Updated date:

Is God Really "Almighty"? -- a Satire From My Religiously Ignorant Perspective

Author:

Val is a life-long practically oriented student of effective emotional and attitudinal responses to the many challenges of life.

Image by Andres Nassar from Pixabay

Image by Andres Nassar from Pixabay

You talk to God, you are religious. God talks to you, you are a psychotic.

-- Doris Egan

Celestial Enterprise Limited

Announced in the summary of this article is the answer to the question in the title -- no, God cannot do anything that wouldn't be godly, which immediately challenges His being "almighty". You see, "He" (O.K. let's assume God is of male gender) has to be defined by certain qualities, and the very act of defining Him logically limits Him inside that definition.

If we would define house as a place where people dwell, that doesn't make it anything else. Likewise, if God is a creator, love, justice, harmony, law -- as for His partial definition -- then He cannot be idle, hateful, unjust, disharmonious, and lawless, and go irresponsibly playful to fool around colliding some universes.

That's so, no matter how much we may prefer seeing Him in a likeness of us, crazy, destructive, and self-contradicting humans -- by flattering ourselves with Scripture's maxim stating that "God created man in His own image".

Although, now mentioning "self-contradicting" -- maybe He didn't stick to His initial plan when He created us. Namely, first He allegedly made us perfect, but then remodeled us by giving us free will which turned us into born sinners.

How much sense did that make, from a purely logical perspective. Imagine if you were to create yourself a robot to do complex household chores -- all that cleaning, washing, tidying, and cooking -- and whatever else, short of flirting with your wife.

Now, imagine if at some point you added to its program a random choice instruction which ended up with your robot occasionally using toilet water for its cooking your dinner. Are you getting my point, which is -- you either create something that will do its purpose, or stick to your hobby of collecting postal stamps, leaving robotics to those who know what they are doing.

So, once we say "in god we trust" -- and I don't mean that god from dollar bill -- we can't view Him as unpredictable, while just explaining that "God works in mysterious ways". Indeed, God's love for all His children cannot depend on His holy moodiness (of your PMS-ing wife's repertoire), and there is not much left to "mystery" if He allows a mass of innocent children to die in some natural disaster.

Which brings us to another point to be made about His "almightiness" -- for, if He didn't prevent that disaster, maybe it was because it was not within His might to do it. How else to explain that lack of a loving intervention?

Image by MoteOo from Pixabay

Image by MoteOo from Pixabay

The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies -- probably because they are generally the same people.

-- G.K. Chesterton

Blind Men Describing Elephant -- or Was It a Deity?

It's an entirely another story on God's theme, as we are splitting it into two aspects of His "identity".

One -- God's existing independently of human conceptualization, or objectively;

and two -- God as a human concept.

The problem with number One being, that the nature of an objectively existing God doesn't even have any significance to us, since we can never get to that ultimate truth about Him. Staying hidden in a realm of an unfathomable existence He might as well not exist for us.

Namely, our neurological limitations don't allow us a cognition of something outside of conceptualizing something recognizable. We literally cannot think without using concepts, just like we cannot experience color green in any other way than our eye is interpreting that particular part of light spectrum reflected from an object.

A snake may see "our" green leaf as grey, or purple, who knows. So, how can we talk about objective reality without mixing it with our saliva? How can we process it with limited algorithms in our particular technology of conceptualizing?

Similar to those proverbial blind men describing an elephant by touching its different parts, we may talk about "God's things", but not able to either find or imagine all pieces of the puzzle. Besides, what if there is nothing steady in God's nature, so, while we naively think we "got it", it has changed its form and dynamics.

I know, it seems like I am making complicated something that everybody has become an expert about by just reading the Bible, but I don't mix believing with knowing. Just look how theoretical physicists are sweating bullets trying to understand the realm of quantum mechanics, which doesn't display enough axiomatic dependability and predictability as to be in any way compared to Newtonian realm that we know so well.

Perhaps we should quit that ambition to know God, the one for which our brains are not designed to bring any reliable answers. It's not pessimism, it's pure reality. For, we can analyze chemical composition of a flower's petal, but we may go insane trying to figure why exactly flowers exist at all.

And we can see the food chain in nature, but how do we explain it's "perfection" if something given a life has to be destroyed as food of somebody or something else -- which makes me wonder about the creator of that design and His own limitations.

