1 There have
been many “proofs” put forth for the existence of God, and just as many
rebuttals of why each one is false. While
many skeptics have found the proofs for God’s existence to be less than compelling,
they have also acknowledged that the nature of God might be such that any evidence
of God’s existence might be hidden from us, and
because no evidence is possible either way, the proper position to adopt is
agnosticism. Others have concluded that in
the absence of positive evidence for either side, one must assume the negative
and hold that God does not exist. However, I believe that both of these
positions are erroneous. If neither side
were able to present convincing evidence to God’s existence, then the proper course
of actions would be to withhold judgment until convincing evidence for one side
is given.
However, that is not the case.
While we may not have evidence that God does or does not exist, we can
conclude that God’s existence would entail a logical contradiction, and thus his
existence is not possible.
2 The “burden
of proof” principle holds that the burden of proof lies on the side proposing
the positive, and in the absence of evidence either way, we must assume the
negative. Most scientific disciplines
adhere to this principle, and for good reason.
If their burden of proof was on the positive, then a scientist could
invent any number of theories that would have to be assumed
true if they were difficult enough to disprove.
For example, an astronomer could invent any number of invisible stellar
phenomena, and confound astronomy students with theories that could or could
not be true, but must be assumed to be true until man
is able to go to the stars and verify them in person. In daily life too, we usually assume the
negative. Suppose that we are divided between driving and biking to work, and a
stranger tells us to bike. We would take
the advice of a health expert, but not an environmentalist, but we do not know
which the stranger is. Without evidence
either way, we would choose not to take his advice. Thus, given a lack of evidence either way, we
will usually assume the negative.
3 However, a
lack of evidence does not always prevent us from assuming a certain
position. If a friend yells “duck!” during
a soccer game, we assume a ball to duck from first, and look for evidence
later. However, if someone from the
opposing team yells “duck!” it would be reasonable to assume foul motivations
and assume the negative. Even though we
may lack any direct evidence for it, our trust in teammates and skepticism of
opponents is itself evidence of the validity of their claims. Thus, even in cases where there is a lack of
evidence for a given claim, it is possible to evaluate its likelihood by
considering whether the claim will integrate into the rest of what we know of
the world, and assume the negative if the proposed claim does not fit in. For example, should we assume without hearing
back from the weapons inspectors that Saddam Hussein is building weapons of
mass destruction? Even if we do not have
evidence either way, Saddam’s past actions are sufficient evidence to assume
the worst when dealing with him. On the
other hand, if someone tells us to “watch out for invisible floating pink
elephants,” skepticism might be the more appropriate response. The difference is that Saddam’s history of
aggression is well known, but everything we know about elephants suggests that
the invisible pink variety is quite rare.
Thus, the “burden of proof” principle is far from being an absolute rule
of logic, and is often substituted for our worldly experience to determine just
how likely a certain proposition is. In
many fields, the “burden of proof” approach is useful for the purposes of
justice, objectivity, or scientific experimentation, but it is not a logical
rule, and is not itself a basis for disproving an idea. If we want to disprove that invisible pink
elephants exists on earth, it is not sufficient to show that we have no
evidence either way: this would only
show that there is no positive evidence of the elephant being there. Rather, we must show that the loxodonta africana
is not able to turn invisible or float in the air given the nature of reality
and the laws that govern it – which is a trivial matter, considering the number
of physical laws that such a proposition would violate.
4 If there is
indeed a lack of evidence either way, and the “burden of proof” principle does dot
apply, then we must examine whether the properties given to God make the
existence of such a being a possibility. There are a number
of properties that the atheist can dispute, and he only needs to show
that one of them is not possible, but he cannot simply prove that all of the
rational theist’s proofs are false to make the claim that God does not exist.
5 Because the
properties given to God have varied widely between different individuals, it
makes sense to present an objection that is as general as possible to cover all
the varying views. One claim presented
by almost all rational theists is that God is the entity responsible for the
creation of the universe. The theist’s
argument hinges on the fact that a creator is necessary for the universe to exist. The atheist’s argument can show not only that
a creator is not needed, but he is not possible precisely
because he is needed.
