Monday, 12 January 2015

Why is there Something Instead of Nothing?

The question of why existence (not merely material existence, but the existence of literally everything) 'exists' may seem like a daunting question, most likely because existence itself seems both infinite and beyond human comprehension.

This is a typical and somewhat emotional response to the question of existence that many of us are probably familiar with. However, if we apply basic logic to this question, rather than merely reacting emotionally, it is perhaps not such a difficult question to engage with. To properly grapple with this question there are two main points that we need to look at.

The first point concerns an often preconceived idea about existence. This is the belief that the reason for existence, or in other words why there is something rather than nothing, must be due to a rather grand or complex cause.

How else could the world and universe we are familiar with be so complex if its original cause was not just as complex, if not more so?

The first thing you need to realise is that it doesn't matter how complicated anything is, whether a life form or an idea, it will always be made up of less complicated elements.

Humans are of course made up of smaller, less complicated parts, and those parts are themselves made up of even less complicated parts.

Whenever someone comes up with a new idea, whether it is in the form of a new technological device, art or any philosophical idea, it will inevitably incorporate a range of other smaller ideas. Any serious contemplation on anything you think to be a whole, whether a physical object or an idea, will be seen to be made up of smaller entities or ideas.

The eye for example, one identifiable part of most animals and humans alike, is made up of smaller distinct parts, such as the: iris, retina, cornea, etc. On closer inspection we would eventually see individual atoms and on even closer inspection: protons neutrons, electrons, etc.

Although we are limited in what we can see with our naked eyes, or even with the aid of a microscope, we can probably still imagine the perpetual pattern of increasingly smaller 'entities' or forms of energy making up literally everything.

Even if we cannot recognise the increasingly smaller physical parts, or ideas, that make up larger things, they will always be there. Much like the expression 'all big things have small beginnings', we should think that existence has, perhaps not a small beginning, but rather a simple reason for why it 'exists' in the first place.

The second point is that in order to understand existence in a basic way you need to be able to recognise basic concepts and their patterns.

For instance  light (colour) and numbers, two basic concepts we are all familiar with, work in a relatively similar way. The concept of pure white light contains within it every possible colour; those colours we are able to see and every shade that we cannot. The concept of infinity (∞) contains within it every possible number, both whole and decimal numbers.

In terms of mathematics (numbers) infinity represents endlessness, while in terms of light, pure white light would represent perfect luminosity. Their opposites are both represented by an absence. Black is an absence of light, and absolute zero (0) is an absence of a number. In other words they are a way of representing non-existence.

Even other less basic concepts follow a similar suit. Masculinity and femininity juxtapose one another, defining each other as opposites. In between the concepts of pure masculinity (an absence of femininity) and pure femininity (an absence of masculinity) lie an infinite number of variations combining elements from both concepts.

Most individuals we are familiar with appear to incorporate various elements from both masculinity and femininity no matter how physically masculine or feminine they appear on the outside.

There are various other concepts that you can probably think of that have juxtaposing opposites that define one another.

In fact the bigger (and perhaps ironically the more basic) the concept, such as absolute zero and infinity, the easier it is to see the pattern of two opposites defining one another. Simultaneously we can also see an infinite number of variations in between these two concepts; such as the infinite amount of individual numbers that could possibly exist in between 0 and ∞.

The major issue you will now be wondering about is how could any existence 'exist' merely due to its juxtaposition to pure nothingness? Although this idea can be better described in the form of a book (which is linked below) it can be somewhat addressed briefly.

The concept of pure nothingness, being a complete absence of anything, does not need to be explained in terms of needing a cause - it rather needs to be defined. This is because actual things need to be explained in regards to how they came to be (what caused them), not an absence of literally everything/anything.

This is not the same as explaining why something that was once there apparently vanishes into nothingness. This is rather the changing of one particular entity/object, or energy into something we can no longer recognise. What we are looking at is the concept of a complete absence of anything - including any space requiring dimensions.

As we can observe there is obviously actual existence, rather than pure nothingness. Even if you think our existence is imaginary/an illusion there must always be something to both create and observe this so-called illusion.

Therefore your next question may be: as something can't create itself out of nothing all of a sudden (scientifically speaking, not religiously or emotionally speaking), then how could all of existence appear suddenly when moments before there was literally nothing at all?

The only logical answer left to us - even if it seems completely bizarre with our limited human way of observing the world around us - is that there has always been existence. When we follow the pattern of other fundamental concepts it should be seen that existence 'exists' because of the concept of pure nothingness, rather than suddenly appearing out of pure nothingness.

