Impossibility of God's Existence

Summary

Naema Alim delivers an in-depth critique of the notion of a divine creator in her piece "Impossibility of God's Existence." The transcript outlines philosophical challenges to the concept of creation ex nihilo (creation from nothing), highlighting logical and mathematical contradictions inherent in the idea. Throughout, Alim tackles religious perspectives by arguing that an immutable and perfect God is inconsistent with the observed imperfections of the universe. She also challenges the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent deity in light of pervasive evil and suffering, and questions the fairness and justice of divine revelation being limited to select individuals or groups.

Highlights

• Naema Alim argues against creation ex nihilo, noting the logical impossibility of something arising from nothing. 📚
• The inconsistency of an immutable God with an evolving universe is examined. 🔄
• Alim debates the nature of imperfection in the universe and its implications for an all-perfect deity. 🌎
• The problem of evil is scrutinized, questioning the coexistence of suffering with a benevolent God. 🚫
• Religious diversity challenges the fairness of divine communication and justice. 🔍

Key Takeaways

• Creation from nothing is logically and mathematically impossible, challenging the idea of divine creation out of nothing. 🤔
• The universe's imperfections suggest an imperfect creator, contradicting the notion of a perfect God. 🌌
• An omni-benevolent and omnipotent God is incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering. 😈
• The selective revelation of God through religion suggests a lack of justice or power. ✨
• Naema Alim invites reflection on the rationality of believing in a divine creator given these philosophical contradictions. 💭

Overview

Naema Alim's exploration into the impossibility of God's existence presents a thought-provoking argument against the concept of a divine creator. One of her primary points is the difficulty in accepting the idea that the universe could arise from nothing—a principle that contravenes basic logical and mathematical laws. Alim employs these disciplines to question the traditional religious narrative of divine creation, encouraging a deeper examination of what constitutes creation itself.

Another significant element of Alim's argument revolves around the perfection of God versus the observable imperfections within the universe. She posits that a truly perfect being would not produce an imperfect creation, suggesting a fundamental discord between the claimed nature of God and the world around us. This issue extends into a discussion on divine immutability versus the inherent change and evolution seen within the natural order.

Alim further tackles the perennial problem of evil, questioning how an all-powerful and all-benevolent deity could coexist with the vast array of suffering and injustice present in the world. Moreover, she examines the selective nature of divine revelation across various religions, proposing that this inconsistency reflects on the possible lack of divine justice or an otherwise hidden motive behind divine silence.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 03:00: The Concept of Creation The chapter titled 'The Concept of Creation' explores the idea of God as a creator. It includes a discussion on the term 'creating' and questions what is truly meant by this concept in relation to God.
• 03:00 - 08:00: The Eternal God and Creation The chapter titled 'The Eternal God and Creation' discusses the concept of creation in comparison to human constructs. It begins by explaining that creation, in its purest form, isn't just about assembling pre-existing materials. Using the example of building a house, it emphasizes that the house wasn't created in the true sense; rather, it was assembled using existing elements through experimental principles or rules. This analogy might be used to distinguish divine creation from human creation, suggesting that divine creation implies bringing something into existence from nothing, whereas human creation typically involves restructuring or reordering materials that are already present.
• 08:00 - 12:00: God as Cause and Effect The chapter delves into the philosophical and existential concepts surrounding creation and making, drawing a distinction between what it means to create something versus merely making it. The author acknowledges the challenge in explaining creation, which is described as something beyond mere construction, an act that cannot be easily defined or explained, and endeavors to explore these abstract ideas.
• 12:00 - 18:00: The Immutability of God This chapter discusses the concept of the immutability of God, focusing on the idea that God, as a creator, brings something out of nothing. It emphasizes the miraculous nature of creation, where from the void, existence is summoned. The discussion challenges the reader to grasp and accept the notion that creation emerges from nothingness, a concept that may be difficult for human reason to fully comprehend.
• 18:00 - 23:00: Perfection and Imperfection The chapter 'Perfection and Imperfection' explores the concept of creating something out of nothing, using the example of a mathematician with a blackboard filled with zeros. It illustrates the idea of manipulating nothingness (zeros) through mathematical operations like addition and multiplication to generate something meaningful.
• 23:00 - 31:00: The Concept of Evil The chapter 'The Concept of Evil' discusses the idea that creation cannot come from nothing. It uses a mathematical analogy, stating that adding zeros together cannot produce a single unit or entity. Therefore, creating something from nothing is mathematically and logically impossible, as nothingness will always yield nothing.
• 31:00 - 35:00: Multiplicity of Religions and Justice In the chapter titled 'Multiplicity of Religions and Justice,' the discussion revolves around the concept of creation and its impossibility from a logical and mathematical perspective. It states that creation from nothing is not only illogical but also mathematically impossible. The text suggests that the concept of a creative act stems from mystical and religious expressions, implying that creation is more of a metaphysical or spiritual belief rather than a logical one.

