Now I’m all for choice, but this doesn’t really feel like a free choice to me.

It’s clearly laid out for us, theists will tell you. You can subscribe to their particular brand of religion, which will result in a fantastic eternity of loveliness, or not, which will result in an eternity of torture. There’s no middle ground here, it’s bliss, or torture. The best possible thing, or the worst possible thing.

The rewards, or otherwise, are important when it comes to deciding whether or not one truly has free choice. If I put a gun to your head and said “sing Happy Birthday or I’ll shoot you”, would you consider that I gave you the free choice as to whether or not you sang Happy Birthday? What if I said “if you sing Happy Birthday I’ll give you a dollar”? Would that be free choice? What if I politely asked you to sing Happy Birthday?

In the hypothetical scenarios above we’re talking about a minor inconvenience (unless you particularly enjoy singing Happy Birthday) being put up against a range of incentives and disincentives, some of which are rather severe. However, neither the incentives nor the disincentives can be said to be anywhere near as severe as those that bind theists (is there anything as severe a disincentive as an eternity of torture?).

With such severe disincentives, it would be logical to assume that the actions which might trigger such disincentives are also severe. But this isn’t necessarily the case. Fundamentally, the differences between the major religions are fairly minor. Slavery, worshiping, suppression of any dissenting voices, oppression of women, genocide, torture – all aspects of the main religions. And while some have moved away from their roots in recent years, Christianity, Islam less so, one would have to question whether the deity that allegedly wrote the key works that guide these religions would be happy with the changes.

Essentially, you have to worship the right fairy and make sure you understand the minor matters of rule imposed by said fairy. So if you’re a Christian, make sure that when you beat your slave they can get up after a day or two. If you’re not a Christian, please see the applicable rule that applies to you. When you’re driving down the road of life, make sure you don’t break the particular speed limit that applies to you.

But I digress. The central question I’m positing is this. Given the severity of the incentives and disincentives, can you really consider yourself to have a free and open choice as to how to live your life? If a deity existed, the only way they could truly provide free choice would be to keep their existence hidden. Or as an absolute minimum, keep the incentives and disincentives hidden. Otherwise, when assessing a person’s validity for entry into “heaven”, it is not their morality that is being judged but rather their ability to suppress free choice and conform to rules. And if it is the suppression of free choice that’s being assessed, does free choice really exist as a viable option for anyone who believe in any deity whom imposes these rules?

The third choice is to embrace free choice, and choose to not believe. This completely nullifies the incentives and disincentives that affect theists, allowing for a more pure brand of free choice (one can argue whether or not free choice exists for anyone, determinists would argue not, but this is not the purpose of this article).

So believing in a single God is possibly more illogical than believing in multiple Gods.  Now, we know that logic isn’t a strong point of those who follow religion, but surely there must be some reason why people choose to believe that there is only one God, and it happens to be the one they worship.

The obvious answer is that the Holy Books say that the God of that particular book is the only God.  Take the Bible for example, specificly Isaiah 44:6 in which the Judeo-Christian God (Yahweh) states:

“There is no God Beside Me”

As a reader of this blog you’ll know that religions have a vested interest in making you believe that their God is the only God, so shouldn’t be trusted.  But even if you did take the Bible as “gospel”, it’s not as clear cut as one might think.

Looking at the 10 commandments, the foundations of Christian Morality (and self-preservation), we see that Yahweh acknowledges that there are other Gods out there.  Specifically:

“You shall have no other gods before me”

Like most of the Bible, this can be interpreted in a number of ways.  Upon first reading the natural response is to take this as Yahweh accepting there are other Gods and trying to assert his superiority over them.  There is a subtle but important difference between “don’t believe in any other Gods” and “don’t worship any other Gods over me”.  Any logical person would surely see this as a confession that other Gods exist.

But as I mentioned earlier, logic is not the religious person’s strong point, and as such they have attempted to explain away this little problem.  The most popular “explanation” is that the commandment is referring to temptations, worldly goods etc., rather than actual Gods.  This, of course, is patently ridiculous.  To interpret the word “God” here as meaning something other than a supreme deity opens the possibility of interpreting it elsewhere in the Bible in the same way.  Unless, of course, you choose to selectively apply this interpretation in the same way many Christians selectively believe only parts of the Bible.  This undermines the entire concept of Yahweh as a deity as proposed by the Bible.

The commandment is not the only hint that the writers of the Bible (bearing in mind it’s inspired by God) thought there was more than one God.  The observant amongst you might have noticed that part way through Genesis the way God is referred to changes.  Initially the word “Elohim” is used.  Elohim is generally used as a plural, referring to Gods of polytheism.  Much like the attempts to dismiss the use of the word “God” in certain circumstances, many have tried to claim that in some circumstances it refers to multiple Gods, whilst in others it refers to a single deity.  Their deity, of course.  Part way through Genesis, the word Elohim is replaced by Yahweh.

