Are you sure God does not exist?

[Gawen]

I had the last four days off and was bored. So I decided to whip something up. I do not apologise for its length. But I am fairly certain that most of you who have the time and patience to read it will find it...ummm...hopefully...good?

Are you sure God does not exist?
What makes you so sure that god does not exist?
What evidence of god you need to make you believe in god?
Why is there god, rather than no god?

Special pleading is special; an argument that rides the short yellow bus. But to answer those questions I would ask a question: What do theist regard as evidence of non-existence? It doesn't have to be just a God: but of anything. But of God, tell me what criteria you use to determine whether or not it exists, how you check its validity, and if valid, how it applies to said God.

The theist has the burden of proof if a positive claim says that god/s exists, or that the evidence warrants the belief that god/s exists. On the other hand, if a strong atheist says god/s does not exist or that the evidence warrants the belief that god/s do not exist, then the strong atheist has also made a positive claim and also has a burden of proof. I do think that strong atheism is reasonable, supported by logic and defensible.

All religions ask these questions. What they really mean is "Are you sure my God does not exist?" I suspect that if you are not a Mormon, you do not believe in the Mormon God. Perhaps you acknowledge that the Islamic God is the same as the Christian/Jewish God, but reject the polytheism of the Trinity, Hindu, Roman and Greek pantheons, the Pagan Earth gods, the Hawaiian, Fiji, American Indian spirits, and all the other gods, goddesses and spirits you've never heard of.

What theists really need to ask is, 'Why does my definition of and belief in God make no sense to someone who doesn't already believe it?' Simply, it takes faith to believe; an act of faith can be used to believe anything at all. Pay particular attention to the last three words of the prior sentence - anything at all. The easy conclusion is that faith cannot be a valid means to truth because it can be used to believe anything at all. "Faith" should be rejected as valid criteria.

I am 100% certain the omni-everything Judeo-Christian-Islamic god does not exist. The reasons are simple, but here is only one:
1) This god is alleged to be the ultimate in love.
2) This god is alleged to have created everything.
1) & 2) are a logical contradiction; ergo, this god can not exist.

The stories about the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God are nonsensical. Equally are all of the arguments in favor of belief and astoundingly flawed as well. People who use bad arguments have no good reason for their belief. What they must do is present evidence of a non self contradictory god.

It is no coincidence that all of the gods worshiped by humans are all too human; products of human imagination. They have human emotions, human flaws, human personalities; human desires...the same imagination as humans with imaginations. But yet we hear from the theist: "God is a natural power like electricity or a magnet but God's natural power is aware of its existence and has power to create and destroy anything he wants." (A real theist assertion)

This makes the Biblical and Quranic God an imagined comic-book character...without the pictures. Are we able to measure Superman's' powers? Can we measure Gandolf's powers? Alas, we can measure natural powers such as electricity and magnetism. But if a god were a natural power we should be able to measure its effects. Why is it that Superheroes remain hidden behind a mask, not unlike Gods that remain invisible? At least, if Superheroes did exist, we would see them from time to time. Not so with Supernaturals.

"You can not measure all the universe or predictions.", say theists. So what? We can measure and predict the effects of natural forces we know of. What are the effects of the natural force they call god? If it is a force, it must have effects, but I see no sign of any. If it uses force, we should see those effects as well. All the gods men describe and worship seem to be powerless to do anything without all too human special pleading; they all need humans to perform actions on their behalf. What kind of a force is that? An imaginary one.

How can theists know "You can not measure all the universe or predictions.?", but yet make assertions of an omni, invisible existing God? Well, THEY have special knowledge and of course, with special knowledge come special pleading and another ride in the short yellow bus. Yeah but, even if one asserts that some omni, yet vague god exists and does not choose to reveal itself, one must also ask, why would a god that chooses to remain hidden care if humans did not notice it?

Why did the Christian God allow the evidence of his grandest miracles evaporate? Why did this God not care to help the so easily confused and superstitious ancient humans, by not helping with a little personal evidence? There are Sumerian trade documents, legal decrees, religious writings, songs, etc., from 4500 years ago. There have been discoveries where communities have recorded eclipses from 5,000 years ago. We have a continuum of tree ring records going back 10,000 years. What do we have to support the beginning of the world, The Flood, or Joshua's day that stood still? Outside of the Tanakh, nothing. Even most Israeli archeologists have come to the conclusion that the Exodus never happened. Why? There is a lot of absence.

