There is no God

I wrote an article for On Line Opinion a couple of weeks ago asking "does God exist?" In a subsequent article, I gave feedback on the comments my first article elicited. The majority of the comments on the original were clearly 'for' the existence of a god. I did not fully believe these responses and have since researched the question more deeply– especially the thinking of those who argue for the existence of God. This is my conclusion:

There is no God. But Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ are very much worthwhile following

This is based on four pieces of evidence: (i) reading the works of those who argue for and against the existence of God (ii) the history of moral behaviour over many centuries , (iii) the teachings of Jesus Christ as best we know them, and (iv) that I have survived the Coronavirus pandemic (so far).

Many authors have argued for and against the existence of God. They include:

1. Socrates(c. 470 BC - 399 BC) and Plato (c.428-347 B.C.)

2. Aristotle (384–322 BC)

3. St Augustine (354 –430 AD)

4. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)

5. René Descartes (1596-1650)

6. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)

7. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716

8. Voltaire (1694-1778)

9. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 –1900).

10. Robert Spitzer (b. 1952),

11. Richard Dawkins (b. 1941)

Socrates(c. 470 BC - 399 BC)and Plato (c.428-347 B.C.) believed in many gods, as did all Greeks, not in only one god. These two philosophers are presented together because Socrates never put his thoughts down on paper. Instead, they are recorded in the dialogues of his student Plato, but we really do not know whose thoughts are whose. In Plato's Laws, he sets out two sides of a god: one for good and the other for evil. Read also his Euthyphro, a discussion that occurs in the weeks before the trial of Socrates (399 BC), between Socrates and Euthyphro. The dialogue covers subjects such as the meaning of piety and justice. To better defend himself in an upcoming trial for impiety, Socrates asks for a definition of piety (holiness) from Euthyphro, who is prosecuting for murder his father, who had killed a slave. Euthyphro offers Socrates four definitions. (i) what he is doing now, prosecuting his father; (ii) piety is what is pleasing to the gods; (ii) Socrates responds with "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious? Or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? Which causes Euthyphro to answer (iii) "What all the gods love is pious, and what they all hate is impious; (iv) Euthyphro 's final definition is : "Piety is an art of sacrifice and prayer.

Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)describes, in his Metaphysics, the unmoved mover as being responsible for the movement of the stars. This is a version of the often-repeated argument that someone, i.e, a god, had to create the world, the universe, and us.

St Augustine (354 – 430 AD) was bishop of Hippo in Algeria. He held that since God's governance is the universe which comprises a vast multitude of relatively independent individuals differing in nature, function, and end, a single supreme being is needed for continuous and unifying control.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274), an Italian and a Dominican friar, elaborated on the unmoved mover in five ways in his Summa Theologica. These are (i) there has to be a first cause – essentially the same argument as that of Aristotle (ii) the arguments from motion (there has to be a principal moving cause), (iii) from contingency (what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time), (iv) from degree (everything has a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like, and (v) the ultimate in all these is God.

Baruch Spinoza (1632 –1677) established that whether or not there is a god has important implications for what we know about the world, and about how we should live. He believed the greatest contentment we can experience in this life comes from our knowledge – which in turn comes from understanding God's attributes. The more we understand things this way, the less troubled we will be by strong emotions and the less we will fear death. In short he believed in a god, who was a positive contribution.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646 –1716) Leibniz's proof of God can be summarized from his Théodicée in which he proposed the origin of the universe as a part of his argument for the existence of God:'It is known as the Leibniz Contingency Argument, or the Leibniz Cosmological Argument (a study of the origins of the cosmos, or universe). The logic of the argument, repeated on many occasions, is:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

Again, it is a restatement of Aristotle's argument

Friedrich Nietzsche. (1844 – 1900) was responsible for the statement 'God is Dead'. Nietzsche used the phrase to express his idea that the Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God. The concept has a long history, but essentially is the emergence of human history from the dogmatic beliefs prior to the French Revolution,

Voltaire(1694 –1778), spent more time considering objections to the above proofs. He did not believe in a god who personally involved himself in people's lives, like the Christian god. This type of belief is termed Deism. Voltaire believed that that god is a First Cause responsible for the creation of the universe, but that he (it?) does not interfere directly with the world. Observation of the natural world is sufficient to determine the existence of a creator.

Robert Spitzer(b. 1952), a Jesuit priest, offers 'new' proofs for the existence of God in his book titled New Proofs for the Existence of God. The subtitle is Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. The claim for this book is that it provides "solid grounding for reasonable and responsible belief in a super-intelligent, transcendent, creative power standing at the origins of our universe". Fr. Spitzer is president of the Magis Centre, an organisation whose five part mission is to restore (i) belief in God, (ii) the transcendent dignity of every human person, (iii) the significance of virtue, (iv) the higher levels of happiness, love, and freedom and (v) the real presence of Jesus Christ. I have no problems with any of these except the belief in God.

But I am quite ready to say that none of the above writers asserting that there is a god have had any direct contact with God, nor do they know of anybody who has. Plato, a revered thinker for over 2000 years, has no knowledge of nor contact with his many gods. They are a figment of his imagination and of his fellow Greeks.

Then come miracles. I have problems with miracles. The dictionary definition is "an extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers." In short, they are contrary to scientific fact.

