The Incomprehensible and/or Imperceptible God

In a previous post I wrote about the hypocrisy and hubris evidenced by people who claim to be the only ones who “really” understand what the Bible actually says (see The Hypocrisy and Hubris of Biblical Interpretation). The basic point was that it was incredibly arrogant for anybody to think that (a) God actually wants people to know what He wants people to do and (b) throughout all of human history nobody has been able to figure it out until now (meaning, of course, that billions of people in the past got it all wrong and were presumably doomed to go to Hell as a result).

On a related note, I have recently run into a similar group of incredibly arrogant theists. No, they don’t claim to understand the Bible better than anybody else. Instead, they claim to understand the essential nature of God better than anybody else. God, you see, is wholly incomprehensible to the human mind and therefore every single religion throughout history that has ever described God in any particular way just got it wrong.

For example:

As “God”, by the very nature of it’s defined and understood being, exists outside of the physical Universe, there will be no exclusively applicable, scientifically validated or accepted physical or empirical “evidence” of the existence of God.

Or this:

God is an inner experience that no words can explain. The one Creator God created all other gods (small “g”) including the ones you named. None are equal to the Creator God who created them.

The truth of God can be known only by reaching beyond the relativity of the material realm consciousness. It is an inner experience perceived when the human’s consciousness is raised to its higher mind.

Those who meditate know of the higher mind. There are no outer writings or teachings that can explain God for the conscious mind of the human and no religion is necessary for the inner experience of God. When the human is ready the teacher will appear. That teacher is the inner experience of God.

Now, as I mentioned, this appears to be just another example of people who are so full of themselves, who think they are so special, that they honestly believe that they are among the select few in the history of religion to truly understand who and what God “really” is. I’m sure it makes them feel good about themselves, but what type of person can believe in a God who actually cares about us and then thinks that billions of humans throughout history just got it wrong.

However, I think there may be more to it than just sheer arrogance. I suspect that at least part of this has to do with an acknowledgement that there really is no valid evidence to support a belief in the existence of God. And rather than just admit this, these people have decided to redefine God in a way that does not require any evidence. As with the deist notion of a non-interventionist God, however, what’s left is an empty meaningless concept of a god who doesn’t perform miracles, doesn’t promise an afterlife or salvation, doesn’t provide moral guidance, etc. It’s just yet another cop-out to justify why they can’t provide any evidence for God’s existence.

---

Of course, one question that never seems to get fully addressed is how, if God is so incomprehensible, do people like this seem to know so much about Him what He wants us to do, what He can do for us, etc. Now that’s the real mystery! For example, somebody recently posed the following question to me:

If the maker of a show is not inside the shoe, why do scientists expect God to be perceivable inside the universe?

The clear implication being, of course, that the reason scientists have never been able to detect God is because He is not actually perceptible within this universe. Oh, really? The thing is, if you’re actually talking about one of the many, many gods actually worshiped by anybody throughout all of recorded human history, its not scientists who expect “God” to be perceivable but believers themselves. After all, the gods that people actually worship have not exactly been shy about showing themselves (or allowing themselves to be perceived, if you prefer) in the past, at least if you believe all the various accounts in the various holy books that provide the only source of knowledge that believers actually have regarding their gods.

It’s rather disingenuous to claim that the particular “God” you worship created the universe, performed a multitude of miracles, talked to various people, sent down representatives to interact with humans, made specific promises, provided moral guidelines for us to follow, etc., etc., etc., and then go on to claim that this “God” cannot be perceived in any way. After all, if your “God” cannot be perceived in any way, how do you even know about it in the first place?

Sure, if you define your “God” as wholly imperceptible, then science has nothing to say on the matter. But then again, neither do you. That’s what imperceptible means. On the other hand, the minute you claim to be able know anything whatsoever about your “God” (what it has said, done, promised, etc.), then you are making testable claims that should be verifiable by scientists.

Lack of a Better Explanation Is Not Evidence for Your Explanation

I have touched upon this in previous posts (see God of the Gaps and The Argument from Design, for example), but time and again we see theists offering as evidence (or even as “proof”) for the existence of a god of some sort the supposed fact that science is unable to explain something. Whether it be the origin of the universe itself, the origin of life on this planet, the apparent complexity of life, the existence of consciousness, or what have you, the argument is made over and over (and over) again that this supposed inability of science to explain something somehow “moves the needle toward,” “provides evidence of” or even “proves the existence of” some sort of creator or designer.

Now, aside from the fact that most people who make these sorts of assertions are typically ignorant as regard to what science actually says about the supposedly inexplicable mysteries and are instead just parroting talking points they have heard from other theists, the crucial point that gets ignored by these people is that the simple fact (if true) that science cannot currently explain something, whether it be the origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, how consciousness works, or what have you, does not, by itself, in any way whatsoever “point to the existence of a creator,” since we have absolutely zero independent evidence whatsoever that a “creator” actually exists or even could exist.

Claiming that our inability to explain something is somehow evidence of some other explanation for which there is no independent evidence is the very definition of the Argument from ignorance fallacy. For example:

• “I saw a shadowy figure out of the corner of my eye that science can’t explain — it must be a Ghost!” Wrong, unless you can first show that ghosts do, or at the very least possible can, exist. If you have no independent evidence for ghosts, there’s no way that ghosts can be the best (or even a possible) explanation.
  


• “I saw a light in the sky moving in a manner that science can’t explain — it must be an alien spacecraft from another star system!” Wrong again, unless you can first show that aliens from other star systems are, or at the very least possible could be, visiting are planet. If you have no independent evidence that aliens from other star systems are visiting us, then there’s no way that aliens can be the best (or even a possible) explanation.
  


• “Life originated on earth some 3.5 billion years ago and science can’t explain how it happened — it must be the result of God who created the universe!” Wrong, wrong, wrong, unless you can first show that such a creator does, or even possible could, exist in the first place. If you have no independent evidence for such a creator, there’s no way that a creator can be the best (or even a possible) explanation.
  


• Etc., etc., etc.

To reiterate, lack of an explanation cannot, by itself, be evidence for some other explanation if that other explanation has no other evidence to support it.

---

On a related note, those who assert a god of some sort as the best explanation for something fail to understand that they are actually just offering a proposed answer to the problem and not actually an explanation. If “God did it,” how did He do it? Where did God come from? What is God made of, if not matter or energy? What does it actually mean to exist “outside of space and time”? What is it, exactly, about God that lets Him be the “Uncaused Cause” or “Prime Mover”?

No explanation. Just an assertion that leads to lots of additional unanswered questions.

The Logical Impossibility of God

Is God constrained by the laws of logic?  It's an important question, and the answer seems to be, "Yes, but only when it's convenient to say that He is."

It's an old chestnut of a question, but whenever theists start talking about how their particular version of God is "omnipotent" some atheist wag will invariably ask, "If God is omnipotent, can He create a stone so massive that He can't move it?"  To which the theist will usually respond, "that's a logical impossibility and being omnipotent means being able to do anything logically possible."  OK, so no creating a stone too massive for Him to move, no creating a square circle, etc.  Got it.  And, presumably, this is because logic transcends human understanding and provides general principles of existence.  There isn't "human logic" and "God logic," there's just logic.

With me so far?

OK, now one of the fundamental principles of logic is the so-called Law of Non-contradiction, which in its basic form states that, "Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time."  This means that the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.  It also means that something cannot simultaneously be two opposite things.  This is why, for example, there can be no such thing as a square circle or an married bachelor since both concepts involve a self-contradiction.

So, is there anything about God's supposed nature that violates the Law of Non-contradiction?

Well, one place to start would be to examine the relationship between him supposedly being  both omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all loving).  This apparent contradiction was perhaps best stated by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, who put it this way:

God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?

Or, as it is commonly put:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is not benevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence comment evil?
Is He neither willing nor able? Then why call Him God?

So that's it, right?  The so-called "Problem of Evil" proves the logical impossibility of God since (a) Evil cannot exist if there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and (b) we know from our own experience that there is, in fact, evil.  Well, not quite...

Although this argument has been sufficient to convince many people throughout history to reject the idea of God, those who cling to their beliefs have come up with numerous ways to get around the apparent contradiction:

• "Evil," they will say, "is the result of human free will, and since God values free will more than anything He allows evil."  Except, of course, this only applies to evil acts done as a result of human free will (murder, rape, robbery, etc.) and wholly ignores things like pain and suffering caused by genetic diseases, natural disasters, accidents, etc.


• "When Adam and Eve sinned against God in the Garden of Eden, the world fell into a fallen state, so all the evils in the world are a direct result of those actions."  Except, of course, this doesn't explain why God would need to punish the entire world (not to mention universe) because of the actions of two people.  Why not simply punish Adam and Eve (and all their descendants if God were feeling particularly vengeful) and leave the rest of the natural world alone?  Why make animals die horribly painful and cruel deaths just to teach us a lesson?  Wouldn't it be a more powerful lesson if everything in nature was blissfully happy except for us?  Besides, God is the one who set the whole system up in the first place, so it was his decision to make the whole universe suffer for the sins of Adam and Eve and not their free will.


• "This life is a test, and how we deal with suffering will determine our eternal fate."  Well, OK, but that seems awfully callous when applying it to, say, young children who are born with horrible genetic diseases that cause them to lead painfully short lives.  It also doesn't address all the pain and suffering throughout the rest of the natural world.


• "This life is but a twinkling of an eye when compared to all eternity, so any pain and suffering we experience while alive will seem like a mere pin-prick when compared to the rest of our existence."

And the list goes on and on.  The bottom line is that there's always some way to define "omnipotent", "omnibenevolent" and even "evil" to avoid inherent contradictions, even if the newly defined terms don't really make much sense or accord with experience.  "An all-loving God is one who lets His children have free will, not freedom from suffering."  "Pain and suffering are actually good things, not evils."  You get the idea.  As I said, a lot of people are not convinced by these rationalizations, but they do make it hard to state unequivocally that God is logically impossible solely due to the so-called Problem of Evil.

OK, how about this?  In order to create the universe, which is the totality of all time and space, God must exist outside of time and space.  Which means He must not be composed of matter or energy Himself.  But, if God is not composed of matter or energy, how can He possibly have created matter and energy in the first place and how can He continue to interact with it today?  That seems like a logical contradiction, doesn't it?

Well, not quite.  Even if we accept that God is composed of neither matter nor energy, we cannot state unequivocally that He would therefore be unable to interact with matter and energy.  In the same way that energy can interact with matter despite not being composed of matter, God could be composed of some entirely different substance (let's call it "mind" or "spirit") that can interact with matter and energy in some way we just can't understand.  Of course, we now know that energy actually is composed of matter in a very real sense, but that just means the analogy (commonly used by theistic apologists) is a bad one.  It doesn't change the fact that God logically could be composed of some other substance that allows Him to interact with matter and energy without being composed of matter or energy Himself.

OK, so the mere fact that God somehow interacts with matter and energy while being composed of neither is not, in and of itself, a logical impossibility.  I think we are getting very close, however...

In order to avoid any apparent contradictions inherent in the notion of a God who is timeless and not composed of matter or energy, Christian apologists over the years have declared that God is both "Transcendent" and "Immanent".  According to Wikipedia,  the two terms are defined as follows:

Transcendence refers to the aspect of a god's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all physical laws. This is contrasted with Immanence, where a god is said to be fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways. 

Or, in other words, God is both wholly apart from the material universe and wholly within the material universe. At the same time.  He is simultaneously B and not B.  His very nature is therefore in violation of the Law of Non-contradiction and He is therefore logically impossible.  Q.E.D.

Now, some will argue (and believe me, they have) that it doesn't matter if God is logically impossible since we're only talking about human logic here and God is above such things.  Well, fine, except then why do you claim that an omnipotent God can't create a rock too massive for Him to move or can't create a square circle?  Aren't those just principles of human logic as well?  It seems that if you want to apply some logical principles to God, you would have to apply all of them (not just the ones that are convenient).

It seems that theists are left with three possible responses to this:

1. They can claim that God isn't bound by anything whatsoever and therefore can actually create a rock too massive for Him to move, create a square circle, etc.  Of course, once you throw all logic out the window it becomes rather pointless to discuss anything, but some theists are apparently willing to do just this.


2. They can claim that Immanence and Transcendence aren't actually opposites despite the plain definitions of the words.  But, since the whole idea of God being both Immanent and Transcendent is a way to explain how He could create the universe and still be part of the universe, there's no real way of getting around the fact that they are, in fact, complete opposites.  A lot of theists do go down this path, but they are usually the same ones who will write dissertations on how God can simultaneously be three distinct beings and one unified being that is absolutely not made up of three distinct beings whatsoever ["We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being. So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being. In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords. The Father is made by none, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made, not created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not created by the Father and the Son, nor begotten, but proceeds. Therefore, there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal to themselves. So that through all, as was said above, both unity in trinity and trinity in unity is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him thus think concerning the Trinity."]


3. They can just wave their magical Wand of Definitions^TM and state that God is defined as the sort of being who can be both Transcendent and Immanent without there being any sort of logical contradiction involved.

The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that God is absolutely and undeniably logically  impossible, a self-contradiction (at least as commonly depicted and worshiped).  The only question is whether theists actually care about this fact or whether cognitive dissonance will force them to compartmentalize and ignore it so as to not feel any angst about their beliefs.

Puny God Redux

A couple of years ago I made a post entitled "Puny God" wherein I talked about how odd I found it that God was so often depicted in modern media as, well, less than the omnipotent, omniscient, infallible being in whom most modern theists claim to actually believe.  At the time, I had just finished reading a set of novels upon which the FX Series "The Strain" was based, and [*SPOILER ALERT*] I was struck by how often God is depicted simultaneously as (a) wholly involved in this little teeny corner of all existence and (b) willing to let huge amounts of his creation suffer and die because of some oversight on His part.  I mean, we are not even talking about suffering caused by mankind's exercise of free will or living in a "fallen" world due to Adam's original sin or any other apologetic justification for why bad things happen to good people.  No, I'm talking about cases where an Angel rebels and decides to wipe out most of humanity.  Or where some ancient artifact once touched by God has been left behind to gather power until a servant of the Devil (or the Devil himself) is able to possess it and wreak havoc.

Anyway, today's redux comes after finishing the entire "Preacher" series of graphic novels, upon which the new AMC series of the same name is loosely based.  It's certainly an entertaining series (albeit a bit too heavy on the sex and nudity and foul language for my taste, even though it's clear that it all serves an important part of the story), but once again it just makes me wonder what sort of God is actually being worshiped here, anyway?

I know all about Young Earth Creationists and their literal view of scriptures.  Yeah, they believe the entire universe really was created 6000-10000 years ago, all the animal species alive today descended from the animals Noah brought with him on the ark 4000 years ago, all of humanity descended from a pair of human beings divinely created as-is in the Garden of Eden, etc.  And I know that many of them have even tried to explain that, since the universe is only 6000-7000 years old, it can't possibly be as big as astronomers want us to believe or, if it is, that's because God created it that big in the first place and set all the photons from distant stars and galaxies midway on their journey to us so it would only appear that they must have traveled millions or even billions of years to get to us.

But seriously, do any of them actually still believe that the Earth is flat, that the sun (and the entire universe) revolves around it once a day, that God is "up there" in the clouds somewhere and that Satan and Hell are "down there" below our feet?  I'm assuming the answer is no, but that just brings me back to my original question as to why God is always depicted as if that's exactly the way the universe is?  The majority of modern day theists seem to prefer to talk about a God who is immaterial, timeless, etc., whose love and intelligence fills the entire universe, as opposed to a glowing white guy with a beard who sits on his thrown in the sky looking down on us.  That presumably lets them maintain their belief in God specifically in the face of all the incontrovertible evidence that the universe is vastly old and vastly huge and that there is no heaven in the sky and no hell beneath our feet.  And, as I said, I don't think even the most die-hard literalists really think God is up there in the clouds somewhere.

