Godless (22 page)
It should be noted that even if the theistic arguments I’ve covered here were valid, they would not establish the creator as a singular entity nor would they establish a creator that is personal, perfect or currently alive.
Also, none of these theistic arguments address the presence of chaos, ugliness and pain in the world, which make an omnipotent deity responsible for evil.
Since by careful examination all theistic arguments are faulty, atheism remains the only rational position.
DEFINITIONS:
Religion:
System of thought or practice that claims to transcend our natural world and which demands conformity to a creed, bible or savior.God:
A being who created and/or governs the universe. It is usually defined with personal aspects like intelligence, will, wisdom, love and hatred; and with superhuman aspects like omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. It is most often pictured interacting with humanity, but is sometimes held to be an impersonal “force” or nature itself.Theism:
Belief in a personal god (or gods).Deism:
Belief in an impersonal god (or gods), or a god who may no longer exist or who is absent and irrelevant.Atheism:
Absence of belief in any god.Agnosticism:
Refusal to accept the truth of a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence or logical justification. Most agnostics suspend belief in a god.Freethought:
The practice of forming opinions about religion on the basis of reason, without reference to authority, tradition or established belief.Rationalism:
The idea that all beliefs should be subject to the proven methods of rational inquiry. Special treatments like
faith
or
authority,
which are not allowed in other disciplines, are not acceptable for analyzing religion.Truth:
The degree to which a statement corresponds with reality and logic.Reality:
That which is directly perceivable through our natural senses, or indirectly ascertained through the careful use of reason.Reason:
A tool of critical thought that limits the truth of a proposition by the tests of
verification
(what evidence or observations confirm it?),
repeatability
(can anyone else replicate the results?),
falsifiability
(what, in theory, would disprove it, and have all such attempts failed?),
parsimony
(is it the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest assumptions?) and
logic
(is it free of contradictions and
non sequiturs
?).Humanism:
Secular humanism is a rationalistic, natural outlook that makes humanity the measure of values.
All of these words have suffered from multiple definitions. The definitions of
religion
and
god,
of course, can vary with the believer. Most atheists consider themselves to be freethinkers, rationalists, agnostics and humanists since they are not mutually exclusive labels.
Agnosticism
is here defined by Huxley’s original intention, though current popular usage wrongly views it as a halfway house between theism and atheism. Any person, for whatever reason, who cannot say the words “I have a belief in a god” is an atheist.
religion
and
god,
of course, can vary with the believer. Most atheists consider themselves to be freethinkers, rationalists, agnostics and humanists since they are not mutually exclusive labels.
Agnosticism
is here defined by Huxley’s original intention, though current popular usage wrongly views it as a halfway house between theism and atheism. Any person, for whatever reason, who cannot say the words “I have a belief in a god” is an atheist.
Chapter Seven
Omni-Aqueous
I am a lower-case atheist—lacking a belief—when it comes to the general question of the existence of god(s). There are certainly some definitions of a god that I have not examined, and I suppose the number of possibilities is infinite. I can invent many myself, and so can you. Formally, I can’t say that I know or believe that all of those hypothetical as-yet-undefined beings do not exist. It would take more than a lifetime of painstaking analysis to rule them all out, so I simply decline to believe in any of them.
Informally, I think it is justifiable to say that God does not exist since the lack of evidence for such a creature makes it seem extremely unlikely. Those believers who introduce their inner feelings of “knowing God” as partial evidence for their claims will certainly permit me to do the same when I state that in addition to all the rational arguments for atheism, it is also my gut feeling that “there are no gods.”
Being a lower-case atheist on the general question, however, does not mean that I am not an upper-case Atheist—possessing a belief or knowledge—regarding a specific definition of a god. There are some gods—such as the God of the bible—that I claim to
know
do not exist because, like the married bachelor, they cannot exist. Many definitions of “God” are incoherent. They contain mutually incompatible properties that are impossible to reconcile; therefore, they do not exist. This is not dogma—it is simple logic.
know
do not exist because, like the married bachelor, they cannot exist. Many definitions of “God” are incoherent. They contain mutually incompatible properties that are impossible to reconcile; therefore, they do not exist. This is not dogma—it is simple logic.
Religious doctrines are most vulnerable when expressed in absolute terms. Terms such as “all,” “always,” “never” and “infinitely” should raise some red flags. I already mentioned the impossibility of a being that is both infinitely merciful and (infinitely) just. Superlative characteristics also include the cardinal doctrines about the nature of the Christian God: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence.
According to Christianity, God is omniscient—“all-knowing.” Although this doctrine is fundamental, it is rarely defined or examined. It is simply a given. (Could a proper god be anything less?) If we scratch beneath the surface, however, we see that omniscience—knowing everything in the past, present and future—is impossible. The concept loops back on itself and creates an infinite hurdle that not even a deity can leap. (If believers can mix superlatives, I can mix metaphors.)
To “know” is to contain a true image or idea within a mind. A being that knows
everything
must also know itself. Therefore, the mind of an omniscient being must contain an image of itself within itself. It would also have to contain an image of the image of itself, and an image of that image, and so on. It would have to know that it contains those images, and also contain an image of itself knowing that it contains not only those images but the image of knowing that it contains the knowledge of such images—well, you see where this is going. Mathematicians know that something is wrong with their equations when infinities pop up. Computer programmers try to safeguard against infinite loops, which can “blow the stack” and hang up the system. (When your computer crashes, that is often the reason.) An omniscient being blows the stack. It cannot function.
everything
must also know itself. Therefore, the mind of an omniscient being must contain an image of itself within itself. It would also have to contain an image of the image of itself, and an image of that image, and so on. It would have to know that it contains those images, and also contain an image of itself knowing that it contains not only those images but the image of knowing that it contains the knowledge of such images—well, you see where this is going. Mathematicians know that something is wrong with their equations when infinities pop up. Computer programmers try to safeguard against infinite loops, which can “blow the stack” and hang up the system. (When your computer crashes, that is often the reason.) An omniscient being blows the stack. It cannot function.
Suppose you wanted to make a perfect map of the earth. This map would be so precise that it would include not only the oceans, continents, cities, roads and landmarks, but blades of grass, roof shingles and bubbles behind a whale surfacing in the Pacific—everything. Such a map would have to be updated regularly. The map would have to be very large to admit a useful resolution, much larger than you could hang on an easel. You could start with a gigantic map a few square miles in size, placed out in the desert where it does not obscure too much of the surface that it has to represent. To be perfect and up-to-date, such a map would have to include itself. So, on the map would be a tiny drawing of the map itself. And to be perfect, the tiny drawing would include the little details on the map, including a tiny drawing of the tiny drawing—and so on and so on. It becomes clear that such a map is impossible. The necessary degree of resolution would require that the map be at least as large as the Earth itself, obscuring the earth totally, and at that point it would make no sense to have a copy of what we can look at directly. We could throw it away and simply acknowledge that reality is its own map.
Now imagine that the map is not just a two-dimensional geographical drawing, but a four-dimensional space-time image of the entire universe. Imagine, too, that the map is being constantly updated, like what our brains try to do as we live our daily lives, although this map would be perfect and encompass everything within the event horizon of our expanding universe. This virtual reality map could be made digital, to be updated more efficiently at nearly the speed of light on a massive super computer. Visualize a galaxy-wide automated representation of the universe, somewhere out in deep space. Since the computer is part of the universe, it must contain a representation of itself. To be perfect, it would need to keep track of itself keeping track of itself. This would add to its size. It would take so much time and energy “tracking itself tracking itself tracking itself” that it would get caught in an infinite loop, draining its resources and accomplishing no useful work. (Some computer viruses work like this.) Or it would blow the stack and stop working.
If there is a God, maybe he could accomplish this relatively simple (to him) task of keeping track of the universe by existing somehow “outside” the universe in an unimaginably huge dimension, looking “down” (or “across” or “into”) our cosmos. (This hypothesis seems to have coherency problems of its own, which I deal with elsewhere.) But that is not the problem. The problem is God himself. In order for God to know everything, he has to know not only about all the unknown galaxies and extrasolar planetary systems and where all the undiscovered diamond mines and my missing socks are located, he also has to know everything about
himself
. He has to know what he is going to think next. He has to anticipate that he is going to need to know what he is going to think next, and after that into the infinite future. Like the computer virus, an omniscient God gets caught in an infinite loop keeping track of itself and cannot have a single thought. (Maybe that’s why the God of the Old Testament blows his stack so much.) It doesn’t matter what method God uses to store and retrieve data in his super mind, he has to have
some
kind of internal representation. If theists argue that the intelligence of God is something altogether different from human or computer intelligence, then they are admitting that the idea of omniscience is meaningless. If “all-knowing” does not compare with “knowing,” then the phrase lacks relevance to human understanding and we may as well say that “God is mmpfghrmpf” instead of “God is omniscient.”
