50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:9-15

 50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:9-15

On the introductory page of your web-site you make the following statements. There are no qualifiers such as “In my opinion...” or, “I have heard it said....”. Rather, that which is offered is stated as fact.

"Billions of people attend millions of churches around the world to worship God.

Yet the God they worship is completely imaginary. Their belief represents a delusion.

It is easy to prove that God is imaginary. Start at the beginning...."

You then go on to offer 50 "proofs" that God does not exist. There is very little, if anything, original in what you offer; the same old arguments repeated yet again, as if by repetition they might somehow be endowed with an aura of truth. Unfortunately for you, this is not the case. Faulty reasoning will never successfully masquerade as truth so long as there are people willing to take the time to sincerely, and diligently, weigh the merits of the argument.

What I propose to do on the pages that follow is to take each one of the 50 arguments you offer on the web-site in question, and subject it to the critical analysis that it most certainly deserves. At this point, you should note that I myself am merely a layman, and not a trained theologian. In the end, this, I believe, works in my favor. After all, should I, an average man, be in any way successful at what I have set out to do, then will it  not also be needful for any who read my rebuttals,  to consider how much stronger an argument could be offered up by one who has been truly, and thoroughly trained in the art of Apologetics? In any case, just before we start looking at the 50 “proofs” offered on your site, let’s take a second look at the included pre-amble. 

I have no real problem with the opening phrase regarding the number of people who attend church (billions?), although I admit to at least a little curiosity about whence the data for the statement was derived. My own guess would place the actual number at closer to 1,000,000,000, though as I’ve just said, that’s only a guess, and no more substantiated than your flat statement of supposed fact. In any event, as I have already said, I really have no problem with the statement itself, since it basically supports a “believer’s” point of view that far from being alone in his search for God, he is rather, just one of a multitude of others similarly engaged, either independently, or as part of a group of like-minded people.

Regarding the second portion of the opening statement, I do indeed take exception. You state unequivocally: “Yet the God they worship is completely imaginary. Their belief represents a delusion. (Emphasis mine.)”  Upon reading the phrase “completely imaginary” my first instinct is to shout out “How do you know this? On what evidence is this claim based?”, but of course you would simply point to the 50 “proofs” that make up the substance of your site. That is why we, in just a little while, will begin to address each of those “proofs” individually.

As for the statement about all believers being “delusional”, let me say this. A delusion is basically a “false notion or belief”[1]. Before you can label a person as delusional, however, you must first prove that what that person has chosen to believe, is in fact, false. Otherwise, you, in all fairness, can only group the individual among those persons who hold an opinion on whatever the particular subject may be; an opinion that is at variance to what is believed by the one who is doing the labeling.

 A further definition, from a more specifically psychiatric point-of-view, will help to narrow the meaning of this word even more. A delusion is, “a fixed belief maintained in spite of all evidence from one’s own senses and the objective world that the belief is false.[2]” Since no one can state without a doubt what my senses are telling me, and since, I believe, it sometimes takes the use of more than the physical senses to interpret interaction with God, who Himself is not limited to the physical realm, one should be very careful about their use of the word “delusional” in describing another who is believing of something whose reality he identifies by his own senses. Added to this is the imperative that proof must be provided to a person showing the falsity of said beliefs. Only if the proofs are offered to, and then rejected by, the individual in question, can the charge of “delusional” even begin to have a basis in reality.

Finally, before we leave this particular point, let me mention one or two additional things regarding the definition of the word “delusion”; after which, we will move on to the question and answer with which you conclude your opening argument. Consider if you will, this entry on the subject, from Wikipedia:

“Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1913 book General Psychopathology.^[2] These criteria are:

• certainty (held with absolute conviction)
• incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
• impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)^[3]

Furthermore, when a false belief involves a value judgment, it is only considered as a delusion if it is so extreme that it cannot be or ever can be proven true (example: a man claims that he flew into the sun and flew back home. This would be considered a delusion). ^[4]

Now, my Christian beliefs, in many, but not all ways, meet the criteria of “certainty”. However, they do fail to meet the next two conditions laid out by Dr.Jaspers. What I believe about God is not “incorrigible”, but is in fact, quite fluid, and always changing. As I learn more and more everyday through that which I receive spiritually, as well as that which is gleaned from personal study and outside input, my understanding evolves, and matures; I “grow” in Christ. Show me substantiated evidence of whatever you will, and if acceptance of that which you show me warrants a modification in the things which I currently believe, then I will in fact, most likely comply, and suitably modify at least that portion of my spiritual beliefs that are affected by the new (and proven) information.

