ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Is the Christian God Even Possible?

Updated on August 26, 2012

The Christian god is said to have many attributes. It is said to be perfect, omnipotent, all knowing, all wise, all good, all just, and the giver of free will.


So lets look at perfection first. I already did a hub on this topic but I’ll run over it again. Perfection is a subjective thing for the most part. There is all kinds of relative perfection. But there is also absolute perfection, or at least the idea of it. What does it mean?

Well, if we take it to mean that everything is perfect for all things then it would mean everything’s needs are met and there is no conflict. That is the limit to perfection. When all your needs are met and there is nothing you can do or think of that would make anything better; when there is nothing conflicting with anything else, then that is absolute perfection.

What most people fail to understand is that under those circumstances creativity would stop. Creativity is an answer to conflict or a way to fulfil need. If everything is perfect then there is no need for creativity. It’s as simple as that. Therefore, we know there can not be a perfect god, because we exist. If there were a perfect god it would have no reason to create us.


This one is easy to challenge. There is a very old formula for debunking it. Can god make a rock so big he can’t lift it? If he can he proves he is not omnipotent because he can not lift the rock he just made. If he can not then he is limited in that he can’t create anything so big he can’t lift it. Either way, he can't be omnipotent. Omnipotence can not have limits, and yet it is impossible for anything to have limitless power to do anything at all. There is always a limit, as the above question shows. It doesn’t mean the god couldn’t be very very powerful, or even the most powerful thing in the universe and outside it. But it can not be omnipotent. Omnipotence creates paradox and contradiction. There can be no such thing.

All Knowing:

If we look at the bible we soon see god asking questions and acting as if there are things he does not know. There are passages all over the place that point this out. He tests people, and if he tests them then he doesn’t know the outcome of the test in advance. If he did there would be no need to test people. He would already know in advance what they would do. God often acts surprised and angry with our actions. Why would he be angry when he knew full well in advance what we would do?

This ties into free will. If a god or anything else knows in advance what you are going to do with absolute certainty, there is no free will because your actions are written in stone. You can not change them, or the thing that knows the future absolutely, is wrong. Therefore you can not have free will and certainty of outcome at the same time. Saying god is all knowing is saying there is no free will. Saying there is free will is saying god can not be all knowing because the future does not exist until it is made. The Christian has a choice of the two but can’t have both.

All Wise:

God knows what’s best in all cases. But for him to know that with one hundred percent certainty he would have to be all knowing, including knowing the future of any action. Therefore we have the same problem. Either he is all wise and there is no free will, or he isn’t all wise and there is free will. I reject any Christian notion that he chooses not to know. It’s an absurd idea. Either he does or does not know. There is no choice in the matter. You know something or you don’t. You can’t choose not to know after you know. It’s like saying god can deceive himself. No Christian would say that.

All love:

This one is easy to counter from the bible itself. He says he created all things including good and evil. We have to assume he means he created the potential for good and for evil, as they are intent, not things. Why create the potential for evil? This assumes it did not pre-exist before god created it. The Christians do not like that idea and say it means he created calamity. I see no difference. If a god creates calamity with intent then he has created evil.

For the Jews this is not a problem. Their god is all things including good and evil at its whim. But for the Christian it means god can not be all good. It’s like admitting he didn’t know in advance what Satan was going to do. Any war Satan might be having with him in heaven also shows he can not be omnipotent. A god could stop such a war before it got started couldn’t it? It’s laughable. How can a Satan foil the plans of god? And must that Satan not be very stupid to think it could if it knows god is omnipotent? Has it not read the bible? All it has to do is nothing to foil the plans of god and prove it wrong. Would that not be what a Satan would do? It all makes so little sense. An omnipotent god that was perfect love wouldn’t create evil or the potential for it. That’s just nonsense.

If god creates a world where all things must suffer and kill just to survive, how can we say it is all love? If we say god couldn’t do it any other way we admit the god has limitations as to how it can do things. If it can do things any way it wants then we have to assume it is cruel beyond belief to have created such a world.

If we say it is our fault then we are saying again that we can foil god’s plan. If it is god’s plan that we do evil then it can’t be all love.

