An Argument for Atheism ender wiggins In this essay I have been given the opportunity to write about and argue for my faith (or, more correctly, my lack of faith). I consider myself to be an atheist, specifically meaning that I do not believe in God or Gods (which is to say that I do not have Faith). But how does one define God? For the purposes of this essay I shall define God as such: Òthe being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universeÓ (in accordance with the traditional Christian definition). (Also let me point out, so as not to cause confusion, that I will refer to God as he throughout this essay.) It is my position, my thesis, that the belief in God is both illogical and unjustifiable. In addition, I assert that not only are there no tenable reasons for the existence of God, and that there are several good, positive arguments against the existence of God. This essay shall take time to go over these various arguments, as well as to expound upon my belief that God does not exist. To me, atheism is more than just non-belief in God; it is something far more significant than that. Indeed, it seems to me that atheism is the result of oneÕs habit of reasonable thinking. It appears to me that there is one major intellectual problem facing the world today: people are plagued with the senseless habit of accepting the most inane and foolish ideas even when there is no evidence to support these them (not to mention that they often do so in the face of conflicting evidence). This habit goes beyond (but does include) the belief in God: itÕs a product of our cultureÕs insatiable need to quickly and closed-mindedly make answers to lifeÕs mysteries. Hence, atheism is much more than a just an anti-religious movement. We non-believers strive to think analytically about the universe we have been presented with, and we make our conclusions on the basis of the visible evidence that is inherent to this universe. It is clear that no one can ever be truly certain about anything; the atheist, however, believes there is rational justification to hold the belief that God does not exist. (i.e., there are more logical reasons to believe that God does not exist than there are to believe he does.) In any debate where one side asserts the truth of a proposition, there is what is known as the burden of proof (the onus of proof). This principle states that the Òburden of proofÓ falls upon the person who asserts the truth of some proposition. For example, if I was to say to you that X is true, then I am responsible for providing you with some kind of reason for accepting that proposition. If I fail to provide you with any tenable reasons, then you are justified in rejecting my claim to the truth of X as erroneous and irrational. This principle applies directly to the debate about the existence of God. The theist claims that God exists, and is hence responsible for proving to me, within the realm of rational justification, that his assertion is correct. However, (as I will expound upon later) theists have yet to give any reasonable, justifiable argument for their assertion. I am not the one asserting the existence of anything; rather, I am challenging the theistÕs claims (and hence, I do not bear the burden of truth). The reasons the theist presents for the existence of God are numerous (I cannot possibly name and reply to all of them here), but they all have the same intrinsic problem. Once you get rid of all the verbosity that surrounds the ÒproofsÓ for God, the concept of God always turns out to be something that is unknowable. Since this being is Ôunknowable,Õ it can never be understood by man, and hence any attempts to conceptualize or demonstrate the existence of it is rationally impossible. You cannot discuss, much less prove, an ÔunknowableÕ thing; thus, the concept of God becomes philosophically meaningless and is therefore irrational. In addition to the arguments against the theistÕs claim of the existence of God, there are numerous arguments for the non-existence of God. One may ask whether itÕs possible to prove the non-existence of anything, much less God. The answer is yes. It is indeed possible to logically prove the non-existence of a thing if it is in inherent contradiction with itself. One common example of this principle is the idea of a Òsquare circle.Ó Obviously, no such object can ever exist; the two terms are incoherent and self-contradictory (making the Òsquare circleÓ non-existent and meaningless). The concept of God can likewise be refuted logically on grounds that it is inherently self-contradictory. Take for example the famed argument from evil. (Be sure to review my definition of God prior to reading this.) Look at all the gratuitous evil in the world around us; no one can possibly deny that people on earth suffer much affliction from disease, poverty, and other things. Is not God powerful enough to stop these atrocities? (If he cannot, then God is not all-powerful and hence the concept of God is self-contradictory.) But letÕs assume that God is powerful enough to stop the depravity. The question becomes: why doesnÕt he stop this affliction? Is it because he is not perfectly good, or maybe that he does not care about human beings? (This is not God; if God is not perfectly good, then again we see self-contradiction.) This is just one of the many numerous arguments for the non-existence of God; but, for the purpose of this paper this one argument will have to suffice. The above paragraphs show, within reasonable justification, that belief in God is illogical and irrational. The theist has the duty of proving that God exists, but he ultimately fails. Hence, I may reasonably believe the antithesis of his statement. Plus, I have provided reasonable arguments for the non-existence of God (even though it is unnecessary for me to do so). So, why then do people still believe in God? This seems to be a rather tough question, but to me the answer is quite simple. All too often, people fail to question what they believe. Indeed, in many cases, children are brought up in the beliefs of their parents. The young impressionable minds are like sponges; they soak in their parentsÕ doctrines and all to often they fail to question what was taught to them as young children later in their life. (This applies to both theists and atheists. As I said in paragraph 2, the idea of atheism is more than just non belief in God; it is the habit of reasonable thinking. I hold the child brought up in an atheist family just as responsible as the theist child to question what has been taught to him. I was brought up in a Christian family, yet I was able to see beyond my hereditary beliefs and question even the existence of God. And, as I have shown, the rational answer to the question ÒDoes God exist?Ó is No.) So how does one justify their belief in God then? They of course wonÕt explain their belief by means heredity (this would sound obviously stupid), nor can they base it upon evidence (because, as I have said, there is no tenable evidence). All to often, people base their beliefs on Faith. Fredrich Nietzsche defined faith as Ònot wanting to know what is true.Ó In many respects, I think Nietzsche hit this issue head-on. Faith seems to me to be a cop-out, an excuse to elude the need to think and evaluate the evidence. I would like, in closing, to make a quick summary of the points that I have brought up in this essay as an argument for my lack of faith. I first made clear that atheism is much more than just belief in the non-existence of God. In addition, I made the distinction between certainty and rational justification (insofar as that one must not be certain of something to hold a belief, as rational justification is plenty adequate). On the basis of these ideas (and the definitions of terms I provided), I set forth to analyze the case for GodÕs non-existence. I sufficiently and logically proved that (a) I am not responsible for proving the non-existence of God as this burden lies solely on the theist; (b) that the theists have yet to provide an infallible proof for the existence of God, and hence my disbelief in this justified rationally; and (c) that there are indeed ways to go about logically proving GodÕs nonexistence even though it is unnecessary for me to do so. The purpose of this essay was to establish and show the reasons for the beliefs I hold. My arguments contained herein may indeed be fallible; however, it seems logically sufficient to me that these arguments are strong enough to prove within reasonable justification that God does not exist.