20 Reasons Why I Dont Believe in God

by Dr. Mary Walker

1) Gods existence has remained unproven despite the best efforts by millions over thousands of
years.
2) Weve believed in countless gods, such as Zeus & Ra, strongly suggesting that God, like all
gods before him, is only a figment of our imagination.
(Summary) No evidence for 1,000s of years + 1,000s of previously imagined gods = a very good
chance that God was also imagined.
3) God cannot create himself, or even choose to exist. That is, he cannot use that which defines
himself, such as his power & intelligence, in order to create himself. Put differently, if God
didnt already exist, then he would have had less power & intelligence than an insect;
therefore, would have been unable to create himself.

4) All conscious beings, since self-creation is impossible, ultimately owe their existence to the
unconscious nature of things. That is, if God has a god, and so on, then the supreme god,
with nobody around to create him, and unable to create himself (as stated above), must owe
his existence to something other than conscious creation, which is exactly where we were
before assuming God has a god.

5) The unconscious creation of God is both extremely unlikely and entirely unneeded. That is, we
have undeniable evidence for the unconscious creation of our universe (ex. fossils & the
microwave background radiation), yet we have no such evidence, or even a theoretical
explanation, for the unconscious creation of God. In addition, its far more reasonable to
assume that reality gave rise to us versus a relatively complex god.

6) Another possibility is that God always existed; therefore, was never created. However, an
eternal existence would require that God existed prior to every moment in time, so no creative
power, including himself, had the opportunity to create him; consequently, the fundamental
nature of reality must, without conscious intervention or time, coincidentally define his
existence, which is like a whale spontaneously appearing miles above the ground for
absolutely no reason, conscious or otherwise.

7) Realizing the impossibility of both Gods creation & eternal existence, its been suggested that
he exists beyond time. However, if God changes in any way; for example, has a thought, then
the elapse of time (old-thought to new-thought) can be distinguished from the absence of
time (old-thought to old-thought), so any change, no matter how insignificant or what form it
takes, inevitably results in time. Consequently, if God exists beyond time, then he would be
reduced to an impotent statue, unable to create the earth, let alone think.

(Summary) (1) Gods existence is logically impossible. (and 2) No evidence for 1,000s of years +
1,000s of previously imagined gods = a very good chance that God was also imagined.
8) We have undeniable evidence for the unconscious creation of both life and our universe, as
confirmed by countless observations, experiments and computer simulations. That is, just as
we previously learned that natural phenomena, such as lightning & rain, were unaffected by
the absence of ancient gods, weve recently learned that our universe, and everything in it,
would be unaffected by the absence of any god. In short, a relatively simple energy
fluctuation, guided by only a handful of physical laws, inevitably condensed into matter, which
in turn condensed into stars, which in turn released heavier elements, which in turn formed
rocky planets and a vast number of atomic combinations, including those found in life, such as
amino acids & nucleotides, and so on.
9) The watchmaker argument in no way contradicts the natural evolution of man. That is,
although a watch requires a watchmaker, and a human is more complex than a watch, a
human does not require a human maker. Firstly, unless we make the sacrilegious assumption
that God is less complex than a watch, in which case he would be unable to perform his godly
duties, then he too would require a conscious creator, and so on. In other words, it makes
absolutely no sense to account for our complexity by assuming that we were made by an even
more complex, and entirely unproven, God.

The truth is, humans, unlike watches, have everything needed for their unconscious
creation, such as self-contained blueprints (DNA), dividing and differentiating building
blocks (cells), nutrient uptake (hunting & digestion) and so on. Consequently, a bucket
of watches, sprinkled with an aphrodisiac, and surrounded by the appropriate building
materials, will never give rise to new watches, yet theres little anybody can do to
prevent a cage of rabbits from giving rise to new rabbits. Obviously the creative power
of billions of years of evolution wasnt matched the day we started shaping stone tools,
or shortly after with mechanical watches.
Logically speaking, we cannot use a single example (a watch requires a conscious
creator) to validate, or even support, a general conclusion (all entities more complex
than a watch require conscious creators). Its even theoretically possible that the
example used is the only exception to the general rule. We can; however, use a single
example (a female genius) to falsify a general conclusion (females cannot obtain
genius level IQs), which Im guessing is the source of confusion for the millions who
believe in the watchmaker argument, or perhaps theyre all simply stupid and/or biased
to the point of delusion.

(Summary) (1) Reality would be unaffected by Gods absence (2) His existence is logically
impossible. (and 3) No evidence for 1,000s of years + 1,000s of previously imagined gods = a very
good chance that God was also imagined.

