Ninavism - The Philosophy of Immortality
Ordering a Book
Feedback Form
1. Technological Immortality
2. Final Immortality
3. Life Creation and Propagation
4. Life Centres in the Universe
5. Reincarantion Combined with Resurrection
6. Complete Model of Immortality
7. Postimmortality
8. History & Evolution of Immortality
9. Ninavism
10. Supernatural Forces
11. Problem of Evil
12. Epistemology
13. Methodology
14. Compatibilities of Immortalities
15. Heaven(s) & Hell(s)
16. Implementation of Final Immortality
17. Implementation of Present Immortality
18. Paradoxes & Puzzles of Final Immortality
19. Animals & Plants
20. Atheism
21. Population Control
22. Gays
Glossary of Terms
About Web Site
Chapter 11

Problem of Evil

Summary of Chapter


The term 'evil' is a traditional name for badness. The Problem of Evil is the difficulty in explaining why badness is widespread in this world despite protective powers of Supernatural Forces (abbreviated in this chapter as SFs or SF).
      There are two main types of evil. The first one includes natural badness, such as suffering due to incurable sickness, premature death, destruction causes by calamities and accidents. The second type of evil is caused by deliberate actions of humans, such as rape, murder, or war. Existence of evil can be easily explained by natural causes or wrongful acts of man. However, this explanation is insufficient from a religious point of view. In many religions Supernatural Forces (SFs) are supposed to have power over both natural causes and acts of people. Therefore, from a theological point of view, it is insufficient to blame Nature or humans for evil, because SFs are supposed to control both of them.
      Existence of evil does not create problems for some religious groups, or cause only a small one. Religions which do not have Supernatural Forces, such as Animism, do not have the problem. Religions which assume the existence of evil SFs whom nobody controls, have very good theological explanation of badness: it is caused by evil spirits. The Indian religions belong to this group. They have powerful evil God(s) or spirits who are not controllable. Indian religions also support the concept of Reincarnation that partially alleviates the issue of evil. Religions which assume that SFs have no or limited control over Nature which is the source of evil, also have good explanation of badness.
      The existence of evil causes theological problems in religions that have good SFs and either no bad forces, or bad ones, are controlled by good. All Abrahamic religions belong to this group. The single all-powerful God is supposed to control Nature, man, and all forces of evil. The Problem of Evil is traditionally presented as incompatibility of four attributes: infinite power (omnipotence), infinite love (omnibenevolence), infinite knowledge, and willingness to act. When these four attributes are assigned to the same entity of Supernatural Force simultaneously, it creates an internal inconsistency if evil occurs.

Death of Sick Child as Test Case for Problem of Evil

Up to 20,000 innocent children die each day from incurable sicknesses, frequently after a prolonged period of suffering. Death of a child is a test case. Any proposed solution to the Problem of Evil must be tested against this case. All other cases of evil are less important. If any doctrine of Supernatural Forces passes the test of child death, it will pass all other tests of evil. If it fails, then no other arguments can save it.
      Each religion or philosophy that supports SFs must answer the following question: do Supernatural Forces deliberately torture and kill children each day (or allow Nature to do so)? Most religions give a negative answer to this question, but most of them are not able to explain exactly how it happens.
      This is particularly striking in the case of Abrahamic religions which assume that SFs knows everything and are all powerful. In common sense, if SFs know about dying children, are able to prevent deaths, and are not doing anything about it, then they are deliberately torturing and killing them. If humans in this world were in a position to know about dying children, able to prevent death, and not do anything about it, they would be tried in a criminal court for murder. Hindu and Buddhist religions are a bit better because they admit lack of power or knowledge by SFs.
      The difficulties in theological explanation for death of children are known since antiquity. Holy books such as the Torah, Bible, and Koran remain largely silent about dying children. This is understandable, since no one could blame children for sinful behaviour and attribute death to their faults. Children's mortality was much higher in antiquity than in present times, so the problem was even bigger. Medieval theologian Aquinas was acutely aware of the problem of dying children. His explanation was that, after death, children continue to grow up in Heaven, as if uninterrupted by death.

