Proof
that
there
is
no
god
"I had no need for that hypothesis" (Laplace to Napoleon about god)
Introduction
Some
people
falsely
believe
that
it
is
impossible
to
prove
the
unexistence
of
anything,
but
they
are
wrong.
It
can,
for
example,
be
proved
that
there
is
no
even
prime
number
greater
than
two.
Other
people
use
to
say
that
there
is
no
way
to
prove
if
there
is a
god
or
not,
or
even
that
we
cannot
get
any
knowledge
of
god
(agnosticism).
My
opinion
as a
strong
atheist,
is
that
we
can
in
fact
prove
that
god
does
not
exist
in
the
physical
world.
This
document
is
my
attempt
to
do
so.
Definition
of
the
word
"god"
To
prove
the
non-existence
of
god
we
first
need
to
define
the
word
"god".
When
christians
talk
about
god
they
mean
an
almighty
being.
This,
I
think,
is
the
only
god
that
holds,
since
it
is
the
only
god
that
can
be
logically
justified.
I
think
it
makes
most
sense
if
god
is
female,
because
only
women
can
give
life.
Something
that
even
people
in
the
Stone
Age
understood.
Later
when
wars
affected
the
cultural
evolution,
and
men
took
control
of
society,
god
became
male,
but
the
female
god
still
lives
on
in
the
expression
"Mother
earth".
It
should
also
be
pointed
out
that
an
omnipotent
god
must
be
either
androgyne
or
sexless.
However,
in
most
religions
god
is
male
so I
will
refer
to
god
as
'he',
'him'
etc.
Some
people
(Einstein
for
instance)
believe
in a
god
who
is
not
a
personal
god,
but
a
Spinozan
kind
of
god.
[Spinoza
felt
that
God
was
not
a
tanscendent
creator
of
the
universe
who
rules
it
via
providence,
but
Nature
itself,
understood
as
an
infinite,
necessary,
and
fully
deterministic
system
of
which
humans
are
a
part.
Humans
find
happiness
only
through
a
rational
understanding
of
this
system
and
their
place
within
it.] I
claim
that
this
god
is
not
a
god!
To
say
that
god
is
universe
- by
getting
knowledge
of
the
universe
we
get
knowledge
of
god
- is
to
redefine
the
meaning
of
the
word
god.
This
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
word
god
as
it
was
defined
by
the
"primitive"
cultures
which
preceded
our
present
civilization.
He
can
be
excluded
with
Occam's
razor,
and
most
important:
Such
a
god
does
not
hear
prayers.
If
god
is
not
omnipotent
there
is
nothing
that
prevents
him
from
being
a
product
of
the
universe.
If
that
is
the
case,
what
makes
god
divine?
Then
god
would
only
be
an
alien,
a
being
of
matter;
probably
containing
flesh,
blood
and
DNA
like
all
life
we
know
of.
Everything
god
is
able
to
do
would
be
things
that
human
beings
also
will
be
able
to
do,
all
his
knowledge
would
be
knowledge
we
will
also
achieve.
In
fact
humans
would
be
gods,
which
should
lead
to
some
strange
kind
of
humanism!
Many
people
justify
their
faith
with
god
as
an
explanation.
What
is
the
meaning
of
life?
Where
does
time
and
space
come
from?
Who
created
the
physical
constants?
et
cetera.
Because
we
lack
knowledge
of
these
things
-
and
maybe
never
will,
since
they
are
questions
like
"what
is
the
color
of a
second?"
or
"how
does
sound
taste?"
-
god
is
there
as
an
explanation.
Let's
say
that
god
is
the
meaning
of
life,
what
then
is
the
meaning
of
god?
If
god
has
a
nature,
who
created
that
nature?
If
god
created
time
and
space,
how
can
god
exist
without
it?
Since
creation
is
an
event
in
time,
how
could
god
create
time?
and
who
created
god?
To
answer
these
questions
god
must
be
almighty,
or
else
you
can't
explain
them.
