There’s an old riddle that asks, “What is greater God? What is more evil than Satan? The poor have it. The rich need it. And if you eat it, you’ll die.” Supposedly, children perform well on this riddle, answering immediately, whereas adults devote much thought to it and frequently cannot come to the answer. I myself thought about it for five consecutive days, finally deciding that the answer was my penis. Of course, while my penis is greater than a nonexistent entity, more evil than a nonexistent entity, often given to poor women, frequently denied to rich and snobby women, and leads to the inevitable murder of anyone who so much as tries to chew on it, this is not technically the correct answer. Children, with their ignorance of the graces of my penis, instantly know that the answer is nothing. Nothing is greater than God, or more evil than Satan. The poor have nothing and the rich need nothing. And eating nothing will cause your death. I admit, it seems a far more satisfying solution to the puzzle than the answer of my penis, one of the very few times something has ever been more satisfying than my penis. So ladies, this means I can say with the utmost confidence that nothing is more satisfying than my penis. Absolutely nothing.
My penis aside, however, the first question of this riddle is quite theologically instructive. What is greater than God? Nothing. This can be interpreted in a number of ways. Perhaps it means that God is the greatest entity there is, and nothing can be greater. Or perhaps it means that nothing itself is greater than God, that an empty void is, for all intents and purposes, greater than God. The latter interpretation, naturally, is the more theologically interesting position and can even be justified through argument.
Traditionally, theologians have defined omnipotence as the capacity to do anything that is logically possible. In this manner, theologians can dodge the age-old criticism concerning God’s strange hobby of creating rocks that he himself cannot lift. On the face of things, it would seem that omnipotence would grant God the capacity to create such rocks, but if he cannot lift these rocks, he is no longer omnipotent, and on the other hand, if he cannot create these rocks, then he is also not omnipotent. By defining omnipotence as the capacity to do anything that is logically possible, of course, God can excuse his inability to fashion rocks he cannot lift by noting that such rocks are either impossible to create (that is, it is not logically possible to create a rock that an omnipotent being could not lift) or are possible to create but impossible to lift (that is, God can create a rock that it is not logically possible to lift). Clearly, a God whose omnipotence is bound by logical possibility has no trouble explaining his rock-lifting impotence. God, after all, prefers to lift things other than rocks, like his terribly huge ego, for instance.
But if God is capable of doing anything that is logically possible, that brings us back to the first question of our riddle: What is greater than God? In terms of logical possibility, nothing (pure nothingness, or the void) is indeed greater than God. If omnipotence is the capacity to do anything that is logically possible, then nothingness is omnipotent. After all, it is not logically possible for nothingness to do anything. Therefore, even though nothingness cannot do anything, it is still omnipotent. This is one reason why people should not wish for omnipotence on forbidden monkey paws, as the forbidden monkey paw would instantly grant your wish by causing you to cease existing. You also should not wish for the thing that is greater than God and more evil than Satan, because then you’d end up with my penis, an appendage I’d sorely miss.
Of course, the fact that nothingness is omnipotent in the sense that God is omnipotent doesn’t mean that nothingness is greater than God. At best, it means nothingness is equal to God. In that sense, God is still the greatest being, as nothing is greater than God—nothingness only comes close to surpassing his power by equalling it. But this realization that nothingness can be considered omnipotent can explain many of the attributes commonly applied to God.
Nothingness, for instance, seems to trump God in terms of morality. Because God is conceived of as a creator of the universe and therefore capable of interacting with reality as we know it, we can assume that it is within the limits of God’s power to interfere with humanity in various ways. The problem, however, is that this means God would also have the power to do evil. God would have the capacity to destroy the universe, to kill Job’s family, and to rape sweet, innocent virgins in the ear. Thus, while this is compatible with God’s omnipotence, it seems to conflict with his moral perfection. The obvious response is to maintain that though God has the capacity to do evil, he never chooses to do so. But this response is not fitting. God is defined as morally perfect. If God should one day act on his capacity to do evil, he would thereafter no longer be God. But that doesn’t seem to cohere with the idea that God should be infinite and always exist. As such, to preserve God, it is necessary to show that God cannot choose to do evil, that it is not logically possible for him to do so. Nothingness, of course, already lacks the capacity to do evil, as it cannot do anything. But if God, likewise, cannot do evil, then this does not cohere with a being that is capable of interacting with a physical world and with physical human beings. Of course, perhaps there is some way in which God could still interact with the world and still be incapable of performing bad acts. This is in the realm of possibility, but it doesn’t seem to be something conceivable unless God’s inability to do good resulted from his inability to do anything. That is, the hypothesis that God is omnipotent and morally perfect because it is not logically possible for him to do anything seems to be the most elegant solution.
Such a solution also explains God’s transcendance. If God cannot do anything, then naturally he transcends us. Thus, nothing is not just the answer to the question, What is greater than God? It also answers the question, What is God? God can be legitimately interpreted as nothing. Nothingness transcends human existence, just as God does. Nothingness can do no evil, just like God. Nothingness is omnipotent, just like God. And if nothingness is God, this seems to make sense of the implications of other faiths, as well. Certain varieties of Buddhists, for instance, see death as being returned to God, to becoming part of that absolute, and if God is nothingness, then it certainly seems true that death would entail a return to this. We cease to exist and become part of nonexistence, just like God.