Impossibility of God's Existence Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 you speak about God the creator Your claim that God is a creator is inadmissible What do we understand by the word creating does it mean perhaps
• 00:30 - 01:00 to take some scattered separate but existing materials and by utilizing certain experimental principles or applying certain rules bring them together regroup fix coordinate them in such a way as to make something out of them can we say for instance that the house has been created no the house was not created It has been
• 01:00 - 01:30 built Has a piece of furniture just like the chair you're sitting on right now been created no It has been made What does this to create mean to create Verily I find myself in difficulty in explaining that which cannot be explained in defining that which cannot be defined Nevertheless I shall try to
• 01:30 - 02:00 make myself understood in one way or the other To create is to extract something from nothing and with this very nothing do something Wow This is to call the void Okay This is to call the void into sudden being Now I think that we cannot find a single person endowed with reason who could conceived of think of and admit that
• 02:00 - 02:30 something can be extracted from nothing that nothing can be turned into something Just take a mathematician Okay we give him a large blackboard and then now beg him to write some zeros zeros zeros zeros and more zeros And we ask him okay add and multiply to his heart's
• 02:30 - 03:00 content Let him indulge with all the operations of mathematics He will never succeed in extracting one single unit from all these zeros So how can you think of creation out of nothing this is mathematically impossible logically impossible Nothing is just nothing With nothing you can do nothing And that famous apherism
• 03:00 - 03:30 exhils from nothing remains an expression of manifest certainty and evidence There's no such a thing as creation out of nothing It is illogically impossible mathematically impossible That creative act is an admissible and is an absurdity to create then is a mystical religious expression which can be of
• 03:30 - 04:00 value only in the eyes of those persons just like you who are pleased to believe that which cannot be comprehended and on which faith exerts an imposition Conversely proportional to the lack of comprehension If you cannot understand if you cannot comprehend you just accept and impose some
• 04:00 - 04:30 conversional something due to the lack of your comprehension But to any intelligent man to any observer for whom words have value only in the measure that they represent a reality or a possibility to create is an expression of void sense Hypothesis of the creator is then lost to reason Ah the being creator does not exist He
• 04:30 - 05:00 cannot exist If God does exist okay he must be eternal active necessary Then let me assume that if he is eternal active and necessary he must be eternally active and eternally necessary Consequently he could not have been at
• 05:00 - 05:30 any moment inactive or unnecessary This shows finally that he has never created To say that God is not eternally active is to admit that he has not always been active and he became so that he began to be active that before being so he was not since his activity was manifested
• 05:30 - 06:00 through his act of creation It is the same as admitting that during the billions of years or only that God knows when possibly preceding creation this God was inactive You say that God is eternally active So what was he doing before creation to say that God is not eternally necessary is to admit that he has not always been
• 06:00 - 06:30 necessary That he became so that he began to be so as a necessary being That before being necessary he was not so Since the creation proclaims and testifies to the necessity of God we must also admit that during the billion years or only that God knows preceding creation that God was
• 06:30 - 07:00 useless We must admit then that at all times God has been active and necessary But then he could not have created since the idea of creation absolutely implies the idea of a beginning Something that begins could not have eternally existed Either God is not eternally active eternally necessary and in this
• 07:00 - 07:30 case he became so with creations If it is so God therefore before creation did not possess the two attributes of being eternally active did not possess the attribute of necessity Such a god was incomplete or a fragment I should say of a god Nothing more And to become active and necessary
• 07:30 - 08:00 to complete himself that he must create or God is eternally active and eternally necessary and in this case he has been creating eternally The creation has always been going on The universe has never begun It existed all the time It is eternal like God It is God himself He is lost in it in the everex expanding
