The Sequacity of God: Or why Atheism is Resasonalbe

Atheism, it seems to me, is the most reasonable conclusion to arrive at if one has thoroughly given their best, most honest, estimation of the available evidence.

Beyond this there are a series of basic objections to the God/god(s) concepts as commonly conceived. Because these conceptualizations often conform to predictable patterns they are, in all likelihood, demonstrative of an underlying sequacity.

I'll let you be the judge of whether or not God/god(s) are tenable concepts or not, but if you were in doubt, here are some of the strongest objections, in my opinion.

Philosophical Objections to God
1. Until God can properly demonstrated any description is, in point of fact, not describing anything real. Therefore, the term "God" becomes a meaningless definition for anything yet to be verified as extant. 

2. The definition "God" as used by most theologians and religious believers refers to a concept and describes the concept based on various competing conceptualizations. Contrary to popular opinion, the definitions of God which are commonly defended only seek to establish clear descriptions for those trying to better define a highly specialized concept. Most God-concepts are not compatible or are in conflict with one another.

3. God's presumed existence is based on unfounded a priori assumptions. As such, most any defense for such a God could only be circular and/or based on faulty premises.

4. A naturalistic universe can be adequately explained by science without invoking the idea of an all powerful being (i.e., God) and thus renders God irrelevant as a means to explain anything.

5. Attempting to explain unknowns by using God as a mysterious agency doesn't resolve the initial questions of why or how and so does not explain anything. "God did it" equates to a non-answer.

Empirical Objections to God
1. No vera causa for God.

2. Within the known universe there is no plausible reason to assume any external agency beyond the already established verae casae.

3. No independently verified metaphysical phenomena which could explain the natural world as observed.  

4. God as a 'casual agency' unnecessarily complicates our description of the known universe by supplanting an unknown event to describe a known event. Unless the prerequisites of 1~3 are first met, to invoke any unverified 'casual agency' as a cause would amount to a misunderstanding of the way the world works.

5. Based on 1~4 the First Cause argument is impotent.

Personal Objections to God
1. All God concepts reflect well-known aspects of human psychology and share enough similarities among themselves to suggest all God/god(s) concepts stem from the human imagination rather than represent any accurate description of something which exists within reality.

2. Basic analytical reasoning skills reveal all God/god(s) concepts to be equally sequacious. Theology, which involves highly intricate and sophisticated assumptions about the nature of God, is based on intricate and sophisticated 'demonstrations' which are used to lend credence to logically coherent conceptualizations. Even so, it is all manner of conjecture and very little, if any, fact. Arriving at an opinion or conclusion (about God) based on little more than incomplete and/or incorrect information, is the very definition conjecture, and which, in turn, is the very definition of theology. 

3. The probability of any metaphysical conjecture correctly describing anything within the physical universe diminishes to the point of being highly improbable as science continues to correctly describe the known physical universe.

4. There are too many practical and philosophical objections to God/god(s) concepts which do not strain our credulity, whereas nearly every rationalization for God strains our credulity to the point of being unbelievable. 

5. The only way to hold a belief in God/god(s) in the age of digital information is to be previously conditioned to do so, thereby allowing preconceived biases to interfere with one's ability to make objective and well reasoned conclusions. 


In the end, we must ask ourselves, what is the reason to believe in God? It doesn't seem to exist. 

If one invokes their religious beliefs, they have failed to provide an unbiased reason. If one invokes their personal experience, unless it can be verified as true (not the belief that the they had an meaningful experience but the experience itself), it cannot be used as a form of evidence. Saying our spiritual salvation is contingent upon God being real merely attempts to use religious derived themes to explain a religious derived problem. 

What then is the basic, universal, necessary reason to believe? Some say the warrant to believe, or the right to believe based on whatever reason, is enough to establish belief. Not so. It is merely a misguided defense of the right to believe dressed up as correct belief. But just because one has a right to believe something doesn't make that belief in any way, shape, or form correct. Thus the warrant to believe can only be seen by the thinking person as an appeal to conviction.

Convictions amount to little more than a type of emotional display. It is to say I believe because I want to believe, and is based on desire but not on any actual truths about the world or reality. Convictions, no matter how deeply felt, do not describe whether or not God is real. Feel free to believe all you want, if believing in things is your only goal. 

If you want real answers though, then you must to be willing to accept the fact that there are truths and falsehoods worth considering before you simply decide to believe, and knowing this we still cannot find any adequate reason to believe given our current understanding of things.

If you have any valid counter objections to these objections, I'd love to hear them. But I am confident that there isn't anything in the way of evidence to demonstrate these objections false, which is why I maintain that the atheistic position is the most reasonable. 


Popular posts from this blog

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic