The Definition of God, Dammit

What do people mean when they use the word ‘God’? Often, they are referring to the God of their particular religious choosing, which in turn entails the particular qualities ascribed to that entity. For example, the qualities are particular when ‘God’ refers to one of the three monotheistic gods – Yahweh, God, Allah. [Each god is believed to be distinct by each one’s followers, insofar as each believer denies the existence of the others’ god when it comes down to the minute details.]  However, the general qualities of any one of the monotheistic gods persists (that is, shared amongst these gods). God is typical described in the following fashion, a fashion that is fraught with difficulties…

         

We begin with God as being supernatural, that is, outside or in some sense superior to nature. Problem is, there is no way for a believer to know this with certainty, reassurances from their god notwithstanding. Can anyone demonstrate how he or she can have knowledge of what is not natural to our universe? Despite the unlikelihood of anyone having knowledge of what is supernatural, the faithful wish to say it is none-the-less a quality of God. Sorry, but the application of faith does not prove a statement that requires a demonstration, a proof, to be considered true (especially in a universe where all proofs must be of nature for us to make inferences). Belief in a supernatural entity currently requires the acceptance of such a being prior to or without any evidence, which is clearly illogical. Given a believer’s current methodology for acquiring knowledge of supernatural things – that being no methodology – a believer may imagine whatever evidence they wish and cite it as proof of God's existence. Did it rain last night? That was God in action the believer will say. Yet a belief in their deity came before the use of rain as evidence for this being. If it is the case that God told whomever that He is supernatural, this does not automatically preclude the possibility that this being is lying. Using a similar methodology as before though, the believer has already concluded that God is good, so they don't think that He would lie. However, this lie is still within the realm of possibility, as we'll see when we question God's goodness. The idea that a deity is supernatural is super quickly in trouble.

Theistic objection: "God is a part of this universe but we cannot see or measure Him (for whatever reason)." That really doesn’t solve anything. This “transcendent God” who exists both in and out of our universe amounts to Panentheism; identifying God as an immanent force within all creation. The question of how a believer may come to possess knowledge of God’s existence is still suspect, especially when you consider the more one insists that their deity exists. If we return to Panentheism for a moment, if God is immanent in all creation we can surely measure God. It’s not like we’ve never measure anything in our universe before. But the believer may further their objection by saying we have in fact measured God though perhaps we don’t realize it. That’s all well and good but if we don’t know what we’ve measured, we have no business calling it a god.

Theistic objection: "God is the universe." I’m on board, only, this is called Pantheism which weakens traditional monotheism, unlike Panentheism. Using the word ‘God’ to identify the universe confuses the issue. The believer might as well call God the ‘Tao’ or even ‘Smurf’ since these words are all ambiguous on their best day.

Let's move on to God's next attribute, omnipotence. Since believers believe that God created the universe, they automatically assume that He is all-powerful. This is what you might call “jumping to conclusions” because it is not known how much power it takes to create a universe. It may be that you need an appropriate amount of knowledge to create a universe while only needing very little power. If there is a creator, it does not automatically follow that this creator is omnipotent. If robots could think, and it seems likely at some point they will, would they believe humans are all-powerful?

In supposing that some god does have enormous power, we may look upon this quality in two different ways. First, one might suppose that an omnipotent being could do anything it wants at all. It can suspend the laws of the universe and create square circles or turn people into pillars of salt (in which case we’re all screwed). As before, it cannot be known whether or not this ability to do whatever this entity wants is a matter of knowledge or of power. Maybe knowledge really is power. Maybe it’s Maybelline. I dunno. On the other hand, maybe God can only do what is logically possible. Sorry, no square circles. This is the position of most believers. However, if He is restricted to doing only what is logically possible, then it follows that anything an existent god has ever done is logically possible. This means that human beings (or some other sentient beings) could also do such things as create a universe with the appropriate amount of knowledge and/or power. Perhaps we'd even be able to raise the dead. Wait a second here, aren't people who are pronounced clinically dead resuscitated all the time? Hmm, suddenly God doesn’t seem like such a hotshot.

Believe it or not it gets worse. The problems with God's attributes are about to go from convoluted to downright wacky as we tackle the possibility of God’s omniscience. Ready, set, go!

There’s a big problem regarding The Supreme Cheese and the attribute of His omniscience. If God can know anything and everything at any given moment, then He can know the future with absolute precision. If this is true, then mankind has no free will, for God knows what you will do, why you will do it, and when. A god who knows everything already knows who is and is not condemned to Hell or some other kind of suffering. Has God arbitrarily created some people (or their souls, whatever) to suffer while being generous to others for no good reason we're privy to? Forgive me if I'm not okay with that premise. Sadly, some believers are okay with that and they make really good slaves for us more cunning folk. Pre-destination isn’t all bad though. I guess I can thank God I’m an atheist…But it doesn’t stop there. If God possesses absolute knowledge of our future, even if He chooses not to know such things, He is not omnipotent. God's possible infallible foreknowledge of events would preclude Him from doing whatever he wants when He wants to do it. If our future is immutable, God has no free will to change it, even if He somehow exists outside of space and time which blah blah blah re-read the first part of this entry. In the case that God could use his omnipotence to manipulate events to make them turn out as He wishes, He couldn't know he was going to do so prior to taking such action. Again, if God "chooses" not to know the future in order to take certain actions, He is still a slave to the future He could  know. Are you getting a headache?

It’s called a one-way street, people. Either God is omniscient and there is no free will and no omnipotence, or God is not all-knowing which allows for free will. Personally, if god does know it all, I would appreciate an answer as to why Paula Abdul was ever on a panel of judges overseeing a singing competition.

By now the believer will start arguing along the lines that God's knowledge somehow differs from knowledge as we know it. Sure, but then it's not what we call "knowledge", is it? What I'm implying here is that believers don't really have a clue what they're talking about when they say God is omnipotent or all-knowing.

Okay, now it’s wrestle with God's supposed goodness. Given the Judeo-Christian scriptures or the Koran, it's hard to believe that this deity is universally benevolent. In the Old Testament (OT) this god is one bloodthirsty SOB who has Hell set up by the time the New Testament (NT) rolls around. Given the Bible in particular, it cannot be concluded that God is all-good because conditions exist to acquire the benefits of God's benevolence. For God to be as wonderful as believers usually claim, God's benevolence would have to be completely unconditional, meaning that even atheists would get to go to Heaven if Heaven exists. Although, can anyone give me an example of any completely unconditional act of benevolence? Even altruistic people do what they do to make themselves feel better or score “karma points,” which is their condition for committing to such acts. Altruistic people, or gods, cannot escape the reasons or conditions for doing what they do. The notion of love, for example, being ‘unconditional’ is nonsense.

Because God’s love is conditional we can infer that any existent god is not unconditionally benevolent. Duh. This is in fact what makes the notion of believing any particular religion worthwhile. Belivers of organized religion follow certain rules in hopes of reaping the benefits of God's love. But if we're all God's creation as believers claim, why should God choose to be good to some people and not others? Why not just make life wonderful for everyone or make a world where it’s impossible to bend His rules? Perhaps the creations are flawed, but then why would there be a flaw in God's design? This might suggest that the deity in question is flawed as well unless, well, this is the way the believer’s god wants things to be. Since suffering exists and we cannot be sure why, God no longer seems to be such a nice guy. In fact, He seems like a prick.

Theistic objection: “We suffer because God gave us free will. Free will is really important to God because He wants you to choose to follow Him.” Let me get this straight; God wants us to choose to follow Him but if we don’t choose to we have to suffer for it? I don’t see the logic in a god creating such a situation. It’s the equivalent of wanting a romantic interest to be with you of their own free will but if they choose not to be with you, you’re prepared to kill them. Nice.

         

We're not done just yet. By what standard is God's goodness judged? For God to be considered good He must be capable of evil, otherwise He is simply amoral. God can only be good if He is allowed to make choices. If we retread God's omniscience a moment and are faced with the proposition that ifGod has no free will, He is not good. Again, if there is no real choice, He is amoral. Now, if God is good, there must exist a standard of goodness apart from this divine entity that we are using to come to the conclusion that this god is good. This would allow atheists to be as moral as anyone else. If we take the position that this deity is the standard of goodness (a usual theistic defense) then God may do anything He wants and we would have to conclude what He does is good despite any evidence to the contrary. Then, if God did do something wrong or evil or lied to us, we couldn't know as much because the definition of God automatically leads us to believe that everything He does is good. Talk about being able to get away with murder!

         

Theistic objection: "Yes, there is evil in the universe, but it is actually all for the greater good of God's plan." I might buy this if it could be demonstrated that anyone knows what this ‘plan’ is. If we were planning to rob a bank together and I told you that for you to be shot and killed by the police was for the greater good of my plan, it's unlikely that you would go with me on the heist.