There is no other way for existence to 'exist'. Pure nothingness (non-existence) is defined by its opposite; existence and vice versa. As the concept of pure nothingness must always exist, as it does not need a cause, then its juxtaposing opposite must have always 'existed' as well.

If pure nothingness, like pure white light or infinity, is defined by and 'exists' because of its juxtaposing opposite, then what is the exact opposite of pure nothingness?

Remember the opposite of 0 is not 1 or any other number; the opposite of 1 is actually -1, the non-existence of the concept of 1, while the opposite of 0, as mentioned before is ∞ (infinity). Therefore, although we could say that nothing (non-existence) is defined by something (existence), we cannot say that 'just anything' is the perfect and complete opposite of pure nothingness.

We can conceptualize the idea of absolute zero, pure blackness, infinity and pure white light. We can also probably conceptualize the idea of pure nothingness - no existence of anything whatsoever.
If you follow the pattern of other concepts you can probably reach an adequate answer to what the exact opposite of pure nothingness is, presuming of course that you haven't brought with you any personal bias or baggage.

For a more thorough look at why there is existence rather than nothing and how the basic pattern of existence works you can refer to the book: The Reason For All Existence: How Existence At Its Fundamental Level Works.

Davis McLeod

Monday, 22 December 2014

The Power and Problem of Phenomena: Part 1

What individuals subjectively identify as 'phenomena' can intrigue, excite, perplex, distract and often drastically change the way an individual thinks and sees the world around them.

The type of phenomena we are talking about would be considered anything that is well beyond the norm. This could involve anything that we consider to be magic, a miracle, alien life forms, spirits or any other mysterious force. In other words it involves entities or occurrences that are either rarely believed, or are at the very least hard to prove.

The issue is that, although many individuals today are interested in rationality and a need to prove new or contentious ideas with rigorous investigation and testing, many people can be convinced by things that merely sway them emotionally.

The idea that something that isn't real or at least in need of further rigorous study, can drastically change the beliefs and behavior of individuals may seem to be less common in our modern age. We may at first believe that it is relegated to the few - those isolated individuals unable to cope with reality. The truth is many individuals will have particular internal 'issues' of one kind or another that leaves them susceptible to being swayed by certain types of phenomena. 

With increased knowledge and easier access to this knowledge it may be surprising that we are still susceptible to phenomena over logic. It is easier for us modern and supposedly more sophisticated humans to believe that people from the ancient world would be far more susceptible to all sorts of phenomena. They had less knowledge and experience, and therefore so much of their world was mysterious, if not frightening in many regards.

If we take the 'popularization' of Christianity (currently Catholicism), due to the conversion of Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD, we can see the power that phenomena can have over 'uneducated' minds. Emperor Constantine witnessed a blazing light in the sky, which some modern academics have attributed to a crashing meteorite, which encouraged his conversion to Christianity.

To us a crashing meteorite may be somewhat exciting and an interesting phenomena to say the least. Most of us though would not attribute it to the work of magic or the mysterious, unless we were ignorant of its actual origins. This is of course the problem faced by Emperor Constantine, who ultimately saw it as a sign from God, rather than understanding its physical origins.

The undiscerning belief in phenomena was a common way for European pagans to convert to Christianity in the first millennia. The idea of Christian miracles, such as physical resurrection and the power of healing, amongst others, were impressive sounding enough to convert thousands without evidence. This is a slight simplification but the phenomena behind Christianity rather than the actual teachings and philosophies were a large part of the reason for these conversions. There is a lot a historical and academic literature that goes into far more detail about this, if you are not familiar with this idea.

The conversion of people to any religion with stories of phenomena - often in the guise of a miracle performing prophet - will be based upon emotion. You may say that it would be logical to follow a religion where the representing prophet could perform the most profound miracles. This would surely mean that 'their God' is the most powerful, if not only God. If these miracles were actually true and were witnessed and completely understood as miracles, rather than trickery, then this may make sense.

The problem is that these miracles are believed on mere hearsay with no logical or rigorous contemplation. They are believed upon an emotional reaction, which is not only based upon the size and sensational nature of these apparent miracles, but also due to a desire for these miracles to be true.

In our age many individuals know the apparent scientific or rational explanation for why something occurs, but their need for it to be something more than that can make them see certain occurrences as extraordinary phenomena.

A falling meteorite, even though we may know the rational explanation for its occurrence, can become something more whether it is or not. Inevitably these 'signs', interpreted emotionally, will mean whatever the individual wants them to mean.