Modelling Supernatural Forces upon Rulers

The anthropomorphic forms of Supernatural Forces known as God(s) are commonly modelled upon powerful forces or figures from this world; they are normally the rulers. In biblical times the rulers were kings, warriors, or dictators. In the present time the rulers are mainly democratically elected governments. The modelling of Supernatural Force occurs inside the human mind, in the brains of believers. The theology and religious leaders have little influence upon this process. This is the way people imagine SFs. Normally, this is a subconscious process. It is difficult to modify this modelling by conscious reasoning because SFs are not visible directly.
      The rulers are subject to historical evolution. In biblical times, rulers were capricious, unaccountable, sometimes cruel. People frequently had to beg them for mercy to get something they wanted. In the present time, rulers are more accountable (but still not completely). The attitude to them has changed. Nowadays, people demand things from rulers rather than begging them; men put pressure on them to get what they want.
      Traditional religions depict Supernatural Forces as static, unchangeable. However, the concept of SFs is certainly subject to evolution. Modelling of SFs upon rulers changed the perception of God(s) in modern times. In biblical times people accepted that SFs were capricious or cruel. The need to beg them was accepted as normal, because it was practiced with rulers of those days. In the present time, many people do not accept capricious God(s), the same as they do not accept capricious governments. Some people are reluctant to beg SFs, because they are reluctant to beg modern rulers.

Historical Increase in Importance of Problem of Evil

In the distant history, there were many big problems such as mass diseases and famines, where millions were dying. In such situations the individual cases of evil, such as the death of children, were ignored. In the past, rulers such as kings and other powerful figures were largely not held responsible for diseases or famines. Kings were usually not able to control those events. In the present time, rulers, such as governments, are held responsible for many evils. This happens even if governments are not capable of controlling disease or poverty. They are still blamed for that.
      In biblical times, even if kings were able to prevent particular cases of evil, and it was easy for them, they did not have a duty to do so. If they did not want to, it was their whim. Currently, if governments are able to prevent particular bad events at a reasonable price, they have a duty to do it. Governments have no excuse to ignore preventable evil. People's expectations regarding evil has changed historically. People expect more from the rulers of today in reduction of evil, than they expected from rulers of the past.
      Due to the mental process of imagining Supernatural Forces upon powerful earthly forces, people of the current age expect more from SFs than they expected in biblical times. As governments have duties to act on evil, so SFs are expected to act too. They cannot be capricious like kings in the past. In the current age, people expect SFs to be more efficient than they were in biblical times. This is psychological process in mind of believers upon which traditional religions have no influence. Due to historical changes in people's expectations, the Problem of Evil creates more questions now than in the past, and this trend will increase in the future.

Responsibility of Supernatural Forces

Idea of Responsibility

The idea of responsibility of SFs for evils occurring on the earth depends on their concept. If SFs themselves are abstract ideas, such as principles or goals, they are not responsible for anything, because principles and goals do not have accountability in a moral sense. Principles and goals might be the cause or source of evil, but they do not have legal responsibility. For example, the principle of gravity is sometimes physically responsible for evils, such as person falling from a rock and killing oneself. However, gravity is not responsible in a moral sense; nobody can sue the principle of gravity in a court. If SFs are animals or material objects, then they are not responsible for evils, because animals and objects are not subject to legal or moral accountability. However, if SFs are anthropomorphic like humans, then they are morally and legally responsible for evils or part thereof, because people are also partially accountable for some forms of evil.
      Most traditional religions support the concept of SFs as an anthropomorphic form. In such case, they are responsible for some evils on the earth, provided they contributed to them, directly or indirectly. They are responsible morally and legally, even if no one can sue them in a human court.

Direct Responsibility

Sometimes people are directly responsible not for an act, but rather for failure to act. For example, a driver who runs over a pedestrian has a duty to stop and try to help. If the driver fails to act (that is to stop), he might be prosecuted, because he is directly responsible for helping. Consider the case of seriously sick children when parents pray to SFs to heal a child. Sometimes after the prayers, the child recovers from a deadly sickness, and this event is treated as a miracle, divine intervention. Such an event, although rare, might lead to recognition of someone as a Saint. Most of the times however, the prayers do not help, and children die. If SFs really have influence on recovery from sickness, then they bear direct responsibility for a death of a child, for the failure to cure.