         

Now we turn to God's appearance. If we could see God what would He look like? Or, if we saw God would our eyes melt? The monotheistic believers like to think of God on human terms. They have prescribed Him a gender. So, if God has a penis, we might assume that He has a face, arms, legs, etc. Although, if God does have a dick, I wonder why He made Adam first…Anyway, theists do this so that it's easier to relate to their gods. I mean, how promiscuous was Zeus? Ah, those wacky Greeks. If God is indeed human-like in appearance, this is a minor concern. All we may infer from it is that God likely possesses other human like qualities, such as being the squirrelly boss no one likes.

Epicurus made a poignant observation about the attributes of God over 2,300 years ago. As he put it: If God is willing to prevent evil but cannot, God is impotent. If God is able and not willing, (He) is malevolent. If God is both willing and able, then why is there evil? The traditional qualities of the monotheistic god as we have laid them out here are largely not reconcilable with each other. This doesn’t prevent believers from going through incredible contortions of reasoning to defend them, however. Of course, the more contorting you have to do, the more likely you are to lose at Twister.

         

Is it possible that the qualities ascribed to God are merely the attributes that people wished they possessed? Who wouldn't want to know everything or have such incredible power? People certainly wish they were perfect. However, in failing to be so they have imagined an idol they can look up to and try to emulate. I suppose in the case of God, it seems the more perfect people wish they could be, the more imaginative they really are. Well, it's okay to be imaginative. Being unrealistic and confused is another matter though, and that's exactly what the traditionally mentioned deity's definition is. Perhaps believers should come up with a less confusing and a more likely description of God if they want to be taken seriously. They should be careful, though. They wouldn't want them to rob God of His incredible essence, unless of course God is incredible because of  His convoluted definition. Well then, that would be extra hard to believe now wouldn't it?

The Case Against Women's Rights?

With recent elections in the U.S. once again pulling out the rug from underneath abortion rights, with the low priority given to teaching young women math and science, with Hollywood actresses and musicians only as in-demand as their youth or hacked iPhones permit, with Gamergate exposing details of a female gamer’s private life, with pornography a multibillion dollar industry in the U.S. alone, with catcalls par-for-the-course on city streets, with monotheism’s long-standing tradition that treats woman across the globe like cattle, it seems as though being a woman is as tough as ever. Certainly one might be inclined to think that given the right to vote in democratic countries such as the U.S. that women would vote for candidates who espouse women’s rights, but many women – indoctrinated into a male worldview – can’t seem to stand the idea of too much freedom. The consequence is that they get dominated for it.

I’ve long tried to understand mankind’s continued attempts to subjugate or otherwise dominate women. For every person who thinks we are an evolving species – where ‘evolving’ means the species is growing smarter, wiser or more fair – there is every evidence to the contrary, especially if you are a woman. Could it be just a matter of perspective as news agencies are now more often reporting that which has always been taking place? Or, is the world really getting worse for women despite all the progress made in the arena of women’s rights since the turn of the century? Sure, everyone is running for the cure these days, but as everyone knows, if testicular cancer were as common as breast cancer, testicular cancer would have been cured by now. Why is being a woman such a curse? [Yes, I do say ‘curse’ being a male, though I do think I am more of an impartial observer than the next guy. There is also the fact that at least half of all the women I have ever known have said at some point in their lives that they would rather be a man.]

I’ve thought about this at less than great length, I admit. Nonetheless, I imagine what I am about to say is going to yank some chains. (Sorry, poor choice of words there.) Why does the worldwide male population (generally) treat the worldwide female population so poorly? I could think of only one single answer – it’s good for the species. Before I continue with that thought, let me say that I personally have little at stake in the human species; I have no children and have no plans to have children primarily due to my misanthropic tendencies. So when I say the subjugation or dominance of women is good for the species, that doesn’t mean I like it or that I think this is the way it should be. However, there is a reality to be faced here. From an evolutionary standpoint, I’m inclined to wonder if it makes sense for one gender to be under the thumb of the other gender. In this case, among Homo sapiens, it happens to be the case that men dominate women. Why? Reproductive advantage.

Men have taken an ‘is’ and turned it into an ‘ought.’ What I mean is that due to the physical differences between men and women (men have more muscle mass and invest less energy in creating a child) that men have become the dominate gender, and gladly so. Because men can overpower women, both figuratively and literally, they do. Because men can spread their genes farther and faster than women, they do. And what is the effect? More children, which is exactly what our genes want, to be passed on into the next generation. Remember, our genes don’t care how. It is biologically advantageous (in terms of reproduction) that men subjugate women. What would happen if the situation were reversed? Existing societies may clue us in.

