is not a day that a new calamity does not hit a group of people,
destroying their lives and bringing much pain and misery. Earthquakes,
floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, plagues and incurable diseases every day
claim their own share of devastations and deaths. "Where is
God?" is the unheard cry of the victims of these “acts of God”
God as described in the Semitic religions, is a compassionate, omnipotent,
all hearing all seeing god. If that were true, then a god, who witnesses
the suffering of his creatures and does not respond to their cry for help,
is an unjust, callous, and cruel god. Thousands of children are dying
every day around the world by draughts, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and
other natural disasters or as we call them the "acts of God".
The victims of these natural “holocausts”
cry in desperation, pray with anguish, weep in silence, yet God does not
care or is unaware that they need help. What god is this God? Where is his
justice? What happened to his claim of being the Most Compassionate, the
This very fact proves:
a) God is not hearing the cry of his creatures,
b) he is incapable of helping them or
c) he is a sadistic merciless, ruthless, tyrant that enjoys watching the
suffering of his creatures just as Roman Emperors enjoyed watching people being devoured by lions
or killed in coliseums.
If this is the god of this universe, I want no part of it. I abhor a god
who is less compassionate than me and therefore inferior to me; who does
not feel the pain of his children the way I feel; who cares less of their
suffering than I do. If this is the God, then perhaps it is time that we,
the mortal humans, send a messenger to him teaching him some of our
humanistic values. We could teach him a lesson of Justice, a word of
compassion, tell him about helping those that are in need, rescuing those
who are in danger, soothing the pain of those who are suffering, saving
the world from disease, pain and unnecessary calamities. We probably could
even help him to redesign the world. If I was chosen to be a messenger to
God, I will tell him that it is unfair to make some of the creatures,
meals for others. I will tell him that his justice sucks and his apathy is
it seems that none of that bothers the supporters of this god. They say
that God can do “whatever he wishes” and no one is to question him and
not? If God made us with the capacity to distinguish between good and evil
, to the extent that we, the humans, universally agree that killing and
inflicting pain is evil and helping someone in need is good, why should he
not live and act by the same standards? If what he wants us to believe as
good, is diametrically different to what he does, how are we supposed to
know he is good? Isn't it absurd that he makes us feel sympathy;
compassion and love for our fellow human beings, telling us that these are
good then he would do exactly the opposite? As Galileo said, "why did
he gave us reason, if he wanted us to forgo its use?"
Let us make it clear that we are not talking about God but the god as
perceived by Muhammad and the desert religions that inspired him to launch
his prophetic career. Muhammad's perception of God was the same as taught
to him by his idol worshipping society. The Mesopotamians and the people
of Asia Minor believed in anthropomorphic gods. They made their gods in
their own image and similitude. Gods were immortal "people".
They were like men and women, with especial powers. They were supermen and
wonder women with the same psyche of their creators, the primitive humans.
Each nation adopted one of the gods as their patron and protector, whose
job was to give them strength to fight against the enemy who followed
other gods. They attributed their victory to the greatness of their god.
Messengers of these gods where abounding. They talked to their followers,
demanded sacrifices and donations to the priests. (see Leviticus).
Eventually people matured and because religion is nothing but the figment
of human mind, their concept of God also matured. They could no more
believe in a multitude of gods, each competing with the other over the
allegiance of the people. So, as different cultures intermingled and
international commerce flourished, polytheism gave way to monotheism. For
example, although Christ did not think much of the non-Jews comparing them
to dogs, (Mat
15:26) Paul his apostle, the salesman of Christianity to the West,
modified the religion of his master and changed its exclusivist character
to make it palatable to the pagan nations of Europe. He even accepted
their "unknown god" to be the same as Yahweh, the god of the
17:22,23). So what Muhammad did was nothing new. He rehashed the
monotheistic view that was already accepted by most of the people,
including the Hanifies a group who considered themselves, to be the
followers of Abraham to which Muhammad belonged. Arabs already believed in
Allah. And Allah, whose original name was Enlil, was the chief of many
gods, and as the legend has it his throne was over the waters, just as
Muhammad described in Quran.
this god of the Semitic religions is actually an evolution and
amalgamation of many gods. Although now most of us have come to believe
that monotheism is an indisputable, self-evident fact, its god is nothing
but one (or amalgamation of several) of the ancient gods. He is still an
anthropoid. He gets angry, becomes happy, rewards, answers the prayers and
does pretty much the same things, we humans do. This god as described by
Muhammad, is a petty, paranoid, petulant god who is vengeful, unforgiving,
irrational and ruthless. Forget about what he CLAIMS to be. Read between
the lines and pay attention to what he DOES and commands. His actions
speak louder than his words. And his actions are far from those behooving
a wise and merciful god.