So why, why, why does God keep getting portrayed as if our knowledge of the universe had not advanced a whit from the days of those who wrote the scriptures thousands of years ago?  What is this fascination with a version of God that most (if not all) theists agree couldn't possibly be correct?  I mean, I'm fine with it because I acknowledge that it is all fiction and quibbling with the way God is depicted would be like complaining because the Ewoks from Star Wars don't seem realistic enough.  But if theists really do believe that God is some immaterial, timeless being that has an entire universe to take care of, why isn't he ever actually portrayed that way and why are books and movies that portray him as a "puny God so darn popular?

Is it just because all these popular books and movies are produced by atheists?  Are the audiences that lap them up also atheists (even if they won't admit it publicly)?  Or do they, like me, just enjoy these stories as the fiction they are despite the fact that acknowledging them as wholly fictional undercuts the very foundation of their beliefs?

I would honestly like to hear from theists who like these sorts of movies, books, comics, etc.  Are they comfortable with God being literally depicted as the holy scriptures describe him instead of the way most "enlightened" theists talk about him today?  Or would it be more disturbing to actually depict God as he is usually described today (immaterial, timeless, etc.) instead of as a glorified, glowing figure in a white beard who sits in a thrown in the sky and comes down to chat every now and then?

I suspect that most "enlightened" theists today want to believe in a personal "Sky Daddy" of a God who, just like the scriptures teach, looks like us, watches over us, cares for us, and could possibly come down from his thrown and provide individual help if we needed it.  Of course, they can't actually say that's what they actually do believe, since they know they would be ridiculed for doing so (which is why they've come up with this whole idea of an "unprovable" God who doesn't show himself directly and whose very existence must be taken on faith alone).  But maybe that's why these depictions of God in movies, television, books, etc. are so popular -- because theists today desperately want to believe that God is how he is depicted in the scriptures and not the watered-down, science-accommodating, non-falsifiable "God is love" type of being that most theists seem to espouse these days.

That's just my theory, though.  I'd love to here what you think...

Some Random Questions for Theists

OK, I've been watching some debates between theists (usually Christians) and theists again, and as usual I thought of a bunch of questions I really wish I had been able to ask.  I'm not saying these are unanswerable questions, especially since 2000 years of formal apologetics have allowed modern theists to come up with some sort of answer to just about anything thrown their way, but I'd like to think they are questions which would, at the very least, indicate the weakness of some of their positions and assertions.

• Why do you keep asserting that the universe was "obviously" finely tuned to support life (and specifically intelligent human life), when 99.99999999... % of the known universe is utterly and completely hostile to the existence of life (let alone to human life)?  Is all the rest of the vastness of space just for the sake of decoration?


• You've said that the observed suffering in the natural world is the direct result of mankind sinning in the Garden of Eden and causing the world (universe?) to enter into a fallen state with suffering and death.  If God is all powerful, however, why did he create a universe where man's sinning would affect all of creation and not just man?  Why would God punish innocent animals instead of just punishing mankind?


• In the past, theists have claimed that the creation of the universe "out of nothing" proves the existence of God since there's no other possible explanation.  Now that physicists have described ways in which a universe could have arisen out of nothing by purely natural processes, why does it matter whether physicists can prove that this is how it actually happened?  Since you previously said God must exist because there was no other possible way it could have happened, isn't it a sufficient refutation of your "proof" that there is, in fact, at least one possible way after all?


• As a Christian, what does it matter that some percentage (that you completely made up) of humanity throughout history has had some sort of spiritual experience that lead them to believe in some sort of god or gods?  Even if that somehow proved that there was some sort of God (which it doesn't, since it would only prove at most that humans have a tendency to believe in supernatural beings), what justification is there for assuming that the "God" in question is the Christian one and not, say, the God of Islam, Zoroastrianism, Norse mythology, etc.?


• How can you claim that the Bible is evidence of the existence of God and then admit that much of it is allegorical and not to be taken literally?  Especially when, once upon a time, it was all thought to be literally true until science and evolving societal norms slowly but surely proved that more and more of it couldn't possibly be literally true??  Also, how do you determine which parts are literally true and which parts are merely allegorical??  Does it bother you that the determination of which parts are literal and which parts are allegorical has changed over time, indicating that there is no "correct" answer other than "everything is literally true that hasn't yet been shown to be demonstrably false or distasteful to our modern sensibilities"?


• On a related note, how can you claim that "absolute morality" can only come from God and then acknowledge that the only source we have for what God's morality actually is (i.e., the Bible) contains numerous laws and principles that do not apply to today's society and therefore are not absolute?


• You claim that God is necessary in order to explain what the purpose of life is, which is something science cannot do.  What justification do you have for the assertion that life must necessarily have a purpose in the first place, other than the fact that you find the notion of a life without a purpose to be too depressing to contemplate?


• Once you have "logically proven" the necessity of some sort of timeless and immaterial supernatural being in order to explain the creation of the universe and all its laws (leaving aside for the moment the question as to whether you actually did prove anything), how do you get from that supernatural being to the God of your particular religion and your particular sect of your particular religion? If you're trying to prove something, it's not enough to just say you have faith in your God or that your God personally spoke to your heart. You're perfectly entitled to your faith, but that's not the "proof" you promised to provide.

Why Your Religious Beliefs Are (Probably) Wrong

All right, now I know there are certainly exceptions, but in general I think it can be said that most religious faiths believe that their beliefs are "correct" and that every one else's beliefs are either just plain wrong or at the very least incomplete. At the extreme end are those religions that believe you have to be a member of their faith in order to go to heaven and that everybody else is going to hell. To a lesser extreme is simply how one interprets the fundamental nature of God and his commandments (if any). Whether the religion is Catholic, Methodist, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or whatever, a fundamental tenant is bound to be "we're right and everybody else is wrong."

Now, at the same time, I think it is fair to say that most people who profess a particular faith do so because that is what they were raised to believe. In other words, most people's religious convictions (including the conviction that their faith is the "correct" one) is nothing more than an accident of birth. Again, there are certainly exceptions (those who convert from one faith to another or discover religion after being raised as an atheist), but I think those exceptions are extremely small in number when compared to the religious world as a whole.

So, if most religions believe that they are the only correct religion, and if most people believe in their particular religion solely because of how they were raised, it stands to reason that most people are not in the correct religion (or, in other words, most people's interpretation of God, what he wants from us, and what we need to do to return to him, is wrong). I mean, the odds of being born into the one religion that has it all right are pretty small, given all the many, many possible religions out there.

Now, methinks it might be different if everybody in the world selected their religion after much study, prayer, contemplation, etc., since then you could at least argue that the religion chosen by the most people has the greatest chance of being the correct one. Instead, however, you have people all over the world utterly convinced that THEY (and ONLY they) know "the truth" about God based solely on where they were born and how they were raised.

In short, assuming there actually is a God of some sort, and assuming that your belief in him is based on how you were raised, the odds are that your particular God is the wrong one.

Now, I suppose we could discuss what it would mean for a God, who supposedly loves and care for each and every one of his children equally, to set up a system where it is almost guaranteed that the vast majority of his children would not be able to find out the truth (and would presumably be punished eternally as a result), but I guess it all comes down to the fact that the people who invented all the various notions of god in the first place really did think they were better than their neighbors.  It doesn't matter if everybody else burns for all eternity -- what matters is that we are the ones who have got it right and will be saved, so there (neener, neener)!

On the Nature of God

According to every theist apologist I have listened to, in order for God to have created the universe "he" must be immaterial and exist outside of space and time (since matter, space and time are all components of the universe which didn't exist until it was created). Logically, God must also not be made of energy, since matter and energy are equivalent and energy also didn't exist before the universe was created.

The problem for theist apologists is two-fold. First of all, an entity that is not made of matter or energy and that exists outside of space and time is, pretty much by definition, something that has no existence whatsoever. Second of all, even if such an entity could somehow be said to exist, there is no proposed mechanism for how such an entity could ever interact with space, time, matter or energy. Which means that, even if God did exist, there would be no way of knowing it and certainly no validity to any religious systems that claim to know the will of God.

