Prologue

As an agnostic, I have for years listened to several of my non-believing brethren engage theists in debate regarding the existence or non-existence of a god. In these debates, atheists of course take the position that there is not now nor has there ever been a god; and theists defend the opposite view. Now, to me, this is a waste of time and I very much wish that my fellow non-believers would cease their participation in these rhetorical displays as they are a trap. Truth of the matter is, that while a god very likely may not exist, this is a fact which cannot be verified. A skilled atheist can demonstrate that the existence of a god is not and was not necessary to explain our existence, but ultimately proof that one actually does not exist cannot be found (by definition one cannot disprove the existence of a non-physical entity that exists in a reality outside of our own). Again, being able to prove that the inclusion of a god is an unnecessary component in explaining our existence and that of our universe effects nothing; as the skilled theist will argue that while Occam's Razor is effective in cutting away the fat, its imprecise use can also lead one to inadvertently cut away the meat as well. They will argue to good effect that our knowledge of physicality grants us with no examples of matter creating itself (if one excludes the origin of the universe from consideration); furthermore, matter can not result in the creation of additional matter without being reduced itself in an amount equal to the resulting matter. Therefore, they would argue, for the universe to have come into existence it would require the involvement of an agent or force that is exempt from the laws of physicality. Of course, their particular god is assumed to be the afore mentioned agent or force. Now neither side can come to agreement as to whether or not this argument actually holds water, and ultimately it comes down to this: one of two things happens to be the case: A) The physical universe (or universes) either exists in and of itself or B) there exists or existed a non-physical entity that resides in some reality other than our own and has or had both the ability and desire to create our universe. Now, based upon our experiences and observations, both are completely impossible; however one of them had to have happened. If one denies one of these possibilities based upon the fact that it could not (to our knowledge) have occurred; then they must affirm an equally impossible alternative. Now is the truth of god's existence as simple as a flip of a coin? Of course not, but of these alternatives one is 100% true while the other is 100% false; and most likely that question is never to be answered, and of course if it is ever answered then it would be in the affirmative (i.e. a god does exist). Now, the problem is that in debates with theists, there is no such thing as a tie as they feel no need to prove god's existence and are content in assuming that in the absence of 100% proof to the contrary, a god does exists...again, specifically their god. In other words, to the theist, god exists because you cannot prove he does not. Literally, for some theists short of observable evidence of god's non-existence (impossible by definition) there is no method of argument that will convince them that a god does not exist and again to them our quote “failure” to prove that god does not exist is viewed as evidence for its existence. Sadly, the chattel that make up the substantial majority of their faiths see things the same way, and that in observing that the atheist was unable to prove to a 100% degree of certainty that god does not exist their faith is strengthened. Thus I argue, that we should not feel compelled to engage in such arguments in the future, but rather we should concentrate our efforts in proving that their specific god does not exist; a far easier task in my opinion. Obviously, no theists argues for the existence of a god that is not theirs and by arguing that the universe had to have a creator they of course assume that their god is this creator. But there is a substantial difference between being able to prove that the universe was created and that this creator is in fact the god of their particular faith. For too long, we non-believers have been debating the wrong side of this argument. Let them have their creator, we cannot convince them otherwise; but we can prove, in my opinion, that this creator is not their god. It is this very goal that I will dedicate my next several episodes to: proving that the god of Christianity is in fact a lie. Now, given the enormity of the efforts that have preceded mine, I must admit from the start that there is likely little original left to be said on the subject; none-the-less, I am going to go forward in the effort to give my take on the best arguments against Christianity.