All Just

Is it all just to punish for what you know in advance will happen? Were I to put a poison snake in a playground, if it bit a child I would be liable, even if I told all the children never to go into the playground. Yet when god tells Adam not to eat of the fruit of one particular tree he is not responsible? Any sane person would take issue with that. Everyone knows that if you tell a child not to do something you are tempting them to do it. Adam and Eve were just created and obviously just children to a god. So was god tempting Adam and Eve or did he not know what his creation would do? And what was that snake doing there in their perfect garden?

Adam and eve did not know anything about good or evil before they ate of the fruit. They had to eat of the fruit to know good and evil. That means that before they ate they were little more than animals. So how can they be said to be evil for eating it? Evil is intent. We don’t say a very small child is evil because it disobeys us. We understand that it is curious. We fill electrical plugs so it’s a lot harder for them to stick things in there and get a shock. We childproof our homes. Yet we think it is perfectly alright for god to put a tree in his children’s garden that can kill them? How absurd.

So was it god’s intent that we would know good and evil? If so, then punishment for doing so is unwarranted, unless he is cruel. Would you punish your kids for doing something you wanted them to do? For discovering something you wanted them to discover? Of course not.

But the bible doesn’t say he wanted us to do it. It says he didn’t want us to. He says we have become like him, to know good and evil, and lest we also take of the tree of everlasting life and supposedly become gods ourselves, he yanks the tree of life that was never forbidden to us. Why wouldn’t Adam eat of that one first? Does it make any sense? Of course not.

If any conscious god created the universe as it is intentionally then it is cruel beyond belief, inept if it didn’t know how it would all turn out, or he did it for his own selfish reasons to fulfil a need it has. None of those conditions are admitted by Christians nor desired by them. But there are no other possibilities in reality.

Another consequence of god being all knowing is that he knows in advance whether you will go to hell or not. He has known that since before you were born. If he has then there is nothing you can do about it. To be able to alter that would make him wrong and not all knowing. So how cruel would a god have to be to allow you to be born anyway knowing you will go to hell to suffer for eternity? I'd say it would have to be a sadist, not all loving at all.

In short, the Christian god can not exist. All the attributes they claim for it are either impossible or contradictory to the bible they claim to believe in, particularly if they are literalists. Even if they don’t believe the bible is the literal word and don't believe in hell, they can’t reconcile all the contradictions in their beliefs concerning perfection or omnipotence.

This doesn’t mean other gods couldn’t exist. It just means the Christian god as described by Christianity is impossible.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image


      5 years ago

      As a Christian whose faith has been weakened for the last 18 and a half years the Christian God is possible. The Biblical God is so disturbing that it would be better if He were not real. This God is is a mishmash hodge podge of contradictions and is a hypocrite. Hes a moral monstrosity. Hes a Jekyll and Hyde. Hes violent punitive cruel unreasoning unjust. Hes irrational insane and stupid. He curses and punishes the ENTIRE creation because of Adam and Eves sin. He ruined and flushed the entire creation down the toilet. Diseases mass starvation hurricanes tsunamis centipedes jellyfish brown recluse spiders physical ugliness birth defects crimes wars genocides cruelty to animals mental illness loneliness depression etc all continue with no end in sight. I dont have a girlfriend and Im forever lonely. This cruel irresponsible negligent unjust God wont help me get a single girlfriend. This is cruel and inhumane. This God cannot see His own sins. This God cannot see sin in His cruel inhumane punishments and cannot see sin in His cruelty and negligence and cannot see sin in the suffering snd evil He allows. This God blindly stupidly and recklessly punishes and His punishements are monstrously cruel and beyond what we can imagine. Allowing Satan or the Devil and demons to tempt and ruin the creation is more stupidity and insanity on the part of this God. And not all of us want to live like religious fanatics like Jesus which is total denial abstinence privation deprivation poverty misery martyrdom. Not all of us want to live like a masochist or sadomasochist like Jesus. And not all of us are able to have blind faith and blind trust in God. Blind faith and blind trust in a God ho is as cruel stupid irrational insane ruthless irresponsible unreasoning and unjust as the God of the Bible? Blind faith and blind trust in a God who is so remote aloof disconnected and who neglects His creatures in this earthly life? Im having a hard time doing that. And if hell or eternal punishment is the fate for the greater part of humanity in the next life then this makes God a bigger monster and fiend and its another win for the Devil. The God of the Bible is a hypocrite. Hes outraged over violence and killing and yet He inflicts and orders violence and killing on a huge scale in the Bible and the Nature He created is full of violence and killing. So He does what He forbids and He forbids what He does and He creates what He forbids and He forbids what He creates. Its a conflicting confusing contradictory confounding mentally incomprehensible and morally impossible God. This God has ruined and flushed the entire creation down the toilet because Adam and Eve ate a forbidden fruit thousands of years ago. This is the stupidity and insanity taught by our religion and it makes God cruel unjust unreasoning irrational insane stupid and unforgiving. This God wrote the book on how to screw and ruin the creation. This God has abandoned His creation and has abdicated the world to the Devil. The world is a hellhole and a horror movie ruled by the Devil. Im fuming angry at this God. He has ruined my life and has ruined and destroyed any hope for happiness in my life. My life is endless loneliness and depression and this cruel negligent God allows me to suffer. Do we really want to spend eternity with such a cruel negligent incompetent unjust unreasoning God? This egomaniacal God doesnt care how much we suffer. All He cares about is for us to love Him and worship Him and keep His commandments and accept Jesus. Our health welfare happiness amd our needs are not important to this egomaniacal God. Oir very lives dont matter to Him as allows death on a mass scale every day of every year. Personally I find this God despicable cruel unreasoning and a ruthless egomaniacal tyrant. Hes a cruel monster. Hes an absentee landlord and a lousy caretaker. He incompetent irresponsible negligent unreasoning unjust unwise unkind and cruel to the umpteenth degree. Its disturbing. Im embarrassed and ashamed at calling myself a Bible believing Christian and I fear ending up in hell after this earthly hell. This God has an evil side or He is insane. Its a nightmare beyond imagining. I live in fear. The world is a horror movie.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 years ago from Ottawa