In this sense, sophisticated theologians seem little more than atheists in disguise. The transcendant, omnipotent God they worship has all the qualities of nothingness. Even worse than applying lipstick to a pig, theologians thus seem to be attempting to apply lipstick to nothingness, commenting on its beauty and power like mock pastors. If you approach a person saying nothing and also a person mumbling nonsensical non-words, and then ask both what they are saying, both will reply that they are saying nothing. I find this example analogous to the distinction between atheists and the more liberal variety of theologian. The atheist is the person saying nothing, and the theologian is mumbling nonsense—and in turn saying nothing, as well. Hence, I worship nothing, in the sense that I do not worship, whereas the theologian worships nothing, too, but in the sense that they go through the motions of worship directed at nothing in particular, toward some unknowable, transcendant nothing.
This explains why criticizing atheists for not addressing deeper theology is nonsense. Most of us are not concerned with the deistic, nothingness deities that theologians posit that hide their God’s flaws in incomprehensibility and the unknowable. For all intents and purposes, such theologians are simply confused atheists, dressing nonexistence up like a God. Atheists are more concerned about the gods of the masses—the God that can talk to people and do things in the world, the God that fundamentalists think can invade their bodies and cause them to behave like imbeciles, and the God that mobilizes the religious to deride women and homosexuals or attempt to pass ridiculous religious legislation. We can overlook the theologians because we both agree that God has all the qualities of nothing. The difference is that we rightly point out that God is, in fact, nothing.
18 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
James Rushing
13 June, 2009 at 12:45 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Your play on words is entertaining, but leaves us with the old question: How did something come from nothing?
Saint Gasoline
13 June, 2009 at 4:28 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Positing God doesn’t remove the implications of your question, James. For if God is not nothing, but is indeed something, then we are still left wondering why there is something (God) rather than nothing.
Magnus Bergmark
13 June, 2009 at 5:22 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
All I can say: Mind blown to pieces
Liew
14 June, 2009 at 10:27 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I congratulate you for yet again producing a masterpiece worthy of widespread circulation in all religion-infested communities. However, the people who would benefit the most from this post are precisely the type of people who won’t be able to follow your beautifully articulated logic. I find that rather sad.
To James Rushing: To make it easier for you to follow Saint Gasoline’s counterargument, he’s basically saying: ‘What the heck created God then?!’ And then you get the infinite regression chicken-or-the-egg shit.
Race Dowling
14 June, 2009 at 11:01 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It strikes me that children answer the riddle because they have not yet grasped the concept that nothing is not a thing. Most adults know that any statement that tries to address “Nothing is …” is incoherent.
Saint Gasoline
14 June, 2009 at 4:09 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Liew, some would say my logic would be more beatifully articulated if it did not contain constant references to my penis. But then again, others would find it less beautiful were these references missing. And by these others, I mean me.
Engineer-Poet
14 June, 2009 at 5:34 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
And what about us guys? <vbeg>
I know quite a few ladies who would disagree with you there. Given that they’re lesbians, I’m sure they’d vote for something else… perhaps chocolate.
Jenny
16 June, 2009 at 10:54 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It was mind blowing and amazing. By ‘it’ I mean your penis.
I love your style of writing. It’s sarcastic and rational. I stumbled on your blog some how and I am glad I did. When I get over the darlingness that is your penis, I will go back and read the rest of your blogs. You have great talent.
Insert references to your penis at your own accord.
Honkadoodle
17 June, 2009 at 4:49 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
When folks speak of God, they often use the terms omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent. These terms can be loosely translated as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving. All, all, all. Sounds like God is defined as everything. So, is nothing a part of everything? I understand your concept- what(or who) do I know that is all-powerful? Nothing! All-knowing? Nothing! All-loving? You get the point.
“…I worship nothing, in the sense that I do not worship, whereas the theologian worships nothing, too, but in the sense that they go through the motions of worship directed at nothing in particular, toward some unknowable, transcendant nothing.” The fact that you are talking about this “nothing” turns it into a something, wouldn’t you agree? It’s been a long time since I sat in a classroom, but I seem to recall a basic premise from Philosophy 101, in that simply thinking or speaking about something makes it exist. The something you are talking about is “nothing,” granted, but you have placed a tag on it, therefore making it no longer nothing, if you catch my drift, heh. Odd, I know. Or perhaps just archaic.
Let me leave you with a thought: can you know all without none, good without evil, joy without pain, success without failure etc etc.? Yin-yang hippie shit, I know, but possibly relevant.
So, Gas, since God is nothing, what is everything? And please don’t say it’s your penis.
Engineer-Poet
17 June, 2009 at 8:23 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
No, it doesn’t; that’s the fallacy of reification.
Honkadoodle
18 June, 2009 at 2:32 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
What does that mean? I won’t lie, I looked up reification, and all it means is turning a concept into a concrete thing… aren’t all things concepts?