This will either come from the individual's desire or their fear. A crashing meteorite could mean something positive or negative depending on how the individual chooses to interpret it. A 'God-fearing' person may believe that God is unhappy with how they are carrying on with their life and a dramatic change is needed. A spiritual person with no religious affiliation my chose to see it as a sign that they will come into good fortune, as the meteorite has not hit them.

Either way, emotion rather than deep contemplation or investigation, are likely to have lead to these ways of thinking. Where natural phenomena become signs or miracles that conveniently satisfy the individual's emotional needs.

Why is it important for these supposed signs or miracles to be true you may ask? They are an obvious sign of something greater than ourselves. This could be the desire for a personal God or guardian angels to protect and look after us. It could be the desire for an advanced group of aliens to take us away - to rescue us from this planet full of pain and disappointment (from the subjective eyes of those wanting to be rescued).

If we can't empower ourselves sufficiently, or feel vulnerable and alone in this world, then it would only be natural to desire something that can take care of us when we feel this way.

As we are rather emotional beings this inevitably takes the form of a being or beings that are not only superior and more powerful than us. They are also able to give us emotional satisfaction, while often also having an emotional or sentimental attachment to us - much like a parental figure. It may be no coincidence that individuals imagine God as an older man, strong and protecting of his children (true believers), and why so many often refer to 'Him' as Father.

To many this idea would be (emotionally) preferable to the idea of being governed by a set of naturalistic laws that are in no way sentimental towards us or anything else. If you were to tell a large portion of the population that existence worked in a similar way to gravity - which is completely unsentimental, unwavering in the face of pleading or prayer, and where your failure to pay heed to its basic principles will always have appropriate consequences - they would  likely be horrified.

The last idea, failing to pay heed to the basic principles of gravity, would be familiar to those that believed in a religious 'hell', as it is similar to ignoring or being ignorant of 'God's laws'. There is of course a slight difference. Gravity is not an emotional or personal being that will let you ignore many of its own fundamental and governing laws  if you merely 'believed in its exalted nature and accepted it into your heart'.    

The problem with sensational phenomena is that it often (although not necessarily always) unravels when logic is rigorously applied. This can be seen in various religious ideas, which is why it is necessary for many to employ faith rather than reason, as it is far more emotionally satisfying that way.

Davis McLeod

Friday, 12 December 2014

The Reason For All Existence (new book)

The Reason For All Existence: How Existence At Its Fundamental Level Works

An exploration into the whole of existence, written in a concise and non-indulgent style. This is not merely about human existence but the book will actually address the question of: why there is something rather than nothing, including why existence at its fundamental level works they way that it does.

The concepts discussed in the book are in no way disconnected from the reality we are familiar with, as the fundamental concepts that allow for all existence also, and inevitably, govern the world around us.

Released December 12 2014

Tuesday, 9 December 2014

Is Anything or Anyone Literally Pointless?

Some people may wonder if their lives have made any difference at all. If they had never existed would the world have carried on exactly the same?

Most of us would think that if certain things suddenly vanished, like a single drop of water from the ocean, it would literally make no different to the world at all.

How many drops of water would it take to vanish from the face of the Earth before the average person felt the consequences? A billion drops? Ten trillion drops? Where is the cut off point between when we notice that there is less water in the ocean and when we don't?

It will of course be subjective. The power of someone's observational skills determine when they notice change. Therefore we should always remember that: just because we don't notice the effect of a single drop of water (or anything else), it doesn't mean that it has no actual effect on the world.

Even if a single drop of water in the ocean is merely the difference between whether a particle of rock on a cliff face erodes a second earlier than it otherwise would - it is still a difference.

That may seem insignificant to us, but every occurrence that we can observe is made up of much smaller occurrences that we can't see. What we consider to be a major occurrence will always be made up of much smaller occurrences, which are in turn made up of even smaller occurrences, and so on.

Likewise if you suddenly removed anyone from the planet - if they vanished into thin air - it would have an effect, whether we noticed it or not.

This would be true for literally everyone; even a homeless person without friends or family. One homeless person begging for money on a particular street could make some people more aware of the inequities in society.

Even someone living in a cave - far removed from our modern society who doesn't interact with any other human being, still affects their surrounding environment in a multitude of ways.

Some may say that many of these effects are pointless as they only produce negative results. It is in fact these negative occurrences that aid in our learning in terms of knowing how to positively better ourselves and the society/world we live in.

