The Royal Brat

And so another British royal brat has been hatched (July 2013) and inflicted onto the world at large. Given the amount of interest and coverage (way more information than we need to know by the way), you’d think it was the return of the Messiah (or Quetzalcoatl or Zeus). In fact the second coming of Christ probably wouldn’t rate as highly a newsworthy and human interest event as the first coming of the new (probably not improved) royal brat. Why all the hype is absolutely beyond me. It’s just another brat conceived in the usual way and hatched in the usual way and who will scream (cry) and spew and burp and crap its diapers and stink like any other newborn baby brat. I think any woman who has ever dropped a bundle (or two) onto the world stage should demand equal TV time, equally adoring crowds, equal number of 50-page woman’s’ magazine spreads, equality in front page newspaper headlines (for a solid week) and have every, or nearly every, country, head of state, and government lavish her and her brat(s) with gifts galore. I mean, apart from the supersaturation media coverage, it’s obscene when a couple worth millions and millions gets baby gifts enough to fill an average house just because they assume divine right, had a roll in the hay, and hatched out a brat. Who needs this? You’d really think the world would get its priorities sorted out. If the birth of yet another royal brat is all it takes to keep the human race enthralled, then the human race is in Big Trouble.  

An Abstract Idealized Deity

There are those philosophers who are religiously inclined who have tried to conjure up their idealized version of a deity – God for all practical purposes and have been doing so ever since Methuselah was in diapers.   However, versions of God as represented by them aren’t really the Biblical God. Rather, their God is the ideal abstraction of God or the philosophical concept of God. So any similarity between their abstractions and the attributes given God of the Old Testament is purely a matter of coincidence. No matter – either way it’s all nonsense. 

God is many different things to many different people. God is everywhere (omnipresent); God is Mother Nature; God is love; God is the creator; God is dead; God doesn’t exist; God was an ancient astronaut; God is all-knowing (omniscient); God is all-powerful (omnipotent); God works in mysterious ways; etc. Whole books have explored the issue going back, well ever since humans could think and express their ideas on paper, or carve them in stone, or whatever. However, many of these abstract and idealised and philosophical versions of God (often contradictory) usually bear no relationship to the God of the Bible, or specifically God of the Old Testament.

I’m not exactly sure what an abstract idealized concept of God is supposed to achieve, apart from being an intellectual exercise like trying to put a numerical value on angels’ chinwagging on a pinhead, but it has nothing to do with putting bums on church pews.

God is an immaterial being who doesn’t exist in space or in time. That is a common Godly attribute, but one which is absolutely nonsense*. If God creates something that’s energetic and physical (possessing energy and matter) then God has to be something that’s energetic and physical in order to do that; that being creating that which is made of matter and is running on or off energy. You can’t create something from nothing that is immaterial or create something by nothing that’s immaterial. If God is therefore a physical and energetic something, then God must exist in space and in time since all material things (matter and energy), including a material creator and a material creation, exist in space and time. If God speaks, for example, God must be physical and possess energy. 

But the Bible provides ample examples of God existing in space and time starting with the creation itself (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2). Wasn’t the creation once dated in fact to 4004 BCE? A date is a location in time! If God talked to Moses via a burning bush, then God existed in space and in time – at a specific point in space and at a specific point in time. The goes ditto for events in the Garden of Eden and ditto anywhere and at anytime the Bible recounts some event where God did something; where God strutted His stuff, like in ancient Egypt and all those events related in Exodus.

Another variation on that theme is that God is everywhere. Well, God was somewhere, not everywhere when He was having a go at Adam and Eve! If you are physical, you cannot be everywhere at the same time.

God also has to be physical since He has a physical home turf (Heaven) and sits on a physical object, a throne – so God exists in space and occupies space.

If God is physical, and possesses energy, and expends energy, and there’s no real wriggle room there, then God is subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics – entropy. God may be eternal, God may be immortal, but God still has to refuel (i.e. – eat presumably) and by implication, God has to go to the bathroom! God also needs His sleep, or at least rest, as per that seventh day of creation.

God is unchanging is another Godly attribute some religious philosophers associate with Him. Well, if God is composed of matter and energy, if God exists in space and time, and if God is subject to entropy, then God can not be unchanging. If God rested on the seventh day, well, that’s change. In fact God didn’t do or perform the exact same operations each and every day in Genesis 1 and 2. So that too is change. In fact God changed His mind, creating animals before man in Genesis 1; man before the animals in Genesis 2. God was also willing to change His mind when it came to Sodom and Gomorrah – that’s obviously contemplating change even if S&G still got zapped. .

