Chapter IV: Exploring Divine Justice and the Right to Nonexistence

To create beings capable of suffering, place them under pressure, and then judge them harshly for the choices they made or the actions they took—is this just? If such a right stems merely from creative power, then anyone with the ability to create would be justified in giving life to monsters and then condemning them for what they are. Such a notion is terrifying—it reduces justice to a mere extension of power. But true justice, as we understand it, is not grounded in strength or domination.

Before their creation, these beings were nothing. They rested in peaceful nonexistence, incapable of harm. Why, then, summon them from that void only to subject them to a test with eternal consequences? From this perspective, Creation looks less like an act of kindness than a whim—a selfish gesture that imposes a burden on those who never asked to bear it. And this includes not only those who would fail the test, but even the so-called “saved”: for even they suffer in this world. What kind of just God would accept such an arrangement?

The Absolute Necessity of Creation

To justify such an act, one would have to prove that Creation was absolutely necessary. But on what grounds could that necessity rest? Without clear answers, Creation appears as gratuitous justice inflicted upon imaginary beings. “Let’s create Dracula and punish him!” It makes no sense. If he doesn’t exist, why bring him into existence only to condemn him afterward? This logic seems absurd, and yet it is silently accepted by most believers.

What is truly terrifying here is that believers do not question the necessity of Creation. They accept it as a fait accompli, declaring it “perfect and good,” as we saw in the previous chapter. And yet this question—the need to bring beings into existence—is foundational. Why not opt for inaction, for nonexistence, if acting implied even the slightest risk of injustice or imperfection?

The acceptance of existence itself by the created, without questioning the terms of their own arrival in the world, may be morally questionable. The right to nonexistence—that fundamental possibility of never being burdened by this existence—is inalienable. Yet it has been ignored, or worse, stolen.

Does God Follow His Own Laws?

Many religions teach that God imposes ethical laws on humans—such as the commandment not to do unto others what one would not want done to oneself. But does God apply this rule to himself?

Imagine that God were created, tested under immense pressure, and then judged. Would he consider this fair? Would he have accepted such treatment? If the answer is no, then why does he inflict it on his creatures? True justice demands empathy—and that empathy must apply to God himself. Yet to create beings, subject them to trials, and then judge them, without offering any alternative to existence, seems to contradict that very empathy.

The Ethical Failures of Religious Systems

As described in most religious doctrines, Creation appears to collide with insurmountable ethical problems. By passively accepting the established order, believers become complicit—directly or indirectly—in what they endorse. If Creation contains flaws, injustices, or unnecessary suffering, then those who accept it unquestioningly bear moral responsibility. They implicitly accept a logic in which power replaces justice, and obedience supersedes ethical reflection. And obedience is not always without consequence.

Take this example: a doctor tells a man to kill someone, without explanation. The man complies, believing the doctor knows what he’s doing. After the act, the doctor explains it was a legal euthanasia, wished for by the victim. Does that make the act moral? No—because the man acted without sufficient information, out of blind obedience. In the same way, believers who follow religious doctrines blindly, without questioning their justice, cannot call themselves just. Nor truly believe they are.

And What About Other Beings?

Another ethical issue arises: what about beings who seem to fall outside this test? Animals, for instance, suffer in this world, despite not being subject to the same criteria of judgment as humans—according to most religious teachings. Why? By what right? These too are conscious beings. To make beings suffer who cannot participate in the test—or who were never meant to—seems like a moral aberration. It undermines the very notion of divine universal justice.

The Quest for the Right to Nonexistence

Nonexistence is no longer “nothingness” now that Creation has occurred. On the contrary, it becomes the right that living, conscious beings must cling to. One cannot truly understand existence without considering its absence. And for believers, this question must be answered before all others: what justifies forcing a being to exist? From the standpoint of the void, almost everything else must be studied and examined. The void provides the strongest philosophical foundation from which to judge what is.

Conclusion: Ethical Consistency in Creation

If God exists and is just, then his justice must be constant and flawless. This means it cannot tolerate contradiction, imperfection, or inconsistency. Divine actions must be evaluated by the same standards that God demands of his creatures. Otherwise, we are dealing with an incoherent being—or worse, an unjust one.

Believers must reflect deeply on this idea: Creation itself, as a fait accompli, must be questioned. If it cannot be justified by an absolute necessity and unimpeachable ethical coherence, then it becomes a gratuitous act—devoid of meaning or goodness. And such a thing, a truly just God could never permit.