      Exactly the point. He can not do logically impossible things so being omnipotent is impossible because there are always limits to what even a god can do.

    • jcnasia profile image


      7 years ago


      You wrote, "Can god make a rock so big he can’t lift it?"

      I'd like to rephrase this question so be: "If (God is all power) and (an unmovable rock can exist), then (he can create that type of rock). True or false?"

      This statement is considered 'vacuously' true because the initial condition is false.

      God doesn't do logically impossible things. He can't be both God and not God at the same time.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 years ago from Ottawa

      Yup. Well that makes two people I know of that have left Christianity partly influenced by what they read on the forums and the Hubs.

      I've been here 4 months. I spent 10 years on another forum and remember one person in all that time who changed their mind about their religion.

      Perhaps it is really the combination of Hubs and Forums that is the most help? ;)

    • profile image


      7 years ago

      Of course they'd say we're working for the devil. I find it interesting that another person has made up their mind that they no longer believe after hanging out on the forums. That was also the case for me a few months back.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 years ago from Ottawa


      That's the problem, alright. Christianity is not about logic, it's about faith. So anything is possible where god is concerned. So it isn't likely anything we point out will affect many fundamentalists.

      But for people who are already beginning to doubt or perchance get struck by something we say, or were thinking about joining a religion, perhaps we do make some difference. I've seen people having second thoughts right here on these pages.

      Of course, fundamentalists would say we are doing the devil's work. ;)

    • profile image


      7 years ago

      excellent points raised. When I bring up the Adam & Eve being kicked out of the garden for their first mistake & ask what kind of parent god was, the religious justify it like 'touch a hot iron and get burned'. But only a psychopath for a parent would punish their children & their children with horrible things forever. How these simplistic and lacking 'explanations' are still blinded accepted by people, I don't know. It's like a 'my dad is bigger than your dad, but with superpowers' thing with god - god is claimed to not have to fit logic, or natural laws, or

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 years ago from Ottawa

      "Perhaps the Christian "God" can exist, but not in the form most (if not all) Christians perceive."

      Of course. And that was part of the point of the hub. One can not prove the Christian god does not exist, nor any god for that matter. But we can show through logic that certain aspects of the god are not possible in a strict sense. As I said, a speculative out can always be found for any argument. Particularly when talking about a being no one has ever met in any solid way. But yes, the fact that the Christian god can not have the attributes Christians claim it has does not prove the god itself does not exist. That's a given.

