A religion is an organized system of belief, most often assuming the existence of a higher power such as a supernatural almighty deity or an ultimate truth, first designed to enlighten humanity on the act of creation and produce specific prophecies that will come true if certain requirements are met. This case argues that supernatural deities do not exist, which entails the fact that all major religions are false and outdated phenomena outstripped by science, serving little other use than hampering additional scientific progress.
The cosmological argument
Some religious individuals argue that whatever begins to exist has a cause and since nothing causes itself, there has to be a First Cause, namely God. There are several objections to this argument, some of them being as following;
- What caused the First Cause? By making use of the cosmological argument one presupposes that an uncaused effect exists, enabling it to cause a chain of effects without being caused itself. Seeing that the argument is reliant upon the premise that all effects have a cause it is in consequence invalid.
- The First Cause is by no means equal to a deity. Even though the origin of the universe remains scientifically unexplained, it doesn’t justify supernatural religious claims.
The Teleological argument [Intelligent Design]
This argument states that some phenomena are too complex, or too apparently purposeful, to have occurred randomly. Therefore, these phenomena must have been designed by an intelligent or purposeful being (God).
- Who designed the designer? If an intelligent designer only is able to design irreducibly complex units, then an even more intelligent designer is necessary to design the original designer. This entails an infinite chain of designers. To counter this counter-argument some individuals make use of the cosmological argument. However, as explained above, this argument fails because it omits why a designer can be undersigned while the universe cannot.
William Paley’s watchmaker analogy makes use of this argument, and is to this date one of the most famous teleological arguments. He argues that there are structures which cannot function unless all substructures are present. By asserting that each substructure constitutes no benefit alone, evolutionary theory is unable to explain the substructures presence. Since the substructures presence cannot be explained, the whole structures presence cannot be explained either. Counter-arguments are as following:
- There is a probability that all substructures came into existence simultaneously.
- Substructures may have changed in function. A gradual replacement by several advantageous substructures’ function can lead to the evolution of structures claimed to be irreducibly complex.
The omnipotence paradox
Most, if not all, monotheistic religions claim the existence of an omnipotent God. This argument leaves the concept of omnipotence as a mere paradox unable to exist in a logical universe. If a deity is in fact omnipotent, then he is able to create a rock he himself cannot lift. Since he cannot lift the rock he just created he is not omnipotent.
Argument from free will
All monotheistic religions claim their god to be omniscient, and at the same time claim to have been given free will by the very same god. These two concepts are incompatible. Here is why: An omniscient being knows everything, including the future will of his supposed free willed- designees. Since the will is already known, it cannot be free at the same time.
Other[inductive] arguments state that a complete being (God) must also be dead or non-existing in order to be fully complete. Furthermore, some conclude that since most theistic religions eventually were regarded as untrue, all theistic religions are most likely to be untrue. Stephen F. Roberts formulated this beautifully by saying:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
See Also
#1 by Adam - August 4th, 2009 at 09:57
Good article, but you missed an easy one:
You can’t prove there isn’t a god!
“You are never called upon to prove a negative”
-Ayn Rand
#2 by ajmastrean - August 7th, 2009 at 12:37
The God of this universe is necessarily -outside- of this universe. Therefore, God is not subject to the cause and effect of this universe.
#3 by ajmastrean - August 7th, 2009 at 13:02
The omnipotence “paradox” is illogical and incorrect. The statement “create a rock he himself cannot lift” is inconsistent and self-contradicting the definition of ominipotence.
#4 by Markus - August 8th, 2009 at 18:37
Of course, your first statement is impossible to verify, it is also impossible to disprove. I’m not going to argue because there is no use arguing such claims.
As for the omnipotence paradox; the word omnipotence is in itself self-contradicting and is therefore unfit to describe any character.
#5 by ajmastrean - August 10th, 2009 at 14:14
@Markus:
(1) As we are creatures of this universe, completely, and cannot leave it… Yes.
(2) This is why more detailed definitions and hierarchies of omnipotence have been worked. Which you and I and the author are assuming (and which religion assumes) is another discussion.
#6 by Markus - August 10th, 2009 at 15:21
@ ajmastrean
I realise my last comment was a bit unclear; I am in fact the author of this OneMinuteCase.
(1) Then we agree. The argument you presented is usless as we have no way of verifying it.
(2) I (as the author) assume omnipotence means being all-powerful, or in possession of unlimited power. If you or any major religions have other definitions of the word, please; present your definitions.
#7 by ajmastrean - August 11th, 2009 at 12:27
@Markus:
(1) Christianity, Islam, and Judaism believe in a God that is outside of this universe. Your cause and effect argument is useless unless you’re only presenting a case against animism and pantheism. (whether my statement can be verified or not).
(2) See the wikipedia article on Omnipotence and Omnipotence Paradox. Then, continue with a close study of Aquinas’s and Lewis’s works on the subject. Omnipotence over this universe either necessarily operates outside of the logic of this universe, or such “paradoxical” statements are actual nonsense.
#8 by ajmastrean - August 11th, 2009 at 12:32
No matter how we argue, or what we each believe… this discussion is always going to be very complex and nearly outside our (human) reach.