As for the last part of the above definition, I suggest that my spiritual beliefs do indeed involve “value judgements”, and I further suggest that not only myself, but, according to your own web-site “God Is Imaginary”, billions of others also believe these things (religious concepts) to be true, so in the end, we also fail to meet the third criteria regarding “falsity of content”. For as I mentioned earlier, if we, as believers, are unable to provide concrete evidence for matters of faith as being the absolute truth, neither can you, as an unbeliever, provide concrete evidence confirming that that which believers believe is definitely untrue, or false. Therefore, the belief I cling to can neither be proven true nor false, and I can’t be reasonably accused of being “delusional” at least until such time as you can support your argument with the same solid evidence that you claim I lack in support of my views. Until such time arrives as you can provide the necessary proof to the contrary, I have the agreement of a billion or more individuals that much, if not all, of the things I believe, are in fact true. I trust you’ll forgive me if I choose to believe the opinion of “billions” as opposed to the unsubstantiated claim of one individual. I believe it was a singer named Meatloaf who made the term “2 out of 3 ain’t bad” so popular a number of years ago. 

There are also two other points, in addition to my earlier comments regarding my belief in God, that must be considered before we move on any further; points that also pertain to the methods I will employ in my rebuttal of your claims. The first one, quite simply put, is that no one can truly instruct another on “how they must pray”. There can be no “right” way to pray since a prayer is basically a conversation with God, and each individual must pray in the manner that he/she deems appropriate, or feels moved to. Some people pray very casually, as though they were speaking to one of their closest friends and this is fine since God’s stated desire is to have fellowship with those He has created. On the other hand, some people pray in a very formal, even ritualistic, manner, and this type of prayer may be justified owing to the greatness and majesty of the One we pray to. No one can state that either method is “wrong” precisely because prayer is such a personal and intimate experience.

The second point adds some detail to another one of my earlier comments, specifically that everything I shall include here will be coming from the perspective of a Christian believer, since that is what I am. Furthermore, since you, on your website, have chosen to question so extensively the Christian Bible, I believe it is only a Christian believer that can in fact adequately answer your arguments. I would like to say, however, that even as a Christian believer, I am still first, and foremost, a “seeker of God”. As I mentioned earlier, this means my views on God are still developing, and as such, I do not in any way discount the views of others whose beliefs might differ from my own, but accept that our opinions are simply at variance with one another. Many of the things I have come to believe, I believe by faith, and lacking concrete proof of said beliefs, I accept that the time may come when one or more of those views may be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be wrong. I trust this in no way implies that I lack faith, but only speaks of my acceptance that a time might arrive when I have it proven to me that my faith was misplaced in a certain matter.

 So far, I am happy to say, no such time has arrived, at least not concerning any of my central beliefs.

With that being said, however, there still remains several “prerequisites”, if you will, that must be met before any prayer can produce the “effectiveness” that we all desire regarding the prayers we offer. In that which follows, it is these prerequisites that I am alluding to, and not the manner in which the prayer is prayed. I will support my belief in the existence of the stipulations in question with at least some of the Scriptures in which they are discussed.

So now let us consider the question and answer with which you bolster your opening argument for Proof #1. I’m taking it before going on to the details of the “proofs” of your position themselves (slightly out of the order which you used) simply because they are so silly that they don’t even serve a purpose other than to highlight the overblown sense of certainty of which you are so obviously possessed.

You ask, “Will anything happen?” (regarding a prayer you have suggested that people use as a means of proving God’s non-existence) and then reply to your own question with the flat-out statement, “No, of course not.” I will ask you a question in turn, “Are you omniscient?”  If not, how can you possibly state that nothing will, or has, happened (as a result of the prayer in question)? Any number of things might possibly have happened, anywhere, that you are simply not aware of. Is it not enough that in your arrogance you ask the Creator of the Universe to perform for you like a trained puppy dog? Must he also keep you informed as to every move He makes? I think its quite possible that you have mixed up the differences between the Creator, and the creatures which He created. At any rate, I see no reason to spend any more time on this particular matter, so let us move on to the “proofs”.

---

[1] “Gage Canadian Dictionary”, Gage Learning Corp., 1983, p.313

[2] “Gage Canadian Dictionary”, Gage Learning Corp., 1983, p.313