Indirect Responsibility

If Supernatural Forces do not make individual decisions for evils to occur, then they are not directly responsible. However, even in such case, SFs are indirectly responsible for evils, if they did not make sufficient effort to prevent them. The example of indirect human responsibility is the poor design of devices, such as aircraft, that make them prone to failures and deadly accidents. The engineers who design poorly constructed planes, bear moral, and sometimes legal, responsibility for the evil of accidents. Certain cosmological doctrine states that the earth, humans, and the entire universe were designed and created by SFs. Assuming this doctrine to be correct, if SFs poorly designed the earth, humans, and the universe, making them prone to failures and deadly accidents, then they bear indirect moral responsibility for evils; they might have designed the earth, humans and the universe, as perfect, without any faults.

Theological Doctrines of Decisions

Divine Permissions

The doctrine of divine permissions states that Supernatural Forces decide about all events that occur on the earth. Nothing can occur on the earth without their permission. This includes all voluntary acts of humans, such as crimes. It also includes all events usually attributed to Nature, such as sicknesses and accidents. For example, SFs decide who is sick and who is not, who has an accident and who does not have one. They sometimes make a particular person get cancer, or deliberately cause lighting to kill an individual human. Under the doctrine of divine permission, when a human on the earth commits an evil act, it is not his own decision, but rather divine one; SFs decide about each individual human crime, not the person oneself. The indication of this might be seen at cemeteries where sometimes inscriptions are made on graves saying that the person died because SFs ordered it. It applies to accidents as well as to natural events, such as death due to old age. Ninavism rejects this doctrine.


In the doctrine of predestination, the fate of each person is decided by Supernatural Forces long before birth of the individual, like before the creation of the earth and the universe. The goodness and badness experienced by each person are not decided by SFs during the lifetime of a person, but rather in advance. The human's fate is pre-programmed. The doctrine of predestination appears in all Abrahamic religions to various degree. The predestination reduces direct responsibility of SFs. However, it does not remove indirect accountability.

Only Those Who Give Life Can Terminate It

The theological doctrine claiming that only those who gave life can terminate it, is used extensively in ethics. The implicit assumption is that those who give life are SFs, and only they can terminate it. The doctrine is applied when discussing issues such as disposal of unwanted fertilized human embryos, suicide and euthanasia. The argument says that since SFs create embryos, only they can destroy them, not humans. Similarly, since SFs create adults, humans should not terminate life in the form of suicide or euthanasia. The doctrine is not strictly part of the Problem of Evil, because it discusses events that, in theory, are under human control and avoidable; but it is related to it.
      Suppose for a while the correctness of doctrine that only those who give life can terminate it. In such case, parents would be morally entitled to kill their own children because they gave them life. Parents would not be entitled to kill children of other people, only their own. In prehistory, this principle was actually accepted. In the present age, children do not belong to parents, but rather to a society. Parents are not owners of children. Ninavism rejects the doctrine that only those who gave life can terminate it, as incorrect.

Respect to Supernatural Forces

Putting Supernatural Forces on trial and judging them, might look disrespectful to some traditional people. This should not be treated that way. Ninavism respects SFs, and supports the humility of man. Certain doctrines make SFs look like wrongdoers. Respect and humility cannot stop criticism of human mistakes in the form of wrong doctrines.

Traditional Explanations of Evil

The Problem of Evil applies mainly to Abrahamic religions. For this reason, the explanations in this section concentrate on these religions. Indian religions are not completely immune from the problem. The basic attempts to explain the existence of evil is found in the Holy books of all religions. In addition to this, theologians and philosophers try to add their own explanations. These are known in literature as 'theodicies'.