We’re talking about beings outside of our universe that follow rules we can’t describe (at least yet).
The best we can do is identify that neither science (or philosophy or logic) nor religion can verify or deny the existence of a God.
#9 by Markus - August 11th, 2009 at 14:55
(1)Firstly; being outside of the universe is in itself an extraordinary accomplishment as the universe by definition includes everything. Now, string theory opposes this as it not only claims that multiple universes co-exist, it states that all possible universes co-exists simultaneously. However, as all these universes are [in most prevailing theories] identical in ways of physical laws and fundamental constants, they serve no purpose [to our discussion] other than expanding the area god needs to be outside of.
Secondly; I’ve never heard any religious people claiming their god to be outside of this universe. As a matter of fact, I’ve rather heard them state that he is everywhere. So, logically, as the universe includes everywhere, most religious gods are within our universe.
I did some googling trying to find out which religious text claim god to be outside the universe, but i was unsuccessful in locating any. No text I’ve come across [Although I admit it's not that many] ever said that god is outside our universe. If there is a text I’ve missed, please feel free to enlighten me
(2) I now realize there are aspects of omnipotence I’ve yet to think through. After reading Wikipedia’s article on Omnipotence Paradox, more specifically the “Types of Omnipotence” paragraph, I can see there are several objections to my argument. However, there are also counter-objections neutralizing most of the objections. Nevertheless will I follow your advice and read up on Aquinas, Lewis and also Descartes.
Finally, I’d like to comment upon your use of [more generally religious peoples use of] arguments that deprive everyone from using logic, scientific methods and common sense. Religion in itself is to me a lot of nonsense, even though I was raised a christian(this is another interesting debate regarding why religions are located in fixed-places, i.e Hindus live in India, Buddhists in Thailand, Christians in America/Europa and Muslims in the Middle East.). To me religion is nothing but scare propaganda staged by power-hungry leaders.
#10 by tk - September 24th, 2009 at 12:36
remove G-D and there is no point of reference for truth. your reason came from an evolution of your brain. how can you say something is truth (i.e. there is no G-D) when you can’t prove that your logic is not a evolutionary flaw, and that mankind may evolve to a higher form of logic in a million years, negating your logic. when mankind’s combined total knowledge of our 3 dimensional world is so limited, how can we logically rule God out of the proposed 10 or 11 dimensions. the answer to your logical word problem is C. Not enough information.
#11 by HeroicLife - September 24th, 2009 at 15:57
I don’t know who Mr G-D is, but reason is *man’s* means of acquiring knowledge of reality. You cannot use the fact that *some* method of gaining knowledge of reality (reason) is needed to negate the fact that our knowledge is of reality. There is no way to acquire knowledge without using some particular sense organs and some particular form of consciousness.
#12 by Rabbi - October 1st, 2009 at 12:25
I dont know why I am bothering, but I enjoyed reading the post about consumerism in America being bad.
I have investigated this issue, and while its possible for you to believe what you want, in the end there definetly is a Creator to the universe. The fact remains that because it won’t serve your desires, you will find anyway to dismiss it, so ultimately debating is useless. Instead there is a world famous Rabbi, who has recorded miracles of cancer recovery etc, and while they are in hebrew, some are translated. Watch these and try to deny. If you do, realize, even if G-d Himself came and said, “HI” you would say, oh I must just be hallucinating.
http://oldserver.shofar-tv.com/MEDIA/Languages\english\88e.wmv
Miracle on Film NO DOUBT —> http://oldserver.shofar-tv.com/MEDIA/Languages/english/91e.wmv
Scientific proofs etc…—->
http://oldserver.shofar-tv.com/MEDIA/Languages/english/madanim128k300×240.wmv
if you wrote this, and you sincerely want to know the truth, This guy is the best! He was a top lawyer until he became a public speaker on the existence of G-d. Keep in mind the lectures are given to an Israeli non-religious public.
#13 by preachpositive - October 9th, 2009 at 01:02
If one could think outside the box and view the opposing arguements, side by side, one could see that they are the same. Science has already proven the existence of GOD but cannot see the forest for the trees. Everything in the universe is a construction of atoms. An atom is constructed from energy and the nucleus of an atom is protons and neutrons, positive or negative energy and it exists in all things, therefore all things reflect these energies and the relationship between them. In religious terms, Good vs. Evil. Jesus Christ was an agent of positive energy and oddly enough the symbol that christians use to identify with him is also the univesal symbol for positive energy, the cross. Miracles were simply the transference of this energy, thus explaining how other profits and followers of God, are able to manifest miracles as well. It is totally dependant upon the energies created or channelled in the human mind based on the individuals thoughts and motives. Where the motivation is Love or positive energy, then the positve energy is proportional to the greatness of the event. Christ was 100% positive energy thus he performed great miracles. God is pure Love or is all that is positive. The big bang was simply two atoms crashing into one another at the speed of light and procreation is a reflection of this event. Positive energy is GOD. Ancient man, in an effort to explain unseen forces and thier actions, without the benefit of scientific knowledge, created the concept of God to describe what he had witnessed. The human mind is capable of far greater things than we presently know and without knowing why, man has generated recorded events through the power of the mind and its ability to create or channel energy and has attributed them to God. If God is merely positive energy and man has generated miracles with his mind then he has generated or channeled God. If one would look at religious writings as a paper of science and substitute what science has shown us about positive and negative energies, one would see the coralation between the two. Food for thought; We know the world is a sphere in space held in orbit by a delicate balance of electromagnetism between it, the sun and the moon and we know the human body generates its own electromagnetic field. We also know that the human mind can generate positive or negative energies. Question: If the electromagnetic field that exist in the human body is influenced by the positive or negative energies created in the brain, be enough negative energy created by people, at any given time and compounded by the electrical grid that encompasses the globe, to disturb the electromagnetic field of the earth and the delicate balance that holds it in orbit and cause a polar shift? And if so, wouldnt the implementation of global positive energy or love, be enough to prevent it? Isnt that what lies at the heart of the christianity, Love thy nieghbor as thyself? Could religion really be a an unconcience revelation generated by the energy of our very existance to saving or destroying mankind?