Theist apologists go to great lengths to attempt to prove the logical necessity of some sort of creative force of the universe, despite the fact that the only such force they can logically "prove" is one that is completely unknowable and self-contradictory. After they've tied logic into complete knots to get that far, however, they then just throw logic out the window and end with, "Therefore, the God of [my favorite holy book] must be real!"

I recently watched a debate between an atheist and a Christian apologist regarding the existence of God.  In his opening statement, the Christian apologist claimed that he would prove two things: first, that God must logically exist, and second, that this God was the Christian God described in the Bible.  During the debate proper, the Christian apologist attempted to logically prove the existence of God (all the while calling atheists stupid for not agreeing with his logic).  Basically, his “proof” came down to arguing that since certain fundamental logical concepts such as “the law of identity” (i.e., a thing is equivalent to itself) must exist independent of human minds, since not all humans know about these laws and they would exist even if there were no humans, they must have been created by some being who exists wholly outside of the universe of space and time.  Aside from the fact that this argument is a load of hooey to begin with, however, the apologist never bothered to mention how this abstract notion of God had anything to do with the Christian God of the Bible.  After the formal part of the debate was over, an audience member asked him how he got from one to the other,  Despite his initial claim that he would prove it, his reply was that he knew the Christian God of the Bible was real because “He came to me in my heart.”  Oh, really?

In general, I find it hilarious to watch both Christian and Muslim apologists go through the same tortuous logic to "prove" that something must have created the universe, and then come to completely different conclusions as to what that creative force actually is. And each side is absolutely convinced because it's just obvious that their religion is true and therefore their description of God must be true as well.

Do I know exactly how the universe came into being? Nope. Do I think that it's possible that some "force" (whether the universe itself or something outside the universe, including a multiverse) was somehow responsible for the universe coming into being? I honestly don't know, which I suppose would make me an agnostic. But that would only make me an agnostic as to whether or not some "force" (whether the universe itself or something outside the universe) was somehow responsible for the universe coming into being. Do I believe that a personal God as described in the holy books of any religion or as worshiped by any religion was the force that was responsible for the universe coming into being? Absolutely not, and in that regard I remain firmly an atheist.


To sum up:

• The whole concept of a "supernatural" being is nonsensical, since anything outside of nature would, by definition, be unable to interact with nature. Either God can interact with it (speaking to our minds, performing miracles, healing the sick, answering prayers, etc.) and is therefore part of the natural world or he is "supernatural," in which case he would not be able to do all those things. You can't have it both ways.
• Calling something an "uncaused cause" is pure sophistry. It's a contradiction in terms and exists solely as a way of getting yourself out of a corner that you have painted yourself into. If everything must have a cause, what caused God? You've basically said that God must be "supernatural" because everything natural must have a cause, and since you don't want to admit that God himself must therefore have a cause, you will arbitrarily define God as "supernatural" with no justification other than it provides you with a loophole.
• Even if God were somehow necessary to explain the origin of the universe, even if it actually made sense to say that some being who exists outside of space and time could actually create space and time, what rationale is there to accept that that being is the Christian God? I have listened to Muslims make the exact same arguments for the necessity of God, but strangely they are absolutely convinced that their arguments prove the necessity of the God of the Koran and not that of the Bible.
• Since theist apologists love to twist logic in order to "prove" the existence of their personal concept of God, I think it is only fair to disprove the existence of God in the same manner (it's amazing how you can logically prove or disprove anything at all if you define your terms correctly) :

1. In order for God to have created the universe, He must exist outside the universe.
2. Anything that exists outside the universe cannot be said to exist within the universe.
3. The universe is defined as the totality of all existence, meaning that nothing can be said to exist if it is not inside the universe.
4. Therefore, God does not exist.  QED.

