Featured Post


From the very dawn of the comparative studies in the philosophy area, scholars have noted close parallelism between Indian and Greek philos...

Monday, February 2, 2015


Usually the three main qualities that the God supposed to have, as follows: Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent; i.e. Omni-triad. Most of the religions give all of these qualities to god. Now, it has become a must that god should have these three qualities; else god may not qualify to consider as the Supreme and Perfect Being.

There are three constructions centered on the Omni-triad premise. The second premise (omniscient) may be derived from the first premise (omnipresent). What exists everywhere must know everything present there. Virtually all knowledge should be available in It’s storehouse. Otherwise the omnipresence claim is meaningless. Thus which is omnipresent should be omniscient too.

The third premise, omnipotent, is derived from second premise, omniscient. It, which knows everything, and became omniscient, must be able to do any task practically. It must perform all actions. Else omniscience is waste. A mute and idle omniscient being! What is the use of it? So religions are adamant in their stand that God or Supreme Being has Omni-triad qualities.

But is it really possible for a supreme being to act? How a supreme and perfect being like god can have any quality, let alone the Omni-triad?

To begin with, a supreme being like god must also be a perfect one, in all respect. ‘It’ should not be under anything even by an inch. It is Perfect and so satisfied in all respect[1]. Then what will or can It ‘do’? Isn’t any action performed or performing by It, will reveal It’s imperfectness? Isn’t It’s any action can interpret as the evidence of It’s imperfectness?

Generally every action will have a purpose or aim which lies behind. It is such purposes or impulse that forces somebody to ‘act’. This purposes may also be an indication of the need or desires that the doer posses. Then if a perfect and supreme being acts, what can be the purpose before It? No need to think and enumerate the purposes that may count here. But just understand that whatever may be the purpose, an ‘acting Supreme Being’ has an aim which is ‘yet to achieve’. An unfulfilled aim lies in a Supreme Being, if It acts!

Is there anything wonderful or tricky in the last paragraph? Yes, there is. If a supreme and perfect being has an unfulfilled aim, to achieve which It acts, how can we call It as Supreme or Perfect? Every action by It will surely prove It’s imperfectness. In other words, an ‘acting god’ is imperfect, and so automatically becomes a non-god. Creation theory (i.e. god created the world) is impossible here. God can’t create the world because every creation is an action and every action (physical or mental) has a purpose. If a god has to fulfill something, and so unsatisfied, It will automatically become non-god. Or how can we call It as god?!

There are other counter arguments against the creation theory, too. If ‘something’ can originate from ‘nothing’, then ‘anything’ can originate from ‘nothing’. But this is contrary to our experience. Empirically ‘something’ is coming only from ‘something’ and this is as per causal laws. Nobody can create ‘something’ from ‘nothing’.

Thus creation theory is not defensible. The world, or that what is the substratum of the world, has no beginning. It always existed here. It still exists. It will exist in future too. It has no origination and so, no annihilation.

[1]  If It is not satisfied, then It is not perfect and thus not Supreme.

No comments:

Post a Comment