A Unique argument for why God most likely does not exist
Read carefully and you may see
The Idea of God
Appalachian State University
This paper is used to disprove the existence of a God as anything more than an idea. The proof of this is seen in the Laws of science to start. The theory of the universe as an isolated system also lends to this proof (Merritts, Wet, & Menking, 1998). Mans’ ability to think abstractly from complex chemical reactions also prove that humans do not need god to exist. Our ability to reason and think abstractly can advance our society without theology. The inability for a miracle to be performed in nature also lends proof supporting the existence of God as nothing more than an idea. When all of these proofs are combined, they create a basis from which the existence of God’s existence is hopefully impossible to prove.
From what we know today, the probability of God’s existence is growing slim. The arguments for God in the modern world come from outdated texts and baseless tradition. We have used logic and reasoning to disprove the practicality of an omnipotent, omniscient being or beings. We have proven the fallacies the faith based practices of polytheistic religion, pagan rituals, and monotheistic religions that have evolved out of the aforementioned practices. Beliefs based on faith contain little to no logical thought and are derived from a “sense” or “feeling” which we have seen throughout history is usually followed by negative consequences. Therefore we can assume that God is nothing more than a product of man, not man a product of God, and thus God does not exist.
The nature of being human leads us to inquire about our surroundings with an insatiable curiosity for what we are currently unable to explain. Take a look at Neanderthals for example. Neanderthals were the closest relatives to the Homo sapiens. Neanderthals like Homo sapiens had religious like practices unto themselves. They, like Homo sapiens would ritualistically bury their dead. A sign of their attempt to explain the loss of the relationship they had with those they buried was the way in which they buried their dead (Russell, 2005). A certain amount of respect for the bond they shared during life is shown through the burial process and the care taken to protect the deceased ones from outside forces such as animals and weathering. This respect seems to show a lack of understanding of what happens to an organism. This lacking led to the creation of religious beliefs to gain an understanding of what they could not logically or factually explain. This creation became the basis for the first organized religious beliefs which we call shamanism.
Shamanism is the next step in our evolution of religion. Shamanism is the belief in spirits that can only be communicated with through a Shaman. These spirits were character or personalities of animals, plants, humans, and many nonliving things too. This belief in spirits as, behaviors or personalities of anything that exist seems to be derived from a failure to understand biology. Those who practiced shamanism seemed to understand that the dead person did not need to eat anymore, and that he or she did not need to sleep under shelter. However, they did not understand that he or she did not love anymore, that they did not need their favorite toy; they failed to understand the death of the mind with the body. This distinction between the body and mind is still widely accepted despite our current understanding of biology.
A major premise for the existence of God is William Paley’s watchmaker theory. This theory states that, “If I stumbled on a stone and asked how it came to be there, it would be difficult to show that the answer, it has lain there forever is absurd. Yet this is not true if the stone were to be a watch (McGrath, 2007).” This suggests that because the universe is complex in its design like a watch, it must have been designed too. But this conclusion is based off of the simple confusion between creating and manipulating. It is incorrect to project that human beings have the ability to create. In fact creation does not even exist. This statement is based off of the proven theory that matter can neither be created nor destroyed (Shu, 1982). If we consider this widely accepted scientific theory then we must come to the conclusion that man does not create, but instead manipulates his surroundings like stream will manipulate its landscape to “create” something as miraculous as a canyon. Like rain we humans are nothing more than a part of a system. This system may be vastly complicated and very intricate but it is explainable based on factual evidence.
An important argument in support of this Watchmaker Theory is as follows: The complexities of the universe only can work in one way just as a watch will only tick if configured correctly. However, the word “work” is a term used to refer to something that has a certain function assigned to it by man. A clock for example does not work when it does not tell time. If a clock does not tell time it is nothing more than a collection of gears which has no intended purpose. If an item does not work we may say that it is broken, when in fact this “broken” item is merely an item which does not serve its intended purpose. We attempt to find ways to fix this problem, a problem that we created ourselves not understanding that a problem or even solution is merely a perspective. That it is to say that only something that is alive has this perspective; a stream does not see forming a canyon as a solution to some sort of problem. A stream will follow the quickest most energy efficient pathway to the sea based on the laws of gravity. This is based on the laws of the system it is contained within (Shu, 1982). If the laws of the system were different, this stream would work in the best possible way for this different system. This stream is not a closed or isolated system (Merritts, Wet, & Menking, 1998). If you take an isolated system such as the universe you can apply the same rules. The only difference is that in an isolated system such as the universe the laws will never change because by definition there is no outside force that can act upon it (Merritts, Wet, & Menking, 1998).
