If everything must have been created, then god must have been created as well. If god was not created, then it is absolutely not true that everything must have had a creator. Why then should life or the cosmos have had one?

Besides, this argument has another leap. If everything has a source and god is that source, then god must have existed without it before he created it. So if god created time and space, he must live outside of time and space. Thus he is non-existent. If all life must come from something and that is god, god is not alive and hence non-existent. If morality must come from god, god lacks morality. If logic comes from god, god is illogic. If nature comes from god, god is unnatural. If existence comes from god, god is non-existent. If god is the cause of everything, GOD IS VOID.

Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? What shaped it? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?

God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information, so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god, because adding god as an explanation leaves as many -- if not more -- questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor (do not multiply entities unless necessarily) if we are serious in investigating the world.

There are things that are impossible to do. For example nobody can cover a two-dimensional surface with two-dimensional circles, without making them overlap. It is impossible to add the numbers two and two and get 666. You can not go back in time (without passing an infinite entropy barrier). The number of things that are impossible to do are almost infinite. If god were to be almighty he would be able to do them, but it's impossible to do so.

Some people say that he can only do things that are logically possible to do, but what is? Is it logically possible to walk on water? Or split the moon? Is it logically possible to stand above time, space and all other dimensions -- and still exist? I'd say that everything which violates the laws of physics is logically impossible and thus omnipotence is logically impossible. Besides, if omnipotence is a relative quality there is no way to tell omnipotence from non-omnipotence. For omnipotence to be a valid expression it must be absolute, but we have no objective criteria to measure omnipotence, so the word itself is useless.

Omnipotence leads to paradoxes. Can god make a rock that is too heavy for him to carry? Can god build a wall that even he can't tear down?

Also, if god knows everything, he knows what he will do in the 'future' (in any dimension, not necessarily the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus god's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will. If god has no free will god is not omnipotent. Another way to put it is that to be able to make plans and decisions one must act over time. If god stands above time he can not do that and has no free will. Indeed, if god stands above all dimensions god is dimensionless -- a singularity, nothing, void!

Besides, there can exist no free will at all if god is almighty. If you had a free will, god wouldn't know what you would do tomorrow, and wouldn't be omnipotent.


"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." -- Bertrand Russell

One can cut a diamond from the tender rose petal.
A soft word of wisdom cant appeal a feeble mental.