In
fact
you
can
if
you
say
god
stands
above
time
and
space
and
so
on
(which
he
indeed
does
if
he
is
almighty),
but
to
be
able
to
prevent
god
from
being
tied
to
future
phenomena,
you
must
give
him
the
quality
of
omnipotence
so
he
can
stand
above
everything.
The
qualities
of
an
omnipotent
god
If
god
is
almighty
there
are
several
qualities
he
must
have.
They
are
as
follows:
- He must know everything. Everything that is, everything that has been and everything that will be. To be able to know everything that will be he must know every position and every momentum of every particle in cosmos (Laplace's "World Spirit").
- He must be worth our worship. A being that is not worth worshipping is no god.
- He must be able to do anything. If there are things that god can't do, he certainly is not omnipotent.
- He must be above time. Something that even St. Augustine deduced. But not only that, god must stand above all possible dimensions.
- He cannot be 'good' or 'evil' or, indeed, have any subjective characteristica. If god is all good, he cannot do evil things and cannot be almighty. Most people would object and say that good can do evil but chooses not to do it. Well, if god is all good he can't choose to do evil things, can he?
The theodicé problem
We also have the theodice problem, stated by David Hume:
If the evil in the world is intended by god he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since god is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only god can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) created evil, how can one know that god, and not Satan created the universe?
For a good look at the Theodicé problem try The problem of natural evil
Reasons
not
to
believe
in
god
Heisenberg's
uncertainty
principle
I
have
refuted
this
argument
myself.
See
Refuted
proofs
for
an
explanation
The
ontological
evidence
against
gods
Neccesary
a
god
is a
being
that
is
worth
worshipping,
so
if
there
is
no
being
worth
worshipping
there
cannot
be a
god.
Not
any
of
the
existing
religions
can
provide
such
a
god.
How
do
we
know
if
there
are
no
undiscovered
beings
worthy
our
submission?
Well
if
there
is a
being
that
has
either
failed
or
not
tried
to
communicate
with
us
that
being
is
not
worth
worshipping
either,
so
the
ontological
evidence
against
god
holds,
even
without
complete
knowledge
of
the
world.
There
is a
test,
based
on
the
ontological
evidence
against
god,
that
you
can
do
to
try
the
existence
of
god.
Pray,
and
ask
god
to
provide
you
with
a
clear
proof
for
his
existence
within
a
week.
After
that
week,
if
you
have
got
a
proof
that
god
exists,
send
me
the
evidence.
If
not,
there
are
only
three
reasons
I
can
think
of
that
are
plausible:
(1)
God
does
not
exist,
(2)
God
does
not
want
to
or
(3)
God
can't
give
you
this
evidence.
Because
of
the
ontological
evidence,
alternative
(2)
and
(3)
are
not
worth
your
worship
and
thus
they
equal
alternative
(1).
So
if
you
get
no
response
there
is
no
god.
The
meaning
of
the
word
existence
What
do
we
mean
by
existence?
The
very
definition
for
existence
is
that
a
thing
is
said
to
exist
if
it
relates
in
some
way
to
some
other
thing.
That
is,
things
exist
in
relation
to
each
other.
For
us,
that
means
that
something
is
part
of
our
system
('The
known
world').
God
is
defined
to
be
infinite,
in
which
case
it
is
not
possible
for
there
to
be
anything
other
than
god
because
"infinite"
is
all-inclusive.
But
if
there
is
nothing
other
than
god
then
either
god
cannot
be
said
to
exist
for
the
reason
just
explained,
or
god
is
the
known
world,
in
which
case,
by
definition,
god
is
not
a
god.
Occam's
razor
Occam's
razor
was
formulated
by
William
of
Occam
(1285-1349)
and
says:
"Non
est
ponenda
pluralites
sive
necessitate"
or
in
english:
"Do
not
multiply
entities
unless
necessarily".
It
is a
principle
for
scientific
labour
which
means
that
one
should
use
a
simple
explanation
with
a
few
explanatory
premises
before
a
more
complex
one.
Let's
say
that
everything
must
be
created,
and
that
was
done
by
an
omnipotent
god.
A
god
which
stands
above
time,
space,
moral
and
existence,
which
is
self
containing
and
in
it
self
has
it's
own
cause.