This is a complicated subject, and remains a point of debate. Yahweh and Elohim are Hebrew words that have been translated into English.  The commandment example used in the beginning of this post actually uses the word “Elohim” (translated to “Gods”), which only serves to underline and reenforce the points I made.

I’m interested in your opinions on this.  I find the explanations provided by theists hard to swallow.  There’s an inherent lack of logic underlying the counter points that just doesn’t sit right.  Admittedly much of this is word play, but when religion is primarily based on a book, wordplay, and the interpretation of the language used, becomes a point of upmost importance.

There is also the stone paradox which takes down most definitions of omnipotence. ‘Can god create a stone so big he can not lift it?’ If he can, then there is something he cannot do (lift the stone). If he can’t, there is something he cannot do (create said stone).

This is a question I’ve seen elsewhere, and it’s always fun to explore with a theist. There are other, related questions which together form the omnipotence paradox. Essentially, it’s a set of paradoxes which makes the existence of any truly omnipotent being impossible.

I thought it would be an interesting exercise to give some examples of these paradoxes and questions, and throw them open to debate. To kick off, I thought I’d offer the definition of Omnipotent:

om·nip·o·tent (ŏm-nĭp’ə-tənt)
adj. Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.
n.
1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God. Used with the.

It is the unlimited power attribute that the omnipotence paradoxes call into question. Essentially, the paradox is whether an omnipotent being has the power to limit themselves. If they do, then they no longer have unlimited power (because of the self-imposed limit). If not, then there is something that cannot do, also meaning their power is not limitless.

Some examples:

• The Stone Paradox is the most popular, it posits the simple question of whether an omnipotent being can create a stone so heavy that that they cannot lift it. Personally, I feel this particular paradox is somewhat dated given what we understand of the physical attributes and forces involved with objects, particularly their gravitational force.
• The Triangle Paradox was posed by Aquinas in Summa contra Gentiles and asks whether God could create a triangle with three internal angles that did not add up to 180 degrees. Again, I don’t think this is a particularly useful or valid paradox as it relies on our definition of a triangle. Could God create an object that has internal angles that do not add up to 180 degrees? Yes, and so can I.
• The Atom Paradox comes from Descartes’ Principles of Philosophy, and questions whether God could create something so small it was no longer divisible.

The examples above have been known, discussed and debated for some time. Each, in my opinion, has problems. So with that in mind, I thought I’d offer the following:

• Could God kill himself? One might question why God would have the desire to kill himself, but that is not a valid reason for dismissing the question. If God can kill himself, then he lacks the power of immortality (perhaps a poor choice of words, maybe ever-existence would be better), if he cannot, then he lacks the ability to kill himself.
• Could God create a truly immortal being? Similar to the above but a step removed. If God can create a truly immortal being, then he lacks the ability to end the life of that being, if he cannot create a truly immortal being, or if he can create a truly immortal being that he can then kill, then either he lacks the ability to create a truly immortal being or that being he creates is not truly immortal.
• Could God create a being more powerful than himself? You might also ask whether God can create a more powerful God? This is particularly interesting as it applies across multiple definitions of the word omnipotent (see below). If God can create such a being, then he is clearly not of unlimited power (for a being to be more powerful, there must, by definition, be something the new God can do that the old one cannot), and if he cannot, then that is an ability God lacks.
• Could God make himself no longer omnipotent? Rather than questioning whether God is omnipotent, this dispenses with that and rather asks whether God can make so that he is no longer omnipotent, or such that he is no longer a God. If so, then what impact does that have on the established belief systems, and how would we know?

These are just a selection of the paradoxes one can pose that question the possibility of an omnipotent being.

I’d love to see your responses to the paradoxes. Typically, theist responses debate the definition of omnipotent suggesting that an omnipotent being has only the power to perform logically possible actions. One could argue in response that the existence of an omnipotent being is not logical in itself, thereby creating another paradox of sorts. There is also some debate as to whether a God is omnipotent, or just Almighty, where Almighty is simply a definition of a God that lacks some of the logical fallacies and vulnerabilities of an omnipotent God. Much like theists changing their holy books, and selectively accepting them, this feels like a desperate move to maintain their beliefs.

What are your thoughts?

1. Where do you get your morality from, and please explain your morality.
   The popular, but incorrect concept that morality is dependant on religion is one of the hurdles atheists must overcome in order to be openly welcomed by the masses. The idea that morality can be controlled by the fear of reprisal (as pushed by the major religions – don’t do these things or you’ll go to hell) or the promise of reward (do as we say and you’ll get into Heaven) is dangerous. It encourages extremism, just look at what Muslim extremists will do to make the acquaintance of virgins. Morality born out of this carrot and stick approach inevitably leads to selfish endeavours.

