nadreamia.com - humanoid - essays - proofofatheism
In this essay, I will define atheism, and prove it to be true.
I define the "theism statement" as:
Theism Statement: "There is a god."
I define the "atheism statement" as:
Atheism Statement: "There is no god."
When I say that I will prove atheism, it is shorthand for saying that I will prove the atheism statement to be true. A corollary of the proof is that the theism statement is false.
If a person believes in the theism statement, they are a theist.
If a person believes in the atheism statement, they are an atheist, or sometimes called a strong atheist.
If a person neither believes in the theism statement, nor the atheism statement, they are a weak atheist.
If a person believes that no human presently knows whether the theism or atheism statements are true, they are a weak agnostic.
If a person believes that no human will ever know whether the theism or atheism statements are true, they are a strong agnostic.
If I prove the atheism statement, it leads to some people being right, and others wrong. From the list above, theists, weak agnostics, and strong agnostics will be wrong. The atheists will be right. And the weak atheists may keep their lack of beliefs without being either right or wrong, but will still be silly for not believing in a statement that was proven to them.
The atheism statement includes the word "god" in it. Therefore, it is important to define god.
The choice of definition for god, may lead to statements that may seem contradictory to some. I'll explain this by use of an example.
Here is a list of definitions of god:
With respect to the list of definitions of god above, a christian might be 1- theist, 2- atheist, 3- theist, 4- theist, 5- theist, 6- theist. A muslim might be 1- atheist, 2- theist, 3- theist, 4- theist, 5- theist, 6- theist. A self-described agnostic might be 1- weak agnostic, 2- weak agnostic, 3- strong agnositc, 4- theist, 5- strong agnostic, 6- theist. A self-described atheist might be 1- atheist, 2- atheist, 3- atheist, 4- theist, 5- weak agnositc, 6- theist.
As can be seen from the above example, a person may be theist, atheist or agnostic, depending on which definition of god he is using. This might seem contradictory to some, but there's no contradiction at all.
Most theists think that self-described atheists are atheist relative to every possible definition of god there is. And reject atheists as silly for thinking that there can be no such being that is described as a god. Practically nobody has the same belief relative to every currently used definition of god, not even self-described atheists. If we define god as pornography, no honest atheist will deny that this god exists.
Some people define god as "everything". A definition of god that makes it synonymous with an already existing word is not very pragmatic at all. There isn't a good reason to use the word "god" when we already have the word "everything" in our vocabulary. I prefer to use the word "everything" rather than "god" when I'm specifically talking about everything. Because of this, I will not bother discussing such definitions of god that make it synonymous to things such as "everything", "existence", "life", or "all the energy around you".
A pragmatic definition of god should be close to popular usages of the word, because if it is very different, then everytime you use the word "god" you'll have to explain to people what you mean by "god".
Most theists in the world believe that god is sentient. So for pragmatic reasons, I will not use any definitions that make god into a non-sentient being.
Today's two most popular theistic religions are christianity and islam. Therefore, the definitions of god from their religions are very good definitions.
The most popular definition of god in philosophy literature is a being that is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, so that is also a very good definition.
Many people are concerned about the possibility of going to hell for not properly believing or worshipping a god. For these people, their choice of being a theist or atheist, is highly dependent on whether there exists a being that will send them to a hell for not properly worshipping them. Therefore, another useful definition of a god is a being, that can send you to a hell for not believing or worshipping it.
In this chapter, I define the terms "knowing-enough", "good-enough", and "powerful-enough".
A being is knowing-enough if it knows about the people and children suffering from diseases around the world. Some examples of diseases are cancer, ebola hemorrhagic fever, and anencephaly.
A being is good-enough if it will try to eliminate suffering from diseases.
A being is powerful-enough if it can succeed in eliminating the suffering from diseases in less than a year.
Here are five kinds of gods.
The absurd philosophical god, is a being that is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful.
The reasonable philosophical god, is knowing-enough, good-enough, powerful-enough, and more than a year old.
The christian god, is the god described in the christian bible.
The islamic god, is the god described in the islamic quran.
The worthy god, is knowing-enough, good-enough, and has succeeded in eliminating the suffering from diseases.
In this essay, I shall prove atheism relative to all 5 of these definitions of god.
In this chapter, I will prove that both the absurd and reasonable philosophical gods do not exist.
If a being is all-knowing, then he knows about all the people and children who are suffering from diseases. If this being is also all-good, then he will try to eliminate the suffering from such diseases. If this being is also all-powerful, then he will succeed in eliminating the suffering from such diseases in an instant. If this being exists, there would not be any suffering from diseases in the world right now. If we look at the world around us, we know that suffering from diseases exists, and is very common. Therefore, the absurd philosophical god does not exist.
