Copyright © 2015 by Wil C. Fry. All Rights Reserved.
Here, I summarize the longer arguments below (
skip to intro). Those
unwilling or unable to read the entire document may read just this summary for my main conclusions.
Each point has a link to a longer section below.
The Principle Of Certainty
See full argument
Absolute certainty is not possible on any topic. For practical purposes,
near certainty is
the same as 100% certainty. While no one could ever be completely certain that there is no god
whatsoever, being very, very certain is good enough.
The Relevancy Of The God Claim
See full argument
Not all god claims are created equal. Some are too general to prove or disprove, and these
generally require nothing of humanity, becoming irrelevant. It is the very specific god claims
that are not only easier to disprove, but more
necessary to disprove, since they require
much of us.
Defining God
See full argument
Lest we fall into unproductive semantic arguments, “God” here refers to the monotheistic
creator and ruler of the universe, or the “boss god”, while lowercase “god”
or “gods” refer to any being with supernatural abilities.
They Can’t All Be True
See full argument
The first and most powerful argument for me is: Many god claims are incompatible with each
other. They can’t all be true. It is rare that any two could be placed side-by-side and
found compatible in the specifics. This means that before we even begin, we can know that
almost all of them are untrue.
Pascal’s Nightmare
See full argument
Pascal’s Wager is infamously incorrect in its proposition of probability. Not only is it
incredibly improbable that there is any god, but any god claim must share that probability with all
other god claims, bringing the probability of each to near zero.
Absence Of Evidence As Evidence Of Absence
See full argument
When evidence of something should be expected, and should be
abundant, any absence of
such evidence is notable. If a particular god claim includes an overwhelming number of assertions
about God’s interaction with humanity and promises of continual interaction, then absence
of that interaction is evidence the claim is false.
Observable Miracles
See full argument
Personal miracles are regularly claimed by theists, pertaining to present-day events. Despite
ubiquitous modern recording technology, their claims are either oddly unimpressive, easily
explainable, normal occurrences, unable to be substantiated by any standard of proof, and/or
surprisingly undocumented. There is also a complete and utter absence of
big, public
miracles. Whether there be any gods, it is certain there is not a miracle-working God.
Unintelligent Design Of Life
See full argument
There are a sufficient number of “mistakes” — non-optimal characteristics —
in existing living beings to deflate any theory of “intelligent design” operating in
nature. Most, if not all of them, are explained easily by the theory of evolution via natural
selection.
The Universe Is Hostile To Life
See full argument
Refuting the claim that the universe is “finely tuned” to support life (as a proof
of a Creator) is the fact that the universe — almost all of it — is intensely hostile
to life, especially human life.
Natural Causes
See full argument
Many things once thought to be caused by the supernatural are now understood to have
natural causes. Nothing that was once thought to have natural causes is now explained by the
supernatural. This shows that as science, knowledge, and education increase, we regularly find
no supernatural influence in the world.
I Love You, So... Burn Forever!
See full argument
The idea of eternal torment for unbelief (or failing to meet any confusing detail of the rules)
directly contradicts the idea of a loving or moral God. It does leave open the possibility of a
malevolent God, which might explain many things.
Problems With The Omnis
See full argument
If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then certain other assertions by theists
must be false, including “God is moral”, “God is loving”, and “We
have free will”.
Free Will In Heaven?
See full argument
Assertions of a perfect, evil-free heaven are nonsensical when combined with the assertions that
free will is what allowed humans to sin in the first place and that we will still have free will in
heaven.
Introduction
Months after my
initial announcement, after further consideration on many
topics, I’ve removed the “agnostic” part of my self-imposed label. While I still
hold that no one can know with absolute certainty that there is no god, I am prepared to say that
99.99% certainty is — for all practical purposes — the same as full certainty.
In
My Journey, I described how I rejected a very specific belief system.
In
How I Came To Disbelieve The Bible, I dealt specifically with
the Christian Bible and how it became obvious to me that it was not true. But these are not the
only god claims in the world. What of the other claims, or the god-idea in general?
There is no single argument or proof that wipes out all gods, but there are certainly arguments
against specific god claims, and lines of reasoning that bury the others in extreme and
justified doubt.
There are a multitude of
arguments for God’s existence,
all of which failed for me, and none of which attempt to prove a specific deity. Some have
asserted there is no way to prove gods
don’t exist. It is true that
there is no single argument or proof that wipes out all gods, but there are certainly arguments
against
specific god claims, and lines of reasoning that bury the others in extreme and
justified doubt.
Here, I detail some of the thinking that eventually convinced me that the existence of a god or
gods is highly improbable, almost certainly not true.
It’s a long read. Feel free to
return to the summary, or use the
••• menu to navigate the page.
The Principle Of Certainty
Underlying the entirety of what follows is the meaning of the word “certainty”.
Wikipedia
defines it as “perfect
knowledge that has total security from error... something is certain only if no skepticism can
occur.” However, this is the way the word is used in philosophy, not by the common person in
real life. Google’s
definition is
closer: “a firm conviction that something is the case” or “the quality of being
reliably true.”
There is no way to prove the universe is even physically real. Every other “certainty” is based on
this complete uncertainty.
In reality, no one is ever
absolutely certain of anything. There is no way to prove the
universe is even physically real, for example, rather than a product of your mind or a highly
sophisticated virtual reality. Every other “certainty” is based on this
complete uncertainty.
For practical purposes, therefore, we count
near certainty as good enough. When you check
both sides of a coin and see a face on one side and (for example) an eagle on the other, you
would say you are 100% certain that you know what’s on both sides of it, although you can
only see one side at a time. When you put it in your pocket, you would say you are still 100%
certain, despite not being able to see either side. You know the probability that one or both sides
have changed is very, very slim, close enough to zero to not worry about.
My initial announcement that I was an “agnostic atheist” was explained with this phrase:
“I choose to avoid a complete assertion of certainty”, and I noted that because I had
been so certain of my religion for so long, it would be difficult for me to be completely confident
that there is
no god whatsoever. But I have since come to realize that 99.99% certainty is,
for all practical purposes, the same as 100%. Especially for the gods that matter.
The Relevancy Of The God Claim
The more general a god claim, the harder it is to disprove, but easier to ignore. The more specific a
god claim, the easier it is to disprove, but impossible to ignore.
It isn’t necessary or worthwhile to try to disprove every god claim or belief system.
Some are constructed so as to be near-impossible to disprove. Many will never have
any effect on our lives — even if true. These can be ignored.
The more
general a god claim, the harder it is to disprove, but easier to ignore. The
more
specific a god claim, the easier it is to disprove, but impossible to ignore.
In other words, some assertions are more
falsifiable than others, often the
same ones that are the most invasive and insidious.
For example,
pantheists define God as
“the universe” or “everything”. This god idea is impossible to disprove
because everything (the universe) clearly exists — ignoring solipsism. It
can also be ignored as a semantic issue: if you redefine “god” to mean something
that everyone admits exists, then everyone agrees your god exists. If the definition of god is
changed to “trees” or “air” or “this pencil”, then
you’re simply playing a word game with yourself instead of arguing for the existence
of a god.
Also, to my knowledge, pantheism makes no effort to infiltrate government or legislation,
makes no demands of society nor of individuals. Therefore, it is irrelevant to our lives.
Likewise,
deism can be ignored. Its claims are
simple and unfalsifiable: there is one god who created the universe, including the laws of
physics, but there the creator’s influence ended. This Creator made no revelations or
rules for behavior. (Some deists claim this creator requires humanity to use reason
to figure out the universe and morality, but even then no future punishment for misdeeds is
asserted.) Deists don’t believe their god is involved in the
affairs of humans. It offers no punishments or rewards, no nuggets of wisdom, no miracles. There
is no possibility or need to disprove this god, for it is also irrelevant.
(If you ask me, both pantheism and deism are a cop-outs for people who would otherwise be
atheists but can’t let go of the idea of god. At least that was the case when I called
myself a deist. It is interesting to note that deism reached its peak
before humanity
acquired much of its current scientific knowledge, including evolution, genetics, atoms,
germs, etc.)
These gods are easier to disprove for obvious reasons: their claims often contradict observed
reality.
The world’s largest and most-known religions, however, not only make specific assertions
about the character and nature of God (or gods), but describe specific ways in which these gods
interact with the physical universe. In most cases, they also claim a set of writings
(scriptures) are provided by God as a revelation of himself and that these scriptures are
the final word. These gods are easier to disprove for obvious reasons: their claims often
contradict observed reality. These belief systems also cannot be ignored, since they have
specific and often divisive rules for behavior, and regularly are carried out with legal force
in major nations.
I will present two examples — both invented by me while I wrote this. Disclaimer: these
are fictitious. None of the assertions in the following two examples are to be construed
as true or believable. Please do not start a religion based on these.
1. “Atomic God”: atoms are gods, the combination of atoms
(molecules) make up stronger gods, and all the atoms in the universe together are one giant,
all-encompassing God. This God made everything, makes us feel better or worse depending upon
its whims (
dopamine is made of atoms!),
and what we call natural or physical laws are simply the predictable behavior of
this God.
2. This same Atomic God is so powerful that it can reach into the
physical observable world, and
do things — in defiance of the laws of
physics. It can “speak” to me in my brain (you can’t hear it though) so
I’ll know what it wants. It also makes oceans rise up out of their beds every night and
float over the mountaintops and wants petrochemicals to be prohibited by law in every nation.
It also demands occasional human sacrifices.
You can shrug off my first assertion, because that God requires nothing of you, and nothing
about my claim can be disproved or proved by science. But the second claim
does
require something of you — outlaw petrochemicals, human sacrifice — and asserts
a disprovable interaction with the physical world. (You can observe, any night, the oceans not
floating over the mountaintops.) If it weren’t for the requirement, you could ignore the
disprovable part and believe in it anyway; it wouldn’t affect anything except
people’s opinions of your mental stability.
It is perhaps no coincidence that the very general, unfalsifiable god claims
are the ones that have zero or ignorable requirements for humanity, while the
very specific claims — the easiest to disprove — are the belief systems that have
the most stringent requirements for human living — including capital apostasy laws.
On this page, I am concerned mainly with the latter, though the former will play into it as
well.
Defining God
Unlike the pantheists mentioned above, most people do not define God as “the Universe”,
but rather
as the
creator and ruler
of the universe, a supreme, sentient being. This is what I refer to when I capitalize the word.
This definition is true of the world’s two largest religions, Christianity and Islam —
together accounting for more than half of the world’s population — and also of their
forebear, Judaism.
When I use the lowercase version of god, I refer to any of several thousand deities that have
been asserted to exist throughout human history, to include the monotheistic God but also the
gods of other religions and belief systems, including the Roman, Greek, and Norse pantheons, the
numerous gods of various Hindu traditions, the Egyptian deities, and all the others. The
lowercase “god” means any being with supernatural abilities. Most of these belief
systems have some form of “origin story” for the universe, including a higher, more
powerful god or gods that are (or were) nominally in charge of the others.
When I use the term “god claim”, as should be obvious, I am referring to any claim
by a person, book, or organization that asserts the existence of a god or gods. For most
purposes, it could be considered synonymous with “belief system”.
They Can’t All Be True
I list this argument first on this page, because it is the most powerful and effective for me.
Most god claims are explicitly contradictory with other god claims.
Most god claims are explicitly contradictory with other god claims. As an obvious example, there
is no way to reconcile the Christian claim that Jesus Christ is the son of God with the Muslim
claim that Jesus was
not the son of God. This alone means that
one of those two belief
systems is untrue.
Within Christianity alone, there are many hundreds, if not thousands of
denominations, many of
them holding incompatible beliefs. (Obviously, I do not here refer to denominations that split
off because of personal issues or organizational disagreements, but to the ones that split because
of
doctrinal arguments.) For example,
trinitarian Christians disagree with
nontrinitarians about the very nature
of the God they worship. From the outside looking in, it appears they’re not even worshipping
the same God — which means this is
two god claims. At least one of them is untrue. This
disagreement alone led to 15 centuries of persecution. Other doctrinal disagreements led to wars.
It should also be noted that those calling themselves “Christians” either believe
the Bible is literally true, or believe much of it is allegory, or believe in its God but discard
most of the stories. This division alone amounts to three separate god claims.
The same is true for
Islam,
which early separated into three distinct branches — each of which splintered further. These
branches disagree on their history, on societal rules, and on moral codes required by their God.
They disagree so strongly that wars have been waged over these points of doctrine. Members of one
branch will assert that the other branch is blasphemous. In countries where one branch is in the
majority, the other branch will sometimes not be allowed to pray or even enter buildings where they
might pray
(
source).
It is not the same religion if you can’t agree on what God is like, or what he
requires of you.
It is
not the same
religion if you can’t agree on what God is like, or what he requires of you. If one group
says “you’re saved by faith alone; what you
do doesn’t matter”, and
another group says “no,
true faith is evidenced by works”, then you’re
looking at two different god claims.
(Even the Bible disagrees with itself on the above topic, for what it’s worth. In Galatians,
Paul writes: “...we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in
Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
But James wrote that belief isn’t enough, because “the demons also believe”,
that it’s “as a result of the works” that faith is perfected. If the demons
believe in God, but can’t be saved, then belief is not enough, yet Paul says it is.)
And it should go without saying that not only are Islam and Christianity incompatible with each
other, but with the Judaism that came before them (which is also divided into disagreeing sects).
Every doctrinal
disagreement creates another god claim which has an increasing chance of being false.
So I can categorically state that
two of those three religions are untrue. For
arguments’ sake, let’s say Judaism and Islam are untrue, leaving Christianity as a
possible truth. Even then,
most Christian claims are wrong, because they can’t all be
true. God is either one, or three, or three-in-one. Either the Holy Ghost still makes people
speak in tongues, or it doesn’t, or it never has. Either God still heals through the
“laying on of hands” or he doesn’t, or he never has. And so on. Every doctrinal
disagreement creates another god claim which has an increasing chance of being false.
Seen this way, what appear to be giant, monolithic god claims accepted by billions each are
actually categorical groupings of hundreds (or thousands) of competing, contradictory god claims.
Without even researching, we can know that at
all-minus-one are untrue.
We
know without even debating or considering the tenets of each that almost all of them are
not true.
And all of the above is without considering the thousands of god claims that arose before Judaism
or simultaneously with it. The god claims of Native American civilizations are (for the most part)
not compatible with the god claims of Islam or Christianity, and often not with each other. And
the god claims of Africa, and prehistoric Europe, and the Far East, and Pacific Islanders... We
know without even debating or considering the tenets of each that
almost all of them are
not true.
Take as an analogy a hundred people standing on an overpass. You approach the overpass, and the
first person tells you they saw a single automobile drive along the highway underneath them.
But the next person tells you it was actually 12 vehicles, all identical. The third person agrees
on the number 12, but asserts each vehicle was different in appearance and ability. The fourth
person says it was a motorcycle. The fifth person said there was no vehicle. Or a hundred vehicles.
By the time you’ve interviewed everyone who was standing on the overpass, you have a
hundred competing claims, none of which agree with each other, and all of which are
incompatible. A theist apologist would say: “But at least you know there
was a
vehicle, because almost everyone saw it.” I would say instead that all I know is that
99 of the people are telling untrue stories.
I see this as the best argument against
most god claims, because it destroys
almost
all of them. Of course, if one of them
is true, then the trick is to figure out
which one.
Rebuttal
There is no good rebuttal to this argument. The best one I’ve heard is along these lines:
“They’re all referring to the same God, but each one interprets it differently.”
Alternatively: “Every religion on Earth began with the same truth, but humans changed it
over time and developed different mythologies to explain God in different ways.”
It’s a poor argument, because (even if believed) it still leaves us wondering which one is
correct. We’re talking about our (alleged) immortal souls here, heaven and hell according to
many. If there’s even a nugget of truth to any of it, we need to know
which one is
correct. For those who say “any of them are fine” or “what’s really
important is that you’re a good person”, I need evidence of that too. Who says so?
God? Which one? When did it say this, and how can I verify that? They’re really just
making a separate god claim.
Pascal’s Nightmare
French philosopher Blaise Pascal
infamously posited that God either
exists or doesn’t exist (“heads or tails”), and that everyone wagers one way
or the other, and finally that you should wager on his existence because of the consequences
(heaven or hell). As critics noted, the wager was formulated within the paradigm of
Christianity rather than in the universe as a whole.
You could choose God, but the wrong one.
If I tell you there is an invisible dragon god that sleeps in
my car, there is not a 50% chance of it being real.
The wager itself was set up incorrectly (though perhaps honestly) as a fifty-fifty chance. Any
time an ancient culture asserted a god, that doesn’t automatically mean its god has a
50% chance of existing. If I tell you there is an invisible dragon god that sleeps in
my car, it is highly improbable. You would have no qualms about disbelieving my claim, unless I
could show tangible proof. There is not a 50% chance of it being real. But Pascal insisted
that my invisible dragon has a 50% chance of existing.
But even if the “yes-no” question is still 50/50, a “yes” doesn’t
automatically mean it’s the God who has a heaven and hell. “Yes” could mean one
of the thousands of other gods that has been asserted over the course of known human history, or
even one of many claims we’ve never heard about because they were invented before writing
was known and thus never passed on. The “real” god could even be one that humanity
has never known about, because it never revealed itself.
If half the possibility goes to “no”, then the “yes” half is divided
between each of these many claims — each god claim gets something like 0.015 percent,
because they can’t
all be true, can they? (If Islam is true, then
the Roman pantheon is not true, for example.) In fact if any belief system is true, then
it’s likely to be the only one.
Pascal’s Wager means the probability for every god claim drops very
close to zero. And the chance of a “no” is still at 50%.
Looked at in this light, Pascal’s Wager means the probability for every god claim drops very
close to zero. Therefore, it is highly improbable, statistically, that any of these gods exist. So,
while the “no” side is still at 50 percent probability, this is incredibly
more probable than a specific “yes”. Had Pascal admitted Christianity wasn’t
alone in making a claim about a god, he would have said “no” was a much more sure
bet.
Think of a coin toss. Heads means God is real, and tails means there’s no god. Fifty-fifty,
right? But if the coin comes up heads, we still have a raffle drawing with thousands of
names in the box.
No theist wants to think of it this way, because each is pre-convinced her religion is the right
one, the only one with a high probability.
Thinking of Pascal’s Wager this way does not, of course, disprove any particular god
claim. Improbable things occur regularly. Many things are unlikely, yet are true. It’s
improbable you would survive falling from the top of an 11-story building, but it
has
happened.
But combine this argument with the
previous argument, that almost
all god claims are
known to be untrue because they’re incompatible claims. Even the
single leftover claim that
might be true still has only Pascal’s 50-50 chance.
Absence Of Evidence As Evidence Of Absence
Whenever an atheist begins to mention evidence, a theist is always sure to trot out
“but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. It’s tired and trite
and doesn’t mean anything in this context.
In cases where you wouldn’t
expect to see evidence, they might be right.
Just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it’s not there.
“I didn’t see John at my birthday party” is not evidence that John was absent.
He could have been there; you just didn’t see him.
When applied to the question of God’s existence, theists have used the phrase to mean
“My lack of proof for God doesn’t mean he’s not real.”
When evidence is expected, then its absence is
notable and powerful.
But in fact, the opposite is true. When evidence is
expected, then its absence is
notable and powerful. If your best friend John is the kind of person who shows up to birthday
parties loud and
boisterous, and causing a scene, then not noticing him there could
certainly be considered evidence that he wasn’t there. If you were alone at
your birthday party, you probably would have noticed
anyone who showed up, so not seeing
him is evidence that he wasn’t there.
The gods claimed by many theists and scriptures are not the type to hide silently.
They are gods who get involved, who
do stuff. They
stop the Sun from moving across the
sky, for example (which would have destroyed the Earth and everything living on it, of
course). They
move mountains. They
kill every firstborn child in an entire
nation in one night. They
make
donkeys talk. They
raise people
from the dead. They
destroy entire cities for
desiring men.
These are gods that should be evident on a daily basis. When you’re about to disobey
them, your modern equivalent of a donkey (your car) should magically speak to you about it and
refuse to follow your instructions. When you win a great victory, the Earth should cease its
rotation. When you need landscaping done, you should just tell the dirt to move, and it should.
This might be why the modern concept of
faith is absent in
the Old Testament of the Bible. It would have been absurd to mention
believing without
evidence as a virtue when the book regularly mentioned a visible, audible God. By the time
the New Testament came around, God’s works seemed much less nation-spanning and
earth-shaking. The miracles in the Gospels, attributed to Jesus, were small and personal in
comparison to the Old Testament YHWH. By the time the epistles were written — a generation
or more after Jesus’ death — everyone was regularly reminded to “have
faith”.
“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see... And
without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that
he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
Hebrews 11:1,6
This New Testament admonition is nonsensical in the context of the Old Testament, but was
required for its audience, for whom the absence of evidence was becoming more obvious. For them,
God was something that “we do not see”. His existence must be
believed.
There is never a need to say “just trust me” if you have provided evidence for trust.
If I were starting a bank account, I would become immediately skeptical if the bank manager kept
uttering “Just trust us with your money. I promise it will be safe here.” If, on the
other hand, the bank has been around for years without issue, the manager would never say such a
thing — the bank has
earned the trust of the community.
If you’re a Major League Baseball scout, do you hire the player who says “I
won’t promise anything” but has a track record of hitting in the .400s, or do you
hire the guy who has never played before but swears on his life he will hit the ball every
time he steps up to the plate? Of course you hire the guy who has
done it.
If evidence is
expected, then its absence is ominous.
No, this lack of evidence does not disprove all gods. It does disprove all gods for which there
should be evidence.
Observable Miracles
Is it a coincidence that the really obvious interventions of God are asserted to have happened
in the distant past, while today’s “miracles” are things that are almost always
explainable in some other way?
Focusing on the Bible — the religious text with which I’m most familiar —
what types of supernatural occurrences should we expect to see? I will arbitrarily divide the
miracles into two categories — personal miracles and public miracles — though there
is some overlap. I would describe the first set as those miracles that affect one person or family,
often unobserved by others, while the second kind takes place in full view of many witnesses, often
affecting large crowds or everyone on the planet.
For example, Jesus healing a woman of leprosy is a personal miracle, while God stopping the
Earth’s rotation for 24 hours is a public miracle.
It is notable that almost all modern “miracle” claims can be accurately described
as surprisingly undocumented and unable to be
substantiated, or things that happen normally, easily explainable, and oddly unimpressive.
There are fairly regular claims of personal miracles among theists today. It is notable that
almost all of them can be accurately described as surprisingly undocumented and unable to be
substantiated, or things that happen normally, easily explainable, and oddly unimpressive. It is an
extremely rare “act of God” that does not fit at least one of these descriptors. Faith
healings, for example, usually fit all of them.
I’ve been told, by completely serious people, that God healed them of illnesses — the
kinds that other people recover from without supernatural help on a regular basis. If this was the
work of God, he probably didn’t want you to tell anyone about it, because he clearly made the
effort to disguise it as the normal healing process.
I regularly see in news reports that people “give all the credit to God”
(
source)
for things that actual people did — verifiably. These claims are immediately dismissable.
Other claims are less falsifiable — claims that someone at a prayer meeting was healed, that
God saved a person from certain injury or death in a car accident, that he helped you find a job,
and even smaller stuff like locating car keys, discovering extra money in the budget, or passing a
test without studying. (These are actual claims I heard during my years in church, and many of them
still pop up on theists’ Facebook timelines.) No one could ever prove that God wasn’t
involved, but at the same time they cannot be used as evidence that God exists since his
involvement — if any — was so insignificant as to be pointless.
A man hopping up out of a wheelchair at a prayer meeting isn’t a miracle any more than
it’s a miracle that I got over the flu a few years ago. Sometimes we heal ourselves. If
that never happened, our species would not have survived as well as it did, or at all.
“The doctors said I would never walk again!” is almost never accurate, when
looked at closely. What the doctor actually said was “probably not” or
“unlikely”, which means some people with that particular condition actually do walk
again, while many don’t. They didn’t give a prediction of
your future, but
tried to prepare you for your
probable future.
In my evangelical past, I often witnessed such scenes at impressionable ages, and they indeed
impressed me. When folks argued that God wasn’t real or didn’t interact with the
world today, my defense was: “I’ve
seen miracles myself!” It took
years before I evaluated these scenes — and my own stories — with any
degree of skepticism.
As it turns out, “miracles” are whatever people believe them to be.
As it turns out, “miracles” are whatever people believe them to be. But they’re
so often mundane things that make life easier but that no serious theologian would consider a
miracle. They’re perfectly explainable via natural processes.
It also turned out that we tried really hard to count only the times it
worked and
ignore the times it didn’t. If someone recovered, it was a miracle, because we had
prayed for it. If someone didn’t recover (which oddly, occurred at the same frequency
for those who weren’t being prayed for), then God must have other plans for them, or
“the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” — “Mysterious Ways”.
But it’s not just the lack of credible personal miracles that is evidence of God’s
absence. The really big ones are missing — like God speaking to an Army commander within
the hearing of all his troops, earthquakes or tidal waves swallowing up the enemies of the
righteous, destroying entire cities that have fallen into sin, etc.
If any of us could feed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread, a bunch of us would be on
airplanes to other nations, spreading our miracle of food among the starving masses.
None of us ever saw a single public miracle such as Jesus performed or promised. We never brought
five loaves of bread to a picnic for 5,000 people and were miraculously able to feed everyone. If
we could have done that, a bunch of us would have been on airplanes to Ethiopia and Bangladesh,
spreading our miracle of food among the starving masses. Instead, we were forced to believe it
was God’s will for those masses to starve while we threw away scraps after every meal.
Throughout my life, I’ve read in the news that natural disasters are “Acts of
God”, like
this
recent claim about a flood-prone, swampy area that flooded every few years. It boggles the
mind. The reason they’re called “natural disasters” is because they have natural
explanations.
If any of the more well-known god claims were true, there should indeed be regular and indisputable
evidence of their existence, or at least a good explanation for why God suddenly went silent. The
absence of such evidence functions as evidence for the absence of these gods.
Does the lack of miracles prove there are no gods? No, of course not. But the lack of observable
miracles does
most certainly prove there is no God who regularly performs observable
miracles. In this day of ubiquitous recording devices and televised church services, substantiated
miracle claims should
increase, not disappear entirely.
Unintelligent Design Of Life
If you ignore quite a bit about the human body, it’s really fantastic. It can heal itself
of an awful lot. It can see and hear and taste and smell, as well as determine temperature and
detect movement. It can run and jump, walk and crawl, dig and climb. The brain is amazing, and
the things we can think of with it have changed the face of the world forever. As a group, we
survive massive natural disasters, wars, and unspeakable crimes. Some have looked at the very
complex system we call our bodies and determined it could not have happened naturally, that it
must have been
designed.
All is not well with the human body.
But all is not well with the human body. It can’t see what other animals can see. We
don’t have night vision like the cat or owl. We don’t have sonar like bats, whales,
or dolphins. Nor can we sense infrared radiation as do some snakes, bats, or bed bugs. We have
a blind spot
because
our optic nerves are attached in such a way as to block light receptors.
We can’t hear all the sound frequencies, and our hearing is easily damaged by continued
exposure to certain frequencies. We breathe, eat, and talk through the same opening, which is why
so many of us choke. Not all animals share this poor evolutionary “feature”. We
can’t regrow severed limbs as lizards can do with their tails. We can’t eat what some
animals can eat. We have an internal organ that is mostly useless and sometimes ruptures to kill
us. We have four extra teeth that don’t fit well in our adult jaws, which can cause extreme
pain and damage to other teeth if not removed (though
not all humans have all
four). Ninety percent of us have the
plantaris muscles,
which is unnecessary for any purpose.
Unlike most other animals and plants, humans can’t synthesize their own Vitamin C due to a
defective gene — causing scurvy and sometimes death unless we regularly ingest it.
There is no point to the pain of deadly
childhood diseases.
Pain can be a feature or a bug. Pain can teach us to not touch hot or sharp things, for example,
and let us know when something is wrong inside. But in the case of many cancers and other
conditions, the pain shows up way too late to be of any service and the seemingly endless
suffering that follows is of no use whatsoever. There is no point to the pain of deadly
childhood diseases, and no “design” explanation for inherited diseased like
Harlequin-type ichthyosis.
In some instances (heart attacks, for example), the pain is in the wrong place and therefore
sends a faulty message.
Reproduction has always been tricky. Even with today’s medical marvels, more pregnancies
are terminated by nature than result in a live birth. Of those who
are born, as many as five
percent have a defect, and about the same percent are infertile — though many cases of
infertility are medically treatable. We have a long gestation period, relative to many other mammals
of similar size — six times longer than kangaroos, two and half times as long as tigers and
lions, and longer even than bears, bison, hippos, elk, and moose. Unlike many of those critters,
humans can’t walk for nearly a year after birth. Two or three of every hundred full-term
pregnancies are
ectopic, which
prior to modern medicine resulted in the death of both baby and mother. Not to mention that the
birth canal itself passes through the bones of the pelvis, a design complication that could have
been avoided.
We humans live to an average of 70-something years, with the oldest of us never making it past 122
years, while the
rougheye
rockfish and
red
sea urchins can live over 200 years, the
ocean
quahog lives well over 300 years, and the Great Basin bristlecone pine tree is
known to live
as long as 5,000 years. Other life forms on earth are known to be biologically immortal, including
some bacteria, hydras, and one kind of jellyfish.
And that’s just humans. It says nothing of blind cavefish having useless eyes, pandas
not being interested in or knowing how to mate, beetles having rudimentary wings trapped under
hard shells, vestigial pelvises and hindlimbs in snakes and whales, and a thousand other known
vestigial or “rudimentary” organs and features. Emus can’t
fly, but have light and hollow bones like other birds;
bats
can fly, but have solid, heavier bones like other mammals. Flightless birds like
ostriches and emus have apparently unnecessary wings. The route of the recurrent larngeal
nerve is extremely odd — especially in giraffes — if it was designed, though it makes
perfect sense if it happened via evolution over millions of years. Whales, dolphins, and some
other water animals cannot live out of water, but can only breathe air.
These are all phenomenon that shout evolution via natural selection and fly in the face of
the idea of a perfect and all-knowing creator.
These are all phenomenon that
shout evolution via natural selection and fly in the face of
the idea of a perfect and all-knowing creator.
As for illness and death in humans, a Christian will point to the concept of Original Sin. Humans
were perfect, they’ll say, until they disobeyed God and were cursed. But this does not explain
the rest of what could be called — in the context of
design — mistakes.
Again, this does not disprove all gods. But it disproves, at least for me, the concept of a
perfect Creator God who brought all of life into existence. It leaves open the possibilities of
a universe-creator (and life evolved later), a simple-life-creator (and more complex life
evolved from it), or a super-but-not-perfect-being who planted life on Earth.
The Universe Is Hostile To Human Life
Reality is a direct contradiction of the theist claim
(
example) that
“The Universe Is Finely
Tuned to Support Life”. I heard this claim repeatedly while I was a Christian and I still
see it today: the Earth is at exactly the right distance from the sun, the atmosphere is
exactly what we need, gravity works for us, if the temperature were just one degree off we’d
all die, etc. I actually saw someone post on Facebook recently that “if the Earth was
10 feet closer to the sun, we would all die”.
There are two things wrong with these claims, and they are almost opposites: (1) the Universe
is actually hostile to life, and (2) there is actually a lot more leeway than some people
claim.
When you see one of
these “finely tuned” claims, look out for these made-up numbers.
The second is easier to dispense with. The Earth already varies in its orbit quite a bit, and parts
of the Earth are always a few thousand
miles closer to the sun than other parts. If the
“10 feet claim” was true, you could not live if you climbed a tall tree or descended
into a valley. Gravity varies measurably from low elevation to high elevation. Temperatures vary
throughout the day and throughout the year, not to mention longer cycles. When you see one of
these “finely tuned” claims, look out for these made-up numbers.
As for the idea that “there must have been a creator because conditions here are perfect
for life”, it breaks down easily with a little information.
In real life, most of the Universe, including most of the Earth, is inhospitable to us.
We haven’t yet found another planet where humans can live, though we hope to. In space,
without special protective suits, we would die immediately. Conditions on all other planets in
our solar system are deadly to humans.
In real life, most of the Universe, including most of the Earth, is inhospitable to us.
Here on Earth, we have a relatively narrow vertical band of habitability, from just under the
surface to just above it. Higher than about 4,000 meters, humans can’t breathe without
technology to help. Go below the surface of the ocean, and you can’t breathe there either.
Underground gets less hospitable the deeper you go. Not to mention that even on the Earth’s
surface, the great majority of it is uninhabitable — you can’t survive in the Arctic,
in the desert, or on the surface of the oceans without technology. Much of where humans live now
was uninhabitable for many thousands (perhaps millions) of years, but we’ve expanded into
them recently due to technological innovation.
Even in habitable zones, where the temperature is survivable, where there is fresh water and air,
there are thousands of things trying to kill us: bacteria, viruses, poisonous spiders and insects,
predatorial reptiles and mammals. If other life forms don’t kill us, then the natural
world itself has plenty of weaponry too: lightning, floods, wildfires, earthquakes, tornadoes,
hurricanes, and volcanoes. Every year, lives are lost to these natural disasters, even in the most
technologically advanced nations. And every so many thousand years, just for fun, an ice age sweeps
across the planet, drastically narrowing the choices for survivability. Very occasionally, a large
meteorite collides with the planet, causing mass extinctions.
This is why human populations remained low until the development of tools, agriculture,
construction, weaponry, and clothing. Taming fire helped too.
The facts that the universe is hostile to life and that Earth itself is mostly inhospitable to
human life do not disprove god claims per se. They disprove the specific claim that the planet
and/or the universe was designed with us in mind. And thus the question is raised: if God did
not finely tune the universe for human life, then why not? Why did he create it in a way that
could be explained by natural forces?
It is much more reasonable to say that the kind of life that exists here evolved to fit the
conditions — the least beneficial variations are bred out over time.
Natural Causes
Many things that we now know have natural causes were once thought to have supernatural causes.
Thunderstorms (lightning, thunder), drought, floods, earthquakes, mental illness, disease,
pestilence, and so on. As humanity learned to observe the natural world, we slowly began to learn
about the causes of each.
We’re still learning. For example, we don’t know the exact causes of
all mental illnesses, but we know several causes (genetic, chemical imbalances, trauma, etc.) And
it appears certain that others will end up with natural causes as well, something in the brain or
body’s makeup, and certainly not demon possession. We don’t yet know all the causes
of cancer, but we’re studying them.
Many things that we now know have natural causes were once thought to have supernatural causes.
But one can list nothing that was once thought to be natural and is now understood
to be supernaturally caused.
But one can list
nothing that was once thought to be natural and is now understood
to be supernaturally caused.
This also does not prove the nonexistence of gods. It does show that increasing knowledge and
education of humanity consistently and regularly finds no supernatural influence in the world. This
does not bode well for god claims that assert regular influence.
It also shows the dishonesty of religions, who regularly “move the goalposts”. For
example, at one point, almost all Christians believed demon possession was responsible for what
we now know as various mental illnesses or behavioral disorders. As our understanding of these
conditions have changed, today’s religious people no longer make those claims. In fact, many
freely admit that their forbears were mistaken, laughing at the ancient ideas. Yet they cling to
every other claim made by those same forbears. With each generation, new discoveries prove
incorrect the assertions of religious sages; new generations of religious people accept this and
change their claims.
I Love You, So... Burn Forever!
Not every religion posits a hell, a place of eternal torment and punishment, but the major ones do.
The idea is that if you don’t obey God, or if you follow the wrong God, or if you
don’t believe in any gods, then you will — after death — be sentenced to an
inescapable place of torment. Descriptions differ, but they’re all bad.
Christianity might be the worst in this regard (with Islam a close second), with God promising:
“I love you unconditionally. So obey me or burn forever.” Today, it is difficult to
imagine that I once believed this wholeheartedly, because it has now seemed absurd for so long.
No just God, no loving God, no moral God, would set up the universe in this way, with these rules.
No just God, no loving God, no moral God, would set up the universe in this way, with these rules.
Why infinite punishment for a finite crime? Why not mention Hell earlier? Very little is said
about the afterlife in the Old Testament; Hell as a concept only arose in the New Testament. There
are also disturbing passages like
II
Thessalonians 2:11-12, which indicate that unbelievers were tricked by God so that he
could punish them. And there are plenty of scriptures showing that God chooses the saved, not
the other way around.
This leaves us with few options: (1) God/hell doesn’t exist, (2) God
exists but there is no eternal torment for sinners, or (3) God/hell
does exist as
described in at least one major religion. The first is the simplest explanation for this
quandary. The second removes the major tool of fear that many religions use to manipulate
followers — especially children. The third possibility means God is neither loving, just, nor
moral, in which case he is unworthy of worship. Notably, all three options mean major religious
texts and doctrines are false — especially those of the world’s two largest
religions.
Is there a possibility that God exists but is malevolent? Sure. That would explain a lot, actually.
But there is zero possibility that a loving God would be forced by his own rules to create a place
so bad that stories about it cause nightmares but then
not announce it for a few
thousand years, spread confusing and contradictory descriptions of it throughout his holy book,
and be as vague as possible about how to get there and how to avoid it.
Problems With The Omnis
Many god claims — Christianity for example — assert that God is omniscient,
omnipresent, and omnipotent. These are the three most-used descriptions of God, and each
is repeatedly claimed in the Bible. Examples: “he knows everything”
(
I John 3:20), “Do I not fill
heaven and earth?” (
Jeremiah 23:24),
“with God all things are possible”
(
Matthew 19:16).
On my
Contradictions page, I
dealt with the Biblical problem of claiming God is
omniscient while not knowing everything, and also
discussed the claims to omnipotence alongside stories
of God not being powerful enough to accomplish certain things. But those are merely problems with
an old book cobbled together from hundreds of old scrolls written by many different men. The
biblical contradictions don’t prove the nonexistence of such a God; they just prove that
the Bible is nonsensical and imperfect.
It is conceivable (possible to imagine) a God that is both all-powerful and all-knowing, and by
virtue of being all-powerful, that it is also present everywhere (or has the power to be, if it
wishes). But if you add one more characteristic to God, then it doesn’t work.
For example, add “moral” or “loving” or “gave us free will”.
Not all of them, but
any of them. Just one.
Free Will
If God is omni-all, then there cannot be free will. God already knew the choice you would make,
because God exists at all times, past and present, and knows all things. You might
feel like
you have a choice between A and B, but if God has always known you would choose B, then it was
not really a choice. You cannot
possibly choose A; if you did, then God would be wrong
and is therefore not omniscient.
Someone once tried to rebut the above argument by saying “imagine you’re watching an
instant replay during a football game”. You know what the player will do, because you saw
the original play. The player still had a choice, yet you know in advance of the replay what his
choice will be. This is true, but I’m a human. For an omniscient God, all of time is an
“instant replay” of sorts. Can that football player make a choice while you’re
watching the instant replay? No. The recorded image does not have free will.
Moral
If God is omni-all, then he cannot be moral. If you, as a moral human, see someone being raped
or tortured, and you have the power to stop it, would you stop it? Of course you would. You have
a moral imperative to act. An
omni-all God would not only see every rape and torture that ever happened, but would know about
them ahead of time, and have the power to stop them. But God does not stop them. Therefore either
God is not moral, or God does not have the power to stop them, or God does not know about them,
or some combination thereof (or God does not exist, which is the simpler conclusion).
Theists have answered this with “Mysterious Ways”, by which they
mean God has a plan that he won’t ever tell us, some higher moral good that will be
accomplished by the thousands of rapes and tortures around the world.
Theists will answer (and have answered) this with “Mysterious Ways”, by which they
mean God has a plan that he won’t ever tell us, some higher moral good that will be
accomplished by the thousands of rapes and tortures around the world. Sorry, but if God is
omni-all, then God can think of a way to accomplish the greater moral purpose without the
rapes and tortures.
Further, if morals are objective and absolute, as most theists claim, then does God have a
different rule book? Is it okay for him to allow these rapes and tortures (or child abuse,
starvation, etc.), but not okay for
us to allow them (assuming it’s in our power
to stop them)? If so, then how are morals absolute/objective? God having a different moral
code sounds very much like non-absolute, relative morality.
Loving
If God is omni-all, then he cannot be loving. Children suffer from painful diseases in infancy
and/or childhood that kill them. It could be argued that brief periods of intense pain build
character or teach lessons that lead to wisdom or empathy, but only for people expected to
survive beyond the pain. There is no lesson to be taught, no character to be built in a child
that will die in intense pain. The same would be true for children born with AIDS or into a
society where they will starve to death. Elderly people close to death also sometimes suffer
intense pain, despite a lifetime of building character and learning lessons. An omni-all God who
also loves humanity would not permit this needless suffering.
What Does It Prove?
None of these prove God isn’t omni-all, just that God cannot be omni-all
and
have one of the other listed attributes.
In fact, it’s not the other characteristics that cause the logical problems here, but the
omnis themselves. “If God is all-powerful, then surely He could have...” is a
legitimate argument that works many times. It applies to the
story
of Noah’s Ark, for example. If God is all-powerful, then of course he could have
brought animals from all over the world and safely redistributed them later. But if he was
all-powerful, then he wouldn’t have needed a globally devastating flood that killed
all life just to wipe out the human sinners; he could have simply executed the human
sinners.
For me, these arguments effectively disprove any omni-all god claim that also asserts God
is moral or loving, and any omni-all god claim that asserts humans have free will.
Free Will In Heaven
The following assertions cannot all be true.
- Evil/sin exists in the world because of free will.
- There will be no evil/sin in heaven.
- There will be free will in heaven.
Ask a Christian “Is there free will in heaven?” and they’ll almost always answer
“yes”. In their worldview, the three assertions I listed above are all accepted as
true, yet they cannot all three coexist. At least one of them must be false.
If there is free will in heaven, and free will is what allowed evil/sin in the first place,
then there can be evil/sin in heaven. If there cannot be evil/sin in heaven, then either there
will not be free will there, or free will is not what allowed it in the first place.
The idea of not having free will in heaven is repugnant to many people, even most Christians.
It means the believers who made it to heaven would no longer have choice. They would become
automatons, robots, acting purely upon their programming to be righteous.
There is either no free will in heaven, in which case its inhabitants are choiceless
automatons, or there is free will in heaven, which means its inhabitants could choose
to sin.
But if there is free will in heaven, then there is the possibility of sin/evil —
this is what free will means. Therefore heaven will not be free of evil/sin,
since any human who goes there could choose to sin at any time. This makes heaven basically the
same as Earth.
During my theist years, I heard a couple of explanation attempts, including the “but we
won’t
want to sin” explanation
(
example). This theory says that
when someone is “born again” (saved), they become an altogether new kind of person.
While we’re still on Earth in this life, this new nature competes with our old
“fallen” nature. Upon death, the theory goes, the “old man” will die,
leaving only the new creature that can only obey God’s laws. Therefore, they say, there
would still be free will in heaven, but no sin. Examples are given of God, who cannot sin but
has free will, and of Jesus during his time on Earth, who had free will yet could not sin.
Of course, this only means that they’ve changed the definition of free will in regard to
sin. It also means that they’re mistaken about both God and Jesus. Either God
can
sin, or he also does not have free will. By definition.
Further, it calls into question the original Creation. If we stipulate the possibility that humans
could have free will yet be incapable of sin (as we will allegedly be in heaven), then why were
not Adam and Eve created this way? Many
have asserted it was
necessary. When apologist William Lane Craig was
asked
this very thing in 1994, Craig answered:
“No, heaven may not be a possible world when you take it in isolation by itself. It may be
that the only way in which God could actualize a heaven of free creatures all worshiping Him and
not falling into sin would be by having, so to speak, this run-up to it, this advance life during
which there is a veil of decision-making in which some people choose for God and some people
against God...”
His debate opponent, Dr. Ray Bradley, asked for clarification, whether heaven “had to
be preceded by this actual world, this world of vale of tears and woe in which people are sinful
and the like.” Craig clarified: “I’m saying that it may not be feasible for God to
actualize heaven in isolation from such an antecedent world.”
It’s easy to see how he locked himself into that corner. Now he’s saying that some things
aren’t possible, even for God. Of course, this is just one guy’s opinion, but it’s
where many Christians will end up.
Here is another example of an apologist
saying something (sin) is impossible for God. This one actually posits that heaven
was
created first, for the angels, and that they sinned. He also admits it “may indeed have been
impossible” to create humans “in a way that it would be certain that he would have
freedom but not rebel.” But he goes on to say that in the future heaven, humans will have
“glorified minds and bodies, [and] they cannot possibly choose evil.” He says it was
necessary for humanity to have “experienced the full effects of sin”, and that with
that “experiential knowledge”, those in heaven will simply
choose to not sin.
In other words, they
could choose to sin, but they
won’t.
All of this is an example of the hoops Christians force themselves to jump through to answer
a relatively simple question. The Bible could have easily answered these questions, but it
didn’t.
All of this is presented as an example of the hoops Christians force themselves to jump through to
answer a relatively simple question. The Bible could have easily answered these questions, but
its writers either chose not to, or didn’t realize the questions would arise. (If your
viewpoint is that God inspired the scriptures, then it was God who left this part out.)
Another way to go is to say that there isn’t free will, that God predestined everything. That
answers all these questions easily and logically, but it would force one to admit that God is evil,
since he predetermined who would sin, and by how much.
So, while again not disproving
all gods, we’ve established many god claims as untrue
— all those that posit an evil-free heaven wherein the residents have free will. Or,
we’ve again shown that God is responsible for all evil.
Conclusion
There are other arguments, most attacking specific god claims or belief systems, which I
might add to this page later, but I’ve attempted to include the ones that most impressed
me during the past year. These are what changed me from an “agnostic atheist”
into a “strong atheist”.
I want to repeat and emphasize that no argument disproves
all god claims, but this is only
because the claims vary so widely in nature. But it is precisely because the claims vary so much
that almost all of them are incompatible with each other — which
automatically means
the great majority of them
cannot be true. And it is because there are so many of them
that each has such a miniscule probability of being true. Some, like pantheism, can be eliminated
from arguments because they invent new and useless definitions of the word “god”, while
others, like deism, can be ignored because they are irrelevant. The tiny percentage of incredibly
improbable claims that remain can be dismissed easily because there would be abundant evidence if
they were true, and there is no such evidence.
Additional arguments above more soundly eliminate all of today’s major god claims due to
inherent inconsistencies and contradictions.
Strangely, one thing I could not cast doubt on is the possibility of a malevolent (evil) God. The
hostility of the universe (including the Earth) to life, the many “design” mistakes,
needless suffering, painful childhood diseases, the great effort to hide evidence of its
existence, the threat of eternal damnation for failing to obey contradictory (not to mention
nonsensical and immoral) rules — or for disbelief, and several other factors show there
could very well be a powerful, knowledgeable being outside our detection who does not have our
best interests in mind and does not play fairly.
A theist might read these same words and conclude: “So it’s still possible
there’s a God, right?” I would say that possibility is so slim as to be ignored, and
that any God who exists certainly isn’t the one asserted by your belief system.
Use the ••• menu to navigate.