If you think about societies in which woman are on more equal ground as men in terms of rights, women tend to have children later in life and fewer of them, or even not at all. The most industrial countries, which as a consequence tend to be more socially liberal, generally have lower birth rates than those that are not industrialized. (At the same time, many Third World nations have higher infant mortality rates but their higher birth rates see more children survive per mother than not.) Women understandably express an interest in freedom as the biological cost of having a child is high, especially in a world where it seems there is less and less involvement from fathers in raising children. The continued and focused degradation of women across the globe is a stand against women’s rights, as women’s rights infringe upon the rights supposed by males who believe they should have easy access to women for sex, that is, for reproductive purposes. But there is a mistake made by the global community of men; it’s their unconscious belief that their genes are any more important than a woman’s.

This belief is usually reinforced by religion but it is there even without it. I could be wrong, but I lean towards thinking men hold their belief due to the fact that they are more physically imposing than women; the differences between the physiques of the two genders is hard to ignore. That and recent experiments aside that are ready to combine the DNA of three people, the fact remains that traditionally, it takes a set of genes from both a male and female to make a child. Granted, if there isn’t anything biologically special about either parent, the offspring stands to be unremarkable as well. This is where the belief held by men that women should be subjugated falls apart.

If biology has taught us anything, it’s that life is the rule on Earth, not the exception. As this rule relates to human beings, realize that all the people on Earth – now almost 9 billion – are the offspring of whomever the first Homo sapiens were. Interestingly, for all the shaming of sex that societies around the world have engaged in over the past few thousand years, there’s still a whole lotta sex going around which is producing a whole lotta unremarkable people. (This is why I find it annoying when parents talk about the miracle of birth; I don’t think that which is common constitutes a miracle.) If you’ll notice, the only people who bat an eyelash when a passenger jet crashes, for instance, are the family and friends of the victims. This is mainly because the rest of us recognize that there really are enough people on the planet. Granted, recognizing this fact, whether consciously or unconsciously, doesn’t turn off our sex drive and for a good reason: If some catastrophe were to befall the entirety of the human race, there would no doubt be survivors and those survivors would need to procreate (or be driven to by our genes). It’s right about now you’re wondering what this has to do with the subjugation of women…

In order to survive catastrophes, it is not merely the drive to reproduce that can save the human population; the ingenuity of people is required as well. While men like to think of themselves as the leaders of the world, think for a moment if women had never been allowed to contribute to our understanding of the world:

·                  American molecular biologist Carol M. Greider. On Christmas Day 1984, she discovered an enzyme -- telomerase -- that maintains and builds up telomeres.

·                  Mary-Claire King, a geneticist at the University of Washington, discovered the gene that predisposes women to breast cancer.

·                  Marie Curie wins the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics for her theory of radioactivity and the 1911 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for finding the elements.

·                  Curie’s daughter, Irene Joliot-Curie was awarded the 1935 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for creating man-made radioactive particles.

·                  Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, a French virologist, performed much of the fundamental work that led the discovery of HIV. Barre-Sinoussi’s work won her the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine.

·                  Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring drew from government reports and scientific studies to describe the destruction that pesticides were wreaking on our environment and our health. Carson was a trained marine biologist and zoologist.

·                  Jane Goodall's work with chimpanzees was groundbreaking and offered a glimpse into our own evolutionary roots.

·                  Circa 370 CE, Hypatia of Alexandria was an early scientist who wrote on the physical world and astronomy. Naturally, she was murdered by a gang of Christians.

·                  For more important women of science, click here.

This really is the tip of the iceberg and we haven’t even begun to mention the contribution of women to the various arts. Men, in their collective assholishness, might argue that men would have made these discoveries anyway. Of course, women could just as easily argue that given the chance, women would have all of the discoveries that men have.

The need for women’s rights is important insofar as people of various perspectives are needed to solve problems and/or contribute to problem solving. Women should not be regulated to mere breeding stock because they have more to contribute to societies than their genes. Women’s rights, their equality under the law, is for the sake of humanity’s long-term survival and for the flourishing of culture (if we’re to care about that as well). We can already see where the shortsightedness of a male-ruled world has led us and where male-dominated societies such as the one ISIS has in mind would lead us. How much longer will we accept teetering on the edge just so men can have their orgasms?