• 08:00 - 08:30 universe in the everpresent act of creation If this is so the universe never had any beginning Therefore in the first case God before creation was neither active or necessary He was incomplete that is imperfection In the second case God being eternally active and eternally necessary he has not become so and
• 08:30 - 09:00 therefore he has not created There is no effect without a cause Now the universe is an effect Well I may agree then this effect has a cause and it is this cause which we call God Okay Let it be so that you say that this cause is that God you claim about Let it
• 09:00 - 09:30 be so Listen to this attentively If it is evident that there is no effect without a cause it is also plainly evident that there is no cause without an effect There is not and cannot be a cause without an effect Evidently I say again there is no cause without an effect and there cannot be a cause without an effect When you say cause you say effect The idea of a cause
• 09:30 - 10:00 necessarily implies and immediately calls for the idea of effect Otherwise the cause could be a cause of nothing and it would be as absurd as an effect of nothing would be Therefore it is well agreed that there is no cause without an effect Now then you say that the cause of the universe effect is God Therefore it is proper to say that the effect of the God cause is the universe It is impossible to separate the effect from the cause
• 10:00 - 10:30 But it is equally impossible to separate the cause from the effect Now then again you say that the cause of the universe effect is God Therefore again I say it is proper logical to say that the effect of the God cause is the universe Finally you affirm that the God cause is eternal I therefore conclude that the universe effect is al is also equally eternal because to an eternal cause must necessarily correspond to an
• 10:30 - 11:00 eternal effect Otherwise during the billions years or so only God knows when it all started which perhaps preceded the creation of the universe God would have been a cause without an effect an impossibility a cause of nothing an absurdity Consequently God being eternal the universe is also saw If the universe
• 11:00 - 11:30 is eternal it means it has never been created Is that clear if God has created it is impossible to admit that he performed this grand act without having been determined by a prime reason What can this reason be what motive could have induced him to create by what incentive could he have been moved what desire had be taken him
• 11:30 - 12:00 what was the prefix design what aim did he want to reach what was the proposed end let us press the question press it even further Let us delve deeply into the problem and let us examine God before creation Let us take this God in his own absolute sense Self-sufficient and perfectly wise happy powerful glorious Nothing can improve
• 12:00 - 12:30 his wisdom Nothing can increase his happiness Nothing can strengthen his power Such a God cannot experience any desire because his happiness is already infinite He cannot look toward any aim because nothing is lacking in his perfection As you claim that he is a perfect being He cannot formulate any plans because nothing can increase his power He is omnipotent as you say He cannot be determined to want anything because he has no need for anything
• 12:30 - 13:00 There is only one logical and unrelenting conclusion If God has created he has done so without a motive without an end without knowing why Do you know dear seminarians future priests where the consequences of such a conclusion would forcibly take you to this point the difference between the actions of a man endowed with reason and those of a man struck by insanity that
• 13:00 - 13:30 which indicates the responsibility of the sane man and the irresponsibility of the insane man This is the fact that the sane can always know the motives which have prompted and determined his action In the case of an important deed whose consequences might involve serious responsibilities it suffices for the sane man to make a thorough examination of his own conscience as you may call it
• 13:30 - 14:00 to reconstruct in his mind the series of events that took place to leave again this past hour so that he can discern the mechanism of the movements which determine his actions He can evaluate He always succeeds in discovering those reasons How about the insane person this insane person on the contrary acts without knowing why And after having
• 14:00 - 14:30 completed his action no matter how full of consequences he cannot account for them You can press him with as many questions as you can think of But this poor insane man will only babble few disconnected phrases and you will never succeed in pulling him out of his incoherences Therefore think of this What
