5 Irrefutable Proofs that God Does NOT Exist

As Christian (and other theistic) apologists enjoy giving ‘irrefutable’ proofs for God’s existence, I thought I offer up Proof of a Negative – in this case, that God (or any god) does not exist. Of course, I needn’t do this as anyone asserting a positive statement, such that X does exists, has the burden of proof upon them. Moreover, it is quite possible to prove a negative, contrary to popular belief. (Lookup the Law of Non-Contradiction for starters.) So let’s just get right to it:

 

1)     1-There is no universally accepted definition of ‘God’ – What are God’s attributes; how do we know God is God? Ask 100 theists for their definition of God and you’re likely to get about 100 different answers once you get past the Big Three. There will be some similarity in answers, such that God is anthropomorphic, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, those last three attribute that when taken collectively cannot possibly be true due to contradictions. (For instance, if God knows the future, the future is preordained, which means God has no free will, which means God is not all powerful.) To know God is God there must be a definition that is testable. We can’t simply resort to “God is these things by definition” if such a definition cannot be observed. Even in the world of mathematics, one is one is not true by definition; we have to observe that is the case to know it is true.

2)    2- God is not testable – Not only is the definition of God not testable, in NO WAY can we sense God on a practical level. We cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear God forthwith. Seeing or hearing God – when other people cannot – is tantamount to a hallucination. Likewise are mental states or emotional ‘feelings’ that God is present or exists. We know by studying brain scans these states or feeling are dependent on biological changes within the brain and body and do not correlate to any information we retrieve through our five senses. ‘Knowledge’ not derived from our five senses is not actual knowledge. Direct experience is the only way to actually know anything about the world, assuming our senses are not faulty.

3)    3- God cannot be told apart from a sufficiently powerful or knowledgeable alien – Let’s suppose some being came to Earth tomorrow and are from the planet Flobblebot, though they neglected to tell us where they are from. They know everything there is to know about the universe to the point of predicting exactly what will happen next and can perform any seemingly magical trick we ask of them, like teleporting us to the surface of the Sun and back without harm. Furthermore, this creature says they are the god of the Bible. Should we then conclude that this being is in fact God? That may seem reasonable but they really aren’t God since they’re from within the universe and not from outside of it as apologists often postulate. So we can’t know any ‘God’ isn’t lying to us, that they aren’t an alien. Any God could in fact be an alien who happens to have advanced power and knowledge.

4)    4- The existence of evil – Surely a definition of evil would be helpful here, unless we can agree ahead of time that something like the murder of a newborn child is evil. Let’s assume we do agree on that. If God is all-knowing, God knew it was going to happen and in not preventing it, is ultimately responsible for the evil since God is the creator of all things. If God could have chosen to stop this event and did not, God is not all-good. If God had a good reason not to stop the event – perhaps the child faced an unpleasant life if allowed to live – we should conclude God is not powerful enough to have stopped the pregnancy in the first place. We also can’t assume God’s actual reasons for doing anything as God’s mind is unknowable as I’ve so often heard from theists. (And, if it were indeed the case that God had a good reason for allowing the murder, this gives us a reason for allowing abortion.) If an all-powerful God wanted to stop a life of suffering, an all-powerful God could do so at any time but curiously never does – because God does not exist. If an existent God has a good reason for allowing suffering – maybe it creates mental and emotional resiliency – this should be stated in scriptures and continue in the afterlife. Never stop growing, right? (If the whole point of heaven is to live eternally without suffering, then it is reasonable to assume suffering is bad. Doesn’t seem like there is in fact a good reason for it.)

5)     5-Theists are often frightened by the prospect of death – If heaven exists why are theists ever afraid? If they are not sure if they are going to get into heaven, that indicates they are not compelled by the particulars of their faith to follow all the tenants of their faith and secure their heavenly reward: eternal life. A ‘true believer’ wouldn’t be scared by the prospect of the unknown – since they know about heaven – or leaving their family and friends behind knowing they are all going to meet again in the afterlife. A theist cannot be scared by dying as obtaining heaven is the entire point of believing in God. But theists are scared all the time. They have fears about death, they doubt, because subliminally at least they know they have accepted a falsehood. If heaven exists, a theist should not be scared by death or any earthly punishments. But they are scared. Ergo, God does not exist.