If we for instance went "back in time" to eradicate every racist (a rather ambitious act), this would not eradicate racism. It would merely begin anew as the issue would not have come up and been appropriately dealt with through the educating of individuals - not to say that it's been adequately dealt with at present, but that is another matter.

Everything and everyone does have some effect on their environment whether we notice it or not. Many of these effects can be positive, while negative effects challenge us to learn, and to improve as both individuals and as a society. 

A more thorough look at this idea and others can be found in my book: The Reason For All Existence.

Davis McLeod

Friday, 5 December 2014

Are Debates About Religion Pointless?

Religious debates often seem to be like a football match, or any other competitive sport.

Broadly speaking there are usually two groups of 'die-hard supporters' that attend either event.

In sports it is usually the home team supporters versus the away team supporters. While in a debate about religion it is usually religious people versus atheists (or sometimes a different religious/spiritual group).

Much like supporters at a sporting event, the supporters in these debates - atheists and religious people - go to see their team/group win (or more accurately: to whoop the butt of the other team).

There is of course a big difference between these two events. In sport, whether the result is a win, loss or draw, the final result is obvious for all to see. Barring a draw, one team has more points or goals scored than the other team, therefore the winner is clearly defined.

Sure there will be people claiming that the awful umpiring won the other side the match, or that one team played unfairly, or some other excuse, but the final result will still stand.

In a typical religious/atheist debate there is no (at least not a very accurate or agreed upon) way of 'keeping score', or knowing who won. The result will be subjective. Usually the religious supporters will see all the points that their team 'scored' and ignore the points of the atheists, and vice versa.

Atheists will think that they have won the debate, and religious people will think that they have won the debate. Neither side is likely to think that the other side is actually a better 'team' and switch allegiances.

Does this mean that debates between atheists and religious people are a waste of time?

Like most sporting events there will be a few people that attend these debates that may not have an allegiance to either side. The question for these people would be: are these debates actually a good way of ascertaining whether a particular religion is right or positive, or if atheism is the way to go?

The debates are hardly an exhaustive examination of either side, and rarely do they consider ideas that lie in between established religious/spiritual ideas and atheism. It really feels as though it is a PR exercise to make both supporters feel good about their own 'side'.

But if there is a chance that just one good argument out there can change the thinking of a handful of individuals that are somewhat on or near the fence in regards: to religion, atheism or spiritualism in general, then you cannot literally say that they are a complete waste of time; even if such debates are unlikely to change our own way of thinking.

Are You Special, Or Are You Unique?

Many individuals have the idea that they are special, or that (certain) humans are a special creation of some kind - more important than other entities. The idea that we were specially created does not merely apply to mainstream religious thinking. It can also apply to those that consider themselves spiritualists, with no specific religion.

Obviously if one's self esteem is low, or at least not as high as they think it should be, then the idea that they were: specially created, more so than any other 'creation', or even a part of something special, could only be seen as something positive. Therefore they would be quite willing to believe this idea.

Who or what is special?
To put simply the desire to feel special is a yearning to feel 'above average', rather than feeling merely 'ordinary'. This desire to feel 'special' would usually be based on an emotional need (or more accurately a want), rather than a calculated one.

Of course one can intellectually formulate a plan on how to make themselves feel special, or to have others see themselves as such, but the initial desire is still an emotional one. If individuals have a desire to evolve, to improve themselves in some way, then feeling special or being considered special by others would be an obvious indication that one had bettered themselves; in so much as they are considered 'special' in comparison to their peers.

It is arguably far easier to merely believe (or more accurately be convinced by yourself or others) that you have evolved, rather than put any substantial effort into your own inner development. Therefore seeking to feel or be labelled as 'special' is one way of believing that you have bettered yourself; by effectively being thought of as better than those around you.

There are of course those that only want to be seen as 'special' in the eyes of a few select individuals, if not only one certain individual. These individuals may not actually want to feel as though they are better than anyone else. Rather they are likely seeking a sense of normalcy, at least in  comparison to those that they consider to be the norm, as their own self esteem is extremely low.

This can take the form, perhaps most prevalently, of wanting a lover to treat them as though they are the most special person in their life; subsequently increasing their self esteem.

The problem with 'special'.
The main problem with the idea of 'special' is that it denotes that something else is not special. If special means something that is above average (otherwise why is it special?) then there would need to be that which was not special. If there was not then it would not be possible to distinguish between what was special and what was not.