This
entity
can
surely
be
replaced
by
the
known
world.
The
world
stands
above
time,
space,
moral,
existence,
is
self
containing
and
in
it
has
it's
own
meaning.
Most
theists
agree
that
god
has
a
nature.
Then
we
must
raise
the
question,
who
created
god's
nature?
If
we
just
accept
that
god
has
a
nature
and
exists
without
a
cause,
why
not
say
that
the
known
world
just
is
and
that
the
laws
of
physics
are
what
they
are,
without
a
cause?
God
is
not
really
an
explanation,
only
a
non-explanation.
It
is
impossible
to
gain
information
from
non-information
so
God
as
an
explanation
is a
dead
end.
When
we
have
said
that
the
reason
for
something
is
that
'god
did
it
that
way'
there
is
no
way
to
understand
it
any
further.
We
just
shrug
our
shoulders
and
accept
things
as
they
are.
To
explain
the
unknown
by
god
is
only
to
explain
how
it
happened,
not
why.
If
we
are
to
investigate
the
world
and
build
our
views
of
life
from
the
world,
we
cannot
assume
a
god.
Because
adding
god
as
an
explanation
leaves
as
many,
if
not
more
questions
than
it
explains,
god
has
to
be
removed
with
Occam's
razor
if
we
are
serious
in
investigating
the
world.
Some
things
are
impossible
to
do
There
are
things
that
are
impossible
to
do.
For
example
nobody
can
cover
a
two-dimensional
surface
with
two-dimensional
circles,
without
making
them
overlap.
It
is
impossible
to
add
the
numbers
two
and
two
and
get
666.
You
can
not
go
back
in
time
(without
passing
an
infinite
entropy
barrier).
The
number
of
things
that
are
impossible
to
do
are
almost
infinite.
If
god
were
to
be
almighty
he
would
be
able
to
do
them,
but
it's
impossible
to
do
so.
Some
people
say
that
he
can
only
do
things
that
are
logically
possible
to
do,
but
what
is?
Is
it
logically
possible
to
walk
on
water?
Is
it
logically
possible
to
rise
from
the
dead?
Is
it
logically
possible
to
stand
above
time,
space
and
all
other
dimensions
-
and
still
exist?
I'd
say
that
everything
which
violates
the
laws
of
physics
are
logically
impossible
and
thus
omnipotence
is
logically
impossible.
Besides
if
omnipotence
is a
relative
quality
there
is
no
way
to
tell
omnipotence
from
non-omnipotence.
For
omnipotence
to
be a
valid
expression
it
must
be
absolute,
but
we
have
no
objective
criteria
to
measure
omnipotence
so
the
word
itself
is
useless.
Omnipotence
is
impossible
due
to
paradoxes
Another
way
to
disprove
the
almighty
god
is
that
omnipotence
leads
to
paradoxes.
Can
god
make
a
rock
that
is
too
heavy
for
him
to
carry?
Can
god
build
a
wall
that
even
he
can't
tear
down?
Also,
if
god
knows
everything,
he
knows
what
he
will
do
in
the
"future"
(in
any
dimension,
not
necessary
the
time
dimension).
He
must
have
known
that
from
the
very
start
of
his
own
existence.
Thus
god's
actions
are
predestined.
God
is
tied
by
faith,
he
has
no
free
will.
If
god
has
no
free
will
god
is
not
omnipotent.
Another
way
to
put
it
is
that
to
be
able
to
make
plans
and
decisions
one
must
act
over
time.
If
god
stands
above
time
he
can
not
do
that
and
has
no
free
will.
Indeed,
if
god
stands
above
all
dimensions
god
is
dimensionless
- a
singularity,
nothing,
void!
Besides
there
can
exist
no
free
wills
at
all
if
god
is
almighty.
If
you
had
a
free
will,
god
wouldn't
know
what
you
would
do
tomorrow
and
wouldn't
be
omnipotent.
The
void
creator
If
everything
must
have
been
created,
then
god
must
have
been
created
as
well.
If
god
is
not
created,
then
everything
mustn't
have
a
creator,
so
why
should
life
or
cosmos
have
one?
