My first blog: Introducing 'The Proposal'

My intentions of this proposal is not to force people not to believe in god/religion, I respect those who believe and I also believe no one has the right to force a belief onto others. Despite the fact the one may strongly hold a belief to the point of perceiving it as the law (manmade or natural), one does not (under any circumstances) have the right to silence others of theirs (“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it.” – François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire). I acknowledge the role religion plays as a life guide for people who feel a sense of uncertainty, but also as a stain in history. In the form of war, hate and indifference, however small.

All good beliefs (like all scientific theories) should be open to questioning; especially by it’s own believers. It isn’t, however, whether you are right that is most important, but what is true that is. Regardless whether the truth is ugly or not, its still the truth, and it is ignorant to ignore the truth in fear of not facing up to it. Because if one does, then he is a blind man forever ignorant of the world. I chose Christianity because it is (out of all religions/beliefs) the least illogical, as will be demonstrated later.

The proposal uses dialectic (a form of ancient Greek philosophical method towards issue resolution, used mainly in dialogues of Socrates) to question characteristics of the Christian religion. This method (and was the reason I chose it) encourages readers to generate counter-propositions in search for a higher truth. So, in reading this, I would like to encourage readers to form their own rational counter-propositions if they can.

The rationale of this proposal acts as an opportunity, a third eye (figuratively speaking), for people (especially Christians) to question their own belief system and what they believe to be true. Because it is what we believe, that makes us what we are, and is what is held when all is lost. Without belief, we have nothing. But there is a fine line between believing, and believing what is true.

~ Longinus


Note. This is my own work and I will be very pissed off if you copy the work and call it your own, and I swear I will hunt you down.

Note. The proposal is still under construction, editing, and revision. This is not the completed work. Each point requires deep thought to fully understand it, and each progressing point extends on previous points.

Note. This was created when I was around 19 years old.

Note. Last edited on 20Th August 2006 (omnibenevolence added and spelling corrected).




1. God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), omnipresent (everywhere and at all times present), and omnibenevolent (all good).

2. There can only be one god at any given time, no 2 gods can exist at the same time. This disproves all religions with multiple gods.

3. God is at all times perfect. An imperfect entity will always strive for perfection.

4. God cannot take form. Because taking form limits him (hence not perfect, refer to proposal 3), as all forms are limited. Also, god cannot speak language, following the same principle. Both these points lowers ‘his’ status as a perfect entity. This disproves all religion with gods taking form.

5. Man therefore cannot be created in the image of god, as god has no image, he cannot take form.

6. God is perfect (proposal 3). Therefore, all direct products of God are perfect (because if a product isn’t, then it reflects back to the source, God. One can therefore rationally say that God isn’t perfect, as only an imperfect entity is capable to produce imperfect products.) There is no doubt that certain direct products of God are imperfect; mankind, Jesus, angels and fallen angels (proposal 4), Satan. [Note. What does this tell you about God?]

7. Good cannot exist without evil (because without evil, how would one know what is good, and vice versa). Therefore, good and evil are dependent on each other for mutual existence. This can result in 2 possible outcomes: 1) god is good AND evil (therefore not omnibenevolent), 2) god is all good, but he cannot extinguish evil (therefore not omnipotent).

8. Angels cannot exist as it contradicts god's omnipresence (refer to proposal 1). Because if god is everywhere and all powerful, there is no need for angels (which brings into question the existence of Satan, the fallen angel. Would this mean that he too cannot exist? Or the story is false?).

9. Therefore under the above conditions, good and evil cannot take form. Hence, they are abstract things. [Note. if good (god) and evil are abstract things. One would question the creation of these abstract things, how they came to be. Abstract things follow the same principles as ideas, they are invented. Is it then rational to propose that good (god) and evil are invented? More importantly, by whom? Us?]

10. Free will is god's gift to man. Therefore, god is not omnipotent (refer to proposal 1). As he, by giving the gift (free will) cannot control man because man controls his own destiny.

11. Free will can lead to evil. Therefore, god gave man evil purposely, acknowledging the consequences, as he is omniscient. Therefore, god is/can be evil as it is he who created evil. How can one entity then be all-good if it is partially evil?

12. God is not hypocritical because god is perfect (refer to proposal 3). Acts of god in the bible contradicts the 6th commandment (‘thou shall not kill’): sacrificing Abraham’s son, killing of Egyptians in book of exodus, death of Jesus as god's will to achieve an end that is to save mankind. The above examples show that God IS in fact hypocritical, how is ‘he’ then perfect?

13. The need to kill Jesus to save mankind contradicts god's omnipotence. As god could save mankind directly without having to kill Jesus because he is all powerful. Yet he chose death as the way, which makes god hypocritical as he stated that killing is a crime (hence his methods should NOT involve killing to achieve an aim). [Note. it was mans free will to kill Jesus (refer to proposal 9). Therefore, it wasn’t gods intention or plan to have Jesus killed. Would it then be reasonable to say that god never had the intention to save mankind (if he needs saving)?



*Note to self* and what of the divine justice of God as stated in Dante’s ‘Divine Comedy: Paradise’ Canto XIX? Work on this.