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 Power and No Glory

"Nature, red in tooth and claw.” Lord Alfred Tennyson

There are many facets of human existence, yet none are as insidious as an individual’s hunger for power over other people. The hunger for power over others and the exercise thereof – the most obvious manifestations of Nietzsche’s Will to Power – has caused untold suffering throughout human existence. But the hunger for power is not unique to Homo sapiens; it extends back long before the birth of our species. Gorillas and chimpanzees, for example, in fighting over resources and mates routinely go so far as to kill their competitors (if not within, then outside of their group). This behavior is not unique to our closest genetic relatives either; such behavior can be observed in animals far older and removed from us, but who with whom we still share a common ancestor, such as lizards.  [Lizards share the same Phylum as Homo sapiens; Chordata.] The behavior of one human seeking power over another human has a long history. This raises some questions: What is any one individual getting out of it? What are we getting out of it collectively, as a species? Are the ramification for better or worse? Should we accept this aspect of our nature or seek to overcome it?

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” Abraham Lincoln

What does an individual get out of seeking power? The reasons for any one individual seeking power over others is pretty clear as it is the same reasons mentioned earlier – it is a battle for resources and/or mates. Seeking power may also be for the sake of securing one’s own safety or the safety of their group (though their own safety typically supersedes that of the group’s) or to inflate one’s sense of importance, from which other ventures requiring confidence can then take place. We can see these reasons manifested in examples such as an unscrupulous CEO that suppresses information concerning the safety of their product for the sake of making money, any clergyman or self-described mystic (or any person in general) who claims special knowledge, authors of self-help books who must first convince you that there is indeed something wrong with you, and we can see it in porn that typically treats women as objects. A March 2013 paper that appeared in Psychological Science concluded power makes people happy. Happy people are generally healthier than unhappy people, so there appears to be a biological benefit to having power on several levels, so long as you’re the one who has it.

What does a group get out of seeking power? Since groups consist of individuals, it stands to reason that groups of people would seek power for the same reasons individuals do. By extension, you get similar examples of this behavior as before; a CEO extends their power to a board which runs a company with a clear hierarchy and agenda, the mystic who creates a religion around themselves, a multibillion dollar sector of the book-selling industry, and institutionalized misogyny. Even capitalism, assumed by many to be a mere economic system with no inherent flaw, in practice ultimately becomes a system that sees people working in unison to gain power over each other through the accumulation of wealth. (If you’re going to argue that this is a stretch, I would counter with the need for reports on a country’s health in which economic growth is a heavily considered factor.) The social arrangement of groups that seek power form hierarchies where those closer to the top benefit more from the arrangement. Even those at the bottom get something from the arrangement, assuming they are not forced into the group by coercion or threats of violence. Individuals run great personal risk to their freedom (if not overall health and safety) by operating outside the confines of the dominant group. You need only to ask anyone in the U.S. who is not a Christian for confirmation. Even at a most basic level, social groups form some kind of hierarchy; there appears to be a need for some people to be more important or thought of as more important than others.

“What do men of power want? More power.” The Oracle to Neo in The Matrix Reloaded

Without doubt, there are benefits to seeking power whether as an individual or group, but it is clear that both individual and group survival and reproduction are the driving forces behind the behavior. But, what are or have been the ramifications on a scale beyond the individual or group? Generally speaking, death, suffering, repression and imprisonment for those of a lower or outsider status at the behest of those in a group fearing giving up whatever status they have attained. Those who have power don’t want to share resources or are reluctant to change their own ‘tried and true’ ways. Historically, groups seeking more and more power have formed tribes and tribes became nation states (though tribalism is still very much alive), with the leader of any given group easily leading their group to war with another group. What all this power-seeking does is legitimize the notion, through killing or some form of repression, is that some lives are more valuable than others. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is easy to understand why individuals or groups would think this way. If this is the way we really want to think or want to believe that it is perfectly okay to seek power though other people’s lives are the price, then we have to be able conclude – across the board and without question – that some people actually are more important than others and are therefore deserving of their lofty or privileged positions.

“Judge not, least ye be judged.” The Bible, Matthew 7:1

Traditionally, there are several ways to examine a person’s worth; it can be measured in terms of a person operating within a society or in terms of the individual itself, free from the constraints of a society. But to talk of a person’s importance free from the constraints of society is irrelevant; there’s no need to measure a person’s importance if they stand alone on a deserted island. A person’s importance is then measured by that individual. Again, irrelevant. Individual worth can only be measured by those outside of any given individual and in being given this power to judge another human being is to begin the process of power-seeking itself. Any judgment by one person upon another person is for the person doing the judging to effectively say, I am – in at least some way – better than you and should therefore have power over you. In Western societies at least, the rush to judgment is so quick, so automatic that it implies that collectively, we think that some people are in fact better than others. If some people are better than others, than to seek power over other people is perfectly acceptable.

“Since mankind's dawn, a handful of oppressors have accepted the responsibility over our lives that we should have accepted for ourselves. By doing so, they took our power. By doing nothing, we gave it away. We've seen where their way leads, through camps and wars, towards the slaughterhouse.” Alan Moore in V for Vendetta

Certainly, we draw arbitrary limits on exactly how much power one person should have over another. Murder and rape are generally illegal. So are many predatory economic practices. (Though, if you’ll notice, there is often a loophole regarding such things.) But, in general, it’s okay to seek power. Those, who when being judged angrily lash out with “Don’t judge me!” are saying so because they don’t like power being in the hands of others. Of course, those same people judge others all the time, though I suppose for people to be hypocrites is nothing new. Again, collectively, at least in Western cultures (and surely many others), we agree that power-seeking is okay and that the global impact it has is not so great that we regard the consequences as acceptable. Think about that – billions of lives lost since the beginning of recorded history alone – means there are lots of people who have existed that essentially deserved to be put to death or repressed for the greater good of others having power (or for anyone in general to seek power). If the consequences of power-seeking are not acceptable, the only recourse is to treat each person as equals with no regard for gender, ethnicity, personality or skills. Naturally, this is completely impossible, especially when it comes to personality and skills.

“The day the power of love overrules the love of power, the world will know peace.” Mahatma Gandhi

It may be that we tend to seek power over others because the alternative is impossible. Yes, we can and do place limits on the amount of power one has over another, but those limits are always governed by the ones who have the most power and the will to use it. So what do we do? I suppose recognizing the behavior is a step towards dealing with it, like alcoholics who have to recognize they have a problem before they can get clean. (Where by “dealing with it” I mean start a dialogue towards finding a balance between power-seeking and treating people equally since the alternatives are either negative while the other is impossible.)

I do not offer any solutions here; this is merely a reflection on what I perceive as a problem for the human species. Do you think there is a problem? If so, you have passed judgment on the human race. It is not so easy to fight our nature.