Non-Cognitivism

Sometimes, I encounter non-fundamental theists who hold to a version of God that does not fall prey to the host of problems that a good majority of my arguments against the existence of the God of classical theism (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) would attack. Attributes such as infinite nature, love, creating ex nihilo, omniscience, perfection, and others makes it impossible for theists to maintain logical consistency. However, non-fundamentalists who eliminate all these troublesome attributes and define God in a vague way by simply calling him Creator will claim that God, defined in a vague and general way cannot be disproven. Indeed, many atheists concede that a god defined in a vague way cannot be disproven since we lack the data to examine the claim to determine if it is logically consistent or makes sense. As I will demonstrate in this article, an undefined, meaningless god does not need to be disproven, because belief in such a concept is senseless and invalid by default which leaves only strong atheism (the positive belief that no gods exist) to be the only default.

In order for concepts to be valid, not only do they have to be logical but they must have meaning. As I said earlier, non-fundamentalists like to define God as "Creator". But what is the substance that composes this Creator? Theists leave it undefined, or they define it negatively by calling it a spirit (non-physical). Terms that are defined negatively are meaningless. Thus, the statement that "a god exists" is meaningless and any position that even relies on the possibility of a god existing is also meaningless. A meaningless concept cannot exist. To even propose the possibility of some unknown god existing presupposes that there is even a meaning to the term 'god'. A concept that lacks meaning is equivalent to nothing. So I can claim as a certainty that God does not exist because the meaninglessness of the term is equivalent to non-existence.

Even in light of the above, theists will try to maintain that the term 'god' is meaningful. They ascribe characteristics to God such as creator, loving, perfect, all powerfull, all knowing, father, redeemer. The attributes that theists always identify are secondary and relational attributes. Examples of secondary attributes are generous, kind, good. Relational examples includes creator, greater, etc. Where theists lack a definition always deals with God's primary attributes. The primary attributes is the basic nature that a particular thing is composed of.

If I was to say that a hoolyutoboo exists, not only is the term hoolyutoboo meaningless but saying that a hoolyutoboo is an architect or a creator is also meaningless because secondary and relational attributes are dependent upon primary attributes. No possible relation can be established between a concept and its secondary or relational properties if the existant's metaphysical identity is unknown.

Another example to help drive the point is that we could say that, "Paul has fininished his math homework." Understanding that Paul is an average human being of the age of nine, we can say that this idea is entirely plausible. Because we understand that human beings of this age are entirely capable of doing math. Thus, we must first identify what a thing is before we can apply any further characteristics or traits to its being.

A theist could object and argue that while the concept of a god might be meaningless, the concept of 'creator' is not. Though the concept of creating is not entirely meaningless in the sense in which we understand it to mean a final product (whatever it may be, let's say a car) coming in existence, whether by the re-combination of pre-existing materials or ex nihilo (out of nothing, which is incoherent), the mechanism by which the creative act is done is unknown or undefined, which renders the creative act meaningless. Theists would argue that we do not need to be aware of the mechanism of how God creates. The problem here is that when theists say that they believe that, "a God creates", what such a statement implies, in light of the argument of noncognitivism, is that a meaningless unknown entity, by some meaningless unknown mechanism, created the universe. Another way of wording this is that theists essentially believe in a relational attribute (creator) that they attempt to relate to an unknown concept. But as I have shown before, relational attributes cannot be related to an undefined concept. So theists essentially just believe in the relational attribute 'creator'. Any attempts at connecting relational or secondary attributes to an undefined god is impossible. They cannot even make sense of it.

But that only address someone who already believes in an undefined creator. What about the individual that posits the possibility of an unknown being that creates in an unknown way? As I have demonstrated in the previous post, creating ex nihilo is logically incoherent so such an idea is not even a possibility. But what if a theist proposes that this unknown creator in an unknown way took the pre-existing energy and formed the universe from that building block as opposed to ex nihilo? I would acknowledge that this is a possibility and it is not the intention of this article to disprove such a possibility. While there may not be nothing wrong to propose such a possibility, what this post addresses is that already believing in such a meaningless concept is senseless. Theists who claim to believe in a creator god really just believe in a mechanistically unknown relational attribute tied in or related to absolutely nothing (god).