10) The ontological argument, which states that God exists because we can conceive of him, is
beyond absurd. Firstly, weve conceived of countless fictitious entities, such as Big Foot &
dragons, none of which are more inevitable than our conception of God. That is, as conscious
beings we all eventually ask why we exist, and since we consciously create things, such as
watches, the simplest and most obvious answer is that we too were consciously created, which
is why all ancient cultures believed in god(s), and also why the far more complex and less
obvious conception of natural selection wasnt made until much later.

Note: Most followers of the ontological argument modify the general conception of God
with an irrelevant adjective. For example, some claim a perfect god must exist
because we can conceive of a perfect god. However, perfection, like color, is only a
description of an existence, not a cause. Secondly, if perfection causes existence, then
why is our universe, the only example we have of existence, far from perfect (ex. noncircular planetary orbits & children dying of cancer)? Thirdly, nobody can even fully
conceive of mathematical perfection, let alone godly perfection. Lastly, and most
importantly, godly perfection in the eyes of one man will always contradict godly
perfection in the eyes of every other man. For example, some see a perfect God as hell
sending, while others see him as non-punitive and forgiving, still others see him as a
she, and so on.
Warning: I just conceived of a purple people eater who only eats those stupid and/or
biased enough to believe in the ontological argument.

11) Some believers claim that theyve found God in their lives; however, their examples are either
natural phenomena or completely unsubstantiated. For example, finding God in beauty (ex.
sunsets) and emotion (ex. love) is absurd, for they are either caused by simple physical laws
(ex. the refraction of light) or serve an obvious evolutionary purpose (ex. our love for helpless
babies keeps them alive, the love between a husband and wife keeps them together and the
general kindness of strangers has allowed the human race to achieve a level of security and
prosperity that would otherwise be impossible). In addition, the use of coincidences and
fortunes is equally absurd, for its been statistically proven that no more planes crash, lotteries
won and children die than expected, nor are nice people punished less frequently, so its both
inexcusably deluded and excessively self-centered to credit God for the good stuff and
question / loose your faith in him because of the bad.
12) Some believers simply state that they have faith in Gods existence. However, we can have
faith in anything, including that God does not exist, so the use of faith is functionally
indistinguishable from the statement God does or does not exist because I said so.
(Summary) (1) We cannot support Gods existence by stating that faith = existence or finding faith in
natural phenomena or having blind faith. (2) Reality would be unaffected by his absence (3) His
existence is logically impossible. (and 4) No evidence for 1,000s of years + 1,000s of previously
imagined gods = a very good chance that God was also imagined.
13) Approximately 93% of the American National Academy of Science, and 97% of the British
Royal Society, are atheists, and of all the scientists, biologists and astronomers have the
highest percentage of atheism. This is because both astronomical and biological evolution
significantly reduce our complexity; and consequently, the need for God to explain the
unknown.

Note: Although unexplained phenomena still exist, weve found countless scientific
explanations for previously unknown phenomena, strongly suggesting that the
remaining unknowns also have scientific explanations, especially since (1) were

constantly validating this assumption with new scientific discoveries (and 2) the
remaining unknowns are patterned and repetitive, a clear indication that they are being
caused by as yet unknown physical laws, as opposed to the variable whim of God.
14) IQ and theism are inversely proportionate. That is, the higher a persons IQ, the greater the
probability that he or she is an atheist, and geniuses have a significantly higher percentage of
atheism than the general population, even when scientists, who generally have high IQs, are
ignored.
15) Like language, faith does not transcend culture. For example, Christian parents are much
more likely to raise Christians than Jews, and visa versa, and when a child is adopted from
one faith, they are much more likely to practice the faith of their new parents.
16) The testable stories of all faiths, such as Noahs Arch and Adam & Eve, have been
successfully refuted. For example, the previously mentioned stories require incest, and the
later, for every species on earth, and thats in addition to repopulating all of Earths islands &
continents. Consequently, most modern believers do not take the stories of faith literally;
however, if you dismiss them as allegory (fictitious stories used to make a point) youre left with
nothing but a book of fables and questionable historical facts.
17) Religion serves worldly functions. For example, be good, go to heaven (a perfect utopia); be
bad, go to hell (a place of endless torture), dont join our faith, go to limbo; as if being born on a
different continent, reading science books and having a high IQ would be punishable offenses
in the eyes of a rational God. Point being, any secular use of religion calls into question its
integrity, giving it a reason to exist, even if God does not.
18) People faced with hardships, such as bereavement, loss of a job and drug addiction, are
statistically far more likely to turn to God, proving that faith is not objective. That is, its both
easy and selfish to have faith in a god you want to believe in. In contrast, having faith that a
god doesnt exist, despite wanting to believe in him, is both hard and unbiased; consequently,
our faith in God, in addition to being contradicted by history, science & logic, is also easy &
selfish.
19) Religion breeds insanity & injustice. That is, the vast majority of atrocities have been
committed in the name of religion, including the inquisition, crusades, burning of witches,
pelting peaceful marchers with stones, killing Bruno for suggesting that life may exist on other
planets, threatening Galileo with death, then sentencing him to house arrest, killing pagan
leaders for refusing to denounce their gods (ex. the Incans), religious parents disowning their
children for marrying outside the faith, and so much more (ex. terrorism).
20) Theres not a single factual, logical or historical reason to believe in God, yet theres at least 19
very good reasons not to.
(Summary) (1) No evidence for 1,000s of years + 1,000s of previously imagined gods = a very good
chance that God was also imagined. (2) His existence is logically impossible. (3) Reality would be
unaffected by his absence. (4) We cannot support his existence by stating that faith = existence or
finding faith in natural phenomena or having blind faith. (and 5) Our faith in him is not only easy,
selfish & dangerous, but is supported by childish fables (ex. Noahs Arch) and people with limited IQs
and/or scientific knowledge; consequently, theyre less able to discern fact from fiction.
Bonus: Why does anything exist? (a solution to the paradox of causality)

