God versus Logic

by Paul Foster

Faith is useless. We can have faith in anything, including God’s non-existence.

Faith is hypocritical. We are non-believers regarding all gods other than our own.

Desire is irrelevant. We may want to believe in God, fly like birds and never get sick;
however, since the truth is only a fraction of what we can imagine most of what we want
isn’t true.

So God either is or is not, regardless of what we want or choose to have faith in.

Section 1: The Inevitable Conception of God

The most obvious question asked by conscious beings is ‘Why do we exist?’ and since we
created complex entities, such as tools, the most obvious answer is that an even more
powerful and intelligent being (God) created us.

Consequently, every culture (to the best of my knowledge) believed in gods, such as
Zeus, Thor & Ra, strongly suggesting that our modern gods, like all gods before them,
are only figments of the imagination.

Section 2: There’s No Proof God Exists

It’s not possible to list then disprove every argument supporting God’s existence, yet
rest assured that proof of God’s existence would make the front page of every
newspaper in the world.

Example of a Failed Argument: Since a watch requires a watchmaker, and a human is

more complex than a watch, a human requires a human maker.

Firstly, unless we make the sacrilegious assumption that God is less complex than a
watch, in which case he would be unable to perform his godly duties, then he too would
require a maker, and so on.
In other words, it makes absolutely no sense to account for our complexity by assuming
that an even more complex, and entirely unproven, God created us.

Secondly, humans, unlike watches, have everything needed for their unconscious
creation, such as self-contained blueprints (DNA), dividing and differentiating building
blocks (cells), nutrient uptake (hunting & digestion) and so on. Consequently, a bucket
of watches, sprinkled with an aphrodisiac, and surrounded by the appropriate building
materials, will never give rise to new watches, yet there’s little anybody can do to
prevent a cage of rabbits from giving rise to new rabbits. Obviously the creative power
of billions of years of evolution wasn’t matched the day we started shaping stone tools,
or shortly after with mechanical watches.

Lastly, logic states that we cannot use a single example (a watch requires a conscious
creator) to validate a general conclusion (all entities more complex than a watch require
conscious creators). We can; however, use a single example (a female genius) to falsify
a general conclusion (females cannot obtain genius level IQs).

Section 3: There’s No Proof of God’s Creations or Modifications

Despite being credited with the creation of our entire universe, including life, we’ve
found absolutely no evidence that God created anything. In contrast, evolution
(credited only with the creation of life) is supported by an overwhelming amount of
evidence, including fossils and genetics.

In addition, most believers claim that God meddles in our affairs; however, according to
all relevant studies, including those performed by religious institutions, such as the
Templeton Foundation, God does not answer prayers, performs miracles or modifies
reality in any way.

Our failure to find evidence of God’s existence could simply mean that he lives outside
our observable universe; however, our failure to find evidence of his creations or
modifications is near conclusive proof that God, even if he exists, is not the creator of
life and the universe.

Section 4: There’s Still No Proof

Despite the best efforts by millions over thousands of years God’s existence, creations
and modifications have remained unproven.
This significantly reduces the probability of God’s existence because (a) each day was an
opportunity for proof positive and (b) we’ve made numerous discoveries over the same
period of time, including quantum mechanics, heliocentricity, evolution, relativity,
continental drift and the Big Bang.

Section 5: Reality Would Be Unaffected by God’s Absence

We have undeniable evidence for the unconscious creation of both life and our universe,
as confirmed by countless observations, experiments and computer simulations.

That is, just as we previously learned that natural phenomena, such as lightning & rain,
were unaffected by the absence of ancient gods, we’ve recently learned that our
universe, and everything in it, would be unaffected by the absence of any god.

In short, a relatively simple energy fluctuation, guided by only a handful of physical

laws, inevitably condensed into matter, which in turn condensed into stars, which in turn
released heavier elements, which in turn formed rocky planets and a vast number of
atomic combinations, including those found in life. The earth’s chemical rich oceans,
bathed in energy from the sun, in turn gave rise to single-celled organisms, which in
turn evolved into cells with complex and specialized internal structures, which in turn
evolved into multi-cellular organisms, which in turn evolved into more complex forms of
life, including man.

Note: We’ve found natural explanations for most previously unknown phenomena,
strongly suggesting that the remaining unknowns also have natural causes; especially
since (a) we’re constantly validating this assumption with new scientific discoveries and
(b) the remaining unknowns are patterned and repetitive, a clear indication that they’re
being caused by as yet unknown physical laws, as opposed to the variable whim of God.

