Gods Don't Exist Because Gods Can't Exist

Atheism refers to the lack of theistic belief. Someone who doesn't believe in gods is an atheist. Not believing in gods isn't always the same as being 100% certain that they don't exist. There is some wiggle room here, and it reflects the diversity among atheists. Some prefer not to make any claims about gods not existing. Others reject theism in a more active way, arguing that gods don't exist. For me, it is often enough to say that there are probably no gods. I don't know whether they exist, but I find it more likely that they do not.

But it hasn't always been this way. Believe it or not, views can change over time even within a single atheist! Atheists who argue that gods don't exist often claim that this is because they can't exist. This position has long intrigued me. If a god can't exist, then it doesn't exist. This was a position I embraced for more than a few years. Even though I'm less sure about it today, I still find much of it appealing. I thought I'd try to unpack it a bit here.

What is a god?

Suppose I asked you, "Do you believe in gods?" To give a meaningful answer, you'd need to know what I meant by "gods." If you assumed I meant something other than what I meant, we'd end up talking past each other. And consider how much more important this would be if I specified one god in particular. What is this god? What sort of properties does it have? We'd need to be on the same page about what this god was before my question or your answer would make any sense.

One of my favorite books on atheism is George Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God. In it, he argues that all modern views of monotheistic gods have two commonalities. First, god is supernatural. This has to be the case, doesn't it? For something to do everything this god has done, how could it be anything else. Second, god is unknowable. At least, such a being would have to be unknowable to we feeble-minded humans. Smith then poses an interesting question. Can a being with these properties exist?

Saying a being is supernatural tells us almost nothing about the being. We know that it is different from natural beings in some way. But we have learned nothing about what it is. If a child asks me what a horse is, and my reply that a horse is a being without wings, how helpful have I been? In the same way, attempting to define god with the attribute of "supernatural" tells us little.

Far worse, the notion of a supernatural being seems incomprehensible. We know of nothing that exists outside of nature. And if it exists outside of time and space, how is that different from something that doesn't exist? It isn't clear that we can even entertain such notions. But when it comes to a god, we learn that this is okay. Such a being is unknowable, beyond the grasp of human understanding.

Many religious believers proclaim that no human can know the mind of god. "God works in mysterious ways." Whatever plan a god might have, we humans cannot understand it. These claims fail to tell us anything about what god might be. But it gets worse. They also tell us that attempts to understand are likely to be futile.

Does a being like this make sense? Can you worship something without knowing what it is? Part of why I am skeptical about gods is that this undefined and unknowable entity makes no sense to me. I have yet to encounter a concept of god that does not strike me as incoherent. I don't know how to believe in something that has no definition. I don't know how to believe in something that lacks coherent properties.

For a belief in a god to be meaningful, I'd need to know that believing in it differed from believing in nothing. Hearing that it is supernatural and unknowable does not help. This makes me think that it isn't different from nothing.

Where's the evidence?

But what about evidence? In all cases of belief but one, we expect evidence to justify belief. Without it, we label a belief as "irrational," and we don't see that as a virtue. The one exception is in matters of religion. No other sort of belief claim gets an exemption from this evidentiary requirement. But such an exemption is mandatory when dealing with something supernatural and unknowable. How can we not recognize this as a serious problem?

Believers refuse to commit to a consistent definition of god. This allows them to change the rules at will. "Well, that might be evidence against that sort of god, but that isn't the god I believe in." Never mind that many appear to have little idea what the god they claim to believe in is.

I see no reason to grant an exception for the requirement of evidence. And when I am asked to believe in something vague and unknowable, I want even more evidence. How could I even know if I believed in this unknowable entity existing outside of nature in the first place?

But what about my (Christian) god?

Humans have (and still do) believe in many different gods. Why do I always seem to choose the Christian one? It is the one with the most influence on the culture around me. This concept of god seems to suffer from the same problems I noted above plus a few more.

I see no reason to believe in this sort of god. I don't need to claim that I know it doesn't exist. For me, it is enough to conclude that it is more probable that it does not exist.

Without a clear definition, I wouldn't know what I was trying to believe in. Being told that this is okay because it is unknowable doesn't help. And there's not enough evidence for such a belief to be rational. It is true that no human should claim to be 100% rational, and I won't. What I will claim is that I try. And that is one thing keeping me from god-belief.

"The absence of evidence does not equate disproof of existence!"

That's fair, and I'll even agree. But a lack of evidence does make non-existence seem more likely. And if we combine a lack of evidence with assertions that the concept is unknowable and outside of nature, what then? The whole thing seems improbable at best.