Is it more reasonable to believe that God is a merciless tyrant as
described in the Quran or that the Quran is a false book?
I opt to believe in the second case. I refuse to accept a lunatic god as
described in the Quran. I do not believe that Muhammad received any
revelation or that he had any knowledge of divine reality.
is surprising that while so many people admit that there is something
unjust in the structure of this world they accept all that injustice under
the pretext that God must know what he is doing and we are not to even
think of questioning him. Instead
of assuming that a merciful God has an esoteric reason for committing
horrific acts, the traditional definition of God needs to be replaced.
All the evidence shows that the God as described in the Quran and the
Bible is not wise, compassionate and loving, although this is what these
books claim. Even if that was true, I cannot believe in a god that is
wise, loving and compassionate. And I cannot believe in a god that sends
messengers, answers prayers, rewards or punishes. Because in the first
case a god that possesses attributes, is being separated from his
attributes. A being cannot be infinite unless you and I are part of it.
And in the second case, a god that acts is limited in time and in space.
What if we did not think of God as wise, but as wisdom? What if we
did not view him as loving, but love? What if God was not compassionate
but compassion? What if God was not a "being"? What if It was
not a "thing", things have attributes. What if we thought of God
as the Principle underlying the creation? What if God was the Reality?
Reality is formless, eternal and unchanging. As the Reality, God would not
have attributes. It would be the Principle behind the process of creation.
It would be the Principle and the creation the process. The Principle does
not act. It does not create, it does not send messengers nor is it aware
of you, me, and the entire creation. Being aware is an attribute. God has
no attributes. Instead God is awareness itself. It is not knowing, but
knowledge itself. It is not loving, but love itself.
Note that I did not use the pronoun "he" or "she" to
speak of God, but "It"; because God is not a person.
"It", is a Reality. "It", is the Ultimate Reality.
As the principle God is neither cruel nor kind. It does not answer your
prayers and does not need your worshipping. Everything depends on this
Principle but the Principle is indifferent towards all things. Just like
the Sun, all life on Earth depends on it, yet it has no concerns for those
things that it illumines and benefits.
You may ask: how could love exist without a person who could love? If love
is seen as a feeling, it cannot exist per se. It needs a feeler. Therefore
one cannot speak of cosmic Love without acknowledging the existence of a
cosmic being or a personal god. But a personal god, as I explained in my
articles on God, is a logical impossibility. The love that I speak of is
not the love as a feeling but as a principle. Feelings cannot exist
without feelers, but principles exist independent of everything.
me explain this with a simpler principle. Take the example of the law of
gravity. Gravity as a force cannot exist without the existence of masses.
Where there are no masses, there is no gravity and there is no weight. But
gravity as a principle or as a law exists independent of masses. The law
of gravity existed before the creation of this universe and will exist
when this universe ceases. If there are other universes (which I see no
reason why not) this principle must apply there too.
principle is independent; it is eternal and immutable. Objects, however,
manifest those principles in different degrees and forms.
as a principle exists independently. Objects reflect that principle and
the more complex and evolved objects manifest it with more strength. Many
animals and especially humans are capable of manifesting love in its most
advanced form. What we experience as love is feeling. This feeling cannot
manifest itself without us and it will disappear when we no longer exist.
But Love as the principle exists forever.
example is True knowledge. One can ask how can knowledge exist without a
knower? But we humans do not invent knowledge we discover it. False
knowledge is not knowledge but is based on false assumptions. Knowledge as
a principle exists even before we learn it and it would exist even when no
one can discover it. 3 x 2 = 6. This is a fact. Whether we know it or we
don’t; whether we agree with it or we don’t, this fact won’t change.