Liew
19 June, 2009 at 9:13 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
‘The fact that you are talking about this “nothing” turns it into a something, wouldn’t you agree?’
Yes, this “nothing” is indeed something. And that something is the freaking CONCEPT of nothing, nothing more, nothing less. It does indeed ‘exist’, but only as a freaking concept in our freaking minds, not in the sense that I think you’re implying. That somehow just talking about something makes it a ‘concrete thing’ instead of just a ‘concept’. Don’t conflate the two. For example: I believe in the Flying Bacon Goddess. There. I just said ‘Flying Bacon Goddess’. Does that mean that a little girl in angel robes suddenly popped into existence flying around on a bacon rind? I. Think. Not. What it means that I just talked about a fictional concept called the ‘Flying Bacon Goddess’. That this fictional concept of a flying bacon goddess just came into existence. That is all.
I think this concept was mercilessly parodied in Terry Pratchett’s ‘Hogfather’ where an overload of psychic energy or something like that cause things that previously only existed as myths and stuff pop into existence the second someone mentions them.
Saint Gasoline
20 June, 2009 at 11:09 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I see that Engineer Poet and Liew have already answered for me, Honkadoodle, so I will refer you to their comments.
And to Jenny, thank you for validating my delusional belief that my penis is amazing. In my infomercial, I will be sure to quote your approval.
Honkadoodle
26 June, 2009 at 2:49 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Nice! I do enjoy this type of discussion, but know I will argue a point into the ground even if I am irrevocably wrong, if only to get a heated argument initiated. Just remember, reality in itself is a concept too.. hey, that flying bacon goddess exists in your world, Liew, and if you truly believe it, how can anyone convince you otherwise? Maybe you’ve smelled her? Seen her? Touched her? But noone else has… how do you prove she exists? Call it the Snuffalupagus theory. Noone can stand outside of their own conceptions. You are reading these words right now, and you know that Honkadoodle wrote them…prove it! Prove ANYTHING to be concrete, and you have proven that at least something is more than a concept in the first place. You only know what you yourself perceive, therefore, all reality is a concept.
SO, since everything is a concept, all concepts must exist to an extent, right? Or maybe nothing exists. But nothing is a concept too, ha!
Am I still wearing blinders with this idea? DO enlighten me.
Erosophy
10 July, 2009 at 12:51 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Forgive me–I read two of your posts and initially left this comment on your new strategy for atheism post. It was meant as a comment on this post.
You make some compelling arguments in the second half of your post, but the problem is that one of your foundational premises makes a philosophical mistake.
The problem with “nothing”in the riddle is that grammatically, it acts as a name. But semantically, it is nothing of the sort. And yet you treat it as a name of a particular entity. See a Philosophy of Language textbook for relevant explanations.
Your entire post, unfortunately, is relegated to a heap of misguided, impertinent arguments because your initial premise is faulty. You want to disprove God’s existence, criticize the attributes traditionally ascribed to him, and be taken at least somewhat seriously. In that case, you’ll have to stop expounding on your body parts, showcasing your philosophical ineptitude, and vomiting flaccid arguments all over the web.
Saint Gasoline
12 July, 2009 at 6:18 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I think that perhaps you’ve misread the post, Erosophy. I never claimed this is a “disproof” of God. Rather, my case is that theologians are not saying anything meaningful when they talk of “God” because it has no real qualities after it has been rendered mystical and transcendant. So ironically, I’m actually using the philosophy of language you mention to show that theologians are talking a lot of rot, not to “prove” that God does not exist. Unlike a theologian, I don’t think existential questions can be answered through logical proofs, and I don’t see where you are getting this idea.
Honkadoodle
27 July, 2009 at 9:30 PM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
No “flaccid” arguments meant; I am probably not as educated as quite a few of y’all, I just like to wax philosophical sometimes. Hey Saint, I added a link to your site from my livejournal blog, I hope you don’t mind. I wanted to email you to ask permission first, but couldn’t find any kind of contact info for you. That’s why I decided to sneak my question into this comment section- it being older n all, not many would have to read it. If you want me to remove the link, I will. Let me know.
I like your last comment. I have always believed that the more someone talks, the less he knows. Guess I should shut up now, then.
Saint Gasoline
26 September, 2009 at 8:46 AM (UTC -6) Link to this comment
“You make some compelling arguments in the second half of your post, but the problem is that one of your foundational premises makes a philosophical mistake.
The problem with ‘nothing’ in the riddle is that grammatically, it acts as a name. But semantically, it is nothing of the sort. And yet you treat it as a name of a particular entity. See a Philosophy of Language textbook for relevant explanations.”
The riddle is not a premise for my argument! The riddle merely provides a joking sort of introduction to the post. The joke revolves around the logical fallacy of reification. When I say, “Nothing is more satisfying than my penis”, the humor comes from the ambiguity created by the reification of the word “nothing”. It could mean “My penis is more satisfying than anything” or it could mean “Women prefer the complete absence of anything to the presence of my penis.” I freely admit to being illogical there, but in the context of a joke, that’s the whole point!
You’ll note that through the rest of the post I am careful to describe God in terms of “nothingness” or “the void” or “absence” and do not equivocate between other uses of “nothing”.