   I’d also like to point out that traditional religion based morality is strict and inflexible. Instead, my morality is free-flowing and adaptive. I can approach situations in a more flexible way, and make a judgement on the impact of my actions. And that’s what drives my morality, the underlying question “what affect will my actions have on others?”. It’s also important to note that there is a base level of morality built into our personalities that has evolved with us as a species. It’s foundations are preservation of the species and can be found in most, if not all, living creatures. It’s the reason packs of animals hunt other species and not their own. It establishes a hierarchy of importance to the individual, from direct blood relations and partners, to pack, to species and beyond. Therefore, preservation of those important to us is always the foundation on one’s morality.

2. Why do you accept evolution? Explain how you came to your conclusions.
   Quite simply, there’s a mountain of evidence to support evolution. From laboratory recreated speciation, evidence within our own bodies (for example, the Palmaris Longus muscle), to the fossils of intermediate species and some key finds like Ida. It seems unthinkable that anyone could, at this stage, dismiss evolution.
3. What is the meaning and purpose of your life?
   Life is what you make of it. I don’t believe I was put here to fulfil some unknown purpose nor do I believe that my life inherently as a meaning. I try to make the most of my life and to not do things which I would consider morally objectionable. I’m not arrogant enough to believe anything beyond that.
4. What is the greatest thing you have ever done for others?
   This is a difficult question to answer. While I may perceive my actions to be beneficial to others, I’m not arrogant to know that they are. I’d really have to go and ask the people who were affected by my perceived good deeds. It’s entirely possible that an act that I didn’t perceive to be beneficial to others, actually was.
5. Would you kill for atheism?
   It would be easy to flippantly say no, but I can see situations in which killing is justified (see my points on morality above). For example, if we lived in a society that was suppressing free thought and free will, which may include atheism (or any number of theisms), an uprising may be the only way. This wouldn’t be killing in the name of atheism however, but rather in the name of freedom. Clearly atheism would never be the sole motivating factor, it would have to be a combination of factors. And in truth, I think it very very unlikely, but you just don’t know until your put in a position where your freedom is under threat.
6. Why are you an atheist and consider your position valid?
   I’m an atheism because, in my opinion, it’s the only viable stance. I’ve been an atheism for a very long time. I remember being in school, when they made us pray, thinking that it was ridiculous. This was probably from the age of 6 or 7. The more I learned about religion, the more I disliked it and everything it stood for. And that didn’t stop at the predominant religion in my school, family and neighbourhood (Christianity), but as I learned of, and about, other religions, I disliked them an equal amount. Arguing why atheism is valid seems pointless. It should not be the point of the atheist to argue the validity of non-belief of something there is absolutely no evidence for, the onus should be on those who make the fantastical claims.
7. If you died and discovered a god existed, what would you say to he/she/it?
   This largely depends on which God I met. I have some questions for the specific Gods as proposed in the major mono-theistic religions, after all, they have a lot to answer for, but a general, non-specific God? Apart from the obvious (where did you come from? What are your plans for the future? Why did you create us, the world, the universe? etc.), I don’t really know. It would probably depend on the nature of the God and its demeanour.
8. What religion is more dangerous in your eyes today and in the past?
   In the past, Christianity without a doubt. Currently, probably Islam, although the two are heavily interrelated. The oppression of Islam by the Western world under a thinly veiled banner of a Christian crusade has been highlighted as a key trigger for some of the Islamic extremists. It’s easy to point the finger, however, but in reality, any religion can give birth to extremism, and extremism can only be viewed as dangerous. You could also make the argument that any person who believes in something for which there is no evidence is potentially dangerous and unpredictable.
9. Name 3 peaceful religions you have no issue with.
   For the above reasons, I have issues with all religions.
10. What would it take to believe in a God?
    I’ve already covered this.
11. Would the world be a better place without religion?
    Absolutely. Many more people are hurt by religion than benefit from it.
12. How do you feel about government and politics?
    Many people ask me why I run this blog, and why atheists are growing more vocal. This is the reason. In general, we don’t have any issues with people believing anything they want to believe. What we do have an issue with is the pushing of those beliefs on to others. When religion penetrates government, the pushing of beliefs tends to happen on a grand scale. Looking back at the Bush years, we can all see the impact of religious driven policies which resulted in two wars (three if you count the absurd “War on Terror”) and a lack of oversight that resulted in the collapse of the economy. The underlying problem is that the decisions of governments should not be based on religion.
13. If you could go back in time and kill Hitler/Stalin as babies so they will never kill the millions in the future, would you do it if time travel was possible?
    This isn’t an easy question to answer. I could flippantly say yes, but as time travel isn’t possible, we just don’t know what the impact would be. We don’t know whether stopping Hitler would allow an even more despicable person to take their place. Time travel sounds risky, even in these situations.
14. Why is stem cell research so important?
    Anything that improves our knowledge, and assists in the formulation of the prevention and cure of ailments seems like a good idea. The nature of embryonic stem cells, particularly their ability to develop into multiple other types of cells and the fact that they renew themselves. I don’t see any moral issues with stem cell production (for the same reason I have no objection to abortion or contraception) but I’m hopeful that alternative methods of extraction and production can be found, if only to placate the current moral objectors.
15. Is abortion evil?
    No. I do not subscribe to the idea that it is better to birth a child into a miserable existence than not.
16. What would the circumstances be for you to approve of torture as an individual?
    Currently available evidence strongly suggests that torture simply does not work. Morally, I’m not comfortable with the idea of torture, practically and logically, I don’t think you can trust or rely on the results of torture. Therefore, not only do I not think it’s morally effective, I also do not think it’s effective.
17. Should we try to save animals from going extinct?
    I don’t know, and I’m not afraid to admit that. One may argue that we should try to save species that are becoming extinct because of our actions, or that we should adjust our actions to limit the affect on the animal kingdom, but I don’t know enough to make a call. After all, natural selection and evolution dictates that the strongest tend to survive, so one might also argue that species that become extinct, regardless of the cause, do so because they are not strong enough to survive their changing environment.
18. Do you approve of capital punishment? Explain.
    Another difficult one. This depends on three factors. Firstly, the burden of proof has to be beyond any doubt. Secondly, the grade of the act which is being punished has to be severe. Thirdly, the person who performed the act has to be shown to be beyond rehabilitation and proven to be capable and likely to re-offend. Practically, there’s no way those three conditions will ever be met, so no, I don’t.
19. Do you believe in aliens, ghosts, spirits, souls, any supernatural forces?
    With the exception of aliens, absolutely not. It seems odd to group aliens with that company as they almost certainly wouldn’t be supernatural. It seems unlikely, given the potential size of the universe and number of planets, that we are alone. There is no evidence to support alien life at the moment so I wouldn’t try and claim it exists. What I would say however, is that statistically it seems more likely than not.
20. Would you sacrifice yourself for a loved one with a chance you may end up on hell for being atheist?
    I think you’ve just hit on one of the dichotomies of religion. If I performed a noble, “good” act a religious God would still punish me for not worshipping them. In the eyes of the major religions, a good person is mostly judged based on their enthusiasm of worship, not the deeds they perform. I could save the lives of a thousand innocent babies and still go to hell for not believing in an invisible, unprovable Sky God. So yes, I would. And if I had to answer to a God after I died I’d question where they got their morals from.
21. Explain in detail the process of death.
    The process of death? The shut down of the major organs including the brain and heart. Cardiac arrest, the cessation of electrical activity in the brain, no longer responding to stimulus and so on.
22. Have you ever been dead?
    Not since I was conceived, no.