Section 6: God’s Existence is Logically Impossible

Philosophers have used mutual exclusion (ex. red or not red) to list, then disprove, all
possible origins of God.
Note: The only other proposed origin (to the best of my knowledge) is existence
beyond time, which has been included for the sake of completeness.

Self-Creation: God cannot use that which defines himself, such as his power and
intelligence, in order to create himself.

In other words, if God didn’t already exist then he would have had less power and
intelligence than an insect; therefore, would have been unable to create himself.

Creation by Another God: If God has a god, and so on, then the supreme god, with
nobody around to create him, and unable to create himself (as stated above), must owe
his existence to something other than conscious creation.

In other words, assuming God has a god only delays the inevitable.
Creation by Nature: We have undeniable evidence for the unconscious creation of our
universe; for example, fossils and the microwave background radiation, yet we have no
such evidence, or even a theoretical explanation, for the unconscious creation of God.
In addition, it’s far more reasonable to assume that reality gave rise to us versus a far
more intelligent, powerful and complex god.

Eternal Existence: If God always existed then he existed prior to every moment in
time, so no creative power, including himself, had the opportunity to create him.
Consequently, the fundamental nature of reality must, without conscious intervention or
time, coincidentally define his existence.

Existence Beyond Time: Realizing the logical absurdity of both God’s creation and
eternal existence it’s been suggested that God exists beyond time. However, if God
changes in any way; for example, has a thought, then the elapse of time (old-thought
to new-thought) can be distinguished from the absence of time (old-thought to old-
thought), so any change, no matter how insignificant or what form it takes, inevitably
results in time. In other words, if God exists beyond time then he would be reduced to
an impotent statue, unable to create the earth, let alone think.
 Conclusion

According to scientists our universe would be unaffected by God’s absence and according
to philosophers his existence is logically impossible.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that the best efforts by millions over thousands of years failed
to uncover any evidence of God’s existence, creations or modifications.

In addition, the conception of God was inevitable (God created us just as we created
tools), universally desired (we’ve believed in countless gods), hypocritical (we dismiss all
gods other than our own) and useless (we can believe in anything, including God’s non-
existence).

In short, God does not exist.

Appendix 1 of 4: Pardon My Arrogance

IQ and religion are inversely proportionate. That is, the lower a person’s IQ the greater
the probability that he or she is a theist. For example, the following graph plots the
importance of religion in people's lives vs. IQ in several countries.

Scientific knowledge has an even stronger impact on religious belief than IQ. For
example, virtually all winners of the Nobel Prize in science are atheists, as are an
overwhelming percentage of the Royal Society (3.3% believe in God) and the National
Academy of Sciences (7% believe in God).

Since IQ tests measure a person’s ability to solve problems, and science is the objective
and systematic study of reality, their inverse correlation with religiosity is very strong
circumstantial evidence that God does not exist.

Appendix 2 of 4: The Obvious Failures of Religion

If the Bible, Koran and other religious books were divinely inspired then why were they
limited to local, current & known facts?
They made no mention of future discoveries, such as natural selection, DNA, galaxies
and protons, nor current, but geographically isolated, cultures, animals and knowledge.
This is exactly what is expected / required if they were written by man, but is in
complete contradiction to a book inspired by an outside perspective, especially a god.

In addition, these books are filled with blatant inconsistencies. For example, in the Bible
light was created on the first and fourth day, the genealogies contradict each other and
instructions are given to both dispose of swords (or die by them) and to purchase them.

Finally, whether literal or allegorical, their stories are simple-minded and absurd. Did
Noah fit two of every animal on a boat? Did he repopulate all landmasses with animals
breed by incest? And if allegorical, was God making a threat?

Note: Religion serves worldly functions. For example, be good, go to heaven (a perfect
utopia); be bad, go to hell (a place of endless torture). Point being, any secular use of
religion calls into question its integrity, giving it a reason to exist, even if God does not.

Appendix 3 of 4: The Immorality of Religion

The Koran states that non-believers & pagans must be killed (‘When you meet the
unbelievers, smite their necks…’ & ‘… slay the idolaters wherever you find them.’).
Consequently, followers of Islam have regularly committed horrific acts of terrorism.

The Bible has similar homicidal instructions, some of which are unbelievably absurd,
such as killing someone for working on the Sabbath or a child for talking back to his
parents. As with Muslims, these instructions were used to justify horrific acts of
terrorism, including the Inquisition.