Theists cannot propose that nothingness (god) exists. Unless properly defined, the term 'god' holds no actual or potential place in reality.

Incoherency of divine creation

According to Christianity, all things in existence was created by God and that before all things were created, only God existed. Such a notion is strongly supported by the Bible in John 1:1-3 and Col. 1:16. The concept of a God as a creator is a big part of theism, if not one of the core foundations. I contend that the notion of a God creating is logically incoherent, thus making the God concept logically incoherent and impossible. Let us take a few statements that virtually every theist will agree with.

(a) God caused the universe to exist

(b) God produced the universe

Again, theists contend that the universe at one point in time did not exist. How is it that they can say that God caused the universe (which did not exist) to start existing? The laws of causality deals with the recombination of pre-existing materials. Something which exists cannot cause something that does not exist to do anything, let alone start existing.

Theists cannot escape the notion that their God created the universe out of nothing. And by 'out of nothing' I mean that God caused absolutely nothing to start existing in the form of a universe. This is a necessary conclusion because theists, who invoke cause and effect to prove that God created us, cannot say that God caused something that already existed to become the universe since theism necessitates that all things once did not exist. So if there was no object for God to cause to become the universe then it had to have been nothing. But as I already pointed out, the universe cannot be said to have came into existence from non-existence since non-existence, by definition, cannot do anything, cannot be affected, and cannot be acted upon. It is logically incoherent because it ascribes an identity of something to nothing.

Some theists who try to act arrogantly clever will attempt to avoid the problem by saying that God neither acts on something or acts on nothing to make a universe. Rather, they claim that God simply just produces a universe from himself in the same way that the brain produces thoughts. But every notion of the term 'produced' that we as humans are aware of utilizes pre-existing materials to make something else. As much as theists hate the idea, I see no reason to think that the brain doesn't produce its thoughts from the pre-existing energy that already exists within it (though dualists would adamantly disagree with this). This is a deceptive way of arguing because it tries to conceal the mechanism of how God manufactures the universe and limits the argument to vague and general terms of how God "just produces the universe from himself". If a theist wishes to argue in such a vague fashion then I will simply appeal to noncognitivism, namely that their statement of God producing the universe is meaningless and consequently invalid.

But regardless of how vague they try to be, no theist can deny that God caused the universe go from a state of non-existence to existence, that point is irrefutably clear. And going from a state of non-existence to existence is equivalent to saying that the universe went from nothing to something. The theist would still be left with God creating the universe out of or from nothing. Again, to do this, God has to cause the non-existent universe (nothingness) to become something. But the concept of God acting upon nothingness to produce something imposes an identity upon nothingness that is logically inconsistent. Nothingness lacks potentiality and actuality which makes it impossible to act upon it. I do not mean to be redundant but the overall point here is that the theist at this point is merely just playing word games to conceal the fact that his/her worldview has God creating the universe out of nothing.

For the sake of those who still might lack understanding as to how creation out of nothing is a logical incoherence, let's word it this way. As we said in the beginning, we have God who is causing the universe to go from non-existence to existence. Theists at times appeal to cause and effect to try to prove that God is the creator of the universe. In this case, the cause is God, or his word, and then you have the recipient of that cause, which is what leads to the final product (the universe). So God, by his word, causes the non-existent universe/nothingness (which is the recipient of God's creative power), to become an existent universe. In order for something to be the recipient of something, that something HAS to first be something. How can nothing receive anything? There's nothing there to do the receiving. The very act of receiving something, by definition, requires that there is SOMETHING there on the other end to do the receiving. When theists invoke the law of cause and effect to prove divine creation, they are claiming utter nonsense.

The second problem of divine creation deals with the 2 possible states that God existed in before creating. Theists are divided on which state God existed in but both positions do not allow for a God to divinely create. The states are:

(a) temporal eternal

and

(b) atemporal eternal

Temporal eternality says that before God created the universe he existed for an infinite amount of time fellowshipping with other members of the Trinity or (whatever else he was doing depending on your theistic viewpoint). The question to be asked is how long did God wait before he decided to create? If God is eternal then he waited an infinite amount of time before deciding to create. This cannot work because if your waiting for an infinite amount of time then you would never stop waiting.

The second position, which is favored by William Lane Craig, states that God did not exist in time but was timeless. In a timeless state, there are no causal chain of events, there is essentially no movement at all, everything is held in its place without any movement. In this viewpoint, God did not all of a sudden come to a point where he said "I am going to create the universe" and then he creates it and the universe comes into existence. This is a casual chain of events that requires time. Instead, people like Craig argue that God's act of creating and the effect (which is the universe coming into existence) is simultaneous, which eliminates the need for time. But this can't be because the universe would come into existence at the same exact time with when it does not exist -- a logical contradiction.

As much as how most theist's are convinced by cosmological arguments, I contend that the fallacious nature of them provides evidence that the theistic god does not exist and is a logically incoherent concept.

Moving beyond the miracle hungry phase

An iphone is a cool little gadget to have if your interested in something media based at the expense of basic phone necessities. Anyways, when I used to have one I downloaded an application that allowed me to post any topic that I wished to discuss and people who saw my advertisement would have access to send me a text message (your phone number would be next to your advertisement). So knowing me, I posted an advertisement which asked the question regarding something along the lines of whether or not God existed and by doing so it allowed me to have countless one to one discussions with people via text messaging regarding why they believed in the existence of God. I would say, that roughly around 95% of people who I talked to believed in God shared one of a few reasons, and that reason is:

Miracles.

Each and every person out of that 95% had their own unique miraculous experience which they believed that only the existence of a god could explain. Though I do find it odd as to how they could invoke god as an explanation for these alleged miracles when the term 'god' is essentially meaningless and that any claimed function that this god performs is consequently meaningless as well. But that issue is for another day. For this post, we will assume for the sake of argument that the god concept does have meaning.

A good percentage of the miracles, in my opinion, could be easily explained by natural processes or simple chance. For instance, alleged medical miracles seems to convince quite a lot of people. One example is someone who is diagnosed with cancer and who prays and is instantly healed of the illness. The theist may take such an example as convincing evidence for the existence of god but I do not. This is not necessarily because I am closed minded but because if I am not there to witness and monitor such an event as well as not having any idea if there were any other factors involved that aided in the healing of that individual. Let's deconstruct this simple but common reason for belief in a god.

First of all, it could be very well possible that the individual was misdiagnosed and never really had cancer at all. Misdiagnoses are not uncommon. Second, even though the theist reports that the individual just prayed and was healed, how do we know that the individual did not take any immune system stimulating herbs? We know that certain herbs, such as the medicinal mushrooms (reishi, chaga, etc) are very effective at boosting the immune system. How do we know that they didn't start reducing the stress in their life, eating a cleansing diet, getting plenty of rest, water, sunlight, laughter, all of which have been shown effective (when taken together) at fighting cancer? Just so you know, apart from nutritional and herbal methods, the mind itself can be a powerful weapon against the fight against cancer. It (the mind) can affect virtually every cell in the body. Third, how does the theist know that the person's recovery was not simply due to the fact that the human body is extremely resillient and self healing? For example, we all know how dangerous free radicals are to our health by causing premature aging and cellular damage. However, even though they are dangerous, free radicals can be a benefit to the body. In cases like these, when the body's immune system is overwhelmed by foreign invaders such as bacteria, viruses, and cancer cells, the body can take those same free radicals, harnass them, and fire them at the body's enemies.