6 Before
proceeding to prove why God is not possible, it is important to prove what God
is not. He cannot be a product (or
creation) of the universe, because then he would only be a powerful alien being. Furthermore, if humans are limited by the same
set of laws are God, then we could one day develop the
technology to equal, or even overshadow God.
If his only credit is being responsible for putting humans on earth,
then surely we could one day travel and populate other planets – and what
theist would argue that that would make us gods? God is also not equivalent to being the
universe, because that would not only redefine the concept of God as it is traditionally known, but make God a superfluous
concept. If the God was equivalent with
the universe, then we could gain knowledge of him directly, rather than supernatural
events, prayer, and revelation. The term “God” itself would lose its usefulness,
since it would refer to the same thing as “universe.”
7 Nor is God the
equivalent of the laws governing the universe, because that would once again
make God a superfluous concept. The God
usually referred to by theists is necessary a supernatural one – that is, a consciousness
that answers prayers, makes itself known through revelation, and in general, does
not follow normal physical laws. If God
were some natural part of the universe, then he could be approached as any
other natural phenomenon and validated on the basis of
the scientific evidence we have for God, and how it fits in with our understanding
of physical laws and the like.
8 Thus, God,
if he exists, must have the property of existing independently of our universe
and the laws that govern it. Some theists
believe that precisely such a God is necessary for the universe as we know it to
exist, giving God credit for various aspects of it, such as the existence of
time and space, matter, life, morals, and even logic. However, if the existence of any one of those
entities requires a creator, then God’s nature must be such that he existed or
is able to exist without it. If God
created life, then he must not be a living being. If he created morals, then he must be beyond
morality. If he created matter, than he must not be made
out of matter. If he created time and space, then he must exist independently
of time and space. If he created the
universe, then he must exist outside and prior to existence, (making his existence
non-existent), and finally, if he created logic, than he must exist outside of
logic, which – if he were to indeed exist – would make this essay quite
pointless.
9 One of the
replies given by theists is that the nature of God is that he is beyond the requirements
attributed to all other things in the universe, either because he does not
follow “normal” rules of logic and matter, or because he is beyond our ability
to understand his nature and motives. All
theistic attempts to necessitate God’s existence must ultimately fall back on
the argument that God is somehow immune to the requirements that impinge on everything
else that exists, namely that for something to exist, it, or its antecedent,
must be created. However, it is a
logical contradiction to claim that while all objects in the natural, logical universe
must be created in order to exist, God does not. If God is not a part of a natural universe,
then he must exist in a supernatural universe, for which no logical explanation
so is possible. However, if God is
beyond reason, then he is beyond proof as well, and since the rational theist
cannot make a logical argument without using logic, his case falls apart.
10 A rational
theist might use a parallel from the movie the “Thirteenth Floor,” in which one
of the characters discovers that he is actually an artificial intelligence
living within a computer program. The theist might claim that the programmer in control of the
simulation is equivalent to our God: he
is able to control and create the rules which govern the artificial world, he
could set up the simulation so that the “people” in his program are not be able
to conceive of it’s true nature, and he may even be able to stop and rewind the
simulation, controlling its “time.”
However, does that make him their God in the same sense as we conceive of
the concept? The answer is no – the entities
inside the computer could postulate that their creator operates in a larger
meta-universe, with a larger set of meta-laws, of which theirs is a subset. Once they recognize this, they can study the
nature and rules of the “outside” world in a rational and scientific manner. Likewise, the rational proponents of God
should realize that their notion of God would simply operate within a larger
set of physical laws, in a larger universe that includes a being that seems to like
deluding humans about reality. The
proper approach to such a being however, would be a scientific analysis of its nature
(which would show that such a scenario is extremely unlikely), not a priori
analysis and mysticism.
11 Thus, while the
atheist cannot prove God’s non-existence simply by rejecting the various proofs
for God, he can show that a being with the attributes given to God could not
exist in reality, since a being limited by natural laws and logic would not be necessary,
and a being beyond natural laws and reason would not be logically possible.