• 14:30 - 15:00 distinguishes the deeds of a sane person from those of an insane one is the fact that the deeds of the sane person can be explained have a reason for being Their cause and scope their origin the end can be determined While those of an insane person have no explanation have no apparent reason for being The insane himself is unable to determine the scope and the end of his own deeds Are you
• 15:00 - 15:30 getting this so well then if God has created without an aim without reason without a motive because that motive will make him consequently mutable he has acted like an insane man And that's creation is an act of insanity If God exists as you claim he is immutable He does not change He cannot change As simple as that While in nature
• 15:30 - 16:00 everything goes through modification and say metamorphosis transformation change and nothing is definite Okay That is something we find in nature Everything changes God a fixed and uh immutable point through time and space is not subject to any modification He does not and cannot know any change whatsoever for he is immutable And then we claim that this is
• 16:00 - 16:30 the God who created the universe Okay this God is today what he was yesterday and he will be tomorrow as he is today Think as you may of a God in the foregone centuries or think of him in the centuries to come He is constantly identical to himself God is immutable
• 16:30 - 17:00 I claim that if he has created he is not immutable If I decide that I want something I change It is evident that a change that has brought about this desire to want has taken place within me If I want today or if any one of you want today that which
• 17:00 - 17:30 I did not want yesterday it is because certain circumstances around me certain situations around me or within me determined that wanting I want something This new one thing within me constitutes a modification through and through It is certain that this is double modification Wanting and acting I want
• 17:30 - 18:00 this I act upon it And this is especially notable and mark when the point in question is of a more serious resolution and more important action Your God has created You say let it be so but then he has changed twice Why do I say so first when he took a determination to create and secondly
• 18:00 - 18:30 when putting in execution this determination and that is acting upon his determination to create he performed a creative act If he changed twice he is not immutable And if he is not immutable wait he is not God So there's no point of claiming that there is a God who is immutable because a god who is not immutable is not a
• 18:30 - 19:00 god The immutable being could not have created Can imperfection generate perfection i'm sure that you would answer no without hesitation or fear of erring Well I like where I say that perfection cannot determine imperfection Here again between perfection and imperfection there is not only a difference in degree and quantity but a
• 19:00 - 19:30 difference of quality and nature an essential fundamental irreducible absolute antithesis Perfection determining the universe which is so imperfect How could it be perfection is absolute Imperfection is relative Compared with perfection which is all that which is relative and contingent is but nothing
• 19:30 - 20:00 Compared with perfection relativity has no value and does not exist to establish any relation whatsoever between that which is relative and that which is absolute Such a relation is impossible It is therefore impossible that perfection should determine imperfection in the same way that it is impossible that pure spirit determines the material universe There
• 20:00 - 20:30 is a direct relation a fatal and somehow mathematical one between the work and the artifificer The value of the work is measured by the value of the artifificer As you will know a tree by the fruit it bears so will you judge the artificer by his work Now then nature is beautiful The universe is magnificent You know I as much as anybody admire I also admire the
• 20:30 - 21:00 splenders of of this everlasting natural spectacle Nevertheless no matter how enthusiastic I am about the nature's charms whatever may be the my homage to it I cannot say that the universe is perfect I I would not dare to say that this universe is irreachable faultless You know nobody dares to hold such an opinion The universe is then an
• 21:00 - 21:30 imperfect work I can consequently say that between the work and its author there is always a rigorous strict mathematical relation in that the universe is on imperfect work Its author therefore cannot be but imperfect Simple I can yet pursue a different line of reasoning Either God is not the
