God versus Logicby 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 morepowerful 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, yetrest 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 ismore 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 wouldrequire a maker, and so on.

In other words, it makes absolutely no sense to account for our complexity by assumingthat 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 buildingblocks (cells), nutrient uptake (hunting & digestion) and so on. Consequently, a bucket

of watches, sprinkled with an aphrodisiac, and surrounded by the appropriate buildingmaterials, 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 powerof 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 consciouscreator) 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 falsifya 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’vefound absolutely no evidence that God created anything. In contrast, evolution

(credited only with the creation of life) is supported by an overwhelming amount ofevidence, 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 theTempleton 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 outsideour 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, creationsand modifications have remained unproven.

This significantly reduces the probability of God’s existence because (a) each day was anopportunity 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 turnreleased 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 turnevolved 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; especiallysince (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’rebeing 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 andintelligence, in order to create himself.

In other words, if God didn’t already exist then he would have had less power andintelligence 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 owehis 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 ouruniverse; 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 Godchanges 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 failedto 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 allgods 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 theimportance of religion in people's lives vs. IQ in several countries.

Scientific knowledge has an even stronger impact on religious belief than IQ. Forexample, 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 NationalAcademy 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 theylimited to local, current & known facts?

They made no mention of future discoveries, such as natural selection, DNA, galaxiesand 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 incomplete 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 andinstructions 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 animalsbreed 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 theunbelievers, 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 ofterrorism, 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 orat 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 inMesoamerica, 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, themistreatment of women and homosexuals, the mental abuse of children, discouraging

condom use in aids ridden Africa and parents disowning their kids for marrying outsidethe 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, forthere’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 rewardor 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 ofothers, such as homosexuals, in the service of their 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 amore 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’resimply 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 whatevercaused 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 morewould 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 multipleperspectives. 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 ofcause (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 favoredover 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 in0 (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 extremelycomplex 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 whencombined 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 instantlynegating 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 ofcausality, for it makes testable predictions that can be disproved. Namely, all changes

within our universe, including any interacting universes, MUST be instantly negated, andwhen 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 equallynegated 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? broughtthe total energy content of our universe to approximately 0.