      "But what if wisdom would not allow that? What if "proving God exists" with miracles and magic would prove to be counterproductive?"

      I have to disagree with this idea. To actually know the god exists would change nothing except our understanding of reality. I reject the idea that it would be counter productive on several grounds. The first is that we can not make informed decisions without being informed. Guessing is not the way to anything, let alone knowledge or understanding. To know that a god actually existed without a doubt could only make reaching a spiritual perfection easier.

      The thing I find most disturbing about arguments like that is that they seem to me to be excuses for the reality of the fact that we do not know and can not know that a god exists because it does not show up in no uncertain terms. Because of this fact people speculate all kinds of reasons it must be so. Except the one reason that makes sense. The simplest reason of them all. It doesn't exist.

      Without know whether it does or not, any excuse is just speculation. God may be dead. That was one theory many years ago. There are hundreds of reasons Christians site for the absence of their god. But none of them can be verified, so they all hold the same weight; virtually none.

      To me, a real god should be able to come to us and we should know instinctively that it is god. No need for parlor tricks or magic. I think if there were a god as described by Christianity, that would be the case. Why? Because we would be part of him. That is what almost every religion claims. Surely a real god could let us know in no uncertain terms without any magic or tricks?

      " Faith is the one-sided coin of perfect confidence. Doubt (skepticism) is the water on that fire."

      I know you see it that way and I know why. I've found the opposite way. No faith at all can be the same as ultimate faith. I think I will leave you to mull that paradox. ;)

      I thank you for such a good discussion. It is a pleasure.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 years ago from Ottawa

      Great arguments. I'll take them one at a time.

      My point is that perfection is subjective, and as such, as you say, a broken cup can be subjectively perfect. But that is the point. Anything and any state can be perfect from a particular perspective. When talking about a god, surely we are talking about objective perfection, and the only objective perfection I can think of with my limited mind is total and complete fulfillment. No needs to be satisfied and all need for any kind of creativity removed due the fact that creativity is in answer to a problem.

      If there is no objective perfection at all, then the word itself is useless. Is god still perfect if he is a broken cup? If every state is perfect then the word has no valuable meaning. If all is perfect no matter what state, then there is no perfection. Reason being that perfection requires the opposite for it to be a special state. If all is perfect in it;s own way then saying it is perfect is redundant and meaningless.

      My contention is perfection is not an objectively existing state, and that god by it's creativity shows that it is not perfect because it has needs that require fulfillment. Not that that is a bad thing. I'm just saying it isn't a perfect thing.

      "Can God make 2+2=99? Not? Gotcha! God is incapable of doing something! I win!"

      I think that is a valid argument. I didn't point out that god can not do impossible things just to win. I did it to point out that limitations exist and omnipotence itself is therefore a meaningless word. Most Christians would agree if you say god can do anything at all, no matter what. But it is clear that there are limitations, and that those limitations by default negate the possibility of omnipotence, not just in a god but as a concept. The concept itself, without reference to a god,can be shown to be false by pointing out that there are always limitations.

      "The universe did not "self boot."

      That is debatable. Not from nothing, of course, but from energy, which may be eternal, and then you are right anyway. If you want to call energy god then I have no problem with that. I would do the same. The only issue you and I might have is whether or not energy is a conscious entity. Perhaps it is, but I have no reason to believe so.

      "Could the so-called "anger" of God be simply the effects of nature (including karma)? If you step off the roof of a tall building, you go splat! That's God "hating" you at the velocity of impact. This is not the human emotion of "hate" or "anger," but the natural consequence of our own actions in the fabric of the reality supposedly created by God."

      You are, I think, mixing two some what separate ideas together. If god is nature and not conscious, then it has no intent so no anger can be attributed to it. Cause and effect are task masters that demand compliance lest you fall off a roof and go splat. But if the god is a conscious being, then I fail to see how his anger can be shown to be love, or that he can be absolved of all responsibility for the suffering in the world. You can point to nature and say it does not punish though the consequences of your action may feel like it. But if a god created nature then he set the rules, so he is responsible for your suffering indirectly and directly. There is no moral reason one should not fall off a roof.

      " To know when someone will change their mind, is also pretty all knowing."