Primary Sin

Abrahamic religions teach that the first humans (Eve, wife of Adam) disobeyed SFs. As a result, people were exiled from paradise and started to suffer. This is known as condemnation for the Primary Sin, or fall. As a result of disobedience, SFs Cursed humans, the earth, and the entire universe, causing them to suffer to these days. Biblical explanation of evil raises many questions regarding individual responsibility for evil. Since Eve sinned, why was her husband, Adam, punished? Why are people born many thousands of years after the death of Adam and Eve punished for the sins of someone else? In the justice system, each person is responsible only for their own actions, not for the acts of parents. Punishing person for somebody else's acts is considered unjust. If SFs punish people for sins of their remote ancestors, they are unjust. Many innocent children, who never committed any sins, suffer horribly from sickness and die.
      The doctrine of Primary Sin was acceptable in biblical times when SFs were modelled upon kings. In present times, governments are not entitled to demand absolute obedience, and they cannot be capricious. When SFs are modelled upon governments, the severe capricious punishment for small disobedience is not acceptable. Humans developed from animals. Long before the raise of humans, animals had been suffering and dying. Their suffering cannot be explained as the fault of humans; it is scientific reasoning. This is another ground for rejection of Primary Sin as a source of evil.


Satan is a bad spirit that is blamed by all Abrahamic religions as responsible for evils. Satan is mainly held responsible for tempting humans to commit sinful or evil acts. For example, tempting Eve to take an apple from forbidden tree, or encourage men to steal, betray their spouse, etc. In the opinion of some, Satan is also responsible for natural evils, such as sicknesses or earthquakes, but this is not supported by scriptures as clearly as tempting men. Therefore, the natural evils are not well explained by the presence of Satan.

War in Heaven

Another explanation for the source of evil is through the theory that says that a long time ago there was the war in Heaven and, as a result, the goodness and badness have mixed up, and that chaos has fallen on the earth, causing people to suffer. In this doctrine, the source of evil lies outside of man, and even outside of Supernatural Forces. However, this theory is not compatible with other doctrines that assert the supremacy of good SFs over everything. There would be no war in Heaven if good SFs were overwhelmingly superior.


All Abrahamic religions teach that evils encountered on the earth will be compensated by a perfect life in the Afterworld. This is very good explanation, but it is still partial. It has been noticed for a long time that life on the earth is unjust. Some people have a happy life without making any effort, while some others suffer terribly without any fault of their own. Yet they are rewarded with the same Afterlife.

Free Will

This theodicy states that, without evils, humans would miss the benefits of free will. They would not be in a position to choose between good and bad. This theory explains well the rationality of the existence of small evils which a man chooses to accept or reject. However, it fails to explain natural evils. The child has no free will to choose to be sick or to be healthy. The sickness is imposed upon the child.

Spiritual Growth

The 'Spiritual Growth' theodicy says that the presence of evil on the earth is beneficial because it stimulates the spiritual growth of men. By overcoming evil, people become mentally stronger. If evil was not present on the earth, men would not have an opportunity to learn how to cope and overcome problems. This explanation fails the test case of child death. The deceased child is not able to experience any spiritual growth because it is dead.

Teaching People

This theodicy says that SFs permit some evils in order to teach people how to deal with this. However, in the case of a dying child societies are not permitted to kill children, even if such deaths bring them spiritual benefits. If SFs are omnipotent, they do not need any sacrifices, because they are able to teach people without negative side effects. If they are not able to do this, then they are not omnipotent. Sacrifices and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

Greater Goodness (or Lesser Badness)

Theodicy of greater goodness says that SFs allows evils for the sake of achieving greater good as a final result. Greater goodness theory works in relation to humans who are limited. It does not work in relations to omnipotent SFs. Omnipotent SFs are able to achieve greater goodness, without any sacrifices. The entire greater goodness doctrine implicitly denies omnipotence of SFs.

Plans of SFs

This theodicy claims that SFs have special plans for mankind, in which the presence of evil is justified. These plans are either secret and humans do not know them, or they are so difficult that people are not able to understand them. If SFs are omnipotent, they do not have to have secrets because they are able to overcome problems without resorting to it. Secrecy is the tool of weak creatures such as humans. If SFs need to keep secrets from anyone, then they are not omnipotent. The second feature of SFs' plans is that they are not necessary secret, but humans are too limited to comprehend them. If this is so, then why don't SFs make humans bright enough to understand their plans. If SFs are not able to make humans cleverer, then they are not omnipotent. If they are able to make humans brighter, but are not willing to do so, then they are not omnibenevolent.

Power, Love, Knowledge, or Will

The presence of evil can be explained very well by limiting power, love, knowledge, or will of SFs. However, there are serious scriptural, moral and philosophical objections against that. Various religions deal with this entangled issue in distinctive ways.