• 21:30 - 22:00 artificer of the universe or if you persist in affirming that he is and the universe being an imperfect work and then your God is also imperfect the conclusion remains the same Perfection cannot determine imperfection This idea of a grand designer of a governor rejects denies the very concept
• 22:00 - 22:30 of a perfect creator If we are to understand that strictly speaking one can believe in either a perfect creator or a necessary governor It seems impossible that anybody can reasonably believe in both at the same time believing in a perfect creator and at the same time believing in a necessary governor A perfect creator categorically
• 22:30 - 23:00 excludes a necessary governor and a necessary governor categorically excludes a perfect creator To proclaim the perfection of the creator is at the same time to confess the uselessness of a necessary governor To proclaim the necessity of this governor is to deny the perfection of the creator In other words we can believe in the perfection of one or in the necessity of the other
• 23:00 - 23:30 but it is unreasonable to believe in the perfection of both If this governor exists it is because his presence his surveillance his intervention are indispensable The necessity of a governor is a challenge and an insult to the creator himself who we claim to be perfect and that his perfection determines the perfection of his creation His intervention simply shows
• 23:30 - 24:00 the clumsiness and the incapacity and the impotence of this creator God Thus we say this governor this grand designer denies the perfection of this creator Here it is Evil exist All sensitive beings know its pain God who knows everything cannot ignore it Then one of these two things is true Either
• 24:00 - 24:30 God would like to suppress evil and cannot do it or God could suppress evil and does not want to do so In the first instance God appears sympathetic toward our sorrows and our trials and would want to destroy evil so that happiness would reign on earth Right in this case God shows himself as as as good but cannot destroy evil Therefore he is not omnipotent In the
• 24:30 - 25:00 second stance God um could destroy evil since um he is omnipotent His willingness to destroy evil should suffice But he does not want to do so Therefore he is not infinitely good In one instance God is powerful but not good In the other instance he is good but not powerful But certainly evil exists Let me explain
• 25:00 - 25:30 First of all we need to differentiate between moral and physical evils Under the physical evil uh we can enumerate u sickness pains accidents old AIDS um trail of infirmities pandemic death cruel loss of loved ones loss of properties We have famine volcanic eruptions tsunamis earthquakes typhoons a large number of people whose life is
• 25:30 - 26:00 an endless chain of sorrows and afflictions and uh who would have been better off had they not been born at all Who would dare say that man is responsible for this physical natural evil who doesn't understand that if God has created the universe if he has set for it rigorous governing laws that if physical evil is the sum of the fatalities resulting from the normal play of the forces of nature the
• 26:00 - 26:30 responsible author of these calamities is undoubtedly he who has created the universe He who governs it it is indisputable God who governs the universe is alone responsible for physical evil This should suffice I maintain that moral evil is as much attributable to God as physical evil is
• 26:30 - 27:00 In fact if God exist he must have preided over the organization of both the physical and the moral worlds He's the governor He's the designer Man although victim of the consequent physical and moral evils is not responsible for both What are we we are what God wanted us to be For he has created us only to his satisfaction God has given us senses
• 27:00 - 27:30 intellectual faculties Yes The means of comprehension hearing reasoning and acting He has foreseen wanted and determined our conditions of life He has pre-established predetermined our needs our wishes our passions our thoughts our hopes The entire human mechanism is what he wanted us to be He has conceived and regulated it as he is governing us at
• 27:30 - 28:00 this very moment He has conceived and regulated it in its details the environment in which we move about everything he governs He has prepared the circumstances which in every moment will affect our will and determine our actions Man's freedom is proportionate to the degree of independence that we should enjoy He who is completely independent is completely free He who is
• 28:00 - 28:30 completely dependent is completely a slave and has no freedom at all If God exists man in relation to God is placed in in the second of these two positions Man is in the position of a slave Man in his state of slavery you know fully dependent on God cannot have any responsibility whatsoever Man fully dependent on God as being governed cannot have any responsibility