I hope I’ve not been too controversial, not that it would be the first time. Atheist, or theist, what are your responses to the questions?

Certainly origin is one of the aspects which underlines the different approaches theists and atheists take on certain issues. Specifically, atheists will question and seek answers whilst theists are happy to accept the first answer given.

Just to be clear, the majority of religions (I can personally speak of Islam and Christianity) believe that their has always existed. To back this up, they raise the issue of cause. Cause triggers an effect, if there is an effect, there must be a cause.  The effect is the universe, so what’s the cause?

Back to the Beginning

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

It seemed appropriate to start with Genesis as it gives us a launching pad and something to consider. “In the beginning” implies that this is the start, and as the topic of discussion is origin, we can presume that this is the start of the start, the beginning of the origin if you will. This opening statement sits well with scientific theory, in that before matter, time did not exist.

The start of everything was the creation of matter (assuming that time cannot exist unless there is matter on which we can observe its impact). Without wanting to dive into a discussion of semantics, the quote opens up the possibility that God could not have existed without his creation. The statement is not “God existed and then created…”, it is “In the beginning” – which suggests, as I stated earlier, before anything else. So while the argument is that God has always existed, it only really applies within the confines of science’s definition of time.

The result of this is that the bible does not necessarily claim that God existed before his creations. Applying logic to conclude that he must have existed in order to create something does not apply here. We could speculate that God only came into existence through the act of creating.  We would, of course, dispute that “God created” due to a lack of evidence.

Returning to the issue of cause, God has been referred to as the cause without a cause, which seems like an odd definition. This is obviously an attempt to avoid calling God an “effect”.

When it comes to cause, theists rely on two principals to solidify their argument. Firstly, that every effect has a cause. Secondly, that if we follow the cause and effect chain back to the beginning, we must reach a point where the condition falls down (i.e. either we reach a point where there is no cause and hence no effect, or we reach an effect without a cause – both breaking the fundamental cause and effect rule). They say that God is the end of the chain, the original cause. And just to be clear here, we’re talking about an infinite regress.