Another issue that I would like to briefly discuss is chance. Most theists are of the idea that chance is completely out of the question when it comes to explaining their personal miraculous experiences. For example, one person I spoke to claimed that he tried to kill himself by purchasing a gun and putting it to his head. Upon pulling the trigger, nothing happened, he then pointed the gun elsewhere and pulled the trigger again and the gun fired. This convinced him that god exists. Another example is where another individual was in a car and the car came under heavy gun fire. Not only was everyone in the car killed except him, but the bullets hit every part of the seat with the exception of his body. This convinced him that god exists.

Before I explain why neither of these examples substantiates the existence of a god, I need to lay some brief ground work regarding chance. A lot of theists claim that they do not believe in chance or luck. I have noticed though that some people define chance or luck as if there is some type of magic to it. Such a notion is evident when people make claims like, "don't do that, thats bad luck", or "wear this rabbit foot, it will bring you good luck". That is not what I am talking about when I refer to luck or chance.

Chance, according to the dictionary, simply means the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled. When a ladder detaches from a moving truck and falls on the freeway, such an event happens by chance, meaning that it was unpredictable or unexpected. Now, when dealing with chance or luck, we have to ask ourselves how much luck are we able to invoke. If a person takes all the necessary precautions and adequately ties and secures that ladder to his truck, then the chances of it dislodging is minimal, if not nonexistent. However, when dealing with millions of trucks on this planet, the chances of there being many ladders dislodging from trucks is high, because with so many different people and different situations, there will always be those who do not adequately secure their ladders to their trucks. So numbers is a critical factor when dealing with luck/chance. Another factor is time. The chances of a ladder dislodging from a truck of someone who is vigilant to secure it properly is minimal or close to damn near none. However, take that same truck driver and have him secure a ladder to his truck everyday for a million years. Considering such a vast amount of time and possible circumstances that could occur, it is clear that the ladder dislodging many times is high.

In regards to my two above examples, let us address the gun example. My friend is adamant about the fact that it could not have been due to chance, but we know now that he is wrong. The United States alone contains anywhere from 170 to 300 million guns. This does not include the amount of guns that the rest of the world has. Considering the millions of guns that are manufactured, is it unreasonable to suppose that there will be guns that malfunction? With such a high amount of guns manufactured, I see no reason to believe that every one will function perfectly. Considering the time aspect of chance, there have been countless of people over time that have committed suicide by gun point to the head. Of the thousands of millions of people who have attempted suicide, it is not surprising to see that few along the way ended up with guns that were not manufactured properly. I think the overall concept that I have outlined so far should suffice at demonstrating that chance can easily explain a group majority of the alleged miracles that people appeal to.

Of course not every personal experience is this simple. Some are in fact more complicated and/or more difficult to explain by natural means. Indeed, there have been cases where I have not had an immediate answer to a person's miraculous personal experience(s). But as I said earlier that there are so many possible unknown variables so its wise to take theistic experiences with a grain of salt.

People generally ask me what will convince me that God exists. My response for a while has been that any of the supernatural examples in the Bible would suffice for me. Christians of course come up with all kinds of excuses as to why their God does not intervene and manifest in the world today as he did in Bible times. However, over time I have slowly moved away from this approach of asking for a clear crisp divine intervention as evidence for a god. Why?

As stated above, when it comes to theistic claims of miracles being evidence for the existence of their god, there is almost always an alternative naturalistic explanation that comes to mind. Even if a naturalistic explanation cannot be thought of, a theist would have to negate every possible one before they can substantiate that their alleged miracle proves their god. But in order for them to do this they would have to be omniscient! Without knowledge of every possible naturalistic/materialistic cause in our universe, nobody can make the claim that they know that this miracle or that miracle is coming from an eternal God, let alone the god of their religion.