Reducing Problem of Evil to Attributes of Love and Power

Traditionally, the Problem of Evil is presented by incompatibility of four attributes: infinite love; infinite power; infinite knowledge; and willingness to act. To solve the issue, one or more attributes need to be rejected or refuted. One traditional solution is the assumption that Supernatural Forces somehow overlook cases of evil, not fully knowing them. This is rejection of the attribute of infinite knowledge. Another historical explanation is that SFs sometimes are not willing to prevent evil - the prevention is at their discretion. This is rejection of the attribute of willingness.
      In present times when any big social problem occurs, the governments have a duty to know about it. They cannot pretend they are not aware of evil; they must find it out. In the current age, the lack of knowledge is not acceptable as an excuse for inaction by rulers of this world. Once governments know evil, they are obliged to act; inaction is not at their discretion as it was in biblical times. Since SFs are modelled in the minds of people upon rulers, in the current age SFs are expected to know and act upon evil; they cannot be excused by lack of knowledge or lack of will, as it was in the biblical period. In present times, the attributes of infinite knowledge and willingness to act are automatically assumed to be present in SFs. Religious doctrines cannot reject or refute those two attributes. It is in the minds of believers, and religious leaders are not able to change it.
      The Problem of Evil can be solved by rejecting or refuting one or both of two other attributes: infinite love and infinite power. They are incompatible in the presence of evil. SFs will not prevent evil if they lack sufficient powers, or if they are not sympathetic to humans. However, if they are strong enough and love humans, then they are expected to do something.

Comparing Attributes of Love and Power

Religions extend ordinary love between people to the concept of infinite love. This is usually reserved for SFs, since humans are only able to produce limited love. Teaching about infinite love is important even if no human is able to reach it. It is the ideal to which humanity is heading. Infinite love is instructive for humans looking towards SFs in order to learn from them. Infinite love is the imperative that demands loving those whom one emotionally or psychologically dislikes.
      All religions that support the concept of anthropomorphic form of SFs (Gods) attribute power to them. This power is modelled upon rulers. The limited power of rulers on the earth is extended far beyond. It is the concept of infinite power of SFs (omnipotence). The concept of infinite power is important because SFs are expected to perform tasks that ordinary rulers in this world are not able to do. The first and uttermost one is the creation of Immortality for all humans, such as Final World.
      From the human perspective, it would be the best if SFs possess infinite love towards men supported by infinite power enabling them to implement that love. The existence of the attributes of infinite love and power is understandable in a world without the presence of evil, such as Final World. However, coexistence of attributes of infinite love and power in a single entity of SFs is hard to comprehend in a world supervised by them where evil is present, such as the earth. It seems that one attribute prevails over the other. The question arises - which one? Do SFs possess less love or less power? Different religions lean towards one or other direction.

Effectiveness of Traditional Religions in Solving Problem of Evil

None of the Abrahamic religions give an explicit or clear-cut explanation on the issue of balance between power and love. No religion says openly that they attribute less power or less love to Supernatural Forces. The answer must be read between the lines of Holy books and doctrines. The answers also lie in the practice of religions, in what they do, rather than in theory. None of the Abrahamic religions is willing to drop or reduce the infinite power attribute of SFs, at present. There are a few reasons for that. The first one is scriptural; it is the argument that Sacred texts do not support the limited power of SFs. Ninavism treats this response as an excuse. The second reason is the fear that less powerful SFs might be unable to create Final World. The third reason is competition between religions. Traditionally, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all had ambitions to conquer the whole world, and that would be difficult if their SFs were perceived as weak. The historical reason is that a less powerful God might not be able to perform miracles, as many Abrahamic religions expected in the past.

Finite Love on the Earth

The well-known passage from the Christian Bible says that of the qualities of faith, love, and hope, the greatest is love. Some people treat it as the superiority of love over everything else. This interpretation is not supported by the Philosophy of Immortality. To start with, there is nothing in the quoted passage about power. Is love more important than power? The quoted passage does not compare love with efficiency. On this earth, the love is sometimes less important than efficiency. For example, the love of criminals should not overcome the need for their punishment. Complete lack of love is bad, because it makes life on the earth unpleasant. However, love should not overshadow other important values. Faith and hope in Immortality seem to be at least equally important to love. Without faith and hope, Final World might never be reached, even if people love each other.

