Logical Take on Theism

The essence of my argument is that God does not exist, and that this can be proved from a logical perspective. It can also be argued that, while the logical perspective is often denounced as inadequate for ‘spiritual’ questioning, it is nevertheless the only truly objective measure of truth. Everything my senses tell me could well be a lie; but I have to give them the benefit of the doubt as I have no real reason to suspect so, and to distrust them is not going to gain me anything.

Likewise, the reasoning of fundamental logic (if A /= B, B cannot equal A) might well be false when talking about God. Yet I have no reasons to suppose, while describing all the workings of the universe*, they are wrong about this one particular issue.

First of all, some definitions that should be taken as a starting point:

1 – Omnipotence is defined in many phrases, but almost invariably as unlimited power. I will use the slightly more mathematical term ‘infinite’. The power of an omnipotent being is infinite.

2 – God is an omnipotent being. I use the singular God here as a catch-all, but this applies to any monotheistic religions and typical polytheistic ones.

3 – God is everywhere at all times, so we can assume God is present in all points of time and space. This is only a general feature of omnipotence, but can be proved in other means anyway (see below).

In order for an individual to exist, it must have a point of view. This does not literally mean an opinion on matters. It is simply required to have a point of reference. If a being were to have complete and utter knowledge of everything, everywhere, at all times, the effect would be to cancel itself out and have no viewpoint whatsoever. This is not as theoretical as it sounds. Regardless of what form it exists in, a mind without questions becomes a library. Our viewpoint is defined by what we know against what we don’t know. All purposeful thinking activity occurs with the end result of acquiring some form of information. Without that need, no thinking would occur.**

If God exists at all points of space and time, it is impossible for it to have a personality. You can derive from the assumptions made that all individuals have a viewpoint in the universe (based on what they do and don’t know), and that there is nothing that God does not know (ie. all-knowing). Therefore, a being of omnipotence is incapable of thinking like an individual, ie. with an ‘agenda’ or motive of any kind, as these are direct manifestations of the will of an individual.

This makes perfect sense; what possible needs could a being of infinite power have? We have to closer examine what it is that makes people act. People’s actions come from choices, which in turn come from intentions, which arise from needs/desires. Without those, there is neither Will nor Action. The alternative to this is of course that God has no agenda or purpose, the ‘God without a plan’. In which case, what you have in fact discovered is the endless power of probability. Congratulations!

Assuming you’re still following, and refute the solution of a God of pure Chaos, you may take issue with the fact that God is everywhere at every moment in the universe, asserting that “God is not ‘everywhere’, in fact. It merely could be if it wanted to”.

This presents a problem. From Point 1, we’ve already established that God’s power is infinite. Consider that infinite power must require the potential for infinite energy. Apart from the barrage of physics nightmares such a prospect entails, the entire energy in the universe throughout all time cannot exceed infinity; as the notion of infinity plus anything is a mathematical obsurdity. Therefore, the energy/matter of an omnipotent being requires no less than all the possible energy of the entire existence of the universe. As such, God would in fact BE the universe. Q.E.D.***

Another alternative to this is to say that God is outside the universe. However, I think proponents of this idea like it because it is a blank slate for insubstantial theories based on the idea that there is a ‘big huge nothing’ beyond the already unimaginable boundries of the universe. Yet this is another fine example of the theistic fallacy of invoking one mystery to pseudo-solve another. When I talk of ‘universe’, I am referring to it in the classical sense. And by that, I mean all things that exist. There is nothing outside the classical universe, by its very definition, because it includes any and all things that exist. There cannot be anything beyond it, because if it were it would be part of it.

So, if we ‘downgrade’ this God from omnipotence to simply a super-powerful being, do they become more feasible? Well, I must draw attention to the fact that we’re now talking about alien intelligence. Granted, immensely powerful, maybe trans-dimensional. But, not true Gods in the theistic sense of the term. Our calling them God and worshipping of them would be a result of our relative levels of technology and understanding of the cosmos, as opposed to some fundamental meaning of the way the universe works.

And that’s no way to form a philosophy, now is it?

(*) Thus far, obviously. Atheism does not claim we know everything already.
(**) If it did, it would only be meaningless random signals.
(***) Going back again to Point 3. If God == The universe, they therefore are not an individual, have no agenda, and as such are mere probability.

1 thought on “Logical Take on Theism

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.