God could have visibly written or redacted the Biblical narratives; that they're not so clumsy and unbelievable. God could have physically helped the Egyptians record a few phrases about the Exodus. Maybe God should have helped ancient Chinese astronomers recording the day the earth stood still. How about finding some datable clay tablets that demonstrate that Daniel was written between 200BCE and 600BCE? How about showing a most clarified and defined prophetic prediction?

People claim the existence of all sorts of creatures, beings and entities for which there is no evidence to validate them. The God that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship is just one in a very, very long list of such claimed beings. They just cannot seem to come to terms with this without resorting to more rides on the short yellow bus. One of these rides is the assertion (without providing any rationality, other than, 'because I say so') about all claimed gods being one and the same, or rather, "There is but one God with a million names". The position is absurd; a defense mechanism some have adopted to protect their irrational beliefs. If this position were true, all religions worship the same god but all of them misunderstand the same god. Sadly, there is an implied "except me" at the end.

Perhaps they have not educated themselves of Cognitive Dissonance. Is Thor the same god they have deluded themselves to believe is real? The claim that Leprechauns and gnomes exist is not an unheard of assertion. Perhaps these spirits are the same God or mayhaps, the same demon? But wait, could it be that God and Satan are the same entity? At any rate, what evidence would convince theists that at the end of rainbows pots of gold are guarded by little, pipe-smoking men clad in green and sporting derby's on the top of their head?

If there was a god who existed, that god would know or should know and be able to provide the evidence that would convince everyone of that god's existence. The fact that I remain unconvinced answers all of the questions above. It would seem possible that a god may exist and equally possible not care whether anyone knows it exists. Of course, the functional difference between such a god and no god at all appears to be nil.

Many theists disagree with other theists definitions. The overriding factor, the ultimate similarity between them all is they cannot provide physical evidence for their gods as defined by each but at the same time show why their assertions and presuppositions masquerading as evidence is more compelling than the others evidence. At this time, the theist must simply admit that their definition is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. That's the beauty of believing in a God. The recipe starts with a few basic ingredients and then adds more to create whatever deity fits personal criteria. It's THE ultimate imaginary friend.

It is interesting to see people construct a definition for a term, a concept around their own particular biases and prejudices. It shows up frequently; look how often theists will take a bunch of negative opinions and spin them into a definition of an atheist, for example. They work the same sort of spin into their gods.

Once a person begins to require evidence, belief is no longer the issue. Faith and reason appear to be mutually exclusive. I've never been able to figure out why Allah would appeal to humans via faith, rather than reason. If, as Muslims say, Allah is creator, then Allah created man with the ability to reason. So why abandon reason in deference to faith? Look how many people use these claims of faith to do great evil to their fellow man. If reason were the sole means of apprehending Allah, such people wouldn't find it easy to deceive and hurt other people. From a Muslim's eyes, look at the false gods that have led so many Muslims away from Allah. But from my perspective, if Allah were to appeal to my reason, such that belief through faith was no longer necessary, then I would know Allah rather than just believe I know. The same works for any other deity.

Theists that posit faulty arguments are in my opinion, Ambassadors for Atheism. Their arguments open the door for ridicule and offer skeptics the opportunity to dissect and illustrate the absurdity, destructiveness, hypocrisy, contradictory nature, irrationality, bigotry, separatism and the just plain stupidity of fervent blind faith religious world views. The total lack of evidence that magic actually exists (Gods are magical constructs and wield magical powers) should lead one to the conclusion that Gods do not exist. Evidence of magic would be a good start, though. You know, werewolves, zombies, vampires, superheroes, spells, mind reading, clairvoyance, wands, etc. all the things contrary to nature?  Maybe all or some of those would help point to a god. Since there is no evidence of things contrary to nature, i.e.: magic does not exist, therefore gods do not exist – magic exists on the short yellow bus. Belief in god is magical thinking, you may as well worship Saruman for all the good it does.

Isn't amazing that the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god is petty and insecure; that one of the biggest things he worries about is what people say about him? He worries enough so that the first few of his 10 commandments are how one is supposed to properly deal with him. And this doesn't set off any mental alarms in Jews or Christians.

The default position for any claim is that it is false until evidence is presented to the contrary. Some would call this the Null Hypothesis - that data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. That goes for the claims of existence for gods, floor lamps, unicorns, paper mache, tooth fairies, snow geese and everything else; even comparison of two groups. The only rational stance is to assume that everything is null until you find evidence to assume otherwise. The more trivial the claim, the more trivial the evidence needs to be. If someone were in Asia and told you it rained yesterday, it should not be beyond credulity. If a horticulture magazine wrote of a Catholic Bishop in Brazil saw a strain of rice which was slightly different than the strains of rice in Asia, it should be sufficient to accept the claim as factual since we already know that different strains of rice or wheat or grain exists in different places. So fairly a trivial claim that Brazil now has a different strain of rice, we wouldn't feel the need to reserve judgment about its existence until after we had gone to Brazil to verify it for myself.

Similarly, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence to validate it would need to be. If someone says that there is a supernatural entity that uses its abilities to affect the universe for anyone who is willing to worship it, that's a fairly extraordinary claim and therefore the evidence required for its acceptance would need to be extraordinary. Given the utter lack of evidence, the rational position is to keep the claim in the null category and give it no potential validity at all because there is nothing that justifies any other stance.

I do not think that Ra, the Egyptian sun god does not exist. Although I see the sun or its light every day and I understand that nearly all terrestrial life depends on the sun and has a huge impact on the Earth's weather and know that it exists and can burn a person to a crisp, I can understand how others might find these attributes of a deity. Call me hard sale but I just don't buy it.

The evidence that there is or is not a god depends on the definition of said god. We have no choice in the matter of defining any god as that which is 'supernatural'. Perhaps some will not agree that all gods have that one attribute in common (but I would argue that is just silly - all gods must be supernatural, or they are not gods, but natural super-smart and powerful aliens (non-human), for example). The strong atheist says, "There is no such thing as the supernatural, therefore there can be no such thing as a god". The justification for the claim that the supernatural does not exist is that all things that exist in this universe are natural - not supernatural, and must follow the natural laws of this universe. Anything "outside of this universe" (if that is even a meaningful statement) cannot interact within this universe, otherwise it would not be "outside of this universe" (it would be within). In short, supernatural means "not in this universe" and "not in this universe" means "does not exist".

Obviously the Christian omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenvolent god cannot logically exist, so, as far as that god is concerned, I am a gnostic strong atheist. I don't just think that it doesn't exist, I know it. The tooth fairy is another matter. On the one hand, it would be absurd to believe in such a supernatural thing without evidence; on the other hand, I can't actually prove it doesn't exist. Therefore, I am fairly certain it doesn't exist with a lack of acceptable evidence even though I don't know it doesn't exist. With regard to the tooth fairy, I am an agnostic strong atheist.

Why do people claim gods exist? What is their evidence? Their evidence is weak and subjective and often laughable. There appears to be no good evidence for existence of gods. Why do people claim gods do not exist? What is their evidence? If they do exist, it seem as if they/it created a universe to intentionally appear as though they did not. Who would know the difference? Therefore, why make up tales and fantasy and pretend it's real and pretend it's actual evidence for something that there has never been any evidence for?

It is abundantly clear that early humans within recorded history invented their own specific notions of god/s; anthropocentric and subject to revision as the community evolved. Since it is evident that humankind is quite adept at inventing explanations for the unknown without a systematic methodology, it is not surprising that those explanations will eventually evolve more and more supernaturally.

Now the more interesting question to me is since humans clearly can invent god/s out of thin air, is there sufficient reason to conclude that there is at least one notion that is correct and not invention? If there is a systematic method that disproves all invented gods, leaving only one notion standing, I would love to hear about it. Otherwise, the most cautious and conservative conclusion is that all god notions were invented by humans and none are true. It is disingenuous to accept the supernatural claims of one religious notion of god while writing off other religious supernatural claims. Since any criteria I have encountered to test supernatural claims ultimately either disqualifies all supernatural claims if sufficiently strict, or none at all if too loose, why should any supernatural claim be held in regard by anyone? Simply put, they shouldn't. It is for cultural and emotional reasons that supernatural claims are accepted by people, not for rational reasons.

Sometimes theists ask me to define god. I cannot and am only able to assume how they define god, and my evidence to its existence is that historically speaking, all gods that have ever existed have only existed in the human imagination stemming from superstition and ignorance. Not much has changed in the last 5000 years, has it?

Theists have such vast and conflicting disagreements about what god/s is/are like, sometimes even within their own denomination. It is in any case clear beyond a reasonable doubt, even to theists if they are honest about it, that if a god exists, we humans do not have a verifiable and reliable way to gain accurate knowledge of a god. What's the difference between an unknowable god and no god? The difference is that an unknowable God can exist in principle. The questions theists should be asking, instead of those at the top of this should be:
"What is the difference between a world with an unknowable God and no God at all?" and
"Should we form our beliefs differently in these worlds?"

[Sandra Craft]

Are you sure God does not exist?
What makes you so sure that god does not exist?
What evidence of god you need to make you believe in god?
Why is there god, rather than no god?

I'm going to assume these questions are not just for theists.

1.  I have no idea whether or not a god exists, the way it's been defined makes it impossible to know (which seems a very convenient save for theists).

2.  N/A

3.  Well, someone (or something) turning up at my front door, introducing itself as the creator of all things and then creating a tiny universe right in front of me would be a great start.  Of course, that would only prove that it was the creator of that tiny universe, not of this larger universe, but as first steps go it would be pretty good.

4.  No idea, esp. since things make more sense without a god.

[Stevil]

What evidence of god you need to make you believe in god?

What is it that makes a god entity unique from non god entities?
That is what I would test for.
At the moment, I have no clue what that would be.

[Sweetdeath]

((referring  to your last paragraph: ))
I live my life as if there is no god. I believe there is no god, but if there were one, it would be a truly unfit creature for my worship. With all the violence and suffering in this world; humans should see that helping each other is truly the way to DO or change anything!
Prayer and hope don't work, getting off your ass and giving a shit does.
Without this belief in a diety, I think we wouldn't have to deal with so much sexism, hate crimes, and biggotry - (( my god tells me you should die, you unbeliever)) attitude, etc.

If we lived in a world without such pointless belief, maybe the idea of peace on earth MIGHT be possible.

[Gawen]

Are you sure God does not exist?
What makes you so sure that god does not exist?
What evidence of god you need to make you believe in god?
Why is there god, rather than no god?

I'm going to assume these questions are not just for theists.

1.  I have no idea whether or not a god exists, the way it's been defined makes it impossible to know (which seems a very convenient save for theists).

2.  N/A

3.  Well, someone (or something) turning up at my front door, introducing itself as the creator of all things and then creating a tiny universe right in front of me would be a great start.  Of course, that would only prove that it was the creator of that tiny universe, not of this larger universe, but as first steps go it would be pretty good.

4.  No idea, esp. since things make more sense without a god.

These are questions asked of me BY theists over the years. As if they were trying to think outside the box. Whether or not they eventually get out of the box, I don't know. But the entire ...ummm...paper?...dissertation?...post?...was a reply, so to speak, of those questions.

[Gawen]

It's interesting, the replies, on a subject that touches on so many tangents, and what you three get out of reading it....I think...*chucklin*

Trying to stay chiefly on special pleading and evidence was quite difficult. I honestly didn't know what to expect in the form of replies, if in fact, none at all. But I am pleasantly surprised by them nonetheless. Thanks.

[Too Few Lions]

like you Gawen, I'm sure Yahweh doesn't exist, and that means I know the Christian and Muslim gods don't exist. Personally, I don't like calling Yahweh 'God', he's no more 'God' than Zeus, Odin or Baal.

[Liar For Jesus]

OP said :    I am 100% certain the omni-everything Judeo-Christian-Islamic god does not exist. The reasons are simple, but here is only one:
1) This god is alleged to be the ultimate in love.
2) This god is alleged to have created everything.
1) & 2) are a logical contradiction; ergo, this god can not exist.


REPLY:  I fail to see why #1 and 2  are contradictions  ;    if there is a personal theistic Creator (viz. God) who by volitional choice brought a Universe into existence when it didnt have to exist.... along with providing a very suitable place as Earth for humankind to flourish (being his most prized creative act )... that it would seem to be an exhibit of extraordinary love/care/concern  .  At least this is what my Theist friends have expressed to me.

[Recusant]

Thanks for posting that piece, Gawen. I read through it once, but I think that to give a proper response, I'll have to go through it again with a more critical eye. I do agree that the vast majority (if not all) claims by the religious believers/theists are based in special pleading. It just doesn't seem possible for them to get anywhere without it.

I'll leave it to you to answer Struggling Atheist. 

[Crow]

At least this is what my Theist friends have expressed to me.

Don't you mean yourself.

[Traveler]

OP said :    I am 100% certain the omni-everything Judeo-Christian-Islamic god does not exist. The reasons are simple, but here is only one:
1) This god is alleged to be the ultimate in love.
2) This god is alleged to have created everything.
1) & 2) are a logical contradiction; ergo, this god can not exist.


REPLY:  I fail to see why #1 and 2  are contradictions  ;    if there is a personal theistic Creator (viz. God) who by volitional choice brought a Universe into existence when it didnt have to exist.... along with providing a very suitable place as Earth for humankind to flourish (being his most prized creative act )... that it would seem to be an exhibit of extraordinary love/care/concern  .  At least this is what my Theist friends have expressed to me.

I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.

[AnimatedDirt]

I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.

And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.

[Sandra Craft]

These are questions asked of me BY theists over the years. As if they were trying to think outside the box. Whether or not they eventually get out of the box, I don't know. But the entire ...ummm...paper?...dissertation?...post?...was a reply, so to speak, of those questions.

OK, I get it now.  I thought those were odd questions to ask of other atheists.

One of these rides is the assertion (without providing any rationality, other than, 'because I say so') about all claimed gods being one and the same, or rather, "There is but one God with a million names". The position is absurd; a defense mechanism some have adopted to protect their irrational beliefs. If this position were true, all religions worship the same god but all of them misunderstand the same god. Sadly, there is an implied "except me" at the end.

To be fair, I have known some theists who leave off the "except me".  They relate it to something like the Blind Men and the Elephant story (in fact, I think a theist was the first one who told me that story) and accept being one of the blind who have only a small, blurry part of the whole truth and practice that part of it (their religion) out of tradition and because that's what is comfortable for their culture and background.  But they hold that all the parts are correct in their way, even if they appear contradictory to humans.  I have wondered, if all perceptions of god are right, and if god is vaster than all these perceptions together, is the lack of a perception of god also right?  Some have told me they think this may be right -- that this ultimate force is both god and not god.  I have to admit this level of philosophical thinking is way over my head.

Once a person begins to require evidence, belief is no longer the issue. Faith and reason appear to be mutually exclusive. I've never been able to figure out why Allah would appeal to humans via faith, rather than reason.

The reasoning I've heard (most recently we've had a version of it from Ed) is that faith is the greater discipline, the greater test, and is therefore more valued by god in its teacher function.  Now, I can see that it is harder to believe things that make no sense than things that make sense, but it seems to me a greater effort to come up with the things that make sense which would make reason a much tougher homework assignment than faith.  I've never gotten an answer on that, other than "it's a matter of opinion", or Ed's "faith is based on reason" which is absurd by definition.

Theists that posit faulty arguments are in my opinion, Ambassadors for Atheism. Their arguments open the door for ridicule and offer skeptics the opportunity to dissect and illustrate the absurdity, destructiveness, hypocrisy, contradictory nature, irrationality, bigotry, separatism and the just plain stupidity of fervent blind faith religious world views.

Have you ever read any of Karen Armstrong's books?  I think it was in "A History of God" that she suggested that until about the 17th century the bible was generally regarded as metaphorical, and then a movement started that insisted it must be interpreted as literally true.  She found it interesting that atheism as we know it today began increasing sharply right after that.

Why do people claim gods exist? What is their evidence? Their evidence is weak and subjective and often laughable. There appears to be no good evidence for existence of gods.

Some scientists have suggested it's a chemical thing in the brain, that a part of the brain functions in such a way that the perception of certain experiences as supernatural or divine is a by-product.  Sort of an odd little gift of evolution, which, if true, is rather ironic.

Sometimes theists ask me to define god. I cannot and am only able to assume how they define god, and my evidence to its existence is that historically speaking, all gods that have ever existed have only existed in the human imagination stemming from superstition and ignorance. Not much has changed in the last 5000 years, has it?

Someone asked Carl Sagan to define god once, and he came up with quite a list, ending with the belief that "god" was the sum total of the physical laws of the universe.  He didn't hold to any of them personally, but thought the last at least had the advantage of plenty of evidence, if one was going to settle on that definition of god.

[Sandra Craft]

I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.

And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.

Is this god in its teacher function again, teaching humans important lessons thru pain and suffering?  It's interesting that an omnipotent being can't find any other way of teaching a particular lesson than, say, having a 3-yr old die of brain cancer.  I'm not saying it might not be so, I'm just saying it's odd.

[Traveler]

I think its pretty obvious that creating severe birth defects is not a loving act. I think its pretty obvious that creating flesh-eating bacteria is not a loving act. I think it's pretty obvious that asking a man to kill his son as a test is not a loving act. Shall I go on? There is much pain and suffering in the world. This is inconsistant with an infinately loving creator.

And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.

I don't quite understand where you're going with this. Pain, as in the pain one feels when cut, is important. It tells us the stove is hot we should move our hand off it, for instance. Or to avoid hugging cacti in the desert. But cancer? Multiple sclerosis? Alzeimer's Disease? And perhaps more importantly, horrible diseases in young, innocent children? What are we to learn from that? These kinds of situations break people. And to make an innocent child suffer. A child who's too young to learn anything from it? That's just cruel.