Besides
this
argument
has
another
leap.
If
everything
has
a
source
and
god
is
that
source,
then
god
must
have
existed
without
it
before
he
created
it.
So
if
god
created
time
and
space,
he
must
live
outside
of
time
and
space.
Thus
he
is
non-existent.
If
all
life
must
come
from
something
and
that
is
god,
god
is
not
alive
and
hence
non-existent.
If
moral
must
come
from
god,
god
lacks
moral.
If
logic
comes
from
god,
god
is
illogic.
If
nature
comes
from
god,
god
is
unnatural.
If
existence
comes
from
god,
god
is
non-existent.
If
god
is
the
cause
of
everything,
god
is
void
We
would
never
notice
god
This
is
not
an
evidence
against
god,
but
rather
describes
the
lack
of
sense
in
praying
to a
god
who
stands
above
time.
If
god
stands
above
time
and
created
time
and
space
he
can
not
be
the
first
link
in a
time
dependent
chain
of
events.
Rather
he
would
affect
every
step
in
all
chains,
and
we
would
only
see
god
in
the
laws
of
physics
(Davies,
1983,
chapter
4).
This
god
is
an
unnecessary
entity
to
describe
the
world
and
should
be
removed
with
Occam's
razor
If
somebody
would
pray
to
god
and
god
would
listen,
the
laws
would
change
to
achieve
the
desired
result.
Thus
the
world
would
be
different
and
the
prayer
would
never
have
been
said.
Besides
god
would
already
(in
an
"above
time"
sense
of
view)
know
that
you
would
pray,
and
already
have
changed
the
world.
Prayers
would
be
totally
meaningless.
We
would
already
live
in
the
best
world
possible,
and
any
prayer
would
be
to
doubt
the
wisdom
of
god.
Even
worse:
For
every
prayer
said,
god
has
not
acted,
or
else
the
prayer
had
been
undone.
This
means
that
the
more
people
have
prayed,
the
more
bad
things
in
the
world
have
persisted.
Therefore,
the
more
you
pray,
the
more
evil
persist
(provided
god
exists
and
stands
above
time).
A
much
better
way
to
change
the
world
is
to
do
it
yourself.
Then
you
would
know
that
it
was
you
who
made
the
world
better.
The
effect
of
prayers
are
not
scientific
provable,
whilst
the
effect
of
actions
are.
Instead
of
praying
you
should
set
to
work
at
improving
your
situation.
This
is
what
humanism
is
about.
Nobody
really
believes
in
god
Schopenhauer
once
said
something
like:
"Man can do anything he wants, but he can not want whatever he wants."
My
thesis
is
that
people
who
claim
to
believe
in
god
do
not
really
do
so.
They
just
wish
to
believe
in
god.
They
somehow
feel
that
their
lives
are
meaningless
without
god,
so
they
choose
to
close
their
eyes
to
evidence
against
the
existence
of
god.
The
christian
view
is
well
expressed
by
Cardinal
Ratzinger:
"Religious liberty can not justify freedom for divergence. This freedom does not aim at any freedom relative truth, but concerns the free descicion for a person to, according to his moral inclinations accept the truth." (The times, June 27 1990, p9) [Translated to Swedish in the Swedish version of (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991) and then translated back to english by me]
It's
as
clear
as
it
can
be!
For
a
christian
you
accept
the
"truth"
according
to
your
moral,
and
then
have
to
be
strong
in
your
faith
to
keep
your
believes.
You
decide
a
priori
what
to
believe
and
then
try
to
convince
yourself
and
others
that
it
is
true.
But
theists
don't
really
believe,
because
to
believe
something
is
to
take
it
for
true,
and
just
like
in
Nazareth's
song
Sold
my
soul
there
is
no
sign
of
god
in
the
world.
When
you
have
the
evidence
for
and
against
something
your
sub-conscious
works
on
it
and
makes
a
conclusion.
The
process
can't
be
affected
by
your
will,
only
delayed
or
suppressed,
which
will
lead
to
psychoses,
and
those
are
far
more
common
among
(catholic)
priests
than
any
other
group..