Pragmatic Approach to Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil has been known for a very long time. The solutions also have been known for a long time. Religions adopted partial solutions, but not radical ones. The question arises: why have religious groups not adapted more radical theodicy? The answer is pragmatic: the proposed radical theodicies are considered as bringing more harm than good; they create more problems than they solve.
      The simplest radical solution to the Problem of Evil is dropping all-powerful attributes of Supernatural Forces. This theodicy had been also rejected. Why? The main reason is that some religious groups are terrified by the consequences of admitting that God is not all powerful. They are scared to death that people might reject religion with a weak God. People might think that a weak God will not be able to Resurrect them and create Final World; or people could turn to other religions that promise a stronger God. The religious groups that reject solutions to the Problem of Evil must accept harms. There are ways of minimizing them. The simplest method is to avoid talking about cases of evil, overlooking it. For example, forgetting about dying children. It sometimes works because many people do not experience the death of a child so for them the problem is remote.
      The Problem of Evil is frequently raised during sermons in churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, and other places of worship. Clergy normally restrict themselves to present it in general terms, such as generic 'evil', or generic 'badness'. They normally do not explicitly refer to difficult cases, such as the death of children or genocides. When audiences hear about a generic presentation, they normally think about small evils occurring in their life. These cases can be easily solved. In the end, believers in church, temple, mosque, synagogue, and other places of worship, are frequently convinced by clergy that the Problem of Evil is solved. However, this is a skin deep, superficial. Additionally, people who rarely or never attend places of worship never hear these arguments. Some philosophers are not better than clergy. They frequently concentrate on easy cases of the Problem of Evil, and overlook difficult ones.
      The standing of Ninavism is clear: if the Problem of Evil is not resolved for cases of child deaths, genocides, earthquakes, and the like, then the Problem of Evil is not resolved at all. It is the rule. Therefore, there is no sense discussing or presenting easy cases of evil, because it just creates confusion. It is an all-or-nothing approach. It is similar to the standing of science: in order to understand normal cases, one needs to explain the abnormal and extreme ones. The unresolved Problem of Evil returns like a boomerang. It happens months or years after hiding it - every time big evil occurs, people are helpless, and clergy and some philosophers do not have answers. The solution of rejecting the omnipotence of SFs is the permanent answer that works for all cases of evil, large and small.

Finite Power of Supernatural Forces

The Problem of Evil indicates strongly that Supernatural Forces lack the infinite powers needed to prevent badness on the earth. The second argument supporting their limited power is the failure to create Final World. In the view of Ninavism, all traditional SFs are not able to prevent evil. They have not created Final World till present times because their power is finite - they are not able to do it for now. It is irrelevant whether or not they are separate Gods, or the same one with different names.
      Does it mean that SFs are powerless? Not at all. SFs do not need all powers. They help to maintain spiritual life. All they need is sufficient power to create Final World; or even less, they just need to help men or Aliens to create it in the far future - the goal is 10 million years. In view of Ninavism, the timetable for God(s) is similar. Humans might need the help of SFs to reach the goal. Is it offensive to some religions that Ninavism denies infinite power of their SFs (omnipotence)? Not at all. They are still powerful, much stronger than men.
      Limited power of SFs is easy to comprehend if they are Aliens. Most people think of Aliens as improved versions of humans. If Humans of Future create their own universe and populate it with life, they will be like Supernatural Force to their children. Humans of Future will be also limited, because they are just a stronger version of mankind.
      The Holy books of all major religions contain terms such as 'Almighty' or 'All-powerful' to describe power of SFs. These terms were traditionally regarded as meaning infinite power. This interpretation is not correct. The terms rather mean 'very powerful', or 'much more powerful than humans'. In the view of Ninavism, this was the original meaning of writers of the Sacred texts. Later, when religions started to compete, each one was trying to show that their God is stronger, and they reinterpreted the terms to mean 'infinite power'.
      When the word 'Almighty' is interpreted as powerful, but not infinitely strong, then, in theory, the existence of such a term in religious texts and in prayers should not raise objections. However, most people treat the word 'Almighty' as unlimited - this interpretation is implicit, sometimes carried in the subconscious. The main domain of the Philosophy of Immortality is creation of Final World, with or without SFs. Finite powers of SFs do not erode Immortality, because SFs might have enough power to create Final World in the future, or it can be achieved in a natural way, or it can be facilitated by Aliens, or it can be created by Humans of Future with or without support of SFs. By limiting the powers of SFs, Ninavism solves the Problem of Evil, without sacrificing Immortal life.


