Proofs that No God Exists

John Zande provided the first such proof of this type I had ever seen (it is listed first below) which lead me to think that since there were so many “proofs” for the existence of a god, could there not be a great many similar proofs for the nonexistence of gods? As an exercise in philosophy, I thought that one could make only minor changes in the existing “pro-god” arguments and turn them 180 degrees into proofs against the existence of a god or gods. (Please note the “switched” arguments are in no way inferior to the “pro god” arguments.)

My motive in doing this is that gods were invented as explanations for why the world was the way it was when we had no clue as to the real causes. Certain humans then acquired “special privileges” by claiming special knowledge and a special relationship to those gods and used those to oppress the rest of us. (For those of you who can only think of your friendly pastor when thinking of religion, read a little history of those religions.) It is still claimed that whether a religion is true is irrelevant because it is needed to control the masses.

Gods are imaginary slave masters and we must free ourselves from our self-imposed oppression by them. The religious elites can go get real jobs instead of living off of false promises as they do now.

Note Since a number of these arguments are obscure and may not be known to you, in some of the below I have included one form of the argument for reference (see the sections labeled “For reference—”).

The Argument From Moral Autonomy
(This is from James Rachel’s “God and Moral Autonomy:”)

1. We are moral agents with moral autonomy and a responsibility to exercise it
   2. Abandoning one’s moral autonomy is immoral
   3. God is a perfectly good being worthy of worship
   4. Worship is the recognition of one as inferior and subordinate to a greater being
   5. Worship of God includes the total abandonment of one’s moral autonomy in favor of blind, non-questioning obedience of God
   6. This is immoral, unless we can continuously be sure the being we are worshipping is (perfectly) good, and that the being we are worshipping is indeed a (or the) “God”
   7. To continuously evaluate whether a being is good requires moral judgment, which requires moral autonomy
   8. Therefore it is not possible to continuously evaluate if a being is good while also worshipping it
   9. Therefore, worshipping necessarily requires abandoning one’s moral responsibility, which is immoral
   10. Therefore, no being is worthy of worship
   11. Therefore, God does not exist

In short – worship makes it impossible to know the object of worship is good, and a non-good object of worship isn’t worthy of worship. It is said that it can be known that God is good, and that God is worthy of worship, which is a contradiction, which cannot exist.

* * *

The Argument From Ineffective Prayer

Here is my attempt at chipping away at the godly edifice.

1. God is all good (by definition).
   2. Repeated prayers for new limbs by amputees have been denied universally.
   3. Therefore God hates amputees.
   4. God cannot be both all-good and hate amputees.
   5. Therefore, God does not exist.

Note This argument may be resolved by dropping the “all-good” aspect from the definition of their god, which is why I refer to this as chipping away at the godly edifice. SR

* * *

The Logical Ontological Argument

1. It is possible that a maximally great being does exist, but the probability is vanishingly small.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists with a vanishingly small probability, then there is a vanishingly small probability that a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world with a vanishingly small probability, then it exists in every possible world with a vanishingly small probability.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world with a vanishingly small probability, then it exists in the actual world with a vanishingly small probability.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world with a vanishingly small probability, then there is a vanishingly small probability a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, there is a vanishingly small probability that a maximally great being exists.

Note Is there any example of a maximally great anything? No? So, the idea is imaginary in the first place.

* * *

The Transcendental Argument Against Gods

1. It is claimed that God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality.
2. It is claimed that God is a necessary precondition for illogic and immorality.
3. People know both sets of things (have logical and illogical, and moral and immoral intuitions) and likely the one implies the other in each duality (logic begets illogic, white begets black, etc.).
4. Therefore, God is unnecessary.

For reference—

This is a transcendental argument that attempts to prove that God is the precondition for logic, reason, or morality. The argument proceeds as follows:

1. God, is a necessary precondition for logic and morality.
2. People know things (have logical, and moral intuitions).
3. Therefore, God exists.

* * *

The Teleological Argument Against Gods

It is claimed “This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” This quote is from Isaac Newton, and is at best an opinion, not a proof. No god would allow His believers to use opinions as proofs, therefore God does not exist.

1. The statement that “This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” is at best an opinion.
2. An all-powerful, all-knowing god would never allow his believers to use opinions as proofs.
3. Therefore, if the proof is true then God does not exist.

 

* * *

The Cosmological Argument For God (Kalam Version)

1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a beginning.
4. The End

Note The conclusion that the universe had a beginning might imply that there was a cause (or might not). The fact that we do not know what such a cause might be does not imply anything, let alone the existence of a god. This is just another God of the Gaps argument.

For reference—

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. Therefore, if the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Note Again, there is no basis for #4 in the premises. It is just slipped in as it coincides with the fundamental beliefs of the audience.