I
have
personal
experience
of
this
believing
what
you
want
to
believe.
When
I
was
a
child
I
believed
in a
lot
of
crazy
things.
I
thought
my
stuffed
animals
were
intelligent.
I
believed
in
Santa
Claus.
I
thought
there
were
monsters
under
my
bed
at
night.
I
even
believed
in
god
after
I
heard
some
of
the
tales
from
the
old
testament.
Then
I
became
older
and
realized
that
these
things
weren't
true.
When
I
look
back
I
don't
understand
how
I
could
believe
in
them,
it
must
have
been
that
I
wanted
to
do
so.
(Except
for
the
monsters,
which
had
to
do
with
fear
of
the
dark)
When
many
religious
people
are
confronted
with
criticism
of
their
religion
they
convert
to
atheism
or
agnosticism.
Examples
of
people
who
became
critical
to
the
dogmas
of
christianity
are
Charles
Darwin
(Darwin,
1958),
Dan
Barker
(Barker,
19??),
Ernest
Renan
plus
many
former
"Catholic
modernists"
in
the
19th
century
such
as
Alfred
Loisy
and
Antonio
Fogazzaro
(Baigenth,
Leigh,
1991).
The
Catholic
modernism
evolved
in
the
late
19th
century
and
was
banned
in
1907
by
the
Vatican
(Baigenth,
Leigh,
1991).
These
people
are
to
me
clear
evidence
that
an
enlightened
person
will
after
considering
the
facts,
reject
christianity
and
other
religions
that
contain
deities.
Note:
This
is
not
the
"Plead
to
authority"
fallacy.
I'm
talking
people
here,
who
were
trying
to
prove
the
existence
of
god
and
turned
atheists.
They
did
not
want
to
do
this,
but
had
to
after
reading
a
lot
of
books
and
doing
a
lot
of
thinking
on
the
subject.
Epilogue
I
have
tried
to
define
the
only
god
that
can
be
philosophically
justified
and
show
some
examples
why
this
god
cannot
exist.
After
reading
this
document
you
may
object
and
say
that
god
is
beyond
human
understanding
and
can't
be
defined
in
scientific
terms.
This
is
the
view
of
agnosticism.
If
god
is
so
mysterious,
how
can
we
know
anything
about
him?
Through
the
Bible?
How
do
we
know
that
the
Bible
and
not
the
Koran
or
the
Vedha
books,
for
example,
are
the
words
of
god?
(or
the
bible
if
you
believe
in
any
of
the
other
two
books).
Considering
the
cruelties
that
have
been
made
in
the
name
of
god,
how
do
we
know
that
not
all
religions
are
made
by
Satan?
If
there
is
no
way
to
know
this
but
to
trust
people
who
claim
they
have
had
"divine
experiences"
there
is
no
way
to
tell
true
from
false
prophets.
One
has
to
give
up
his
free
mind
and
follow
the
authority
of a
dictator.
Remember
also
that
it
is
the
person
making
a
positive
claim
who
has
to
prove
it.
"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." -- Bertrand Russell
"We shall not believe anything unless there is reasonable cause to believe that it is true" -- Ingemar Hedenius
References
- Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception (1991)
- Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith - From preacher to atheist (19??)
- Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. With original omissions restored. Edited with appendix and notes by his grand-daughter Nora Barlow. The only complete edition. (1958)
- Paul Davies, God and the new physics (1983)
Additional
reading
- The Atheism web
- Bible contradictions #1
- Joseph C. Sommer, Some reasons why Humanists reject the bible
- Does God exist? a debate between John P. Koster and Frank Zindler
- The Internet Infidels
- Julian Huxley, Religion without revelation (New York, NY: Mentor Books, l957)
- Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Temple University Press, 1984)
- John Stuart Mill, The Religion of Humanity (1874)
- George Smith, The Case Against God
Similar
pages
- Why the Christian God is Impossible, by Chad Docterman A superb rejection of the christian god - a must read!
- Brett Lemoine's Atheism information
- Why Rich Daniel believes there are no gods
|