      That's true. And I think it was Augustine who said that if god is outside time and space he always experiences all times at once. But then he only knows what you will do because you have done it. That is not the concept of all knowing most people have. We all can know something because some one has done it. So gods special condition does not give him special power, it only seems to. Do you see what I mean? He is then really not all knowing in the traditional sense. And how can anyone know that god is outside time and space? It is not possible to know that as fact. It doesn't follow naturally, if you know what I mean.

      It is interesting you should choose Noah. I wish you great success with your book. Originally the story was Sumerian. Then it was used by the Babylonians in the Gilgamesh epic. The reason a particular god created the flood was sighted to have been that man had given up the sacrifice. The other gods disapproved of what he had done and he and they vowed it would never happen again. But the Noah character was warned by one of the gods that it was going to happen. He told others but they didn't believe him. In the Babylonian story they go farther and say that because Noah had re-instituted the sacrifice, he was made immortal. Have you read the original Sumerian version in translation, or the Gilgamesh epic?

      It was not a world wide flood according to the Sumerian version, it was just a flood of the civilized world as they knew it, and Noah in their story is a merchant who already has many animals on board his fleet of small boats tied together as one large one. Which makes an infinite amount of sense considering one large boat made of wood like the bible tells it would have broken apart under the stress. It wasn't till much later that man kind could make large boats.

      I have no issue with speculating. It's fun. But we can't know. With speculation there is always a way out. You can read anything in the bible, and spin it any way you like to mean anything you like. That is why in certain ways the fundamentalists are doing the right thing by reading it literally. I know that sounds strange coming from an atheist. I actually hate saying it. But if you can not rely on the word as written then it is open to all interpretations and spins. Again we are left with something that could mean anything and therefore it means nothing. I'm sure we could argue for hours on this point alone. ;)

      " Slarty, you place entirely too much emphasis on the physical bodies for you to have the needed understanding. Certain things cannot be seen while standing in that location. Loosen your grip a little and step back from that viewpoint. There might be other viewpoints which are a far better fit. I have found a few, but I'm still looking."

      That is the problem. There are always interpretations that will be a better fit. I have found that interpretation is not what we need to study. It is the patterns themselves. Those patterns can be discerned with logic. We see things very differently due to our own personal experience. That doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong. But it means in we are in different places in our understanding. For me, speculation can create a great model, but unless the model is shown to match the patterns of existence it is just a guess. I take this to all levels including science. I invest no belief in any interpretation of physics, any more than I do interpretations of the bible.

      "Perhaps part of the problem in discussing "God," is the insistence on thinking of Him as a separate being. Look in a mirror. That might be God looking back at you from behind those beautiful eyes. If you think purely on the physical level, you won't "get" this--ever! You have to start thinking outside the physical box."

      lol.. very interesting. What a pitiful god I would make. ;) I have looked outside the physical box and found nothing. Literally. That is why I am a materialist. I got here by being doing what you suggest. I just finished doing a hub on this subject tonight. It deals with enlightenment.

      I am at a point where I have found that to believe nothing opens one up to finding real answers. I don't mean disbelieve anything either. I mean hold no belief in the negative or the positive. If it is a fact I accept it, knowing that facts are not the last word on any subject. To believe in a fact is redundant. If it is not a fact it is speculation, and that deserves only to be treated as speculation, until evidence surfaces on its behalf.

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 

      7 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Pardon my impoliteness. I almost forgot my manners. Slarty, thanks for this opportunity to discuss these topics. A most interesting hub. Well done!

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 

      7 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      In your discussion with @Pcunix, 5 weeks ago, you posed the idea of a powerful being coming down to convince us he exists.

      But what if wisdom would not allow that? What if "proving God exists" with miracles and magic would prove to be counterproductive?

      I suppose it depends on the purpose of it all, right? If the purpose of humanity and civilization is the reawakening of the immortal children of God within each of us, then God dazzling us with magic tricks would feed ego which would strengthen the poison of the so-called "forbidden fruit"--the dichotomies of physical reality. God would be thwarting his own purpose and the reason why Yehoshua of Nazareth supposedly came to Earth. The miracles he used helped the few who were close, overcome their fear and uncertainty. The skeptics who saw the miracles merely wanted to stone him to death.

      Ego is an "I'm right" engine. What could ego do with such power? A lot of damage, and the child of God would remain in its catatonic state.