The concept of omnipotence leads to many paradoxes. For example, omnipotent SFs are able to choose to eat or not to eat, forever. If they could not have an option of not eating due to the possibility of death, they would not have been omnipotent. Omnipotent SFs are able to choose to breathe or not to breathe, to have lungs or not to have lungs, to have hearts or not to have hearts, and still live normally without all those important organs. Omnipotent SFs are able to do anything. For example, they are able to think without brains, which is impossible for non-omnipotent humans.
      The concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory, as shown by the following reasoning. Suppose that a particular person is omnipotent. From that assumption it follows that one is able to do anything. Therefore, one is able to create something that one is unable to carry out. Inability to perform it, is a denial of omnipotence, that is a contradiction of the original assumption. The contradictory character of omnipotence turns up regardless of who is the omnipotent person: human, Alien, or traditional SFs.
      The impossibility of omnipotence does not negate the existence of an anthropomorphic object to which it is assigned. For example, the impossibility of omnipotent humans does not deny the existence of humans. The impossibility of omnipotence is not the impossibility of SF, as long as that SF is not omnipotent. The common reasoning is that, if SFs are not omnipotent, then they do not exist. This reasoning is a logical error. The property of omnipotence is not a necessary attribute of SFs. Ninavism does not state why SFs are not omnipotent. The lack of their omnipotence is taken from observation, from experience, as demonstrated by the Problem of Evil.
      Nonsense and contradictions are characteristics of humans. The logic appears when ideas are formed as symbols in the form of verbal or written sentences. Logic provides power and, at the same time, restrictions on human reasoning. Reliance on logic makes humans unable to understand anything that is above logic. People must use logic to organize complex information into manageable small units. Men need logic for communication and exchange of ideas. However, logic is not necessary when thinking without sentences deep inside brain.
      Omnipotent SFs are above logic. They do not need sentences. They do not need to exchange ideas. SFs can live happily without logic. Logic is important in reasoning, in creating the path to the truth. Omnipotent SFs do not need to reason. They do not need to have a path to reach the truth. They know the truth without reasoning. Therefore, for them logic is useless. Ninavism supports the concept of non-omnipotent SFs understandable to humans, that comply with Laws of Nature and Logic. More details are in the chapter EPISTEMOLOGY.
      Since experience, logic, and some theoretical consideration show SFs not to be omnipotent, the question arises what exactly are their powers? Ninavism believes that Immortality is within the power of SFs. However, the exact boundary between what SFs are able and are not able to do, is blurred. Presumably, it will depend on a particular physical implementation of logical SFs.

Readiness to Admit Finite Power of Supernatural Forces

Are traditional religions in the present time ready to admit openly and explicitly the finite power of Supernatural Forces? The answer is not straightforward. Some sections of society are ready to accept this truth. However, other sections of the community are not prepared for it, and religious leaders know that. People need to learn gradually that finite power of SFs is not as bad as they think it is. Ninavism helps them to accept this truth.
      The lack of readiness to accept the finite power of SFs might be seen at the funerals of prematurely deceased children who die due to natural causes, such as incurable sickness. In the case of 12-year-old Nina, the priest asked the following question to a packed audience of school children: 'Why do some children die?'. Then he gave the answer: 'We do not know that' - this is an official position of the church. There is no theological explanation for natural death of children that is acceptable to most religious groups at present. There are, of course, scientific, medical explanations, but a funeral is not a time to talk about it - a funeral is a place to explain it religiously.
      During a funeral of a child, it is difficult or impossible for the priests, imams, rabbis, or other clergy to say that child has died because God was not able to help - but this is the truth. Many religious groups are not ready to discuss this truth openly. In the view of Ninavism, it is better to admit this. It is best to teach the truth long before death, so during funerals people do not ask questions because they already know answers. Some ways of telling this are more political than others.
      Some people have inclinations to think that abandoning the idea of unlimited power of God(s) is equivalent to abandoning the hope placed in SFs - this is incorrect. The limited power of SFs is fully compatible with the hope. People need to be educated about this. Religious leaders seem to be undecided how to formulate their policies in regards to the power of SFs. In the end, many of them say nothing, neither confirming nor denying omnipotence. This is not a perfect solution, because when a child dies despites prayers to SFs, or some other evil occurs, religions cannot deal with that properly and lose believers. Priests, imams, rabbis, and other clergy are embarrassed at funerals of deceased children being ashamed that SFs did not prevent their death, despite teachings that they have the capacity to do so.
      Traditional religious groups frequently reject abandoning the idea of the infinite power of God(s) on the ground that omnipotence is supported by Holy books. This is an excuse, not the real reason. If rejection of omnipotence would not lead to weakening of religions, then it is certain that Holy books would not constitute a problem. The quotations from Holy books supporting omnipotence look to many people like childish arguments, in a face of overwhelming empirical evidence that SFs are not omnipotent. The established methodology in religious and non-religious knowledge is that if a theory (i.e. Holy books) does not match reality, then experimental evidence prevails.
      Abandoning omnipotence of SFs will bring short to medium term weakening of religions. However, in the long term it will lead to strengthening of them. This is due to the absurd and nonsense that the notion of omnipotence creates, as confirmed by observation. The concept of omnipotence was partially justified when mankind was weak. It is less justified now, and it will be even less in the future.

Prayers for Miracle from Evil

Prayer for supernatural intervention implicitly makes two fundamental assumptions. The first one is that SFs have enough power to help; after all there would be no sense of prayer for a supernatural intervention if SFs were not in a position to help. The second assumption is that SFs need to be begged for mercy. The decision to help or not to help is at the discretion of SFs; after all, there would be no sense asking for a supernatural intervention if SFs were helping automatically, or rejecting help automatically, regardless whether or not prayers are made.
      The weakness of the first assumption about power of SFs was already discussed. The second assumption about begging for mercy is equally suspicious; if SFs are able to save a sick child, they have a duty to do it without praying or begging for mercy. Many people pray for sick children; despite this, thousands of innocent children die each day. Does that mean that SFs do not show mercy for them? That SFs deliberately sentence them to death?
      In view of some religious groups Saints are deceased people who sometimes make miracles when praying to them. The idea of Saints is generally supported by Ninavism; they are people who reached perfection. Saints are admitted to Semi-Permanent Immortal World. However, more frequently than not, prayers to Saints do not produce miracles. When innocent children die, does it mean that Saints have no mercy for them? Where is the love for children?
      Nina who died from cancer, attended a private religious school. Shortly before death, hundreds of children had an official mass at school to pray for her. When she died, all children and many teachers were upset that SFs did not help her to recover. It eroded religion for many children. Nobody told children that SFs are not able to help (in similar way as God was not able to save Jews from gas chambers). Children expected a miracle for two reasons: an all-powerful God who is able to do anything, and the practice of prayers to Saints that enhances hope in miracles.
      Praying for one's own consolation and coping with death is usually good. If it is praying for recovery, it is very bad when the person dies. Frequently religions do not specify whether prayer is for consolation and coping, or rather for recovery. Officially it is just praying for the sick person, without specifying the purpose. However, implicitly, most people think that when prying for a child it is for recovery, rather than for coping.
      When a child gets seriously ill, sometimes religious institutions try to find out whether sickness is serious or not. If sickness is easy, they recommend payers for recovery. If sickness is serious, they recommend prayers for consolation and coping. This is a practical approach, but not very honest. It frequently fails when the seriousness of the sickness is not known, or medical mistakes happen.
      Praying for recovery from sickness, even if it is not effective, it strengthens religious beliefs in Immortality. Denial of omnipotence of SFs is likely to lead to less prayers. Therefore, reduction in prayers will weaken the beliefs in Immortality, which is not good. Reducing power of SFs from omnipotent, to something less than this, creates serious problems with praying. It will take long time for people to learn to pray to non-omnipotent SFs.

Key Points of Chapter: