Pages

Monday, 25 February 2013

Why Your God Doesn't Exist

It's quite easy to prove logically that your god doesn't exist.

The proof is a simple deduction from certain basic assumptions which themselves are only assumptions in the sense of assuming the description you use for your god is true in the first instance. It goes without saying that if your description of your god is false then the god you are describing is also false.

Let's assume your god is real and has the following notional characteristics.

God is:
  • Omnipotent - all powerful - there is nothing your god can't do.
  • Omniscient - all knowing - there is nothing your god doesn't know.
  • Omni-benevolent - all-loving - there is nothing your god wouldn't do to defend and protect its creation.

Okay so far? Is there anything you disagree with here? Is there something your god can't do if it has a mind to? Is there anything your god doesn't know? How about all loving? Is there anything or anyone your god doesn't love and for whom it has anything less than the greatest possible concern?

If all these were true there would be no suffering in the world because your god would be aware of it, would want to prevent it and would have the power to do so.

It also follows that, if there is suffering in the world, at least one of the above must be false and if one of the above is false, the god you believe in does not have the characteristics you believe it has; in other words, the god you believe in does not exist

And yet we can see suffering exists. This is an observable, undeniable, inescapable fact.

For suffering to exist, your god must be deficient in at least one of the above. At least one of the following must be true. God is:
  • Unable to prevent it, so it isn't omnipotent.
  • Unaware of it, so it isn't omniscient.
  • Unconcerned about it, so it isn't all-loving

So, the undeniable existence of suffering in the world proves your god as described above does not exist.

Strange then that so much of your time is spent asking your god to either stop, reduce or prevent suffering, which is nothing more than tacit acceptance that an omniscience, omnipotent, omni-benevolent god doesn't exist.

Of course, you can escape the above logic by saying your god isn't omnipotent, isn't omniscience and/or isn't omni-benevolent, but a god who can't change things, doesn't know when they need to be changed and/or isn't bothered anyway, isn't much of a god and certainly not one worthy of worship. In fact, it's hard to imagine how we could distinguish such a god from a non-existent one.

I love these simple little proofs that gods don't exist. They are so much more elegant and simple than the cumbersome, convoluted and illogical 'proofs' which religious apologists have to try to get away with. That's the great thing about being supported by evidence, reason, logic and truth, and so not needing to fall back on the fallacy of faith and having to employ charlatans to make you feel better about being superstitious.






submit to reddit



20 comments:

  1. You know, of course, that apologists are simply going to fall back on the "free will" argument; god gave man the ability to mitigate this kind of suffering but man (via free will) chooses to let it continue. Religious apologists aren't interested in logic or rationality, nor should they be. The very nature of belief is faith based on lack of evidence with is in and of itself illogical. I am in complete agreement with your assertions, but you're "preaching to the choir" - so to speak. As Carl Sagan so eloquently stated, "“You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.” tj

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To argue that 'God' has delegated responsibility for prevention and relief of suffering to self-evidently incompetent agents is to argue that 'God' isn't omniscient because he didn't foresee the consequences, or he doesn't care enough, so doesn't take back responsibility, or he isn't powerful enough to take it back.

      Whichever, blaming humans simply reinforces the proof that 'God' doesn't exist.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your very long and irrelevant sermon was removed in accordance with the warning displayed above the comment box.

      Please confine yourself to commenting on the substance of the blog in future. The purpose of this blog is not to provide you with somewhere to dump your deranged ramblings. I am sorry you felt unable to do so on this occasion but I can understand your difficulty with this watertight logic.

      If you feel an overwhelming need to take a dump can I suggest you do it in your own blog and not in mine. Even Christians are expected to behave in a polite, civilised manner here and not like poorly house-trained parasites.

      Thank you.

      Delete
  3. Assuming you actually want a Christian perspective, here goes:

    The short version is - because sin.

    Questions often come up from both believers and non-believers regarding human suffering, why do bad things happen to good people, etc. The Calvinist (aka Reformed, aka Augustinian) view of the the answer to this question is that there ARE no good people. I thought about putting in biblical references at this point, but you would ignore them, so let's talk generally. Since you started with Christian theology, we will add some more to clarify. If NO ONE is undeserving of the punishment of God because ALL have sinned, then NONE of us EVER deserve anything good. Ergo, the bad things that occur are not out of accord with the character of God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Ergo, the bad things that occur are not out of accord with the character of God.<

      Except, of course, a god who needs an excuse to hurt people and uses the actions of others as that excuse, can't be described as omni-benevolent in any normally accepted meaning of the term.

      It's interesting how 'Christian theology' (i.e. Christians) can hold two mutually contradictory views of their god simultaneously - that it is both omni-benevolent and... er... not omni-benevolent but in fact closer to being omni-malignant.

      Delete
    2. You make it sounds as if omni-benevolence is incompatible with justice. As an analogy - I have a four year old son. If my son were to tell me a lie, I would punish him for it. He would (on some scale) suffer because of that punishment. The argument that God does not love us because of suffering would say that I do not love my son, because he suffered as a result of my punishment of him for his transgression. The same thing (although on a larger scale) is what we are talking about with God. Since we have sinned against him, he can both love us a punish us at the same time. Complaining that we do not like the form of the punishment does not make it any less just or him love us any less.

      Delete
    3. No I don't.

      I show why your god's existence is incompatible with observable reality. No amount of twisting my words or pretending they say something else won't change that.

      Your god can't logically exist in a Universe with suffering in it.

      Deal with it.

      Delete
    4. To Anonymous.

      So these children deserve to starve to death in your opinion?

      Using your analogy, if your son is responsible for some unspeakable horror, do you think it fitting for him to die horrifically and painfully?

      What if your son is punished for your crimes or your great grandfathers?

      That is not a loving god. Trying to justify the suffering of children is a despicable thing to do.

      Delete
  4. I abstain from religion, but I can't say that these premises prove god doesn't exist. I can visualize a whole Pantheon of disinterested deities with all kinds of power, like the Greek ones. They certainly didn't pay much attention to our little whiny selves. So, sure, that means they are not omni-benevolent. But that doesn't make them uncool. In fact, I'd say we've got that coming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which is why I said, "Of course, you can escape the above logic by saying your god isn't omnipotent, isn't omniscience and/or isn't omni-benevolent, but a god who can't change things, doesn't know when they need to be changed and/or isn't bothered anyway isn't much of a god and certainly not one worthy of worship. In fact, it's hard to imagine how we could distinguish such a god from a non-existent one."

      Delete
  5. For someone who's not religious, why do you keep on talking about it? I've had a Bible-basher, who offered me a roadside baptism, talk less about the subject than you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I respect your views about religion but let me clear this up, this path that you have sketched here is a long outdated one and had been clarified that it is false.

    First of all: you say you are using logic but in fact you are NOT. the whole concept is false, you make statements that are made up by yourself, or grasp it out from a random religion and try to generalize it to ALL the religions. So you do not have proper statements in the first place.
    Then you make a conclusion about these statements, and I do not know if you can see it but you are yourself using your beliefs to prove your idea:
    " isn't much of a god and certainly not one worthy of worship. In fact, it's hard to imagine how we could distinguish such a god from a non-existent one."

    really not one worthy of worship? how do you know that? isn't much of a god? how do you know that? are you omniscient?

    With this we have arrived to my final argument, and to a FACT ---> YOU sir, are not omniscient therefore you cannot make arguments like this:

    "God is:

    Omnipotent - all powerful - there is nothing your god can't do.
    Omniscient - all knowing - there is nothing your god doesn't know.
    Omni-benevolent - all-loving - there is nothing your god wouldn't do to defend and protect its creation."

    -if you cannot make arguments/statements like this, you cannot draw conclusions like this.
    Let's say god is omniscient, and you can make those statements out of pure logic. Now you are hitting a brick wall again because you do not know the complete background of a single happening on the earth and the things and butterfly-effects that led to a certain thing because you are NOT omniscient, you cannot make a logical statement without knowing all the circumstances.

    Even if you do and you can make your logical decision that he is not omni-benevolent, then what? he can still exist since your image of god does not matter at all, humans made these claims so they can be all false. Even better, he can be still Omni-benevolent because you do not know his purposes. Many-many scientists have walked this path and they themseves seen its errors. The greatest minds admit that it cannot be known for sure if there is a god or not. Self- important ones are trying to look smarter by making such claims. Don't be that guy...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >First of all: you say you are using logic but in fact you are NOT. the whole concept is false, you make statements that are made up by yourself, or grasp it out from a random religion and try to generalize it to ALL the religions. So you do not have proper statements in the first place.<

      You'll have to help me out here. What is illogical in pointing out that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god and suffering can't co-exist, please?

      What is illogical in pointing out that, since suffering exists, an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god can't exist, please?

      >YOU sir, are not omniscient therefore you cannot make arguments like this:<

      Ah! I see your objection isn't on logical grounds at all but on the grounds of indignation at my impertinence in pointing out the logical impossibility of an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent god coexisting with suffering.

      Sorry to have offended you with logic. Can I suggest though that the problem is yours not mine? If you find logic upsetting you need to review your opinions. It might not occur in future if you base your opinions on logic and not theophobia caused by childhood indoctrination.

      You're welcome.

      Delete
    2. Look, I'm not offended by this and I respect your opinion and maybe you will be surprised but I'm not religious, I'm just simply cannot agree with these because of my above reasons.
      So with that said, please be a little bit open minded and read my post again as I've read yours. I'm not on the side of religion, neither on the atheistic, but you simply cannot use logic when you do not know all the circumstances, like an omnipotent, omnibenelovent, omniscient god and suffering cannot coexist, simply because the given fact that you are not omniscient, and you yourself are using the term omniscient in your own argument. This is as simple as it is, you cannot know everything so you cannot know for sure.

      The second thing, what I worte down earlier is this:

      "Of course, you can escape the above logic by saying your god isn't omnipotent, isn't omniscience and/or isn't omni-benevolent, but a god who can't change things, doesn't know when they need to be changed and/or isn't bothered anyway isn't much of a god and certainly not one worthy of worship. In fact, it's hard to imagine how we could distinguish such a god from a non-existent one."

      this is what I cannot justify here, you are trying to lock down all the ways to an explaination by saying such things. So let's say he is not omni- benevolent, and now what? You have crossed one out from 3 statements, but this does not lead us to a clear logical assumption. You do not need to worship him if he is not omni - benevolent, he can still exist. We do not know.

      I did not wanted to go this far but think about the universe itself, you can go back as far as you want and say that the universe always existed or that in the beginning there was nothing etc etc. you will always reach a point where you can ask this question: and where did that came from? and that is the point where you cannot cross out the existence of god entriely. This last one is pure logic.

      Delete
    3. I see you 'forgot' to answer my question "What is illogical in pointing out that, since suffering exists, an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god can't exist, please?"

      Was that just an over-sight on your part?

      Delete
    4. not an oversight, but you seem to be ignorant of the answer, please just watch this debate I found yesterday, both sides are presented here, it's a Birmingham University debate.

      Delete
    5. I am indeed ignorant of the answer because, once again, you seem to have forgotten to give it.

      I'll happily take your word for it that it wasn't an oversight. The question may be seen above if you wan't to answer it.

      Delete
  7. Of course Mr Markó, you will be able to enlighten us all and tell us who made your "God" and which one of the 3,000 or so "Gods" that have appeared to be worshipped throughout history by the ignorant, he/she/it is?

    ReplyDelete

Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers.

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Sorry but the spammers are back so I've had to restrict who can post again.