Richard Dawkinsagrees, at least twice, in "When Religion Steps on Science's Turf", in Free Inquiry (1998) and in "Science Discredits Religion." He points out several areas where science and religion conflict; mostly in that science tells us that miracles are not possible

Of the books that have been critical of Darwinian evolution in recent years, Michael Denton's Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis stands out. A review of this book is on the Discovery website. Discovery is described on Google as a "politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design."

A dictionary definition of intelligent design will tell you that it is "the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity. In other words, it is an argument for the existence of god." I am prepared to accept the Big Bang as God. Along with evolutionary theory, But I am afraid that I cannot love them, nor can I pray to them. Nor do I believe that they love me, as stated in 1 Corinthians 13:13, 1 John 3:1, 1 1 John 4:7. 7 ,1 John 4:8. 8.

Moral behaviour over the centuries gives us an insight into this question. One respondent to my article made the comment: "What a joke for the author to say the church opposes good changes in our world!". This is a bit of a conundrum, as the article clearly states: "the churches… do much good." It was not elaborated enough, but any observer has only to look around their community to locate hospitals, old peoples homes, even soup kitchens run by the various Christian churches. But do those practices suggest the existence of god? I suggest, no.

He put in an OLO article a few months back Building a more moral world. It advocated "Do no harm, help others" as an overriding moral guideline. Such an injunction is outlined in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Parable of the Good Samaritan supports it completely, as, to a large extent, does the Sermon on the Mount.

My further investigations since that article was written have unearthed that "Do no harm, help others" is a moral guideline that goes back 3000 years. The Book of Proverbs was written about 970 to 931 BC during the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon, as depicted in the Hebrew Bible.

Proverbs 3: 27 Never walk away from someone who deserves help

Proverbs 3:29 Do not plot harm against your neighbour, who lives trustfully near you.

This near 3000-year-old precept is near enough the same wording as the current Dalai Lama's "Help others, at least don't hurt them".

The concept of help others, do not harm them, or ahimsa, in the eastern religions – Hinduism and the Jains, also overlaps with the four Western philosophies outlined in the original article.

The Bible is one of several sources for a similar rule:

Matthew 7:12:In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:31: And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them.

This is a form of the Golden Rule.

One final reason for proposing the "Do no harm, help others" as a universal guideline is the multitude of social developments achieved over history. The abolition of slavery, the ending of duelling, the abolition of foot binding, stopping the imprisonment or even the execution of homosexuals, the acceptance of gay marriage, to the introduction of social welfare programs – sickness, old age and unemployment benefits, have all been aimed at relieving a harm that was then being experienced. It should be noted that every one of these improvements over history has also been opposed by people who wished to retain the status quo; either because they were financially disadvantaged by the change (such as slave owners or traders) or because of a natural conservatism – a reluctance to change traditional practices (foot binding, duelling)

This is not to say that Christianity has been pure and innocent over the centuries. As on comment notes:

"Christianity has a history of killing those who don't believe in the present doctrine of whoever has the power at the time. EG; The Religious Wars of the 13th to the 15th Centuries. Caused by Protestants, I believe."

But on the whole, the teachings of Jesus Christ, as best we can discover them from the Gospels, have been for the good of the world. And they do reflect moral teaching that had then already existed for 1000 years. Christ must have been an inspired teacher.

But he was not God. Nor was he son of God. The reason why the gospels claimed him as such was that his followers had to compete with the then Roman emperor at the time – the divine Augustus, Divi Augusti. Most Roman emperors called themselves gods, Julius Caesar included, as did the Egyptian Pharaohs. Even Alexander the Great called himself a god. The apostles had to be up there if their candidate was to outdo the Roman emperor at that time who had made the claim that he was the son of god.

The claim was a powerful one. Christianity now has 2.1 billion followers. Closely followed, in number of followers, by Facebook.

The final question, then, that we must ask is if God does not exist, then why did the human race invent him (or them)?. There would appear to be three reasons, One is fear of death, A book by Ernest Becker The Denial of Death, which won the 1974 Pulitzer Prize, argues that we are afraid of death. He may be right in this statement. The history of our race and the search for immortality, since the time of Gilgamesh, (who ruled Mesopotamia sometime between 2800 and 2500 BC and was posthumously deified) is proof. This history may also be the reasons why many religions have created a life after death (we need a god to do this). I believe that there are three additional reasons: (i) our need for help during those difficult moments in our lives. This need requires that we can appeal to someone powerful enough to provide that help. (ii) Earthquakes and thunderstorms. If you have ever felt an earthquake rumble several miles underneath your feet, you have to come to a belief in powerful gods. This reason, especially in the years before we knew what caused earthquakes, is possibly why Hades was thought of as part of the underworld. Hades, in ancient Greek religion and myth, is the god of the dead and the king of the underworld. A violent and distant thunderstorm probably created the same belief. Finally (iii) is the need of the apostles to promote a religion which is on par with the then Roman emperor, who titled himself Son of God, and many other emperors before and after who claimed to be gods.

The final reason for this claim is that I am writing this article. If readers go back to the original article they will see why the fact that I am still alive; that I haven't caught the coronavirus, was used to support the claim that there is no god, The original article stated if God does exist and is annoyed by this OLO opinion writer denying his existence, then He (She or It) is given permission to use the current Armageddon affliction to stop the writer in his tracks. He hasn't taken up the challenge to date.

This is not an idle wager. Margaret Court's church, which was founded by Court in 1995, believes they are safe from the coronavirus. Full believers, it would appear, are safe. So, it would appear, is this writer, Maybe god does not read On Line Opinion, or maybe I am still on his "to do" list, but I have survived the challenge (so far).