With that being said, we can conclude that all appeals to alleged miracles as evidence for the existence of a god are fallacious. They are begging the question (a logical fallacy of assuming to be true that which their trying to prove). Without omniscience or knowledge of every possible naturalistic explanation, to say that so and so was cured by cancer because God healed them or that this man was raised from the dead because God did it is entirely circular because they have to first assume that God exists and intervenes in the world. Again, I repeat: if they do not know of all possible materialistic causes then they cannot know it is a god. So claiming that it is a god thats doing it presupposes the theistic worldview. Arguments that are based off of assumptions as opposed to evidence are not arguments at all.

This, however, is not surprising to me. Nobody in the history of man has ever provided a valid argument for existence of any god whatsoever. Either the argument is logically invalid/fallacious, or, the argument is logically valid but lacks evidence, which would also render the argument invalid and irrational.

Some might accuse me of being closed minded and that no evidence would convince me that a god exists. But unless theists can first ascribe meaning to the term 'god' then the issue of whether or not god exists is a nonissue. There is absolutely nothing to consider. Something meaningless is equivalent to nothingness. But if the term did have meaning, then convincing people would not be an issue for such a being. With omnipotence, nothing is hard at all for that god, let alone convincing finite human beings that he exists. If anything, theists are more concerned about people believing that their god exists more than their god is concerned about it.

Imperfection from Perfection

As we know, the world that we live in is far from perfect. In light of all the beauty that theists love to point to in attempt to prove the existence of their god, the ugliness of nature perfectly matches if not exceeds that so called beauty. In this article, I will not go into detail regarding the specifics of our imperfect world, such specifics will be discussed in the argument from scale. If anything, this article will discuss and rebut one of the objections against the argument from scale, which is Christians appeal to the fall of man in the garden of eden.

In normal atheist vs theist discussions, anytime the issue of the chaotic nature of our world is brought up, Christians immediately retort to man's free will choice to disobey God which resulted in nature becoming corrupted and chaotic. But the theist fails to realize that such a response does not account for the problem, he/she is merely just presenting the same problem in a different but more subtle form. When atheists point to the imperfections in the world, the rationale for such questioning is that it makes no sense to believe that the universe was designed and is maintained by a perfect being but yet the end result is imperfection and chaos. With the case of Adam and Eve in the Garden, the problem remains: How can an imperfect creation come from a perfect God?

Of course the theist will retort and state that man was originally created upright and good and then chose evil and became imperfect as a result. But such theistic reasoning is backwards. We do not become imperfect because we choose evil, but we choose evil as a result of imperfection. If you have a human being that is perfectly righteous and good and has not even a stain of sin or evil in his/her heart, then how do you get from that perfect state to evil and wickedness? In order for evil to be committed, there has to be a source. Appealing to free will choice does not solve the problem because free will choices are performed in accordance to ones own nature, human choices are not random events with no source. Either the source is good or evil.

Interestingly, the Bible supports my argument. In Matthew 7:18, Jesus says that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. If Adam was originally created good, how then could he have produced a bad fruit? In Matthew 15 Jesus also speaks of how that which comes out of the mouth comes from the heart. So it is man's nature, not free will, that is responsible for our actions and words.

We can present this argument in a logical syllogism.

1. In theism, God is defined as a perfect being who originally created everything good and perfect.

2. Imperfection cannot come from perfection.

3. Man is imperfect.

4. A perfect God does not exist.

Peter's afterlife and God's omniscience

The vast majority of theists hold to the omni-attributes of God. Omniscience, being all knowing of everything that has or will happen is one of them. Theists, such as William Lane Craig have argued that an actual infinite cannot exist. One might ask what does infinity have to do with whether or not God is omniscient? Well in this article it has a lot to do with it. First, we need to define actual and potential infinity. I will allow Craig to define them for me.