himself
. He has to know what he is going to think next. He has to anticipate that he is going to need to know what he is going to think next, and after that into the infinite future. Like the computer virus, an omniscient God gets caught in an infinite loop keeping track of itself and cannot have a single thought. (Maybe that’s why the God of the Old Testament blows his stack so much.) It doesn’t matter what method God uses to store and retrieve data in his super mind, he has to have
some
kind of internal representation. If theists argue that the intelligence of God is something altogether different from human or computer intelligence, then they are admitting that the idea of omniscience is meaningless. If “all-knowing” does not compare with “knowing,” then the phrase lacks relevance to human understanding and we may as well say that “God is mmpfghrmpf” instead of “God is omniscient.”
Some theologians admit these and other problems and tinker with the definition of omniscience. Some, such as Greg Boyd, claim that God has a “limited omniscience,” that he knows everything that is knowable but that not everything is knowable, not even to God. Others suggest that “all-knowing” means “knowing more than anyone else” or “super knowing.” Maybe God knows
soooo
much more than we do that it amounts to the same thing. Fair enough, but this underscores the fact that omniscience—total omniscience—is incoherent. Perhaps a lesser god exists, but a god who is truly omniscient cannot exist. It therefore does not exist.
soooo
much more than we do that it amounts to the same thing. Fair enough, but this underscores the fact that omniscience—total omniscience—is incoherent. Perhaps a lesser god exists, but a god who is truly omniscient cannot exist. It therefore does not exist.
The Christian God cannot be both omniscient and omnibenevolent. If God were omniscient, then he knew when he created Adam that Adam would sin. He
knew
human beings would suffer. Regardless of whether the existence of evil can be theologically explicated, an all-knowing Creator deliberately placed humans in its path. This is at least criminal negligence, if not malice. Those who invoke “free will” forget that we all act according to a human nature that was supposedly created by God himself. You can argue all around the bushes on this point, but you can’t get away from the fact that Adam did not create his own nature. At the moment of creation, an omniscient deity would have been picturing the suffering and damnation of most of his creation. This is mean-spirited. God should have had an abortion rather than bring a child into such misery. Perhaps a lesser (or malevolent) god exists, but the problem of evil gives the lie to the claim that a god can be both all-good and all-powerful.
knew
human beings would suffer. Regardless of whether the existence of evil can be theologically explicated, an all-knowing Creator deliberately placed humans in its path. This is at least criminal negligence, if not malice. Those who invoke “free will” forget that we all act according to a human nature that was supposedly created by God himself. You can argue all around the bushes on this point, but you can’t get away from the fact that Adam did not create his own nature. At the moment of creation, an omniscient deity would have been picturing the suffering and damnation of most of his creation. This is mean-spirited. God should have had an abortion rather than bring a child into such misery. Perhaps a lesser (or malevolent) god exists, but the problem of evil gives the lie to the claim that a god can be both all-good and all-powerful.
What do believers mean when they say their god is all-powerful? (Let’s ignore the fact that the biblical God is weaker than chariots of iron, according to Judges 1:19.) “Power” can be taken two ways: ability or authority. The word “omnipotent” contains “potent,” relating more to force than to command, although Christians claim that their God possesses both strength and leadership. Power is the ability to do a certain amount of work in a certain amount of time. Power (or energy) is a physical force, at least, and if God, at minimum, is not materially mighty, then he is not God. An omnipotent God must be able to counteract the greatest possible force that could exist in the universe. Imagine a black hole created by all the mass of the universe collapsing in one place. God must possess a physical energy at least as great as this. And if he is omnipotent he can potentially outweigh the combined energy of any multiple number of universes such as ours. He must be, in principle, infinitely powerful.
Other books
WORTHY, Part 2 by Lexie Ray
The Angel of Elydria (The Dawn Mirror Chronicles Book 1) by A. R. Meyering
One Crazy Ride by Stone, Emily
Spellscribed: Conviction by Kristopher Cruz
Travlr (The Mating Games series Book 2) by Catty Diva
Man of My Dreams by Faith Andrews
Mendoza's Return by Susan Crosby
Now in Paperback! by Mullen, Jim
The Hometown Hero Returns by Beth Kery
Now and on Earth by Jim Thompson
