On The Existence of God
You say you don’t believe in magic right? You think that elves and trolls and unicorns are all fairytales? You don’t believe in monsters, vampires, werewolves, yetis or trolls? Well neither do I!
But wait, you believe in God? That’s a bit odd, don’t you think?
Most people are quite rational about the nature of the real world, at least here in Australia, and look to history and science for facts about people, the world and the universe. And yet when it comes to the idea of faith, there’s plenty of room for magic, miracles, and God. The thing is, they are the same thing. Once upon a time people used to explain away the unknown by giving them a human face. The lightning was caused by gods who were angry, volcanoes erupted because they were upset, storms happened because of fighting seamonsters, witches caused illness, and the sun was a chariot driven by a god across the sky every day. If I told you that I believed all these things to be fact, you would think I was delusional. God is the same as these explanations. I don not believe in any of the historical gods, and I don not believe in the god that is currently popular.
“We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” – Richard Dawkins
Objectors to the above quote will say “But you trivialise the one true God by comparing him to the god of stone-age fancy.” The problem with this argument is that in order for a person to claim that the god they follow is the one true God they too are refuting all the other gods, and thereby live by exactly the same premise, excepting of course their own God. I’ve also read in refutations of this quote that this trivialisation of God is not a fair comparison, because the God they are talking about is not simply a personification of aspects of being like Zeus, or Thor, but being itself. As Edward Feser explains it “Neither does (God) “have” power, knowledge, goodness, and the like; rather, He is power, knowledge, and goodness,” as if this makes the worship of God any more logical, or the existence of God any more plausible. (He also claims that one can’t make a serious criticism of religion without knowing everything about religious tradition, a straw-man claim if ever I saw one. The traditions of a people makes NO difference to the argument of the existence of God, and to say that I have no grounds to stand on because I haven’t studied every historical religious writing is just blurring the argument by hoping to whitewash it with too many trivialities.)
Regardless of how you describe your God and how you decide to define your God, the fact remains that there is no evidence that this God-creator exists. If you tell me, like Feser would have you believe, that god “…is power, knowledge and goodness,” you’d better be able to back that up with observable facts. There is no evidence, not one shred, that this definition of God is any more plausible than the idea of a God sitting on a cloud playing a harp or whatever your fancy may be.
The more we know about the workings of the universe, the less room there is for God. Any god. Yours included.