* * *

The Argument From Love

1. God is Love.
2. God so loved us that he slaughtered millions and ordered the slaughter of millions more.
3. God so loved us that he killed all but eight humans and all of the land and fresh and salt water creatures in a great flood.
4. Therefore, uh, never mind.

For reference—

“Love is the greatest of miracles. How could an evolved ape create the noble idea of self-giving love? Human love is a result of our being made to resemble God, who himself is love.” Uh, wow, hard to argue against this brilliance.

* * *

The Argument From Morality

1. A human experience of morality is observed.
2. God is the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
3. Since moralities differ from culture to culture, either there is no god or there are many gods.
4. Therefore, God does not exist (Occam’s Razor).

* * *

The Argument From Inconsistent Revelations

1. There are many religions claiming to be the one true faith.
2. An all-powerful, all-knowing god could not be the source of mixed messages.
3. An all-powerful, all-knowing god would not allow imposters to live long.
4. Therefore, God does not exist.

* * *

The Argument From Beauty

1. There are many beautiful things all over the world.
2. There once were humans who did not see the beauty in such things and they were so depressed that they didn’t live long enough to pass on their genes.
3. Therefore, only people who can see beauty still exist.
4. Therefore, a god is unnecessary as a creator of beauty.

For reference—

1. There are many beautiful things all over the world.
2. Only a god who is beautiful and unchangeable could have made these beautiful things.
3. Therefore, God exists.

* * *

The Argument From Free Will and Justice

1. God knows the choices that a human would claim to make freely.
2. Therefore those actions are now destined to occur.
3. If it is now necessary that they occur, then those choices cannot be otherwise.
4. If we cannot do otherwise when we act, then we do not act freely.
5. A just god would not punish people for what they do not choose to do freely.
6. It is claimed that God punishes people for all of their actions.
7. Therefore, God does not exist.

Note The Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God rests on the ground that God’s omniscience is incompatible with God having free will and that if God does not have freewill, God is not a personal being.

* * *

The Argument From Religious Experience

1. There are compelling reasons for disbelieving the claims of religious experience that point to and validate spiritual realities that exist in a way that transcends material manifestation.
2. According to materialism, nothing exists in a way that transcends material manifestation.
3. According to classical theism, God endows human beings with the ability to perceive religious, spiritual and/or transcendent realities through religious, spiritual and/or transcendent experience.
4. The evidence for the existence of the material world hugely outweighs that of religious experience.
5. Therefore, materialism is more plausible than theism.

For reference—

1. There are compelling reasons for believing that claims of religious experience point to and validate spiritual realities that exist in a way that transcends material manifestation;
2. According to materialism, nothing exists in a way that transcends material manifestation;
3. According to classical theism, God endows human beings with the ability to perceive – although imperfectly – religious, spiritual and/or transcendent realities through religious, spiritual and/or transcendent experience.
4. Therefore, theism is more plausible than materialism.

* * *

The Argument From Consciousness

1. Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist.
2. There is an explanation for the existence of mental states.
3. Personal explanation (PE) is different from natural scientific explanation (NSE).
4. The explanation for the existence of mental states is either a PE or a NSE.
5. The explanation is not an PE.
6. Therefore the explanation is a NSE.
7. If the explanation is PE, it is theistic.
8. Therefore, the explanation is a natural scientific explanation.

Note Basically humans are not known for their ability to interpret natural phenomena. For millennia people got most things wrong, e.g. lightning and thunder were created by gods, and even when work done by much more intelligent humans exposes the correct interpretation, many, many humans deny those truths, e.g. as late as the mid-twentieth century, many people did not connect sexual intercourse with getting pregnant, e.g. many humans deny the human fingerprints on climate change, e.g. many people still believe in ghosts.

For reference—

1. Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist.
2. There is an explanation for the existence of mental states.
3. Personal explanation (PE) is different from natural scientific explanation (NSE).
4. The explanation for the existence of mental states is either a PE or a NSE.
5. The explanation is not an NSE.
6. Therefore the explanation is a PE.
7. If the explanation is PE, it is theistic.
8. Therefore, the explanation is theistic.

Note Premise number 6 is a whopper. Once you can get your conclusion into a set of assumed to be true premises, you have won your argument … by cheating.

* * *

The Argument from Satan

1. God is all-good.
2. God created Hell and Satan.
3. God refuses to or is unable to uncreate Hell or Satan.
4. God cannot be both all-good and the creator of Hell and Satan.
5. Therefore, there is no god.

* * *

The Argument from Degree

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists the possibility of some other object that has the property to a greater degree.
3. As the degree of extent increases, the probability of the existence of an object of greater extent diminishes.
4. As the extent of any property approaches maximum, the probability approaches zero.
5. Hence, the probability of a maximally extending God is infinitely small.

For reference—

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.