God of the Gaps

As an argument in support of the existence of a creator God, infinite regression is simply a dressed up version of the “God of the Gaps” argument.  Theists find a gap in science’s knowledge, latch on to it, and propose God as the answer.  As scientific knowledge has improved, it has closed off many of the “God of the Gaps” arguments while opening up a number of new ones.  It’s what happens in the course of scientific advancement, whilst some problems are solved, others are caused.

The obvious issue any logical person would have with claiming infinite regress, or effect without cause, as an argument for the existence of a God is that it is ultimately self-defeating.  You cannot argue that God must not exist because ever effect must have a cause, whilst also arguing that God is the cause without a cause.  It’s not only hypocritical but logically indefensible.  Either you accept that the universe is bound by the rules, or not.  You cannot pick and choose the rules you accept, and those you apply in your arguments.  This isn’t about creating a level playing field when it comes to these discussions, it’s about ensuring there is a sound foundation on which to base our ideas.  Selective acceptance of rules is not a sound foundation, quite the opposite.  As Bertrand Russell so elegantly put it…

If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.

Even discounting the flawed logic, the infinite regression argument still fails the same tests that the “God of the Gaps” argument fails.  For example, the absence of a scientific explanation for a phenomena, any phenomena, does not necessitate, nor prove, the existence of a God.

In steps Science…

Earlier I touched on the idea that science causes itself problems.  In it’s pursuit of advancement and knowledge it breaks boundaries and unveils new worlds.  We never had to consider sub-atomic physics until we knew the sub-atomic world existed, for example.  The key difference between the scientific approach and the theistic approach can be clearly evidenced in any “God of the Gaps” argument.  While theists are happy to suggest that any gap in knowledge is the work of a God, science works to close the gaps in our knowledge.

Unlike the theist camp, followers of science do not claim to have an answer to the origin question. There are numerous Theories of Everything, including String Theory, but they are unproven (and untested) theories. My assertions above are logically questioning the Christian take on creation, not scientifically disproving it – the distinction is important and I do not want to mislead anyone by claiming otherwise.

Scientifically, we are heading towards a situation where we can examine the conditions that resulted in the universe, it’s all a matter of being able to closely reproduce the environment the big bang occurred in. This requires an almost incomprehensible amount of power. Nevertheless, onward we go.

I’ll openly admit that origin, or creation, is an area I struggle with. On the one hand, I find theist’s versions of events irreconcilable with the real world, yet I also do not know enough about the subject to be confident in science’s explanation. This is an area vastly more complicated than evolutionary science, and demonstrating it isn’t as simple as demonstrating speciation or intermediate fossils.

As a response to the infinite regression argument, I wanted to offer an alternative, logically defensible, theory. As I touched on previously, I can logically discount the infinite regression argument, in much the same way I can logically discount the God of the Gaps argument, but it would be hypocritical of me to not offer an alternative.

The cause and effect argument for the existence of a God is based on two assumptions.  Note that I’m using a closed definition of the word “universe” to illustrate my theory.  Perhaps a holistic system would be a better description, but that’s too much typing.

1. We know and understand all the physical rules by which our world is bound.
2. The creation of this universe was bound by those same rules.

To address the first assumption, our knowledge of the universe is evolving all the time.  To assume that we know all the rules by which our universe is constrained is arrogant and incorrect.  Simply looking at the advancements in areas such as String Theory should give some indication that we are still learning.  We are also unable to recreate certain environments and conditions, therefore preventing us from fully exploring posited hypotheses.  In particular, the massive amounts of energy required to recreate the conditions around the time of the Big Bang means it is not currently possible to fully understand the events that took place.

Are we part of a larger universe?

The second assumption is also open to debate. Whilst we can, based on current knowledge, state that effect must have a cause, we can only state that as being true for our own universe.  We do not know what exists, if anything, outside our universe, and whether it is bound by the same rules.  To ground this in reality, we can look at a known example – the sub-atomic world.  Whilst is is undoubtedly part of our universe, it is not universally bound by the same rules.  We have witnessed behaviour in the sub-atomic world universe that contradicts our understanding of the world and the prior understood laws of physics.  Logically extending this to encompass the possibility that our universe is in turn part of a larger universe, doesn’t seem a stretch too far.

Whilst considering this possibility, we might also care to wonder whether the universe which contains our universe is subject to the same physical laws and conditions as our own.  To assume that it is would be a leap of faith.  There is nothing upon which to base a logical assumption that because energy and matter cannot be created in isolation in our universe, it cannot in any universe.

You might also consider that if, in the “Extra Universe” (perhaps “Super Universe” would be more fitting) matter under certain conditions can produce energy, the origin of our universe was the result of such a reaction.

