six thousand years. Ever since he created mankind, and we decided to rebel against him.

God in his wisdom decided to let man rule himself, to allow mankind to prove whether he can do it without him.

All the while, God did inform us of the truth, and what is going on, over a period of time, inspiring 42 different people over a span of 2,000 years to write 66 books that were collected together in what we call the Bible. There we are informed of his name Jehovah. Of how man fell, and how God set in motion immediately a way to redeem us back to perfection.

Jehovah does not interfere with human rule for now, because he has allowed us to rule ourselves. he being put on trial, as unworthy, and man claiming that we can rule ourselves. Satan also has claimed that we do not need him, and has also claimed that no human would remain faithful to God, under extreme trials and pressures, that we are all selfish, and no one would willingly serve him.

God has allowed enough time to elapse to let humans and their cruel overlord Satan to prove whether they have had any validity in their accusations against him.

They have proven utter failures. No human, or Satan, can control the weather, prevent death, cure disease. What is more racists run rampant, as well as warmongers, haters, criminals, murderers, thiefs, and other unsavory characters that mankind cannot get rid of.

Man rule has proved an utter failure.

Does that mean God is aloof? NO! It means he has proven his point. Now he will soon intervene just as he so foretold and promised to do. He will get rid of this wicked world, and all meek-like humble people who love truth and righteousness will be saved.

God has been watching. The time is soon at hand for him to react.

All will know the truth before the end.

Even you. And even those who will attack this post.

a reply to: iSomeone

Does that mean God is aloof? NO! It means he has proven his point. Now he will soon intervene just as he so foretold and promised to do. He will get rid of this wicked world, and all meek-like humble people who love truth and righteousness will be saved. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting perspective.

And the meek-like humble people. It is always they who stampede at the sign of trouble, and who are too easily swayed by those who would take advantage of them. They are just as much to blame.

I feel as though those people inadvertently put themselves on trial in an attempt to examine God. And the reason they reached no conclusion was because they never realized what they were looking at. Which actually brings to mind the story about the blind men and the elephant. And the common theme it all shares: how do you critically examine your methods of critical examination?

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I feel as though those people inadvertently put themselves on trial in an attempt to examine God. And the reason they reached no conclusion was because they never realized what they were looking at. Which actually brings to mind the story about the blind men and the elephant. And the common theme it all shares: how do you critically examine your methods of critical examination? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pretty much. But I'm going to argue that they were all looking at the same thing.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I feel as though those people inadvertently put themselves on trial in an attempt to examine God. And the reason they reached no conclusion was because they never realized what they were looking at. Which actually brings to mind the story about the blind men and the elephant. And the common theme it all shares: how do you critically examine your methods of critical examination? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pretty much. But I'm going to argue that they were all looking at the same thing.

This is the only time I'm going to say anything like this, so please forgive me: they were all looking at the same thing, but they also forgot to examine what was doing the looking. It's harder to take a clear picture through cracked or tinted lenses.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Kafka? Is that you?

I enjoyed reading that immensely, that was superb. You are a very gifted writer and I smiled and winced throughout that story.

Anais Nin's quote in my signature below sums that up perfectly (for me).
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." I think she got that spot on.