Because mathematics is a principle! It does not have physical existence
but it is not subjective either. It is a reality. Realities or principles
exist independently without having any “form” of existence. The entire
creation depends on them. They are the laws of the creation. They are HOW
the creation came to be and HOW it evolves and HOW it is going to come to
an end. They are HOW and everything else is WHAT! The love that you and I
experience and feel, is a manifestation of the cosmic Love that exists as
a Principle of this universe. Just as our bodies feel the gravity, our
hearts feel the love. But just as gravity is a principle that exists
independent of our bodies, love too exists independent of our hearts and
any being. These are all my opinions. You don’t have to believe or
accept them. I do not wish to promote a philosophy but rather ask
questions and make you think. It is up to you to question the validity of
your own beliefs, "doubt everything and find your own light".
claim that math is a principle and that it is somewhat comparable to God
Yes math is a good example to understand God. But math is a
manifestation of the Single Principle, it is not the Single Principle. In
traditional religions it is believed that God created man in his own
likeness. That does not mean that man is God or comparable to him.
there an infinite reward for learning math?
Yes there is infinite reward in learning math. The reward is
learning HOW. The reward of knowing is in itself and in its application.
Likewise the reward of understanding the Single Principle and living by it
is in itself. We are not talking of an external reward like a paradise as
is promised in Semitic religions
God, Math or the Principle care or even know whether I study math.
No the math does not care whether you study nor the Single
Principle care whether you apply it in your life. We cannot live without
the Principle but the Principle is independent from us. The Principle is
not only HOW but also the interactive force of the all the elements of
existence. It is the force behind the evolution. By
breaking the universal laws of the Single Principle we deprive ourselves
of our own growth.
from the practical consequences, is there anything wrong with a person
choosing not to study math on a regular basis?
Many people do not know math. Animals are not even aware of it. But
we all abide by it. Mathematical principles dominate everything. Likewise,
the Single Principle is a non-being that is the mother of all beings. You
can live without knowing about it but you cannot live without it.
from practical consequences, if I think that the log(1) = 10 instead of
0, will it matter?
What we think of the Principle is inconsequential. But we cannot
break itIf we do not learn the Principle, we make mistakes and we hurt
ourselves. This absolute Reality that permeate every atom of the Universe
is not to be worshiped but must be understood and abided.
is very different from my perception of God. I think what you are saying
is that God is an abstract concept, math is an abstract concept
therefore math is God.
I am not saying that God is an abstract concept nor I say math is.
This universe, you and I, are abstract concepts. We are the product of the
motion of electrons around the protons. We are functions of speed and
energy. None of these exist. But math exist independent of the matter.
Whether we are aware of it or not is not going to affect the mathematical
principles. Math is not God, but it is a good example to understand the
reality of God. There is a distinction between pure math and math as used
in practice, between pure history (what really happened) vs. practical
history (what’s written in the history books), between pure science, and
practical science. I maintain
that practical math is never 100% true, that practical history is never
100% true, and that practical science (our human understanding of gravity,
nature, and evolution) is never 100% true.
Pure math has all kinds of not so obvious assumptions that are
always violated in practice. So even though in practice our history, math and science are
not perfectly true, we could still accept that pure math, science and
history are infallible.
is equivalent to saying that Men and Women are intelligent therefore Men
No this is not what I say.
Love is as much an abstract concept as Hate is, and therefore they both
should have equal claims to being the single principle or God.
Love and hate as feelings pertain to human realm. They are
manifestations of attraction and repulsion of the Single Principle. These
are laws of the universe. They do not abide by our moral evaluations.
Morality is relative. Principles are absolute. But moral principles are
absolute.Hate per se is not bad. I hate deceitfulness, I hate cruelty, I
hate injustice. Equally love per se is not necessarily good. The egotistic
love, love of crime, pedophilia are examples of that. What is bad, is
loving what should be hated and hating what should be loved. This happens
when we do not understand the Principle underlying the creation. The evil
that you see in the world is due to breaking the laws of the Single
Principle. As Socrates said, “ignorance is the mother of all sins”.
think what you might be trying to say is as follows: A religious person
has a meaning/purpose in life and because of that he feels fulfilled.
Then an Ibn Ezra, Spinoza, or an Ali Sina comes along, and this purpose
is gone. Now life is meaningless. So you want to show that we have love,
math and other attributes such that life can be meaningful.
Life is not meaningless. The
purpose of learning (philosophy, theology, science, etc) is to understand
the meaning of life. That is through observation of the world without.
Also we can understand the meaning of life through meditation. That is
through the introspection of the world within. If we discover that the
meaning explained by religions is false, it does not mean that life has no
meaning. When Galileo suggested that geocentricity is a false concept he
was not rejecting the existence of the Earth. He was proposing a shift of
paradigm to understand the Earth. By the same token I am not rejecting
God. I am rejecting what has been said and believed about God. I am
suggesting a shift of paradigm to understand God.