Conclusion

I don’t want to suggest that the theory above is the answer to the question of origin.  Rather I hope it acts as a starting point for a discussion.  The theory itself can be dismantled and discredited, which I welcome, so long as its purpose remains.  The one thing I hope it has suggested is that it cannot be scientifically disproved, and that alone is evidence enough that our knowledge of the universe, and the environment our universe inhabits, is still limited.

What I do want to reiterate is that the logical argument for the existence of a God is always based on shaky foundations.  Live by logic, die by logic.

Clearly I don’t actually believe either entity exists, and looking at the documented definitions of God and the Devil, there are inconsistencies (for example, the Old Testament Devil is vastly different from the New Testament Devil) which make them difficult to buy in to (but what’s new there?).  So for the purpose of this post, let’s humor the concepts so we can explore this eternal struggle.

The weapons of choice in this battle are deceit, trickery and miscommunication.  A rather paltry arsenal for two such creatures one might suggest.  However, the intent of the people who created the idea of these entities is clear. By saying that the devil uses misinformation to trick people, the creator is laying the foundation of mistrust – mistrust of ideas that conflict with your own.  The difference between this mistrust and the scepticism that atheists are so proud of, is that the mistrust will remain regardless of the evidence available.  Followers are taught to blindly obey their leaders whilst turning a blind eye to any evidence that supports any opposing views.  The reason is that the devil is seen as having the ability to alter reality, or rather alter man’s perception of reality, to aid his own purpose.  The God character has similar abilities.

Returning to the title of this article, “What if I am God?”, I’d like to ask how those who believe in such beings know which one they are under the influence of.  For example, it is generally accepted by Christians that the Bible is the word of God.  But what if it were actually the word of the devil, created to throw believers off the scent as it were.  Similarly, what if the reverends, pastors, fathers, saints and other senior members of religious organizations are feeling the influence of the devil and acting upon it?  I’m not suggesting that this is a conscience attempt to deceive by the people involved, as it would unlikely they would be aware that they are, in fact, carrying out the devil’s wishes. Yet these people claim to be acting on the word of God, feeling the influence of God and acting in God’s name, yet they have no way of knowing.

If we accept, or even entertain, this notion, then the question has to be asked “who’s acting on behalf of the real God?”. What if it’s me? What if the atheists, and those who rally against established religion, are actually carrying out God’s will (yes, the God we don’t believe exists)? What if God is displeased with organized religion, and is acting through the hearts and minds of people like me in an effort to break the spell the devil has over the majority of people in this world?  So rather, the question should be “what if I am acting on behalf of God?“, but that’s less sensational.

I, of course, don’t believe any of this to be true, but I do think it raises an interesting point for theists to consider. If you accept that the devil exists, and exerts influence over your life (in an attempt to tempt you down the wrong path), how do you know religion is not one of his tricks? Furthermore, if you accept that the devil has the ability to alter your perceptions (I’ve heard the argument that the devil alters people’s perceptions of science such that theories that contradict holy teachings are proven because of his influence – what if it was God using these experiments in an attempt to discredit the devil?) then surely you can’t trust any relationship you believe you have with your God, because it may just be the devil tricking you.

The answer to these questions, predictably, will call on one’s faith, and strength of faith. A knowledge of God, and similar meaningless sound bytes. My response is, what do you have faith in? Is it the religious leaders around you?  Is it your holy book?  Is it an experience, or set of experiences, you’ve had? Are these not things that can be influenced by the devil? Is your faith based on a lie?  If you do not believe so, why not?

Evolution is a Theory and is not Scientifically Sound

This is an argument that tends to come up less and less as the number of fundamentalist creationists fall. Put simply, they believe that evolution, and by association natural selection, cannot be proven. This perceived absence of scientific proof (not a measure the apply to any other aspects of their religion, clearly) means that the creationist view of our origins must be true.

People who truly believe this are difficult to argue with. The mechanics of evolution have been proven. It’s reproducible in a laboratory situation and therefore there’s no real debate to be had. What is potentially up for debate is whether we, as humans, are evolved from primates. There are some gaps in the evolutionary process, but the evidence is overwhelming. For example, we still have the muscles in our bodies that are used by primates but not us (e.g. the palmaris longus muscle), and as a result the muscle goes undeveloped and an increasing number of humans are born without it with no ill effect. If we were designed, then why would our designer give us an under-developed muscle that we never use that also happens to be present in an animal we share a significant amount of DNA with? Laziness?  Lack of understanding?  Inefficiency? And that is just one example, there are many more to be found within our bodies and thousands more out in nature.

It Requires More Faith to be an Atheist than not

The malformed logic here goes that the non-existence of a deity can never be proven, ergo, atheists must have “faith” that there is no deity. Of course this argument relies on a foundation of misunderstanding. The default position is to not believe in something for which there is no evidence of. It requires no faith to not believe in the existence of Godzilla, because there is no evidence to support its existence. If there was evidence to support a claim, if there was any logical, sensible, reason to believe in something, then it would require faith to not believe in it.

