20 Reasons Why I Don’t Believe in God

by Dr. Mary Walker 1) God’s existence has remained unproven despite the best efforts by millions over thousands of years. 2) We’ve 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 didn’t 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, it’s 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 God’s creation & eternal existence, it’s 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) God’s 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, we’ve 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 there’s 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 wasn’t 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). It’s 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 I’m guessing is the source of confusion for the millions who believe in the watchmaker argument, or perhaps they’re all simply stupid and/or biased to the point of delusion.

(Summary) (1) Reality would be unaffected by God’s 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, we’ve 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 wasn’t 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 they’ve 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 it’s been statistically proven that no more planes crash, lotteries won and children die than expected, nor are nice people punished less frequently, so it’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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, we’ve found countless scientific explanations for previously unknown phenomena, strongly suggesting that the remaining unknowns also have scientific explanations, especially since (1) we’re

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 person’s 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 Noah’s 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 that’s in addition to repopulating all of Earth’s 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) you’re 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), don’t 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, it’s both easy and selfish to have faith in a god you want to believe in. In contrast, having faith that a god doesn’t 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) There’s not a single factual, logical or historical reason to believe in God, yet there’s 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. Noah’s Arch) and people with limited IQs and/or scientific knowledge; consequently, they’re 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 we’re 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 there’s 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 there’s 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 don’t 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 I’ve said, please seed indefinitely, for this will attract far more readers and the bandwidth used will be insignificant (so it won’t affect your other downloads). Thanks in advance, bye.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful