- Knows all of the deeds of his creations, and thus is the only person fit to judge his creations
- Will cast guilty souls into Hell
- Will take righteious souls to Heaven
Given this definition of God and the definition of the Universe, one can logically deduce whether God is or is not. We will follow, among other ideas, the stipulation made by Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle through his literary creation Sherlock Holmes:
"That process starts upon the supposition that when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. It may well be that several explanations remain, in which case one tries test after test until one or other of them has a convincing amount of support." (The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes: The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier).
This process is logically sound, and can be relied upon to provide a solution in the question of Gods being.
Each and every one of the points described in the definition of God must pass scrutiny in order for the God defined above to exist. In reading the above breakdown of what constitutes God, three easily testable statements about him are that he is perfect; that he created the Universe and that he is all-powerful.
Perfection
It is said that God is perfect. If this is the case, he cannot have flaws. He has no needs. Nor can he have any wants, for to suggest otherwise implies that he is not satisfied with his current state. Dissatisfaction is a product of imperfection, thus a perfect God would be totally satisfied with a static existence; that is to say, he would change nothing.
Yet, according to our definition, he changes everything. He creates. He spends six days doing so. Granted that to a timeless being six days would be instantaneous, but still, he is not static. This is a contradiction. An all-powerful being that neither needs nor wants to change does not change. Therefore, either God is not perfect, or he did not create the Universe.
In the latter case, either the Universe does not exist at all (a statement which we have strong reason to doubt is true) or the Universe came about without the aid of God. In either case, Gods existence becomes irrelevant; He has no importance to us for our existence, nor does our existence matter to him. Also, an unchanging, perfect being wouldn't be bothered by us at all (no interventions on his behalf, since he is satisfied with everything as it is).
In the former case, it was an imperfect being that created the universe. This point can be further illustrated by what God creates. He creates servants. All three monotheistic faiths considered here claim their members as Gods faithful servants. Yet a perfect being would need no servants, even if he created them, and the servants would soon find themselves with nothing to do. Their existence would be pointless.
Further still, God need not instill free will upon his servants. They need only be automations. They need not even be self-aware. Why would they be granted self-awareness, then? Why would they be granted the ability to disobey? Does god require some means to alleviate boredom, so he grants us an ability to be unpredictable? If God is omniscient, there is no such thing as unpredictability. Also, a perfect god would need no alleviation from boredom. Does God want his creations to entertain him with their conflicts? That again suggests a desire, and also adds maliciousness to Gods personality, which suggests a fault. A perfect being has no faults.
Thus, we have disproved the first supposition in the definition of God. The being cannot be both perfect and the creator. Since we have disproved a part of the definition, the whole definition is at fault. The being described cannot exist. God cannot exist.
Summary
* It is impossible that a perfect God would bother with creating or interfering with the Universe.
* It is impossible for God to be both perfect and creator.
Creator
In an effort to save God from non-existence, let us say, for the moment, that disproving one part of the definition simply refines the definition so that God can exist without being subject to that part of the definition. That is to say, once a part is disproved, it is dropped, and we redefine God to suit the remaining points in the old definition. God is no longer both perfect and creator, but he could still be the creator of the Universe without being perfect. Let us examine this point.
Looking at the definition of the Universe, we see that there are three definitions for the term Universe. The first definition is that the Universe is all that exists. That is to say, if it isnt part of the Universe, it cannot exist. We will ignore the second and third definitions of the Universe, which define the term as meaning the Earth and the human race, respectfully. We can dismiss the third right away since there is more to the monotheistic interpretation of the Universe than the human race. The second can also be rejected, as there was more to the monotheistic Universe that just the Earth. According to the book of Genesis, versions of which are accepted by Christians, Jews and Muslims, God also created the stars, the Sun and the moon. In short, he created all there is. This is the first definition of Universe, so it is the one we will pay attention to.
Our definition of God says that he created and rules the Universe. It is impossible for him to be a part of the Universe, since that would suggest that he created himself. He cannot have created himself because he would have to already exist in order to create himself. Thus, God cannot be ever-present, as defined above. He can only be transcendental if he is the creator. Which is fine, since transcendentalism and ever-presence within the universe are contradictory anyway. You have to be either/or or neither, you cant be both.
Having said that, we now have two objects: God and the Universe. The Universe is all there is, or everything that exists. Anything that is not part of the Universe, therefore, does not exist. God is not part of the Universe. He therefore does not exist.
Incidentally, this also makes another part of the definition impossible; Gods transcendental nature. So God could be neither ever-present nor transcendental if he were the creator. He cant exist in the universe, and he cant exist out of it. Therefore, he cant exist.
Our definition has failed another analysis. We can choose to declare, once again, that God therefore cannot exist, or we can continue with our attempts to save him by again dropping the disproved point and redefining what God is. Just once more, I shall attempt to give God a chance.
Summary
* It is contradictory to be both everywhere in the universe at all times (ever-present) and transcendental.
* It is impossible for the creator of the universe to be part of the universe. He cannot be ever-present.
* It is impossible to exist outside of the universe. Transcendentalism is impossible.
* It is impossible for God to be the creator of the universe.
Omnipotent
So God is neither perfect nor is he the creator. Can he still be omnipotent? Let us consider the following.
If God is to exist, he must either BE the Universe or be a PART of the Universe. In the former case, he can still be omnipresent, since by being the Universe he is automatically everywhere at once. In the latter, he looses his omnipresence. This limits him, since he needs to be able to travel to places that he currently does not occupy, and thus he looses his omnipotence, since someone with infinite power could by default be everywhere at once. So for God to be omnipotent he must be the Universe.
Now, if God is the Universe, he is observable, since the Universe is observable. The Universe also behaves in predictable ways, which humans have described in the scientific laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and others. Since these behaviors are true in all inertial frames of reference (all perspectives regardless of relative velocity), which indicates a finite Universe, Gods behavior is limited to those behaviors and to the resources of a finite Universe. This is contrary to the idea of omnipotence. While he would still be vastly powerful, especially to the eyes of a human, he is not all-powerful.
Gods definition has thus been whittled away even further. Again we can declare God a fictional being, or we can continue to refine the definition and attempt to save him.
Sorry. Three strikes. Gods out.
Summary
* It is impossible for God to be omnipotent.
Conclusion
It is impossible for the monotheistic God worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims to exist. We are left with three possibilities; another god exists which we have yet to define, multiple gods (defined or undefined) exist, no gods exist. The most probable of these, if we are to follow Ockhams Razor (do not multiply entities unnecessarily / take the simplest explanation possible, but no simpler an explanation), is that there are no gods.
And what of the God we have debunked? He is best described as the ultimate imaginary friend, a delusional source of security for a people who find it difficult to deal with the hardship of everyday life. Yet like the child who must relinquish his fantasy friend and face the real world in order to truly mature, so to must the human race face reality if it is to mature into a truly advanced species.