#14 by JDS - October 14th, 2009 at 12:29
This isn’t a case. It’s a rebuttal.
#15 by preachpositive - October 15th, 2009 at 14:59
Exactly. Where better to post a comment proving the existence of God than a blog where they are trying to prove he doesn’t? The one’s who know, have no need of proof. In response to God being outside of the universe, most all religions teach that God created the universe, therefore if God existed before it did, then where did he create it from?
@Markus
#16 by gal - November 5th, 2009 at 04:09
This is great! Everyone should see this:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientific-Evidence-of-the-Existence-of-God
#17 by Will - November 12th, 2009 at 22:01
@preachpositive
I hope we are allowed to curse because you have drifted as far into “making shit up” as you can go. Sadly or wonderfully depending on your perspective, you can go further if you wish it… it is the beauty of the human mind, an EVOLVED human mind. Self deception is a fear defense against perceived mortal threats and yours is very common so I don’t judge you for being just as human as the rest of us. As for your comments about the ones who “know” not needing proof only proves that your ignorance is your bliss. If you are brave enough to ask yourself the tough questions about your own mind, your fears, and the world around you then the facade of blissful ignorance as it falls will be your true “Genesis”. “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.” -Socrates.
#18 by Maia Ajanaku-Locke - December 27th, 2009 at 16:18
@Adam
And by the same token, Adam, you cannot prove that there is a God. However, history has proved time and time again that the concept of God is morally bankrupt. Take for example the crusades, the inquisitions, American slavery and all the World Wars just to name a few big events choreographed for the most part by Christians in God’s name. And don’t forget racism, the belief that God created inferior races to serve as footstools for the superior race. If there is a God, I have two shoes to throw at his racist A…
#19 by Markus (Author) - December 30th, 2009 at 14:21
I want to make everyone, especially the owner of Rationalmind, aware that this case has been reposted on my newly created personal website. (still a work in progress).
Hope this works out for everyone.
http://sites.google.com/site/theshoshin/Philosophy?pageUrlChanged=Philosophy
#20 by Andrew - January 1st, 2010 at 23:48
The free will “proof” is very poorly thought out. The fact that someones will is known in no way implies that it isn’t free. Just because I know what you’re going to do doesn’t mean you weren’t free to choose to do it as opposed to something else.
#21 by Markus (Author) - January 5th, 2010 at 07:15
Well, if you know what I am going to do next, how can I do anything else than what you already know. I am not free to choose If you know what I’m doing next.
You can’t say you know what I’m going to choose, and then tell me I’m free to choose anything. What if I change my mind 1 second before I choose. Or what if I change my mind after I’ve chosen.
#22 by TK - February 10th, 2010 at 08:22
@ Maia Anjanaku-Locke
You need to read your history a little closer. Evolution was used to justify treating other races poorly because they were “less evolved”. Hitler was a proponent of aetheistic philosopher Nietszche. The atrocities perpetrated by aetheistic communists has resulted in millions upon millions of deaths (Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il to name a few). Blaming all of these things on Christians is ignorant, pure and simple.
#23 by Hey Seuss Kreeeeessttt - March 2nd, 2010 at 13:58
I am the messiah and there will be a new religion called glavinism that arises after the apocalypse in 2012 just as my biological father Nostramus Marx predicted
Dont mess with my mojo
Messiah Out!
#24 by gsgiles - March 3rd, 2010 at 19:42
Evolution is measure in the laboratory everyday, but evolution does not rule out divinity. I would certainly agree that the anthropomorphic (man is in God’s image) view of most faiths has no basis in fact. However modern physics does demonstrate that a God could certainly exist and that just because we cannot fathom his technology is not a negation. Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are just childish demands on the unknown. Dr. Stephen Barr has written an excellent book that any serious thinker on divnity should read. It is titled Modern Phjysics, Ancient Faith and can be found on Amazon.
My own discourse on this can be found at LRC at this address: http://www.lewrockwell.com/giles/giles37.1.html