p to occur, there must not be incontrovertible rational proof of God’s existence—the very act of questioning, and answering this question by each individual is what creates the special nature of a relationship with God.I can visualize the critics’ response to this argument. It might be said that this is a “circular” form of reasoning, since approaching this argument from another route would indicate that if there were proof of God that He would not exist. It may seem irrational, but I would agree with this statement. If there were proof of God, the God that we believe in (as defined above) would not exist. The God that manifests the qualities of this definition would not want to have automatons as subjects. The God of our definition above would want a special relationship that was based on more than rational acceptance of his existence. If there were indeed incontrovertible truths of God’s existence, then the God that did exist would be not be the God that we have envisioned, worshipped, or even inadequately defined as now. Therefore, I believe the thesis: God exists.II. Evil existsRemembering that the God we have defined is a creature dedicated to the highest standards of balance, this would demand that we accept that if good exists, evil must exist too. Whether speaking of moral or physical evil, these must exist for good to exist as well. The idea of a “harmony of opposites” is not exclusive to the God of traditional theism. Native Americans have long believed that for good to exist, that evil must also as presented by the Golden Mean issue (Bruchac, p. 59). The Oriental religion of Taoism speaks of the Chinese alchemical symbol of the yin and the yang, and how opposites must exist as an interdependency for either to exist at all (Eshleman, p. 276).Look at the world around us: for each attribute or quality, there is a clear opposite. Whether day/night, up/down, inside/outside...