For, logic mixed with some imagination tells us that an "almighty" creator could have let all living beings feed on energy from air and maybe some cosmic rays passing the barrier of earth's electromagnetic shield, combined with some dead materials of earth. Those rays could replace the life code contained in foods. For Pete's sake, He, the Grand Alchemist, could have used some of His superior knowledge to avoid a crazy lion tear an antelope apart.

In other words, we, humans, can see today that "things could have been created better" for us and for all "loved-by-God" living creations.

Image by James Chan from Pixabay

Image by James Chan from Pixabay

The worst moment for an atheist is when he feels really thankful, and he has nobody to thank.

-- Dante Rossetti

After All -- What Was the Holy Deal Between Father and Son?

I know, I know, this last part went too far into the "terra incognita" (unknown territory), or, as quantum physicists would prefer saying it -- "too far down the rabbit hole". So let's have a little more fun, if possible with this theme, by examining God as our own concept, and nothing but.

Basically, we are just one global human community, but due to our tribal preferences of fetishes that we worship, we fragmented the concept of God into untold number of deities.

Some of them had a son or a daughter, others were childless. One in particular God, best known to us of the western hemisphere had a son, and being one of attributed "almighty and all-knowing" abilities, He accepted a Holy Deal with His son to let him sacrifice himself for the salvation of the whole imperfectly designed mankind.

His Dad Almighty agreed, knowing in advance -- hey, not knowing wouldn't have made him "all-knowing" -- that He was going to resurrect him at the end of the holy show. Now comes that part which I fail to understand.

Namely, since "sacrifice" has to mean a "loss" -- how was it a sacrifice if the son got his life back to enjoy many happy years with his sweetheart Magdalene? What was the Holy Deal with his Father about, after all? And why didn't God genetically upgrade His human prototype (He could have done it with one gesture of His Almighty hand) -- rather than let His son die -- even if temporarily -- on the cross, because of His own half-done-job?

Hey, I may be using a silly style of presenting all this, but I am serious here -- why an "almighty" God never bothered programming us in a way that we would still have a free will, but within limits of constructiveness, wisdom of supportive coexistence, love, and creativity.

He made us limited in so many other ways -- one more wouldn't have cost Him much effort. I mean, if I can hear only within a limited range of sounds, He could have also amputated my ability to feel rage, envy, fear, guilt, and the rest of the regular human repertoire of emotional crap carrying charge of certain energy frequencies.

Really, why did it have to be me to "play a god" in the subatomic galaxy of my body's space to fix what He messed up with His program of a sinner? Now, don't anybody dare to say that "it was His plan to force His children to spiritually wake up". Metaphorically, father doesn't starve his kids so that "one day they may appreciate food on their table" -- when they have to buy it with their own money.

However, this is my main point -- why I, a simple human, can see a simple cosmic solution that Almighty God missed? Or, are we even talking about the same God? Which one is yours? Is it the one that "works in mysterious ways, and no one is to question His reasoning"?

In that case, this whole scribbling would be doomed to stay a monologue directed to myself alone.

Image by Stefan Keller from Pixabay

Image by Stefan Keller from Pixabay

When you follow the path to the unknown, you never know what you may find.

-- Sondra Faye

Adding to It My Own Figment of Celestial Fantasy

A little metaphor is in order to put some sense into this last mini-chapter -- if not into the whole article. Imagine a tennis player who decided -- just for the fun of it -- to play a game of soccer.

It's not his game, not his field, not his ball, and should he even succeed to kick it within the rectangular frame of that goal, it wouldn't give him much of a feeling of a winner.

Riddle is over -- it's me, writing this, or any other piece of literature about "gods, their powers, or their limitations." Logic is my cup of tea, and even a hard core religionist must admit that I haven't played so bad with their ball -- even if I didn't score any goals.

So, what is my "tennis" translating to? Well, just like religionists, I have my own cosmic fantasy. From the perspective of provability, it's not any inferior to any religion -- even despite all missing celestial personnel of angels, demons, and -- sorry if I'm missing any other.

O.K., enough of this beating around the bush, and, as you are about to see, mine is not a burning one. Do I "believe" in it? No, my open mind can afford to consider something as possible, even probable, while not verifiable enough to be believed, or even known as a fact.