God is eternal is yet another philosophical given. That God is eternal is consistent with the Bible giving promise to life everlasting or life eternal. However, the concept of eternal, forever, or infinity is fraught with paradoxical dangers. Since the Universe is a finite 13.7 billion years old, that would imply that God pre-existed the Universe, which is alleged to have created all of space, time, matter and energy. Okay, that’s consistent too since if God created the Universe, God must have predated the Universe (which negates the claim that the Big Bang was the first cause that created time, space, matter and energy; there must have been a before the Big Bang). But the issue arises, if you are eternal, and thus have already existed for an infinite amount of time, then what changed in God’s circumstances to have brought about the creation of the Universe, or rather why the ‘all of a sudden’ “I think I’ll do this” when for an infinite period prior to your creation you had no plans to do this, yet you are apparently all-knowing, so presumably an eternity before you created the Universe you knew you would do so, yet bided your time and twiddled your thumbs for really no apparent logical reason. Maybe God was of that common human frame of mind: It should be done; it shall be done; it will be done - tomorrow.

Another variation on that theme is that God is timeless. If time is God’s way of preventing everything happening at once, then if you’re God, everything does happen simultaneously since by being timeless, or in a state of timelessness, there’s nothing to stop all things happening simultaneously.

God apparently is pure perfection. God doesn’t screw things up. Ha! His creation of the human species was the biggest screw-up of all time! God Himself acknowledged His screw-up with the 40 day and 40 night rain hence flood event). Even if you put the initial blame on Adam and Eve and not on (an apparently all-knowing the future) God (who knew what Adam and Eve would do before-the-fact) He still enacts miracles in order to correct His mistakes. If God had ensured an adequate supply of loaves-and-fishes in the first damn place, there wouldn’t have been any need for waving the magic miracle loaves-and-fishes wand. 

A common attribute is that God is all-knowing (omniscient) and that He knows the future. But if God knows the future, what was the point of sending Moses and Aaron to Egypt to get the (unnamed) pharaoh to “Let My People Go” when God knew perfectly well He would ultimately have to do the hard yakka Himself and kick ass. It was all wasted breath. By the by, that’s an excellent example (along with the flood of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah) that God is anything but all-loving. Speaking of the flood, what was the point in creating all of humanity in the first place when the all-knowing God knew He was going to have to drown nearly the whole bloody lot of them a few generations on down the track! Creating humanity was just wasted effort. 

Another common trait given to God is that He is all-powerful (omnipotent). That too is nonsense. He maybe more powerful than a speeding locomotive; faster than a speeding bullet; able to leap tall buildings at a single bound, and He’s certainly up in the sky. However, there’s this paradox: can God create a rock so heavy not even He could lift it? If not, He’s not all powerful; if so He’s not all powerful. It’s a no-win situation. More relevant might be an observation, since God is physical, and presumably subject to the laws of the Universe, could God ever escape from inside a cosmic Black Hole? 

Speaking of those universal laws, one Godly attribute is that God is the creator of all physical laws, principles and relationships, but God is also a miracle worker and can override those laws, principles and relationships (God’s get out of His Black Hole jail card). In other words, God is also a miracle worker. That at least conforms to some Biblical events (like loaves-and-fishes) but it is also nonsense, or at least illogical. Miracles (if they exist) are God’s correction fluid (whiteout) – assuming God exists. If existence is affirmed on both counts that actually makes a mockery of an all-knowing, all-powerful supernatural deity since it would have been logical and preferable to have set in train the necessary conditions that would have negated the need for a later miracle. For example, don’t bother to raise the dead; rather ensure they don’t snuff it in the first place

Lastly, and this is my philosophical contribution to Godly attributes, God is naked as a newborn babe. Despite many references in the Bible of God talking to someone, Adam and Eve, Cain, Jacob, Jonah, Moses, etc. we never get an actual description of what God looks like. He speaks in a cloud or as a burning bush. All images of God, artworks, are of the human imagination. So, what did God really look like and why was He ashamed to actually show His face (something true unto this very day). Perhaps God doesn’t want to be seen because He was starkers – absolutely naked – and perhaps, assuming some mortal actually saw God, well no one dares mention the ‘emperor’ who has no clothes. If humans were made in God’s image, and God was ashamed of His nudity (as Adam and Eve were ashamed of their lack of clothing post their nibbling on a forbidden snack), then perhaps that accounts for our reluctance in most public environments to show off our birthday suits.

By the by, this is not meant to be an endorsement that a supernatural and Biblical God actually exists (IMHO He doesn’t), only that the logic of some so-called professional religious philosophers is sadly lacking by not taking into consideration texts that billions of people have and had defined as the absolute and definitive description of Godly attributes. Maybe those religious pie-in-the-sky philosophers couldn’t get a real job in the real world and had to rely on tossing around abstract concepts of godliness as well as juggling those angels and pinheads.

* For an example, here’s an incredible statement by academic philosopher Gerard J. Hughes: “Plainly, God cannot do things which are impossible for an immaterial being, such as walking, speaking, or exerting physical force on things.” [Varghese, Roy Abraham (Editor); Great Thinkers On Great Questions; Oneworld, Oxford; 1998; p.223.]