I’m sorry for getting all (non-)religious on your ass, but some stuff has been bothering me for a while now. If you know me, you’ll know I’m not religious in anyway. I was brought up Roman Catholic, but that never really stayed with me. I don’t believe in spiritual “beings”, ghosts, dead people wandering over the Earth and people who can talk with them (that means you, Char), and all those things. If something can’t be proven to me scientifically, don’t bother and try to convince me to believe it.

So, probably 90% of the readers is gone by now. On to what is bothering me. Just a quick note: I don’t care if you believe in God or not, that is your choice. The thing bothering me is that Christians¹ always seem to push their believes on other people. In politics, on television, in films and music, they even set up African missions to “spread the Word.” Christians seem to think they have the universal copyright on everything good and righteous. (Yeah, right.) I’m not judging Christians here, but I am asking questions. I want answers, and not “the Bible says so,” because the Bible is exactly what I’m questioning. Please stick with me here.

Omnipotence

Let’s begin with the big scam that is “omnipotence”.

Omnipotence (Latin: “all power”) is unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God. »

Yes, God can do anything. That’s a really great (and insanely broad) definition for discussions, right?

Religion Questioner: “Can God do this? No, he can’t, can he!”
Christian: “Sure he can. God can do anything.”
Religion Questioner: “Is that your answer to everything?”
Christian: “Yes, because God… can do anything.”

I must admit there are more (or less un-)specific definitions though. Like “God is able to do anything that is logically possible for God to do” and “God is able to do anything that God chooses to do.” Pure genius. They’re all-consuming, very broad, impossible to research and more! Just as the logic “I’m able to do anything I’m able to do” and “I am who I am,” it doesn’t say, explain or define anything. It just gives a closed-off, non-consuming reasoning.

Going a little practical here: if God is able to do anything, shouldn’t he also be able to prevent suffering (more on that up next), prevent heresy and/or non-belief, and shouldn’t he be able to build a perfect world? Just saying.

Omnibenevolence

Ah, yes, one of my favorite powers that God possesses (or is believed to posses).

Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “unlimited or infinite benevolence”. It is a technical term used more in the academic literature on the philosophy of religion, often in the context of the problem of evil and in theodical responses, and even in such context, the phrases “perfect goodness” or “moral perfection” are often preferred. »

In other words, here you have a supreme being who is able to do anything and is what is perceived to be the “moral perfection,” the ultimate “good guy.” Can you guess how the discussion will go?

Religion Questioner: “So, if God can do anything and is morally perfect, what about suffering?”
Christian: “It’s the devils work.”
Religion Questioner: “Yes, but you said he can do anything, so surely he can stop little old devily.”
Christian: “Well, yeah, but it’s good versus evil. That’s just so.”
Religion Questioner: “That’s not a valid point.”
Christian: “It just is, okay!”

Ah, how the mighty begin to crumble. I think I already made my whole point with that conversation; if God can do anything, prevent suffering and all, why doesn’t he? He has the power to do so (his omnipotence) and even the ability to prevent it before it happens², so what is holding him back?

When you just follow the logic of his omnibenevolence, you get this: if suffering and evil is morally unacceptable, it contradicts with God’s apparent omnibenevolence and omnipotence. So one can only conclude that God approves of suffering and evil, and that the devil is allowed to co-exist next to God; allowed by God. (Point made, moving on.)

Positioning

God is perceived as being “above anything Earthly.” I actually don’t mind that definition so much, only one thing bothers me about it: it also means he is above “Earthly desires,” like… creation!

What is his reasoning behind the creation (or “The Creation!”) if he has no Earthly desires to create (or achieve) anything. He should’ve had no desire to create the universe, man, the Earth, or anything. On the assumption that he had “no choice,” I say this: isn’t God a being of (here it comes again) omnipotence and as such is able to do “anything that God chooses to do”? I’m just making connections between things here, not making stuff up. When you continue on that reasoning, God isn’t able to do something that God didn’t choose to do. Right? If he had “no choice” in the creation of the universe, it shouldn’t exist, creating a paradox, because, well, it does exist.

Unless of course you believe the universe is all made up by scientists and there is only the Earth; to you who believes that I say: shouldn’t you be taking your medicine by now? Don’t make me call the nurse!

Existence

Lucretius said, “nothing can be created out of nothing,” which is true. Everything has a source, yet something doesn’t — something was created out of nothing. I’m talking about God, yet that isn’t what I’m questioning in this chapter. I can cope with God being created out of nothing; if he really exists than even he was created out of something, something Christians will probably explain as “something we can’t possible understand.”

I can deal with that. What I can’t deal with is this: if God can create anything (omnipotence), even anything out of nothing, yet nothing can be created out of nothing, doesn’t that create a paradox on its own? If God is able to create anything and has omnipotent powers, and as such is able to destroy anything into nothing, doesn’t that also create a paradox because everything has indefinite substance, and everything always amounts to something when destroyed?

I must admit that I’m asking a whole lot of questions here, and that it all goes way above my level of understanding of physics. Yet, I want answers. How in bloody hell is all this possible?

Transcendence

On to something even more physicsy.

Transcendence is a condition or state of being that surpasses physical existence, and in one form is also independent of it. »

Bear with me on this one: if God is³ both within and beyond the universe⁴, and God is also in it, but not of it, doesn’t that create a paradox because if God is in the universe and is also omnipresent⁵, that would mean God consumes where God is in, and as such is of the universe, because he is in it. (Are you still with me?) If that assumption is true, and he is also beyond it, doesn’t that total to the universe — being God itself — being beyond itself?

Christian: “What are you trying to say here?”
Religion Questioner: “I — I don’t know. I’m so confused.”
Christian: “You’re not alone on that one.”
Religion Questioner: “If I don’t even know where to begin questioning this, how in hell is it possible to answer it?”
Christian: “Oh, it can be answered. God just works in… mysterious ways.”
Religion Questioner: “Ah, yes, the all-consuming answer to almost anything. Should’ve seen that one coming from a mile away.”

I truly don’t know where to begin. So, God is in, of, beyond, yet not of, the universe, but still omnipresent, as in, he is present everywhere, anytime, so he is also — I give up. I need brandy for this one.

“Existence by Abstract Opposites”

Now, the following is a stretch. It’s a concept I called the “Existence by Abstract Opposites” and it’s basically this: “if A is B, does that mean B is A?” Which isn’t always the case, so don’t take the following literally. It’s just to raise some questions and maybe gather some answers.

If we can prove something exists, we cannot prove that that same something does not exist. As such, if we cannot prove something exists, can we prove that something as such does not exist?

If wonders exist because God exists⁶, can it be said that if wonders do not exist, God also does not?

If God is omnipotent, can God as such make himself⁷ human, creating a paradox as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent and transcendent human being? Or does that act eliminate Gods omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent and transcendent powers, and as such does that act create Gods own death?⁸

Conclusion

You can hate me, despise me, you can [fill your own hate-speech in here] me all you want because of the content of this article, but I’m just here raising valid questions. I grew up with the sensibility that ones mind is a jewel to possess and I’m using my jewel as much as possible. That means I like asking questions — a lot of questions. I don’t just take things for granted, I don’t just believe it because some two-centuries old book tells me it is true; I need answers, real answers.

If you have those answers, don’t hesitate to comment. The world would be so much of a better and peaceful place if people of opposite natures held discussions and spoke with one another, instead of just bashing each others heads in.

P.S. I seriously want to know more now after writing all this, so I’m going and try to get into a discussion with someone from my former Roman Catholic church and with someone close to me who is really religious and stuff. This won’t be the last (non-)religious material you’ll get to read from me!