• 28:30 - 29:00 whatsoever If he is irresponsible he cannot be judged I cannot be judged Every judgment implies reward or punishment But the deeds of an irresponsible being having no moral value escape all the sanctions So why judge me the deeds of an irresponsible being might be useful or detrimental morally However they are neither good nor bad It is impossible to either
• 29:00 - 29:30 punish or reward these irresponsible creatures being governed absolutely governed by God Man fully dependent on God As being governed cannot have any responsibility whatsoever If he is irresponsible he cannot be judged I cannot be judged God governor or providence is and must be infinitely good infinitely
• 29:30 - 30:00 merciful The existence of hell however proves that he is not Since God is good he could admit all of us into heaven after our debts right and be satisfied with the trials and tribulation we undergo on earth You know since God is just he could have admit to heaven those of us who are worthy and refuse admission to the perverse ones But rather than damn the disobedient the
• 30:00 - 30:30 unbelievers go to hell He could mercifully just destroy them after death If he is truly eternally good if he is truly merciful he can simply destroy these souls rather than have these souls suffer eternally Well then the Christian God who is supposed to be the God of piety forgiveness indulgence goodness and mercy tosses and forever some of his
• 30:30 - 31:00 own children into this dreadful abode spiked with the cruel tortures and ineffable torments suffering What a good and merciful father in heaven The words of the scripture for many be called but few chosen and if I am not mistaken the number of chosen ones will be small and that of the dumbed large This is so
• 31:00 - 31:30 cruel and in fact monsters that many attempts have been made to change and modify its meaning It doesn't matter Hell exists And it is evident that regardless of the number the condemned will suffer these uh atrocious tortures Hellbears prove that God is neither good nor merciful The existence of a merciful God is incompatible with the existence of
• 31:30 - 32:00 hell Either there is no hell or God is not infinitely good and merciful You choose We have so much religions right when we assume the multiplicity of religions this simply proves that this God is lacking in both power and justice It is doubtless that every one of these religions claims for itself the right to
• 32:00 - 32:30 represent and possess the only true authentic and disputable and having a unique god This would imply that the rest of the gods are say bootlegged Okay false ridiculous deserving to be dutifully combed and destroyed Those religions simply prove the existence of none because it certifies that God lacks power and justice You know a powerful God could have spoken to all as easily
• 32:30 - 33:00 as to a few He could have revealed himself to all instead of to a few He could have done that You know he could speak to a multitude as easily as he could speak to a small group if he chose to speak to humanity to reveal himself to confide his plans to them to indicate his will and let his laws be known He could have spoken to all of us to all of humanity rather than to a handful of
• 33:00 - 33:30 privileged ones That is injustice Why only select a few if he spoke only to some it was because he could not speak to all This being so I accuse him of impotence Where this accusation does not apply I accuse him of injustice What would you think of this God who reveals himself to some and at the same time hides himself from others what would you
• 33:30 - 34:00 think of this God who speaks to some and remains silent towards others do not forget that his representatives the priests the bishops affirm that he is the father and that all of us without discrimination are the beloved children of this father who reigns in heaven What would you think of this father in heaven who to some of his children reveals himself in full sparkling splendor and
• 34:00 - 34:30 for others remain encircled in complete darkness that is injustice What would you think of this of this father in heaven who while exacting worship reverence adoration from all his children lets only a few chosen ones understand the words of truth and deliberately refuses the same favor to others That is injustice And if you maintain that such a father in heaven is a good and a just one
• 34:30 - 35:00 eternally good eternally just one do not blame me for holding a diverse opinion This multiplicity of religions proclaims that God lacks power and justice The multiplicity of gods proves after all that none exists Oh Jesus King of mercy we only trust in you