Whether we believe in God or not were still left with the question Why does something, versus
nothing, exist?
That is, according to the law of causality every effect, such as the collapse of a building, must have
had a cause, such as an earthquake, which in turn must have had a cause, such as magma
convection, and so on. Consequently, even if we trace our history back over an infinite number of
causal interactions, an infinite more would still precede them, so no matter how many causal
interactions took place modern day events would never come to be, yet here we are; this is known as
the paradox of causality.
The most obvious solution is to simply assume that the law of causality was broken, in which case a
finite number of causal interactions transpired between the initial cause and current events. However,
this assumption can never be proven, for a causeless event has no explanation.
Like with many paradoxes, such as the twin paradox, the solution requires multiple perspectives. That
is, from a perspective outside reality looking in absolutely nothing has or will exist, so the law of
causality was never broken because it was never put to the test. However, if absolutely nothing
exists then theres nothing to cause one equally valid form of nothingness (ex. 0) to be favored over
another (ex. 1 + -1 = 0), for such a cause would require a cause and so on, re-creating the paradox of
causality.
This can be visualized on a piece of paper by surrounding a 0 with equations resulting in 0 (ex. 1 + 1), then covering up everything but the 0, in which case it would be impossible for somebody to
determine, or even detect, the equations.
In reality, imaginary numbers, multiple dimensions and the like allow for extremely complex
expressions of nothingness, the most important consequence of which is that they cannot all be
expressed simultaneously (while still equating to zero), so they must democratically share reality by
equally and instantly negating each others changes. For example, non-zero sub-equations (ex. 3 + 4) can result in zero only when combined with a negating sub-equation (ex. 6 + -5), but since this
excludes other sub-equations (ex. 3 + -4 excludes 5 + -5), they must share reality by equally and
instantly negating each others changes [ex. (3 + -4) + (6 + -5) to (4 + -4) + (5 + -5)]; for as already
stated, in order to avoid the paradox of causality there can be nothing that causes one to be favored
over another.
In conclusion, the inevitable consequence of absolutely nothing existing is that theres nothing to
cause one equally valid form of nothingness, mathematical or otherwise, to be prevented or selected
over another (assuming that they cannot be discerned from a perspective outside reality looking in);
consequently, they must all exist, but since they cannot all be expressed simultaneously (while still
equating to zero) they must share reality by equally and instantly negating each others changes,
hence our changing universe.
This Theory of Nothingness does far more than provide a solution to the paradox of causality, for it
makes testable predictions that can be disproved. That is, all changes within our universe (including
any interacting universes), MUST be instantly negated, and when combined, MUST equate to zero.
The laws of physics overwhelmingly support this theory, which is amazing considering that we can
imagine an infinite number of physical laws that blatantly contradict it, such as any law without
symmetry. For example, the decay of a particle is instantly and equally negated by the creation of
new particles and/or energies. Other examples include the laws of thermodynamics & Newtonian
physics (ex. equal and opposite reactions).
P.S. I only claimed to be a female doctor in an attempt to attract more readers, so dont let these
falsities bring undue credence to the article; however, I do have a high IQ, broad scientific knowledge
and an objective personality. Also, if you downloaded this as a torrent, and agree with what Ive said,
please seed indefinitely, for this will attract far more readers and the bandwidth used will be
insignificant (so it wont affect your other downloads). Thanks in advance, bye.