In my fantasy, reality is multi-layered, and so is consciousness. In its center is its source, the one that a religionist would rush to call a "god". Spreading outwards are concentric layers of intelligence loaded with information, the further away from center -- the less and less available potential.

Are you still with me? Hey, use some imagination, it's not all that crazy, the rest may even sound like some fun.

Come on, make a non-religious effort to imagine some creative dynamics going on at each layer. So, here is this planet, call it earth, with living creations "produced" by neighboring layers,

From one of them we got plants and animals -- because intelligence manifests whatever is within its range. And at the closest one, actually sharing this same space with us, but belonging to a different dimension, are these avatar-like beings. Smart beyond our ability to comprehend, evolved by stimulation from those inner layers of consciousness that are closer to the center.

Using this "same space"?

Yes. Remember how on certain level our bodies are merely a bundle of energy and subatomic particles -- and even those much bigger atoms are proportionally away from one another like Moon is from Earth when scaled up.

Yes, we are 99% empty space, each of us like a mini galaxy filled with energy and information that orchestrate life in us. And those avatars are among us, equally invisible to us as we are invisible to them. Since our worlds are of a much different frequency range, we may be face to face with an avatar but not seeing each other -- except in some "supernatural" events.

Also, in times when they built for us those architectural marvels using their minds alone, no technology as we know it. Among them pyramids as energy posts, for purpose of better communication between out two worlds. (Boy, am I going ballistic with this intuitive speculating!)

Actually, we may be passing through each other's body without being affected. For a moment remember how the "ether" is full of TV and radio programs -- one not interfering with another, because they are all of a different frequency. So are our two worlds.

Incomparably smarter than ourselves, they succeeded to break the barrier between dimensions, appearing as "UFO's" in our skies, and then flicking out of our reality -- not into "outer space", as UFO enthusiasts are contending. Why are they visiting us?

Out of a habit.

They have to check on their genetic creations. Back in the ancient times they came to perform that "petri-dish-coitus", in an experiment to populate this wild and savage layer of reality with -- guess who. Sorry, my religious brothers, since you are wrong -- be fair, and let me be wrong my own way -- for, no god had his fingers in that experiment. He, or whatever "he" may be, is far inward into the depths of that holy rabbit hole.

A lucky female ape was selected to be our primordial mother -- and we named her Rhesus. It is a known fact that we are using only a little over 1% of our genes, the rest are called "junk". Wrong, because nature has this principle -- I forget its name -- to dispose of anything in us that's not used, or potentially usable.

My intuitive guess is that those are the genes of our super-intelligent sperm donors -- but vibrationally silenced by much louder monkey's genes. Hey, just look at our idiotic history pointing at our animalism displayed as territoriality, violence, greed, need for power and a status of an "alpha" in the herd.

Mix it well with some limited genes of our primordial father, and you see an intelligence in service of this pronounced survivalism of an animal.

With only here and there some geniuses, some savants, some rare human specimens displaying a fluke of nature where an avatar protruded through the stiff layers of mediocrity.

To round up my story -- no, again -- our Maker was not "almighty". He was very smart, still watching over his genetically engineered offspring -- but not mighty enough to stop disasters that we create with the joint negativity of our collective consciousness.

Keep praying folks, it works -- when sincere -- in energetic, multi-layered networks of universal entanglement -- via those unused genes in our genome.

Those folks into the spiritual and supernatural, you just might find my "tennis court" a possible playground for your own intellectually-intuitive playfulness. Some imaginary fun for everyone -- I am having mine.

After all, what is reality if not an infinite virtual game of fantasy.

© 2020 Val Karas

Comments

Val Karas (author) from Canada on February 21, 2020:

Allen -- I can't forget late Robin Williams saying at one interview: "Reality? Hmm..interesting concept." That's what it is to us, and an insect has its own, measured by its own limited mental aparatus.

I don't need a "shield" my friend, I am not at war with any sort of believers -- just expressing my own mind, not telling anybody they "shouldn't" believe in this or that. That's the beauty of freedom -- without it, we would all have to comply with the mainstream thought, whether in politics, religion, medicine, whatever, and then we would call it fascism. No one is obligated to read my stuff if they see nothing but crap in it. Works in reverse as well.

As with every of your comments, I am happy to see we share an intellectual appetite for similar brain-food. And I am additionally happy that a fine fellow like you is calling me a friend. Long live friendship, my friend!

Allen Edwards from Iowa on February 21, 2020:

Val, as I sit here, wrapped up by the small remaining cushion effect of my "old, worn-out" couch; drinking my 3rd cup of "joe", and reading your latest addition to another "epic" composition; I have a multitude of thoughts trying to formulate a pleasant conclusion to your postulates, of which, I can compare to grabing 'a hold' to a "lifeline" you have thrown us from your magnificent "Bugis Pinisi" schooner, as we, who are floating on that "blue sea of life", without even a coconut to use as ballast -- attempt to survive, not savior, the majesty of that "blue vastness"!

As so often happens during my "happenstancional" discovery of "things relating to things"..I ran across this concoction of words compiled into a seemingly intended method of explaning the futility of "godtalk": "a concept known as "theological non-cognitivism," which states that talking about "god" is cognitively meaningless."

Thank You My Friend for my morning "neuron 480 volt" excitation! Keep your "shields up" as the crowd approaches the gates!

Val Karas (author) from Canada on February 20, 2020:

TO ALL READERS OF THIS POST PRIOR TO 20-02-2020 --

IF YOU FOUND IT INTERESTING, YOU MAY LIKE -- OR NOT -- THE ADDED LAST MINI-CHAPTER OF IT.

Surely a total turn-off to a religious mind.

Val Karas (author) from Canada on February 18, 2020:

Devika -- As long as you strongly believe that God makes you strong (and weak) -- it will be so, not because God is doing it, but because you believe it. It's a well researched field of power of placebo effect, so, to each their own what self-suggestive medium they use to keep themselves strong (or weak).

Of course, the "gender" of God was mentioned lightly, merely as a momentary comment to the personal pronoun "he" being customarily used for God. I certainly couldn't care less about the "real" gender of a deity, which I see as a humorous matter anyway -- just like the whole personification of a deity with ascribed human characteristics.

Thank you for commenting.

Devika Primić from Dubrovnik, Croatia on February 18, 2020:

Interesting thought here and something t think about here. God the almighty is our strength and created us to be powerful an weak at the same time. However you see it of the gender to me it don't matter. It depends on our beliefs and of how we suggest the genders are.

Val Karas (author) from Canada on February 18, 2020:

Allen, my dear friend -- There is so much unforgivable intellectual arrogance in this world's cultural paradigm -- with so many empty claims about "knowing" which never really made even a baby step away from "believing".

Believing is such a cheap crap, and only the kind of popularization makes the difference between a Santa Claus and a deity.

And you are right -- it's our naked lives that are begging for our attention, and for utilizing some smartness in bettering the quality of it -- never mind letting our minds drift away from this only solemn responsibility.

Allen Edwards from Iowa on February 18, 2020:

And, as this tiny globe, we consider the world.. turns around some..as yet firmly explained axis..and streaks across a hypothetical universe..Val and I are holding on for "dear life" as Val explains all this "weird shit", and I sit here wide eyed, soaking it all in!

Keep it coming Buddy!

Val Karas (author) from Canada on February 18, 2020:

Bushra -- O.K., now we know some Urdu words. Any thoughts about the article's theme, or all your attention got stuck at God's gender? In any case, thank you for reading it.

Anya Ali from Rabwah, Pakistan on February 18, 2020:

sorry, stupid me, I used the wrong example. Instead of that, use 'khuda kehTA hai' ('God says') and 'khuda ki zaat kehTI hai' ('the entity of God says'): 'TA' because 'khuda' is a masculine noun and 'TI' because 'zaat' is a feminine noun.

Anya Ali from Rabwah, Pakistan on February 18, 2020:

God does not belong to the male gender; the word 'God' belongs to the masculine grammatical gender. Perhaps this is easier to see in Urdu where the masculine and feminine grammatical genders are 'muzakar' and 'muanas' respectively while male and female biological genders are 'nar' and 'maada' respectively. It's about grammar, not biology. For for example, when I say 'Khuda KA kehna' - 'the saying of God' - I use 'KA', not 'KI', because 'Khuda' belongs to the masculine grammatical gender. But I'll say 'Khuda KI zaat ka kehna' - 'the saying of the entity of God'. Here, it's KI, not KA, because 'zaat' ('entity') belongs to the feminine grammatical gender.