human beings have always looked at the world and asked why we want to know where we came from why we are here, and what happens when we die. for thousands of years religion has provided answers to these questions. it offers comfort, community and a sense of purpose. however when we look at religion not through the lens of comfort but through the lens of logic, science and the way the universe actually functions, we run into fundamental problems.
to say religion is an impossible concept is to say that the core claims of religion contradict the basic rules that govern our reality. here is an exploration of why, when we break it down into simple, logical steps, the concept of religion falls apart. now lets jump to the topic.
1. the problem of definition and contradiction
the first major issue is that there is not just one religion. there are thousands. every single one of them claims to be the truth. if religion a says the sun is a god, and religion b says the world was created by a turtle they cannot both be correct. when you have thousands of different belief systems that all contradict each other, logic tells us they cannot all be right.
the problem of the first cause. a core pole of most religions is a creator. religions argue that everything must have a cause=> so the universe must have a first cause. however this argument immediately destroys itself. if everything needs a cause then god must also have a cause. if you say god does not need a cause then you are breaking your own rule.
2. the god of the gaps fallacy
historically, religion was used to explain things we did not understand. as humans developed science, we started finding the real answers. today though religion lives in the gaps of our knowledge. saying god did it is a logical dead end and heres why: our universe works on predictable physical laws. religion states that the world is ran by a conscious mind BUT if a god were constantly interfering then the laws of nature would be messy. instead, we see a universe that acts like a machine.
3. the moral argument
many people say religion is necessary for morality. however, true morality comes from empathy. we do not need a holy book to know that hitting someone or stealing is wrong. by the way, morality is philosophical. we live in a world where we ourselves manufactured morality..as well for good and evil. i'm insane? take a look: to us or to a sheep the concept of eating grass is normal and the wolf who eats the sheep is the attacker. but ever bothered to ask the grass who the attacker is? to the grass, the wolf is a protector and the sheep is an aggressor. so suddenly the morality ledger tilts.
4. contingence is a simple idea
it means that something depends on something else to exist. if you look at the universe everything in it is contingent. some people try to use this to prove there is a god arguing that there must be a first cause that did not need anything else. however, this fails because it creates a double standard. if you claim god can exist without a cause, you can just as easily claim that the universe itself exists without a cause. jumping to it must be a god is not a logical conclusion haha it is just a guess.
the argument that an omnipotent god can bypass physical laws is often used when logic fails, but it creates two massive problems. first, it makes god useless for explaining reality. if god can change the rules at any moment those rules are not actually laws. second, the bypassing argument is a logical dead end. it is a way of saying the rules do not apply because i say they do not. claiming a god can bypass physics is not an argument. it is a confession that you have no evidence and that your theory does not match the real world.
ps for the stubborn on #4
when someone keeps saying "god can just ignore the laws of physics" then they have stopped trying to have a real conversation. call me names but the problem with this is that it makes it impossible to agree on anything. if someone claims that a god can change gravity or time whenever they want then we cant essentially trust anything we see. any fact or piece of evidence you show them can just be dismissed with, "oh well god made it look that way"
this makes their belief unfalsifiable. that is a big word that just means there is no way to prove them wrong. no matter what evidence you bring from science or the real world they will just say their god is above those rules. because there is no way to test their claim, it isnt really a logical argument anymore. it is just a story they have decided is true no matter what
first, it creates a double standard. theists claim that an infinite chain of events is impossible, yet they claim their god is eternal. if they can accept that a god can exist without a beginning then it is logically possible for the universe itself to be eternal. if they say "god is special and doesn't need a cause" then they have already admitted that something can exist without a start. at that point there's no logical reason to stop at a god. one could just as easily say the fundamental energy of the universe is the starting point.
second, there is the fallacy of composition. imagine a line of dominoes. every domino falls because it was hit by the one before it. you can explain why every single domino moved just by looking at the line. you don't need to jump outside the line to explain why the whole group is moving. the universe works the same way. if every part of the universe has a natural, physical explanation, the whole doesn't magically require a supernatural one.
i will struggle to bring more logical proof on this topic in the near future
Comments
Post a Comment