Imagine an atheistic organization whose doctrine states that believers must be killed.
Consequently, members of said organization have regularly committed horrific acts of
terrorism. Wouldn’t you be curious as to why the non-violent members didn’t leave or
at least remove the instructions to kill theists from their doctrine?

Other religious atrocities include the burning of witches, threatening Galileo’s life (then
sentencing him to house arrest), the sacrificial slaughtering of thousands in
Mesoamerica, killing Incan leaders for refusing to denounce their gods and burning
Bruno at the steak for suggesting life may exist around other stars.

Injustices that are still common include terrorism, the stoning of peaceful marchers, the
mistreatment of women and homosexuals, the mental abuse of children, discouraging
condom use in aids ridden Africa and parents disowning their kids for marrying outside
the faith.

But are atheists any better? -According to all relevant statistics, yes. For example, only
~0.2% of the prison population are atheists.
Note: It’s impossible to commit an evil act if you’re the only living creature on Earth, for
there’s nobody to steal from, rape or otherwise abuse. Morality is simply the
modification of self-serving behavior for the benefit of others, not as a result of reward
or punishment, but because you’re aware of the needs and rights of others. And since
theists, by their own admission, rather believe in God than not, any mistreatment of
others, such as homosexuals, in the service of their desired god is immoral, for they are
refusing to modify self-serving behavior for the benefit of others.

Appendix 4 of 4: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

Theists believe, as do I, that the Big Bang requires an explanation. However, using a
more intelligent and powerful being than ourselves to explain a relatively simple ball of
expanding energy needlessly turns a simple explanation into an impossible one,
especially since there’s no evidence of God’s existence.

Alternatively, some have suggested that the Big Bang had no cause, and that we’re
simply biased by the observed causality within our universe. However, the ‘law of
causality’ is more than just a bias, for even if we observed causeless events scientists &
philosophers would be just as perplexed; endlessly asking themselves why these events
were taking place if absolutely nothing was causing them to.

Consequently, it’s safe to assume that the Big Bang had a cause, as did whatever
caused it, and so on; yet this gives rise to the ‘paradox of causality’. That is, even if we
trace our history back over an infinite number of causal interactions an infinite more
would still precede them, so no matter how many causal interactions took place modern
day events would never come to be, yet here we are.

Like with many paradoxes, such as the twin paradox, the solution requires multiple
perspectives. That is, from a perspective outside reality looking in absolutely nothing
has or will exist, so the law of causality was never broken because it was never put to
the test.

Ironically, this requires that something must exist. That is, in the complete absence of
cause (which is the only way to avoid the paradox of causality) there’s nothing to cause
one equally valid expression of nothingness, mathematical or otherwise, to be favored
over another (ex. 0 vs. 1 + -1), so they must all exists (assuming they cannot be
discerned from a perspective outside reality looking in).

This can be visualized on a piece of paper by surrounding a 0 with equations resulting in

0 (ex. 1 + -1), then covering up everything but the 0, in which case it would be
impossible for somebody to determine, or even detect, the equations.

In reality, imaginary numbers, multiple dimensions and the like allow for extremely
complex expressions of nothingness, the most important consequence of which is that
they cannot all be expressed simultaneously (while still equating to zero), so they must
share reality by equally & instantly negating each others changes.
For example, non-zero sub-equations (ex. 3 + -4) can result in zero only when
combined with a negating sub-equation (ex. 6 + -5), but since this excludes other sub-
equations (ex. 3 + -4 excludes 5 + -5), they must share reality by equally and instantly
negating each others changes [ex. (3 + -4) + (6 + -5) to (4 + -4) + (5 + -5)].

Note: If a change isn’t equally & instantly negated then it would become discernable
from a perspective outside reality looking in, recreating the paradox of causality.

This ‘Theory of Nothingness’ does far more than provide a solution to the paradox of
causality, for it makes testable predictions that can be disproved. Namely, all changes
within our universe, including any interacting universes, MUST be instantly negated, and
when combined, MUST equate to zero.

The laws of physics overwhelmingly support this theory, which is amazing considering
that we can imagine an infinite number of laws that blatantly contradict it, such as any
law without symmetry. For example, the decay of a particle is instantly and equally
negated by the creation of new particles and/or energies.

Other examples include the laws of thermodynamics, the equal and opposite reactions of
classical physics and the recent discovery of Dark Energy that coincidentally? brought
the total energy content of our universe to approximately 0.