In order to understand (2.1), we need to understand the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Crudely put, a potential infinite is a collection which is increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never gets there. Such a collection is really indefinite, not infinite. The sign of this sort of infinity, which is used in calculus, is ¥. An actual infinite is a collection in which the number of members really is infinite. The collection is not growing toward infinity; it is infinite, it is "complete."

Now (2.11) maintains, not that a potentially infinite number of things cannot exist, but that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. For if an actually infinite number of things could exist, this would spawn all sorts of absurdities.

What absurdities is Craig referring to?

Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full." But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. "But of course!" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be? The proprietor just added the new guest's name to the register and gave him his keys-how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before? But the situation becomes even stranger. For suppose an infinity of new guests show up the desk, asking for a room. "Of course, of course!" says the proprietor, and he proceeds to shift the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and so on out to infinity, always putting each former occupant into the room number twice his own. As a result, all the odd numbered rooms become vacant, and the infinity of new guests is easily accommodated. And yet, before they came, all the rooms were full! And again, strangely enough, the number of guests in the hotel is the same after the infinity of new guests check in as before, even though there were as many new guests as old guests. In fact, the proprietor could repeat this process infinitely many timesand yet there would never be one single person more in the hotel than before. (Taken from http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html)

Craig's overall point is that because an absolute infinity results in absurdities then it is metaphysically impossible. Another argument against the existence of actual infinity is the problem of traversing infinity. Let's say an infinite amount of time as existed. Time could never arrive at this present moment because an infinite amount of time would have to elapse first. But since infinite means no beginning and no end, by definition, it cannot be elapsed.

Now, with that established, let's proceed to the actual argument. Let's take the apostle Peter and use him as our example. According to Christianity, when we die as believers, we will go to heaven and that is where we will spend eternity. So taking Peter as our example, after he died for the faith he went to heaven to be in the presence of God and that is where he will reside at forever. When we say that Peter will reside in heaven forever or for eternity, what are we referring to? According to Craig, it means that Peter will be in heaven for a potential infinite amount of time, not actual. But is this really the case?

Craig elsewhere has given the example of a man jumping from one stone to another. Each time that the man jumps a new stone is created for him to land on. According to Craig, the process can continue forever and it will always remain a potential infinite, because there will always be a new stone created for the man to hop to. Looking at our example of Peter again, Craig is certainly correct. All the days that Peter resides in heaven will always be a potential infinite because there will always be "the next day", just as how there will always be another stone in our above example.

But when it comes to God's omniscient perspective of Peter's after life, we run into a problem. Craig would certainly agree that God knows all things, which would include all of Peter's days in heaven. But if an actual infinite amount of days is impossible then God's knowledge of all of Peter's afterlife is limited. In Craig's mind, Peter's days in heaven is limited since there will always be "that next day". So if God does not have a knowledge of a actual infinite amount of days for Peter's life then that means that there will always be "that next day" that God does not know about. Let's look at this slightly different to help drive the point home. Let's represent Peter's days in his afterlife with dots. Each dot represents a single day in his afterlife and as the next day comes a new dot is created. What is God's knowledge on these dots? Does God see a potential infinite amount of dots that keep getting longer and longer? If so then there will always be future dots that God does not know about since what God sees is only dots coming into existence or a line of dots that continues to grow, not an actual infinite amount of dots.

A possible theistic objection to this argument is that it is a false dichotomy. And that it is not a matter of either God's knowledge comprising an potential infinite amount of days vs. an actual infinite amount. The objector could then proceed to state that God's knowledge of Peter's after life days is finite, not necessarily because there are future days that God does not know about, but because Peter's after life itself is finite. This way of looking at it says that God does not know of a finite amount of dots that keeps growing with no knowledge of anything beyond those finite dots that are already in existence. Rather, God knows of every dot that comes into existence.

This argument is implying that we cannot put a set value on God's knowledge of Peter's days in heaven. But neither will the argument affirm that the amount of days is actual infinite. It is somewhat paradoxical. If we cannot ask the question of how many days of Peters after life that God knows about then this means that God's knowledge in its entirety is not set.

The problem with this objection is that there is always a set value with anything finite. A potential infinite amount of days is a finite amount of days that has a beginning and has an end. It cannot be said that God knows of every after life day that comes without a limit because being without a limit is actual infinite, not a potential infinite. The objector would be inadvertently affirming that God knowledge of all the days of Peter's after life is an actual infinite which leads us to our final point:

Someone could reject Craig's argument against actual infinity and say that God does see an actual infinite complete set of dots, not a finite amount that keeps growing. If in God's knowledge there exists an actual infinite amount of days of Peter's life then one might ask: How is it that God knows of something that Peter himself will never experience? On Peter's level, he will never experience an actual infinite amount of days in heaven, it will always be potential infinite. If God knows of an actual infinite amount of days then his knowledge does not reflect reality. God would know something that would never occur, hence, his knowledge regarding Peter's afterlife would be inaccurate, and he would not truly be omniscient. Either way we cut it, true omniscience is out of the question.

In light of the above, I conclude that an omniscient God cannot exist.

More reasons for rejecting the existence of God

My previous post on my reasons for rejecting the existence of god and the validity of Christianity was not exhaustive. If anything, I would consider those reasons that I gave to be my corner stone foundation. Over time, I will discuss more reasons for my rejection of the existence of God. Here is a list of most of them:

1. Biological Evolution

While there are theists who try to hold to evolution and sneak God in through the back door, such foolishness is unnecessary and disregards what evolution is about. Evolution is about how simplicity can give rise to complexity without the aid of a designer. It is how atheists are able to account for illusion of design in nature. The architect of all complex organisms on the planet is evolution by natural selection.

2. The argument from evil

This argument might seem like a rehash of the common argument from evil that most atheists utilize. I, however, take a slightly different approach. My individualized argument from evil has 3 categories:

A. The argument from foreknowledge

B. The argument from allowance and promotion of sin contamination

C. The argument from deterministic design.

Point C is the most fiercly resisted by Christians but I strongly believe that it stands strong and is a powerful argument against the existence of a loving God.

3. The argument from Non-belief.

Some Christians claim that an atheist's non-belief does not change the fact that the Christian God exists. As a matter of fact, it does.

4. The argument from scale.

This argument states that the universe is not how we should expect it if a God exists. This includes the vast size of the universe and the chaotic nature of the universe as well as life on earth.

5. Argument of the apathetic god.

Assuming that there is a transcendant infinite God then we have reasons to believe that such a god does nothing and could not have created the universe, let alone intervene in it.

6. Incoherency of divine creation.

A few points to keep in mind with this argument:

A. Something cannot come from nothing.

B. A timeless God cannot create out of nothing because of the problem of timelessness.

C. A God who exists in time cannot create due to the infinite time period that would have to elapse before the act of creating.

I will discuss these points in more detail in another post soon.

7. The argument against God's omniscience using Peter's afterlife

The concept of an afterlife invalidates the idea of an omniscient God.

8. God's personhood & timelessness

This argument essentially says that if God is timeless then he cannot be a person. This argument will be covered alongside the apathetic god argument because after that argument is drawn out, I need to address a legitimate objection to that argument utilizing this argument.

9. Imperfection from perfection

Christians cannot account for our imperfect world if they wish to define God as a perfect being.

All these arguments along with the ones I mentioned in the previous post comprise most, if not close to all my reasons for rejecting the existence of God. And considering all these reasons for rejecting the existence of God, I am baffled as to how theists can still continue to point to Psalms 14 and call me a fool.

I will discuss each argument in more detail in separate posts. Let us begin.

Why I am not a Christian

Christians adore their beloved passage from Psalms 14 where the Psalmist says, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." Christians are convinced that atheists are total idiots for not believing that their god exists and not believing the claims of their religion. I am often times asked why I am an atheist and why I reject Christianity. In this post I will briefly give the reasons as to why I reject both the existence of God and the validity of Christianity.