There is no such thing as a problem or solution because everything that works, works because everything else exists and works in harmony with it. If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, Shu, (1982) than it has always existed and everything has always worked. And if this is true than gravity, which is determined by the mass of matter, has always been a law. Therefore if gravity has always been a law then the universe has always worked under the laws of gravity. Because this is true, anything that exists in the universe has always been subject to gravity and has always worked according to the laws of gravity (Shu, 1982). Thus if gravity which is one of many laws that has always worked and is affected by mass and matter, we can conclude that all other laws that are subject to mass and matter must also have always been true. Therefore if these laws have always worked, and have always been in existence then there is no need to explain the complexities of existence and for that matter assume some sort of being created the universe.
For the secondary premise explaining the existence of god we will take a look at C.S. Lewis’s Argument from Reason. C.S. Lewis summarizes his argument with the statement, “If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees (Lewis, 1942).” This argument can be taken apart and examined very easily using Lewis’s own argument against him. His argument states very simply that because he cannot comprehend that reason can come from purely physical processes that reason cannot come out of purely physical process and therefore must be proof of a rational designer. As we know, reason, which is an abstract representation of the organization of stimuli, can come from purely physical processes which can be seen in any example of mind altering chemical reactions. Take for instance the effects of the outside stimulus, alcohol on the brain. The way alcohol affects the brain is it limits cognitive capacity of an individual and makes them react based on the most pressing stimuli in their environment which is usually not reason but a more physical and primal desire (Grant, 2005). A genetic example of this is Down syndrome which is characterized as “different degrees of developmental disabilities, developmental delay, and developmental brain abnormalities associated with CNS maturation delay and cortical dysgenesis (Wisniewski, 2005).” This change in the reasoning and development of a person is caused by physical differences in genetics; if this is true than reasoning obviously is a product of physical processes just as the sound caused by wind moving through trees is a product of physical processes. These are not the only products though; beauty, love, lust, color, musical taste, and all other abstract ideas are our interpretation of the chemical reactions that are physically taking place in our brain.
Next we will focus on the impossibility of miracles. In every religion there is some form of miraculous belief that must be taken completely on faith. The definition of a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are laws because they are taken from experiments done nature that have been performed countless times with the same conclusion. And thus “the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happens in the common course of nature (Reilly, 2007).” If we can agree that the logic of this statement is valid and flawless, then we can see that miracles are impossible by their very nature and thus no miracles have ever been performed before.
Through the evidence that has been presented you can come to the reasonable conclusion that God does not exist as anything more than a idea created by humans. The historical evidence that our basis for God was based on pre-scientific beliefs for that which we could not explain. The next piece of evidence in the argument against a God is the scientific law that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. A system such as our universe where matter and energy is constant is an isolated system, once again showing that no outside forces, such as a God, can influence our universe. The next piece to disproving the existence of God is drawn from the misinterpretation of abstract ideas, such as reasoning, as nonphysical. And the last piece to the puzzle in disproving God’s existence is the inability for a miracle to occur within the bounds of nature. When all of these are taken into account it is much easier to understand how illogical the belief in God is as anything more than an idea.
Grant, N. K. (2005). Can Alcohol Lead to Inhibition or disinhibition? Applying Alcohol Myopia to Animal Experimentation. Alcohol and Alcoholism, Retrieved n.d., from http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/5/373
Lewis, C. S. (1942). The Weight of Glory. (p. 193-193). San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco.
McGrath, A. E. (2007). Christian Theology: An Introduction. In Sources and Methods (p. 250-251). Chicago, IL: Blackwell Publishing Limited. Retrieved Nov. 5, 2009, from http://books.google.com/books?id=ZKHwv4JCLTkC&pg=PA250&dq=william+paley+teleological+argument&ei=orjySr_pNaGslATa5YHsAw#v=onepage&q=william%20paley%20teleological%20argument&f=false
Merritts, D. J., Wet, A. D., & Menking, K. (1998). Environmental Geology: An Earth System Science Approach. In The Concept of Systems(p. 31-32). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Reilly, K. (2007). Worlds of History Volume Two: A Comparative Reader: Since 1400. In 6. Enlightenment and Revolutions (Vol. two, p. 196-196). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Russell, M. D. (2005). Mortuary practices at the Krapina Neandertal site. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 72(3), 381-397. Retrieved Nov. 5, 2009, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110486729/abstract
Shu, F. H. (1982). The physical universe: an introduction to astronomy. InThe Great Laws of Macroscopic Physics (p. 62-62). Sausalito, CA: University Science Books. Retrieved Nov. 5, 2009, fromhttp://books.google.com/books?id=v_6PbAfapSAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Wisniewski, K. E. (2005). Down syndrome children often have brain with maturation delay, retardation of growth, and cortical dysgenesis. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 37(S2), 274-281. Retrieved Nov. 5, 2009, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110520285/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
More by this Author
Reading and Writing with Elliot I am not really sure where to start. Since there is not too great deal in pile up in my life or early days related to my past and development in writing. I guess I could focus more...