      Waking up as spiritual beings is not easy. It's extremely rare for one to do it on his own, like Gautama Siddhartha Buddha. Ego is why the Nazarene teacher thought so little of the righteous Pharisees. They were being "perfect" under the letter of the law, but they were feeding ego (the source of all evil), instead of pursuing the spiritual awakening. They were being right for all the wrong reasons.

      Because so many Christians argue so poorly, does not mean there is nothing to Christianity. Emperor Justinian helped to spoil the pot, tightening control on this powerful new religion. Religious freedom died under his rule and didn't re-emerge for a millennium. But such tyranny kept the religion strong. It persisted to a time when we could start to question things and to dig deeper for truth.

      Slarty, I don't have all the answers. Far from it. But I've seen such miracles which, I'm sure, only give me a taste of what's possible.

      So many people did not recognize Elijah when he returned (reincarnated) as John the Baptist. Even John the Baptist couldn't see it (or wouldn't admit to it).

      Some people think "faith" is the same as "belief," but it isn't. Belief is continuity-bound and "imperfect." It can be wrong and all too frequently is. True "faith" is something most people never see. This is the discontinuous state (the paramita, to use a Buddhist term) from which all creation comes. This is the state that Peter found, if only for a moment, when he forgot reason and walked on water with his master. This is the state I found in 1977, when for a moment, rush hour traffic opened up like Charleton Heston's portrayal of Moses parting the sea. Very interesting, indeed.

      Requiring proof to walk on water means you can never do it. Having true "faith" means that walking on water is effortless. Like being pregnant, you're either there are you are not. There is no 99.9999% faithful. Faith is the one-sided coin of perfect confidence. Doubt (skepticism) is the water on that fire.

      Logic is perfect, but only if you include all parameters.

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 

      7 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      [PART 2...]

      All Wise

      If you have children, is it wisdom to control everything your children do? Wouldn't it benefit them, instead, to have freedom to learn from their mistakes? My infant fell down, so he's not perfect, so I disown him. It depends on your definitions (perfection, wisdom, etc).

      It seems, in all of your arguments so far, you build a rigid measuring stick that does not take everything into account.

      The story of Noah is an interesting example. Here we have God supposedly regretting having created man, and wiping the face of Earth clean, but saving some specimens for repopulating the Earth. I'm writing a book on this one. The important question most seem to ignore: what did man do that was bad enough to warrant the Flood? Because God supposedly vowed never again to use the Flood, it would seem He was pleased with the result. But what was solved? Wickedness and violence have continued, growing ever more potent.

      If you look at this story from the limited viewpoint of mortal humans, it makes no sense at all. If you include the notion that God's children are not Homo sapiens bodies, but the sleeping immortals within, then wiping out a bunch of bodies might serve some higher purpose toward saving His children (not the bodies!). But saving for what? And from what? Ego, perhaps? Spiritual awakening is not possible without civilization, and something may have threatened the future of civilization. Could it be that the "man" with which God was displeased was not Homo sapiens?

      The timeline in Genesis is all off, but there are interesting clues to a timeline compatible with those of science. And this leads to a solution to explain the wisdom behind the Flood, if indeed it was a real, physical, worldwide inundation.

      All Love

      In Buddhism, we have something called the paramitas -- the perfections. The realm of creation is one of discontinuity (not disharmony, mind you). Just as forgiveness is a breaking with the bonds which hold one to resentment, creation is a breaking with the continuity of physical reality. Paramita love is such a perfection, discontinuous with the physical, continuous version of the love-hate dichotomy. In the physical realm, love is always tainted with some of the negative possibilities--just as the victim always holds a bit of the perpetrator inside, and the perpetrator strikes out because of the victim inside. Paramita love holds no such imperfection and is like the Zen one hand clapping or a one-sided coin. Such love is perfect and a discontinuity.

      Slarty, you place entirely too much emphasis on the physical bodies for you to have the needed understanding. Certain things cannot be seen while standing in that location. Loosen your grip a little and step back from that viewpoint. There might be other viewpoints which are a far better fit. I have found a few, but I'm still looking.

      All Just

      Could all of the symbology of the Bible reside above a deeper wisdom? I have found some pretty amazing things by being humble in my search. Possible answers to many supposed problems.