The overall gospel message says that God originally created man upright and he disobeyed God (Ecc 7:29). As a result of that disobedience, sin entered the world and that sin along with death spread to all men (Rom 5:12-19). God, in his love, sent his Son to save men from their sin, to be a propitiation for their sins, to die on a cross so men can be forgiven and reconciled to God through faith in the gospel (Matt 1:21, 1 John 2:2, Rom 5:10, Col 1:22). And after he died he was buried and resurrected. The death, burial, and resurrection is the basis for salvation (1 Cor 15:1-4)

I reject this "gospel message" for the following reasons:

1. The message presupposes that a god even exists.

Christians preach their message as if the existence of God is blatantly obvious. Is it? They say it is obvious because of the existence of the cosmos. The argument is that because there is something, instead of nothing, because our universe appears orderly and beautiful then there must be a designer which we call God.

Now, there is a simple category error which virtually every Christian is guilty of commiting. It is in essence one of the major things that separates atheists from theists. When they ask questions such as, "why is there something, instead of nothing?", or "why does the universe act or appear the way it does" they are presupposing that there is a higher cause to such things, something beyond the material.

Since the existence of the material universe is axiomatic, and the existence of God is not, then it is not difficult to recognize that the universe is the First Cause. And if the universe itself is the first cause then not only can we not ask such questions from above but such questions are futile. The fact that there is something, instead of nothing, and that the universe manifests in the way it does, which includes order and beauty, is a necessary fact. It makes no more sense to contradict the rational atheistic worldview by demanding an explanation for the natural world than it would to demand an explanation for the existence of God.

2. The message presupposes that the term 'God' is meaningful.

If you were to ask me what a human being is, I would say that a human is an organism that is composed of hydrogen, carbon, & oxygen. And that we are composed of matter, atoms, electrons, etc. But when the theist is asked, "What is God?" they give an answer that describes things about God, as opposed to saying exactly what God is. Christians will define God as Creator, savior, designer, king, etc.. But if I say that a human being is a leader, am I saying what a human being is? Since theists cannot even define what "God" is, any discussion or claims regarding 'God' is meaningless and invalid.

3. The message presupposes the historical accuracy of the gospels.

It is beyond the scope of this post to cover the details of this point but here are some key points to keep in mind.

A. The pattern that the character and life of Jesus follows is nothing new. Stories of men that walked on water, born of a virgin, etc.. preceded the Jesus story.

B. There is no contemporary historical evidence of the life and events of Jesus Christ. The gospels were recorded decades after Jesus' alleged death.

C. The old favorite argument that nobody will die for a lie knowing is a lie is blatantly false. There are plenty of documented cases of people dying for a lie knowing its a lie for a variety of possible reasons. Appealing to the fact that the apostles died for the faith is not sufficient evidence, even if we assumed that they knew that it was a lie.

4. From the perspective of an outsider, the gospel message is completely absurd.

Though this reason cannot stand alone, it cannot be discarded. From a human perspective, the gospel is barbaric and sadistic. If I have wronged someone, it is my responsibility to make ammends to that person. But what would it look like if some people offended me and instead of me expecting them to make ammends for their crimes, I get my only son and buture him to death and then say that those who wronged me just have to have faith in my act of sacrificing my son and I will forgive their evil deeds. It is absurd from the human's perspective.

5. Assuming that a Creator exists undermines the primary message of the gospel.

Christians claim that the gospel message is the greatest act of love from God. But if God caused the very problem which Christians claim that he is fixing through sending his Son to die then it is no longer an act of love. It is deceit and evil. If there is a sovereign designer, then everything regarding human beings would necessarily have to be determined by God. If it is God that designs the brain, our emotions, our character, our personality, our rationale for choices, our reflexes, our environment, our parents, etc, then it is God who is responsible for all the events that occur on this planet. If this is so, then this nullifies the gospel message.