Individuals have arguably an easier time calling something or someone 'special', than they do saying that something or someone is 'not special'. Most of us don't often consciously think of what is not special when we label something specific as special; especially in regards to a loved one. This is because labelling something as 'special' seems positive, while labelling something as 'not special' seems negative to most of us.

However when confronted with the idea that labelling something as special means that there must be something that is not special to properly distinguish that which was considered special, many individuals may become troubled by this notion. To then overcome this issue many individuals will employ a series of responses, perhaps the most common being that: 'everything is special'.

If you were to say that everything was special then there would be no point in the concept of 'special' at all. If everything was suddenly deemed to be special, then sooner or later everything would become ordinary or average. In our current human condition there still needs to be a way of separating and identifying all the different things we are familiar with. Saying that everything is special would be tantamount to saying that everything existed. It is therefore not an overly useful way to describe all the different things in our world and beyond.

Saying that everything is special, but some things are more special than others things, is really just an overly polite, if not wishy-washy way of saying that some things are special and others are not.  Saying that everything is both special and yet different is just an emotional reaction. Everything is of course different to some degree if you look close enough, but labelling all of these things as 'special' is ultimately meaningless.

We live in a world where the idea of everything being special simply does not ring true, but nor does the idea that 'nothing can be special' seem true either. Different individuals in particular contexts will feel that certain things are special to them.

As we view things in this world and universe in a limited way due to our own limitations, everything will be viewed subjectively by every individual; human or otherwise. Therefore as everything and everyone is different, certain things will appear special to some, while seeming ordinary to others.

Individuals will inevitably feel more connected to certain things, therefore 'liking' them more than other things. It is these things that an individual deems to be special. These things can either make the individual feel positive in some way, or they are simply able to relate to certain things (usually other similar individuals) a lot more than to other things (dissimilar individuals).

Therefore the idea of 'special' can only really be used in a very subjective way and within particular contexts.

Unique rather than special.
In terms of our current, and most likely future human experience, the word 'unique' is far more apt. As previously mentioned every individual to some degree, even if it is seemingly minute to us, is unique and will always be so. This includes things we may subjectively consider to be the same - such as grains of sand or ants.

On close enough inspection, literally every ant or grain of sand will appear unique. Although obviously you need the natural skill or technology to be able to observe this properly. This is why we usually consider a line of ants, or a handful of sand granules to all be the same with our unaided and limited eyesight.

At first the idea of 'unique' may not seem as appealing as the idea of 'special', as special denotes something that is positive, as opposed to the idea of uniqueness, which can be either positive, negative, or subjectively neutral. This is why certain people may prefer to be called special, rather than unique.

Life and the entirety of existence however is not sentimental and does not label specific things or entities as special; it takes an individual to subjectively label something this way. The concept of uniqueness however has always been and will always be true, whether we as humans are here to label something as unique or not.

If you are still uncertain about this idea, the reason for why everything is unique is better spelled out in my book: The Reason For All Existence.

The Gay Debate - Is Homosexuality Offending Nature?

There is an ongoing debate, usually involving religious or at least fundamentally religious individuals, about whether or not being homosexual is natural or not. We should probably presume that 'natural' here means either intended or good, with some individuals interchanging the two terms as if they meant the same thing.

There are two things to consider regarding this debate. One concerns the actual meaning of 'natural' and the other concerns the idea of 'offense', which is at the heart of why there is a debate about homosexuality in the first place.

What is natural?
To define something as being natural could at first seem problematic. However if you can think out of the box so to speak, and less emotionally, it could be somewhat of an easy question to answer. For many religious people 'natural' is defined by God's laws, or at least their understanding of what God's laws are. Although a straight forward idea this is not the one we are looking for.

The concept of natural really needs to be thought of as neither good nor bad, but as simply something that occurs. Perhaps we could say that 'being natural' is something that occurs in nature. But what is nature and what is not? Is it everything on Earth excluding human creations that truly define the idea of nature? Are humans now beyond the idea of 'being natural'?  When did humanity leave the natural world - was a specific line crossed or is it mere subjectivity?

Most would agree that humans themselves are natural. They are seen to come from what we subjectively consider nature to be, but since inventing cell phones and nuclear missiles humans are now seen to inhabit an unnatural world, full of unnatural creations.

When a bird constructs a nest out of twigs, grass and mud is that also considered unnatural, or is it natural because the building materials are quite obviously from the soil and various flora (nature)? The thing that you must understand is that, like animals, anything that a human creates can only ever be created from material that comes from nature. This includes silicon computer chips and nuclear power.