      Just as stepping off a tall building is foolish, if one intends suicide, so is any wrong action for which we naturally pay the consequences.

      Perhaps part of the problem in discussing "God," is the insistence on thinking of Him as a separate being. Look in a mirror. That might be God looking back at you from behind those beautiful eyes. If you think purely on the physical level, you won't "get" this--ever! You have to start thinking outside the physical box.


      Perhaps the Christian "God" can exist, but not in the form most (if not all) Christians perceive.

      When roughly two thousand cars opened up the center, West-bound lane on one of the busiest streets in the world in 1977, a miracle had occurred. Only seconds before, I had pictured that opening, and then "not knew" that picture.

      You had asked, how can God "not know?" My dear Slarty, "not know" is the trick of creational mechanics. It is what adds persistence to a creational discontinuity. And when someone knows the "truth" or "name" of something, that creation returns to that timeless discontinuity, losing its persistence (or dimension in the space-time continuum).

      There are many more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, dear Slarty, and in mine, as well. My adventure is just beginning. Finally!

    • lone77star profile image

      Rod Martin Jr 

      7 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      Another delightful discussion, Slarty.

      I'm a Christian, but I don't know the nature of "God" in its entirety. For all I know, God could be the aggregate of us (without the Homo sapiens and ego parts). For some Christians, though, this would be blasphemous! And yet Genesis says that we were created in God's image. And the Nazarene teacher reminded his enemies that "ye are gods." Interesting.

      I like the logic in your discussion, but I may have found some holes.

      Just as there are so many interpretations of the Bible, and only one can be right, there are many interpretations of the measuring rods you used against the concept of "God." Heck, it's possible that none of the Christian interpretations are right. And that's where humility is so important. All the best scientists have it. How can anyone discover anything if they already "know" the answer? Right?


      You're measuring "perfection" by the needs of an imperfect realm. But "imperfect" by whose definition? If a cup falls off your desk and breaks on the floor, the cup is now perfectly that cup broken. If someone suffers what they feel to be undeserved misfortune, that would seem to be an imperfection in their lives. But what if they had done that to someone else two lifetimes earlier? Karma seems a bitch when it bites, but it is perfect in the action-reaction realm of balance. But there is an even greater perfection to be found in karma: the opportunity to awaken.

      A crime boss who murders and steals his way to the top, then dies a quiet death of prosperity, does not seem perfectly fair to all the victims of that crime boss. (Maybe they were crime bosses, far earlier.) How does the crime boss find the softening of his heart to apply the Golden Rule? In the next life, when karma bites his ass, he asks, "Why is this happening to me?" There is his golden opportunity. The honest, humble searching for the answer to that question is the perfect result of his seemingly imperfect experience.

      Mortal "perfection" is an imperfect idea, but at the same time entirely perfect.


      Your initial question is full of problems: "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" Can God create something that is impossible to create? You're building a false limitation into the question. You're saying, can God create "inability." And yet, we experience inabilities all the time. And yet, the true hero overcomes such impossibilities.

      There are many such questions you could ask that prove nothing about a putative being which can supposedly create anything and everything. (And I dislike using broad generalities like these, as a rule.) Can God make 2+2=99? Not? Gotcha! God is incapable of doing something! I win! But look at the story of the loaves and fishes, where a few became many.

      If God exists, then He would be able to create anything. Take physical reality, for instance. That's a pretty fancy creation. This was not created by "nothing." The universe did not "self boot." And then again, maybe "nothing" did create everything. No "thing," but perhaps a non-physical intelligence. I have "seen" and "felt" such a non-physical intelligence--my own spiritual self. Could God be like that?

      Creating everything in the universe from a position of no-time and no-space (discontinuity) comes pretty close to my definition of omnipotent. I have experienced some of this omnipotence in a Miracle on Wilshire Boulevard. Discontinuous cause-and-effect (miracle).

      All Knowing

      Can questions be used to get the student to learn or perpetrators to face their crimes? Of course they can. So, why do you suspect God when he asks questions? Understanding the Bible is something most people have gotten wrong. And maybe no one has gotten it right, yet, including myself.