The Non-Existence of God Cannot be proven, ever.

This leads on from the misguided logic seen in the above statement, that atheists require faith because the non-existence of God cannot be proven, therefore our position can never be confirmed.  I’ve already made a pretty good stab at disproving the Christian God, and I’m sure that with a little research many other popular deities could be similarly disproved. Of course, my argument only logically disproves the definition of the Christian God, not the being itself.  But if we know the definition is incorrect, then the foundation of the religion must be brought into question.

There are no Atheists in Foxholes

I’ve had this posed to me on a number of occasions and, I’m afraid to say, I can’t see the point of the argument.  Whether it is that, really, we all believe in a God but it requires some sort of epiphany to bring it out in us (like a rash, perhaps), or whether they believe that God touches people in their hour of need, I’m not sure.  What I am sure of, is that there’s nothing like intense stress and trauma to inhibit people’s critical and logical thinking.  I’m also sure that the idea of deities is so prevalent in our culture that saying “God help us” when the bullets are flying is no necessarily always a confirmation of belief in such a being.  Yet no doubt, those who utter the words only to survive against the odds will put it down to heavenly intervention (those who don’t make it will be unable to make such a choice).

I have had Prayers Answered

No, I’m afraid you haven’t. You have asked for something to happen, and then it has happened. Whenever you claim to have had a prayer answered, think about the ones that have not been answered. And don’t lie to yourself by believing it’s all part of your deities plan, it’s not, there is no plan, and there is no deity. Always remember that correlation does not always equal causation.  Could it be that if you wanted something to happen so much that you dared to pray for it, that your own motivated, driven actions would have helped the cause?

God has Spoken to me

Again, afraid not.  If you are hearing voices in your head, you should seek professional help.  That is especially true if the voices claim to be a deity of any kind.  It is a medical condition called schizophrenia, whether the voice claims to be a deity or not, and regardless of whether you believe it is the vice of a deity, the voice is coming from you, and telling you what you want to hear.

My Holy Book is Accurate, I have Proof

Just because parts of a holy book portray a reasonably accurate representation of a certain period of history, it does not mean that the entire book is accurate.  It can be clearly seen in modern literature that fictional works borrow heavily from real world locations and scenarios in order for them to appear more realistic.  There is no historical proof of any miracles described in any holy book occurring.  Given the number of holy books, and the number of miracles in each one, one would assume that there would be some sort of evidence for at least one of the miracles?  But alas there is not, in the same way there is no evidence of Tokyo being destroyed by our old friend Godzilla, despite it being described in numerous forms of media and the city of Tokyo being portrayed quite accurately.

——-

I just want to add a quick note to say that although I am publishing this post now, I intend to keep updating it as I come across other arguments for religion. If you want me to add anything, or address your own personal reason for believing in whichever deity you chose, then please leave a comment and I’ll be happy to oblige.  The comments are always open and are integral to this site.

For this to work, we have to agree on the following two statements, and accept that Christians believe them to the true: -

• God is infallible
• The Bible is the true word of God

These aren’t outrageous statements, and in fact, have been echoed on this very blog numerous times in the comments.

The two statements above are clearly interdependent. The Bible tells Christians that God is infallible, and Christians believe the Bible because they believe it was written by an infallible deity. Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, almost. So the start of our logical deduction must be the Bible, so let’s concentrate on that.

Let’s take the Christian God’s greatest act, creating the world and all who live on it (indirectly). The start of all this, on God’s own words: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day”. Using genealogy, we can roughly estimate the age of the earth, as stated by the Bible, to be 6500 years. The very top estimate would be close to 10,000 years, but that’s a stretch. Science has proven that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old. Radiometric dating has shown us this, and has remained consistent with lunar and terrestrial samples. In other words, we haven’t just tested this once in one situation, it’s been extensively tested. This isn’t a guess, or a hunch, there’s a substantial amount of evidence to back this up.

And that’s the geological age of the earth. What about the creatures on the earth? We, as human beings, were created 6500 years ago, according to the Bible, starting with Adam and then Eve. The oldest discovered human fossil is approximately 1,300,000 (1.3 million) years old. That would have meant that humans lived on earth before God created either humans or the earth. In fact, depending on how much evidence you consider to be acceptable, and how you define us as a species, you could place humans at between 1.8 million and 130,000 years old. No one could sensibly claim that humans are less than 130,000 years old. There is simply too much evidence available for our inspection. Either way, much older than the Bible’s claims.

Let’s take another example. God decided that the earth needed cleansing, so he instructed Noah to gather up two of ever species to save. Everything other than Noah, his family (or part of his family) and the animals he chose to save would be killed. There are around 10 MILLION known species of animal on our planet. Male and female, that would be 20 million animals Noah saved. I’ve never seen a boat that big, even with modern engineering techniques. Noah also would have had to travel to different parts of the earth to collect the various animals. You rarely see a penguin and a scorpion living in the same location (zoos don’t count). He then, after the waters had receded, would have had to return them to their original locations. You also have to question to environment on board Noah’s Ark, an environment that could sustain animals that require intense heat and animals that require intense cold, as well as Noah and his family that required a more moderate climate. Impossible.

Just so we’re clear, I’m establishing that that the Bible is inaccurate. Not just inaccurate, but massively inaccurate. There are more examples of course, some which make it clear that the author of the Bible thinks the world is flat, some which make it clear that the author thought the world did not move and then there are more considered examples, such as the value of pi being unknown at the time (surely God would have known it!?!).

So this is my statement, logically derived from the above.

“The Bible is inaccurate – therefore God is fallible – therefore the definition of God is incorrect – therefore God does not exist.”

To add a touch of justification to this, let’s break it down. We know the Bible is inaccurate, in fact the Bible is contradictory within its own pages. The Bible is the only place that defines God, and God is defined as being infallible. The Bible is also stated as being of God’s word (albeit written by man, see below). Seeing as we know the only source that defines the Christian God is inaccurate, and at least part of the definition is inaccurate (infallible), we can not trust the remainder of the definition. Therefore the definition of God in invalid and God does not exist.

There will come arguments from Christians that while God is infallible, and the Bible is the true word of God, the Bible was in fact written by man, who is fallible. This does not hold up when you examine the scale and volume of inaccuracies held within the Bible. I can understand man rounding down the value of pi, for example, but to get the entire creation story wrong is a bit of a stretch. Likewise, given that God is all powerful, he surely would not have left an obviously inaccurate account of his greatest work go to press, or was that just another sign of his fallibility?

I think I’ve made a stronger argument, based on Christian beliefs, for the non existence of God than there ever has been for the existence of such a deity.

So we know that the Bible isn’t perfect, and I’m sure God, being a decent fictional entity, would happily admit that he got things wrong in the past and want to correct them.  But how would he do it?  After all, you can’t just whisper sweet nothings in a human’s ear if your invisible, we have a name for that, so what would you do?

Perhaps, you would manipulate the world to show your displeasure at certain actions you’re Children are taking.  Like the Wildfires in California occuring around the same time they banned gay marriage, possibly?  The problem is that those that follow a religious book are closed to any suggestion that the book may be wrong.  So are they missing the signs, or choosing to ignore them?  Or, as Occam’s Razor might suggest, the book has always been incorrect.

After reading that comment, I started thinking about the motivations of Christians to participate in such activities, and I came to two conclusions, both of which are worryingly self-serving.  So let’s take a look at them.

Conversion

You’ll notice that any charitable organisation that is affiliated with a religion makes it very obvious that such a link exists.  Take the Christian Missionaries for example, they promised technology, food and social advancement to the people indiginous to the areas they visited.  In return, the people would have to become Christian.  It was a simple premise that exploited the most vulnerable people in the world under the guise of charity.  What they were really doing was exploitation.  We’ll give you X if you convert to our religion.  I’ve spoken about the need for the church to maintain its numbers in the past, so sending workers out to relatively unknown areas of the world in order to “plant” churches seems like a sensible, if not moral, way to do this.

While modern Christian charitable organisations aren’t so overt, they still have alterior motives.  Christian Aid, for example, makes sure that everyone they help knows that they have been helped by a Christian organisation.  In fact, I was asked for a donation by a friend who was collecting for Christian Aid.  I pointed out that while I do donate to charity, I am very careful not to donate to any charity with a strong religious affiliate, because of the reasons detailed above.

Prizes

I think we all know what the prize on offer is, an eternity in the best (but most boring) place not-on-earth, heaven.  What people seem to forget is that all Christians have been incentivised to follow other Christians.  And if they believe in God, they also believe in heaven (and hell), so the incentive, as far as they’re concerned, is a good one.

So when a Christian does a good act, you have to remember that it is never selfless.  At the end of the day, each and every Christian is thinking to themselves “one more point I can make to get into heaven”.  If they can help someone and get them to convert to Christianity, well just imagine how many points that would be!

Conclusion

So based on the two points above, it’s very difficult to accept that a Christian would do a good deed for the sake of doing a good deed.  And whilst I’m sure many Christians will argue the fact that they have been incentivised, they can’t argue about its existence (in their mind).  And once an incentive exists, it’s very difficult to ignore.

On the face of it, it would appear that Atheists acting on bahalf of charities are in a far better position to help.  Otherwise, it’s like letting a car salesman fix your alternator.  You know you’re going to get sold to, and you know he’s looking to get some reward in the end.

What are your thoughts?  Can there be a truly good Christian?