 

I hope you’ve enjoyed these ‘irrefutable’ proofs, some of which is a little bit tongue-in-cheek on purpose. Surely you’ve spotted an error or two on the level of “The Bible says God exists so God exists.” Have fun picking apart and kindly share your thoughts. Even after doing that it is still the case that no gods exist. Can you prove otherwise?

The Absurdity of the Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument is accredited to St. Anselm (1033-1109) and is formulated as such: God is “something than which none greater can be conceived;” or, God is the most perfect being that can be thought of. Anselm adds to this formulation a caveat—if God exists only in our minds, than a being greater than God can be thought of that exists in reality. For Anselm, to think of something being greater than God is impossible since, for Anselm, existence is a requirement for anything to be perfect. Thus, God must exist; “And certainly it exists so truly that it cannot be thought of as not existing.”

The greatest weakness of Anselm’s argument is that the word “perfect” is ambiguous, if not altogether vague. Epistemologically, we cannot verify that any concept that anyone has of perfection is indeed perfect. If we argue that human beings are inherently imperfect creatures (as the traditional Judeo-Christian interpretation of human beings maintains) it would seem to follow that they are incapable of thinking of anything as perfect. If we consider for a moment that each culture has relative standards of perfection (to say nothing of individuals), it seems that the Ontological Argument could just as well be a proof for polytheism, not just monotheism. That is, the Ontological Argument is not an argument for any particular god. Obviously, in considering his own culture as more perfect that any other, Anselm never considered this as a possibility.

It should also not go unnoticed how it seems Anselm arbitrarily requires existence for something’s perfection, meaning, we don’t know if he’s left out some additional requirement or if there is a requirement more important than existence that he’s neglected to mention or think of. We cannot be certain that perfection requires a thought-of object to actually exist, particularly when we have no experience with perfect things in our own experiences (low standard for perfection notwithstanding).

Our lack of experience with perfect things highlights a lesser observed problem with Anselm’s argument, namely that for something to exist is to place limitations upon the existent object. While the Abrahamic god is often given as a being “without limitation,” no one has definitively defined what “without limitations” actually means. In actuality, it doesn’t mean anything because we have no concept of things that do not have boundaries. To do so is an attempt to conceptualize nothingness, and we characterize nothingness as the space between objects and their inherent boundaries.

Fourth, as pointed out by the clever Austrian philosopher Douglas Gasking, an ontological argument can be used to show that God does not exist:

1.  The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

7. God does not exist.

Lastly, we should consider our own existence and the existence of others for a moment. We exist yet we are not perfect. There is no reason to assume that any existent being who is more moral, more powerful, and/or more intelligent than us qualifies as perfect (even if they are closer to perfection as they exhibit these qualities). If perfection indeed requires existence and we know for certain that we exist, as opposed to a hypothetical god, it might be that we are more perfect than God by virtue of existence.

I Don't Believe It

It is often asked of atheists, “What would it take to make you believe in God?” I think this is a fair question as atheists often have no compunction about asking exactly the opposite question. So I started thinking about all the common arguments for God’s existence and found that if one thinks about the various arguments even a little, they really make no sense. I just cannot accept any of the common arguments for the existence of a god and there doesn’t seem to be any argument for God that makes me say, “Well, maybe…” I’m not going to cover every argument for the sake of brevity, but give the basic argument and a quick response that gives the most superficial analysis, demonstrating the foolishness of the so-called proof.

Here are the most common arguments for the existence of God and why they fail in my view:

1.      “Because we had to come from somewhere (or) something had to create the universe.” The argument is circular; if everything has to have a cause, the first cause requires a cause as well. Even if there were a first cause, this says nothing about who or what the first cause is. For example, imagine a robot with the knowledge to build a robot exactly like itself. Should the built robot consider its builder a god? 

2.      “Because the universe appears as though it was designed (or) because the universe is fine-tuned for life.” First, assuming this is true, is says nothing about the designer or designers who again, must have been designed themselves. Two, the universe appears as ordered as it appears chaotic, but not designed. Arguments of design presuppose how any given person would design a universe from scratch. 

3.      “Because belief in God is intuitive.” No it is not. If someone grew up without anyone else around, it is unlikely they would have any conception of the supernatural unless they were seeking explanations for things they could not explain. Even if a belief in the supernatural is a proclivity hardwired into our genes, as it appears, particulars regarding belief are contingent upon a person’s immediate environment. 

4.      “Because morality has to come from somewhere.” Morality is driven by culture and is relative; there are no universal moral maxims that exist necessarily. Even if God did exist we couldn’t be sure such a being were moral since that being would either be able to say whatever they want as being moral (in which case God may be an evil dictator) or have a system outside of itself by which they recognize morality. 

5.      “Because miracles have happened.” There has never been an event shown to violate the known laws of the universe, which is the definition of a miracle. Self-appointed prophets have never been able to demonstrate they can perform a miracle. 

6.      “Because prophecies have come true.” These always just happen to be cases of interpretation. Notice that prophecies are never very specific, which helps them be ‘fulfilled.’ A prophecy is also not a prophecy when the future is written after an event has transpired. Of course, holy men are never that dishonest. 

7.      “Because people have reported visions of Heaven.” Delusions. Notice that visions of Heaven always reflect Heaven as it is imagined by the religion of the person claiming to have seen such a place. No one imagines seeing Heaven in a way that doesn’t include some information they have come across previously.

8.      “Because this life cannot be all there is.” Why not? Just because one has an unpleasant life is not reason to conclude there is a better life waiting for them after they are dead. It is also interesting that people who want to believe in Heaven due to the amount of suffering or evil they see in their Earthly life are often the same people willing to make others suffer when those others don’t adhere to the same beliefs. 

9.      “Because the Bible/Torah/Koran is historically accurate.” Even if some events in scriptures are accurate, this does not reflect an overall accuracy. Imagine a geology book before the discovery of plate tectonics; some of the information may be accurate but that doesn’t mean the book is accurate in its entirety. 

10.   “Because if you don’t believe and God does exist, you won’t like the consequences (aka Pascal’s Wager).” Accepting Pascal’s Wager has been shown to actually increase the likelihood that one may be wrong about God’s existence because the wager (as originally formulated) doesn’t account for other religions. Pascal’s Wager also works in the opposite direction, for if one finds out on their death bed that God does not exist, they have wasted their life believing in God. 

11.   “Because God is a perfect being.” (Often attributed to Thomas Aquinas) It is argued that God must exist since existence is entailed in the definition of a perfect being, which God is. But this is like saying the perfect woman exists simply because in order for her to be perfect, she must exist by virtue of what is included in the definition of a ‘perfect woman.’ Nonsense. If you think otherwise, please produce a perfect flying unicorn. 

12.   “Because I have experienced God (or God’s presence).” Problem with anecdotal evidence is that it makes everyone’s experience of God equally valid. If one says that they have experienced the Christian god’s presence, their claim to the truth about God is no more valid than someone who says they have experienced the presence of Allah or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Personal visions do not equal universal truths. 

13.   “Because there is good and evil.” This is a really dumb argument as even if we did have acts that were intrinsically good or evil, this says nothing about the origin of good and evil and nothing that prevents intrinsically good or evil acts from being rooted in our evolution. Moreover, if you consider some acts to be more or less good or more or less evil than others, how was it ever determined that anything was ever intrinsically good or evil in the first place?

14.   “Because human beings are special.” In what way? Because we build things by destroying other things? Because of our seemingly advanced communication skills that nonetheless breakdown when resources are at stake? Because we can imagine a god in our own likeness? Because we are conscious beings who cannot explain how they came to be this way (not yet anyway)? None of these questions points to human beings being any more special than any other animal in their own way. 

15.   Finally, here’s one I haven’t heard in a long time, probably because it is so dumb; the Argument from Aesthetic Perfection, “There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Therefore there must be a God. (You either see this one or you don't.)” I don’t see it, probably because there is nothing there.

As it stands, there appears to be no argument that can make me even consider the existence of a god because even if we did find some powerful being with vast knowledge and incredible powers, we couldn’t be sure the being wasn’t just a really smart alien with a really intimate knowledge of physics. Theists would do well to simply try to avoid using reason to argue for the existence of a god since no reason (so far) stands up to scrutiny. I have a lot more respect for people who say they believe in God simply because they want to, not because they claim to have proof. They don’t. And if that person then tells me there is nothing I could say to make them not believe in God, I’d call it even and we should all grab a drink together and chill the fuck out.