The exact same proof also applies to the reasonable philosophical god. The reasonable philosophical god is knowing-enough to know about people and children suffering from diseases, good-enough so that he will try to eliminate suffering from diseases, and powerful-enough so that he can achieve this in less than a year. Since a reasonable philosophical god is also more than a year old, then it should have succeeded in eliminating all the suffering in the world. Suffering from diseases still exists, and is very common. Therefore, the reasonable philosophical god does not exist.
A god that is all-knowing, all-powerful, good-enough, and more than a year old, is a kind of reasonable philosophical god, because if he is all-knowing, then he is definitely also knowing-enough, and if he is all-powerful, then he is definitely also powerful-enough. We will encounter such a god later on.
In this chapter, I will prove that the christian god does not exist.
According to the bible, god is all-knowing:
Proverbs 15:3 - "The eyes of the lord are in every place,..."
According to the bible, god is all-powerful:
Luke 1:37 - "For nothing will be impossible with god."
According to the bible, god is all-good:
1 John 4:16 - "god is love,..."
Therefore, the christian god is a kind of absurd philosophical god. We have already proven the absurd philosophical god to not exist. Therefore, the christian god does not exist.
In this chapter, I will prove that the islamic god does not exist.
According to the quran, god is all-knowing:
4:35 - "For allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things."
According to the quran, god is all-powerful:
3:29 "And allah has power over all things."
According to the quran, god is the most good:
1:3 - "Most gracious, most merciful;"
If the islamic god is the most good, and we know that there are many humans that are good-enough, then the islamic god is also good-enough.
The islamic god is described in the quran as existing back when the quran was first written. That was more than a year ago. So if the god still exists, it is necessarily more than a year old.
Therefore, the islamic god is a kind of reasonable philosophical god. We have already proven the reasonable philosophical god to not exist. Therefore, the islamic god does not exist.
In this chapter, I will talk about what I consider to be worthy of being labelled a "god".
If a being is not knowing-enough, then this being becomes less knowing than most humans in the world. I don't consider such a being to be worthy of the title "god".
If a being is not good-enough, then this being becomes less good than some humans in the world. I don't consider such a being to be worthy of the title "god" either.
So for a being to be worthy of the title "god", this being needs to at least be knowing-enough, and good-enough. If a being has these two qualities, then he has the will to eliminate suffering. All that is needed now is the power to reach the goal. We know that this goal has not yet been met, so if such a being exists, he hasn't succeeded in eliminating the suffering of the world.
Instead of labelling such a being in advance, and calling it a god, and waiting for it to eliminate suffering, I prefer to postpone the labelling until this being actually succeeds. That is why I define "worthy god" in the way I defined it above.
To prove that the worthy god does not exist is simple. The definition of a worthy god says that such a god has succeeded in eliminating the suffering from diseases. But we know that suffering from diseases exists. Therefore, the worthy god does not exist.
What we cannot prove is that a worthy god may not exist in the future. When a worthy god does come into existence in the future, I'll be glad to label that being a god.
Since any being that has the necessary conditions of being worthy of the title "god" is necessarily a worthy god, and we have proven that the worthy god does not currently exist, then we know that no being exists that is worthy of the title "god". It must be remembered that when I talk about worthy, I am talking about what I, personally, consider to be worthy.
I have proven that god as defined by either of the 5 definitions above, does not exist. Therefore, relative to each of those 5 definitions of god, I have proven atheism.
I describe myself as an atheist because I have proven atheism for 5 very good definitions of god, and because I have proven that there does not exist a being that I consider worthy of the title "god".
If we define god as pornography, I am a theist relative to that definition, because I am honest, and know that pornography exists.
If we define god as a sentient being who created the universe, I am a weak atheist. I haven't proven that such a being exists or does not exist, so I don't hold either belief.
If we define god as a powerful being who will send me to hell if I don't worship it, then I am an atheist. I haven't proven that such a being does not exist, but the probability of such a being existing is so small, that I decided to hold the belief that such a god does not exist. I am willing to bet an eternal afterlife in hell that I am right.
Even though I label myself as an atheist, I have shown that it doesn't mean that I am an atheist relative to every possible definition of god that somebody may come up with.
The most important point is that I have proven that there does not exist a being that I consider worthy of the title "god".
I have also proven that most gods that people believe in do not exist either.
I am an atheist.
Now, you should think about what it is that you truly believe in. Do you believe in one of the 5 kinds of gods I described above? If so, you should ask yourself whether or not you want to believe in a being that has been proven not to exist. You should abandon your belief in that god and become an atheist relative to that definition of god.
Proof of Atheism, by The Humanoid