Puny God

I was re-watching “The Avengers” the other day (the one with the Marvel superheroes, not the 60s TV series with Patrick Macnee and Diana Rigg) and once again got a chuckle at the scene where [*SPOILER ALERT*] Loki brags about how he is A GOD and everybody else are just mere mortals, after which Hulk casually beats the living daylights out of him and declares, “Puny god” as Loki lies whimpering on the floor. And as I watched that scene, I started thinking about how God (the Christian God, at least) really gets the short end of the stick in most forms of popular entertainment, whether it be books, movies or television series.

Although Christians pay lip service to the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing supreme being who created the entire vast universe of which we humans inhabit only the tiniest of tiny parts, whenever it comes to actually depicting God (or his handiwork) in popular fiction, it seems that they just can’t get beyond medieval (or far earlier) concepts of a universe that consists of our planet and a bunch of pretty lights in the sky. Hundreds and even thousands of years ago, when the Greeks, Romans, Norse, etc., were imagining their gods, they didn’t have the concept of “all-powerful” or “all-knowing” deities. Instead, their gods were frequently tricked (either by other gods or even by men), and it was always possible to defeat a god if you just had the right magic weapon or spell or some such. The God of Christianity, however, is supposed to be far different from those pale, pagan imitations, right? And yet, you wouldn’t know it by looking at popular fiction.

How many movies have there been about a poor innocent soul possessed by a demon and a priest who has to spend the entire movie screaming and yelling at the demon to leave in the name of Christ? If God were really all-powerful and all-knowing, would the priest really need to shout, “The power of Christ compels you” that many times before God finally notices?

Or how about all the stories where some ancient artifact – whether it be the Ark of the Covenant, the Spear of Destiny, the Holy Grail, the Shroud of Turin, or what have you – was imbued with God’s divine essence long ago and now just lies around waiting to be discovered so that somebody can use it to take over the world, bring Armageddon, live forever, etc.? It makes for a great story, sure, but does it really fit into the Christian notion of God that he would basically just forget about these things that supposedly have His own divine power? And why would he let thousands (or millions or billions, depending on the story) of his children die before finally lending just enough help to let the hero save the day, especially when the whole problem was His fault in the first place?

Or how about all the stories where various angels wage war against humanity because they’re not happy with the fact that humans are more favored in God’s eye than they are?

Now, I’m assuming that many Christians get annoyed at these depictions of the divine as well. Perhaps they feel that it is sacrilegious to imply that God could be fooled, or that He wasn’t paying attention, or that His divine essence could be captured in an artifact and that He would let somebody perform evil acts with that artifact. But I’m also assuming that not all Christians feel this way (or perhaps not even most), or else these stories wouldn’t keep getting made and they wouldn’t be so popular.

If I think back to my days as a Christian, I can remember how easy it was to compartmentalize my beliefs so as to avoid any sort of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, it was important to believe that God was the all-powerful and all-knowing creator of the entire vast universe, since that was the only sort of God worth worshiping in the first place. It didn’t matter that our current concept of “the universe” was massively, unrecognizably different from any concept understood by people who actually lived in Biblical times. The Bible says that God created the Heavens and the Earth, so that’s the God we must worship regardless of how vast we now know “the Heavens” to be.

At the same time, however, it was important to always think of God as a personal God who cares about every one of his children, listens to (and occasionally answers) our prayers, and notices every single good and bad thing we think or do for our entire lives, since that was the only sort of God actually worth praying to. You don’t pray to some immaterial, timeless “force” who neither cares about you nor responds to prayers in the first place.

And I think this is where the popularity of all these “puny god” depictions in popular fiction come from. Christians (well, most Christians) acknowledge that the universe is a vast, extremely old place and that, as a result, it’s important to claim that the God they worship is big enough to have created it all. At the same time, though, they want to cling to the notion that whatever being is powerful enough to create the entire vast universe is also a being who cares about them personally and will listen to their prayers and reward them for being good. As a result, there is a compulsion to shrink God down whenever he is portrayed or discussed in stories, because talking about God as a being powerful enough to create the entire universe (as opposed to just our planet) leads very quickly to the realization that there’s no way such a being would ever have anything to do with us.

[See Part 2 of this essay at Puny God Redux.]