      Could the so-called "anger" of God be simply the effects of nature (including karma)? If you step off the roof of a tall building, you go splat! That's God "hating" you at the velocity of impact. This is not the human emotion of "hate" or "anger," but the natural consequence of our own actions in the fabric of the reality supposedly created by God.

      Slarty, you make some good points on "free will." Truly a conundrum, there. But look at this idea: if the knowledge of God is the intentions of all His subjects, then free will is still there, but also knowledge.

      If someone (God) knows the locations of every stone in the universe, every flower petal on the first moon of planet 4 of star HD 10180, I would be tempted to say "omniscient." This does not prevent things from changing. Otherwise the 4-dimensional fabric of reality would be little more than a moving "still life" (to use a painterly term). To also know the thoughts of every being in the universe (after all , we are all connected, right?), would be part of this omniscience. To know when someone will change their mind, is also pretty all knowing. Perhaps the hitch in this "perfection" of all knowingness is in the "not knowing" the direction of that change in advance. But this is a paradox from whose viewpoint? From God's viewpoint, if there is such a fellow (or aggregate group), such freedom of will is all the more interesting and a better reason for creating physical reality in the first place. That's where the fun is. The fact that such a being would know everything else sounds pretty perfect to me.

      [continued in part 2...]

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 years ago from Ottawa


      Right. And that is assuming they can show that their god exists and isn't just imagination and wishful thinking.

      Without them being able to do that, it isn't even a separate product of nature.

      But that is one of their points, isn't it? Even were their god to come to us they say we would deny it as a fraud or insane alien being. We just can't see it because we refuse to accept it. Our minds are closed to it.

      My argument is that certainly something powerful that came to us and claimed to be god would be suspect. Rightly so. But surely if it were all powerful and all knowing it would know how to convince us. We would simply know it was god just like we recognize our own mother or father. How could we not accept that? Trouble is, no being has ever even tried to tell me it is god, so the point is moot.

      Yes we need evidence for a god, just like we need evidence for big foot. To believe either exists without real evidence is just unfounded speculation.

      Christians seem to give major limitations to their god, in spite of saying it is capable of anything. They don't even know they do it. It's one of the major contradictions of Christianity. Their god can do anything, except if we don't want it to. It's rather funny.

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 

      7 years ago from SE MA

      What I say is that any creature they think is a god must, in fact, be a simple and natural product of whatever physics produced it. Given that, if it claims godhood, it must either be up to no good (fraud) or be insane. I think that is important to understand (for theists, of course).

    • Slarty O'Brian profile imageAUTHOR

      Ron Hooft 

      7 years ago from Ottawa


      I agree for the most part. But what is a god? Strong atheism says there is no god and none is possible. But how can anyone know? I am an atheist but I don't know that no god can or does exit. I lack belief that such a thing does exist. Just like I lack belief that spaghetti monsters from Mars exist. I have yet to see evidence that they do.

      Gods have been defined by thousands of people over time. Can we say none of them exist with certainty? Probably not. But my intent in writing this hub was to show that the christian god, at least as described by christinaity, cannot exist. We can do that. We can do it for most gods.

      But you go on to say something more powerful than us may exist or even a creator of our universe may exist. And that is the definition most people will accept as god. That which produced us as human beings, is the simplest definition of god.

      To me, it is obvious something produced us. See my hub on the ontological argument. I see it as being nature, not a conscious entity that cares about what we as individuals do. No. It isn't something to be worshiped in the way christians worship their god. But it is awe inspiring. Life can be full of wonder, even if it isn't always wonderful.

      So yes, probably nature is effectively god if we define god as that which produced us. Not only would it be a natural product of physics, it would be physics. It would be the process of existence.

      But without defining what we mean by god, the word is meaningless. What is a god? I don't know. All I know is that I lack the belief christians and theists in general have, that one does exist. So far no definition of a god other than that which produced us, and I am careful not to say created because that has not been determined, makes any sense or can be proven to exist.

      Reading some of your posts I think we are in pretty close agreement.

    • Pcunix profile image

      Tony Lawrence 

      7 years ago from SE MA

      I don't accept that any "god" can exist. Something more powerful than us, certainly, even a creator of this Universe, fine, but any such creature would have to be a natural product of the physics that gives it existence. The closest you can get is "effectively a god" - which might be something to be wary of, but certainly not something to worship.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)