Further arguments may suggest that humanity distorts natural material into something unintended and unnatural. This is judged by how dissimilar this creation is compared to something that, in our eyes, either God created, or naturally evolved without human interference.

The crux is that no matter what you believe, whether it's creationism or evolution, humans themselves came from nature - they are physically made up from natural material and their characteristics are formed by natural means.

Even if you were to say that humans consists of souls, you would still need to explain how they were unnatural compared to the contents of this blue planet. If a God created everything why would the planet be natural and the spirit world be unnatural if it all came from the same creative force? If you believe in a more naturalistic type of spiritualism, without a God, but still consisting of eternal souls, the same logic would still apply.

Where is the actual divide between natural and unnatural? The question that really needs to be asked is: what has truly formed beyond a natural process, whether we consider that to be material or metaphysical?

If aliens had come and altered humans from cave dwellers into what we are now you must still consider those aliens and their behaviour to be natural. They themselves (or even their creators) have formed in natural ways. Although they would have come from an unfamiliar and possibly vastly different world, they should still be considered natural, albeit alien to what we're familiar with.

This is not to say that we're the product of an alien intervention, it's merely to illustrate that anything that occurs should be considered natural because it has all come about via the same mechanisms. This applies to wether you believe God has created everything (nature), or if everything formed unaided by any supernatural or conventionally intelligent being/s.

Therefore whatever humans do can only ever be considered natural. Everything humanity has created has come from the natural world around them, including the forming of their ideas, dreams and behaviour. This is not reserved to what we consider good, acceptable or useful human behaviour. This includes ideas such as: kindness, cruelty, every type of sexual act, and any other behaviour you can think of.

People often confuse nature with being good, and anything bad or harmful as being unnatural. The truth is  if we took humans out of this world completely it would still be full of pain, destruction and endless calamities. What we subjectively consider to be bad (destructive) and good (creative) has occurred before our arrival and will undoubtedly continue long after our existence on this planet.

There is another issue relating to the 'gay debate' and that has to do with the idea of offence. If someone is offended by a heterosexual couple kissing in the street in a fairly understated way, then this says more about the offended individual than the couple. It's the offended individual's weakness that has brought about such a feeling, which could be a rather deep-seated psychological issue relating to a negative or stifling experience in their formative years.

If the couple were kissing as though they were about to rip each other's clothes off, this may shine a poor light on the couple that needed to do this in the middle of the street. In this case many people would think it normal to be offended by such behaviour.

The truth is whenever anyone is offended it is because they are unable to emotionally handle what they are being offended by. Being offended  is a (perhaps subconscious) recognition of a particular internal weakness, rather than merely recognising something external that is subjectively unpleasant. (The topic of why individuals are offended probably needs a whole essay of its own, if not a whole book to properly delve into this topic).

The reason for bringing up the idea that being offended is really a recognition of an internal weakness was not supposed to be directed at those that get offended by homosexuality. It is directed at the idea that any 'God' could be offended. This would suggest that God could not emotionally handle the idea of homosexuality, or anything else that God is accused of being offended by. If any God was truly offended by anything, this could only be interpreted as a weakness.

It's important to realise that being offended is not the same thing as recognising something that is actually negative to some degree. It is an emotional reaction, not an intellectual reaction. This is why the idea of being offended is separate to the idea of recognising something that is negative.

The reality is more likely that individuals project their own weaknesses upon their God, rather than their God actually being offended by anything. To say that is was 'written', usually in an ancient text, that God was offended by this or that behaviour still doesn't hold much water. The same projection of weakness can be applied to the writer and culture that any such text was written in.

If any such God was truly offended by gay people, or anything else for that matter (which would seem strange for any omniscient being), then surely they could smite the offenders out of existence? Surely this would be more effective than 'hoping' that mere mortals that were as offended as their God by homosexuality, will eventually sort out the whole 'gay conundrum'. So far those that are offended by gay people have been rather ineffective in curbing their homosexuality.

Claiming that God is in fact actively ridding the world of homosexuality is a claim made from flimsy evidence at best. The odd city flood, fire, or any other such disaster hardly seems like an effective way of eradicating homosexuality, especially for a being that is so very omniscient and apparently so very offended. These events are likely to devastate more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Saying that these heterosexual individuals must have supported gay lifestyles is a desperate and puerile attempt to justify their seemingly random deaths.

Surely the only conclusion is that either these Gods are sleeping at the controls, not even there, or not at all offended by any human behaviour, including: their varying religious practices, war, torture, environmental degradation, Western diets, reality TV or homosexuality (arguably the least harmful thing from these examples).