Is God Free, At Least? - Attempting to Exist No.2

Can anybody or anything escape the internal limitations presented? I have already made my case on humans, but what about God? The likeliness is that no, they’re not free either. Then, does God exist? I’d say no, at least not in the context that they are given to us in the Abrahamic religions. See, in the traditional Christian, Jewish, and Muslim beliefs, God has no limits to their abilities and decision-making. However, I’d argue that they do.

God’s limitation is the holy moral codes and plans. How does that limit God? Well, God has opportunity cost, too. First, when God decided to have a moral code given to humans as a guide to their way to heaven. The Ten Commandments, the Bible, the Quran, etc. I believe that God’s teachings and moral responsibilities presented to humanity have also become God’s responsibilities. This is because God is a model that humanity is trying to achieve/become closer to. God is the perfect being, and everything they do is morally correct. They have created the code to be morally correct as well. So, God has no chance but to act within the moral code they have presented to humans. If they don’t, humanity has no reason to follow God as they will not have been able to be the morally perfect being. In simpler terms, let’s use the holy texts as examples. One simple thing God has told us not to do is lie. In Leviticus 19:11 from the Bible, God says “Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive each other.” Or in the Quran, Surah As-Saff ayat 3, God says “How despicable it is in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do!” It is evident that God does not want us to lie, which makes sense. But, now, God has to be truthful as well. God has restricted themselves from lying, ever. I am not arguing that lying is the morally correct option, or that it is something God should do (I wouldn’t have the authority to judge), I am simply saying that God being in a constant state of moral righteousness has caused themselves to lose the ability to not be righteous. If God is all-willing and all-powerful, how can they be bound to the lessons they have given to humanity? I’d say they’re not all-willing or all-powerful. And that would debunk the argumentation about the form of God given by Abrahamic religions. So, even if God exists, they aren’t in the form presented by Abrahamic religions.

One other simple way to say that God is not free would be to mention their redemptive plan. We could just talk about the Biblical Covenants in this case. The covenants are contracts made between God and important Biblical characters such as but not limited to Noah, Abraham, and Jesus. In these contracts, God has always stayed true to their part, honoring the contract. This is again, morally perfect, however, every time God created a covenant, they forego doing anything other than the promise they made. For example, in the Noahic Covenant, God promises to never destroy Earth with a flood again. So, as you may expect me to say now, they have foregone the ability to destroy Earth with a flood. That’s one less thing God is allowed to do, because if they do not keep that promise, they no longer have their moral high ground, and will no longer be worshipped. In this case, if Earth is destroyed, there will be no one to worship but I suppose you get the idea. So, God’s promises, moral codes, and generally anything relating to their image in humanity’s eyes limits their ability in one way or another. Leading to them no longer being the perfect being.

I have made my argument regarding why an Abrahamic God existing is not possible, but can another form of God exist? That’s hard to say. The first belief that comes to mind when searching for a God that has no moral attachments is the one we find in Deism. In Deism, God pretty much has no business with us after creation. In this belief, God has created the universe, prepared the necessary conditions, then refused to interfere with how things play out. So, they must have no moral obligations, right? Technically, yes. So, are they free? Not exactly. This is because the whole notion of the way the Deist God exists depends on a single decision God made after creating the universe. To never interfere. God again has a framework that they have to follow. It’s just a lot simpler this time. By deciding to not interfere, they forego the ability to interfere. This simply means that the opportunity cost of not having any moral obligation toward the universe is having moral obligations. Having a moral framework may keep God from being immoral, but not having one keeps them from having any notion of what morality is. If God does not have a sense of morality, and cannot ever create that sense of morality, they are again, limited. Since God is meant to be the highest form of being, the perfect being, this limitation also leads me to reject the Deist notion.

Now there are three options left. First is that our God is in a Pantheistic form. This means that they are one with the universe, not identifying as a separate entity. This seems like it solves the problem of opportunity cost and responsibilities, but there are some issues we haven’t solved yet. The positive of this notion is that since God is not a singular being or an anthropomorphic entity, they are not bound to the limitations of decision-making that the Abrahamic monotheistic religions and the Deist God are bound to. However, now, God is bound to experience only one reality. This universe is dictated by events in the cosmos that could have gone in a different way but don’t, so, God is bound to experience the results of our decisions and the results of cosmic events happening in a single specific way. God is not responsible for the events in the universe nor do they suffer an opportunity cost, but they cannot dictate reality in any shape or form, therefore having limitations in their being. However, if the multiverse notion is correct, God would have to be one with all multiverses. Then, they would not be bound to experience singular realities. That would be a situation where we could make a case for the freedom of God. Since we have no information about the accuracy assumptions I have used in this paragraph, the case of pantheism is inconclusive.

The second option is a rather simple one, Atheism. We can just reject the notion of a God since there is no option where we can conclude that God is free. This choice is the strongest out of the ones I present, but it does come with strong assumptions. Although Atheism runs on an assumption that there is no creator at all, there is sense to it as humanity has not been able to create a notion of a God that is truly free. Still, a bit tentative about this one even though it is fairly basic.

One last option that brings a whole new perspective to the discussion of God is one that was brought to me by a friend, and it is that God is not bound by anything this universe presents. There have been notions that present an otherworldly creator, but this one depends more on theoretical physics. Since I am not the most knowledgeable person in the field, I’ll keep it simple. This option argues that God is not bound to the three dimensions our universe is bound to. It says that God is a being that comes from a universe bound to a higher number of dimensions, and the possibility of such a universe is possible but has not been proven yet. If God is an entity that is not bound to anything presented by our universe, they do not fall into the boundaries that I have argued for what freedom is. It is likely that such a God does not have a problem with living a singular reality, consequences of decisions, or opportunity cost. So, I would not be able to make an argument about the freedom of that God, or any feature that they may have. We would not be able to fathom what God is, but they would exist. The only problems considering this theory are that firstly, we have no evidence of a universe with a higher number of dimensions existing; and secondly, if such a universe exists and our God comes from there, who is the God of their universe? This leads to a rabbit hole that is unsolvable, at least for now.