There are many reasons – but most refer to a defined God.Most believers refuse to define the term “God”. Supposedly, the excuse is, you make God “available” with it. As if a definition of a black hole would make it “available” in some form.
Another excuse is that the Bible says that one should not take a picture of God.In the Bible, however, it says that one should not make an “image” of God, i.e. not paint pictures representing God, or stone figures, etc. It is not there, not even logically, that one should not make ideas about God or define him. This can only be done by an atheist who does not believe in God or assumes that there is none.
The believers contradict themselves, for as soon as one begins to deny the qualities of God, which are part of his definition according to his creed, they come to deny this quality.This is also a type of definition that was previously slammed as impossible.
Then there is the so-called “”negative theology” that claims that one can only say what God is not.This is pure nonsense, because it is not possible to define something negatively – then, if you do this with the planet Saturn, you would also have to mention that he was not in the opera yesterday. There is an infinite amount of properties and combinations, so a negative definition would involve an infinite number of statements, without even one trace getting closer to the term. Then it is better to say straight away that you want to define it as “non-existent”. Because what does not exist has no properties. Conversely, what exists has properties.
In the creeds of the monotheistic religions, the characteristics of God are given.If a believer really believed that one cannot or cannot attribute qualities to God, he should not renounce the profession of faith. Then one should generally not make statements about God, his work, etc.
The real reason why God is not defined (more) is another: the atheists have analyzed each of the qualities mentioned by believers throughout history and shown that they lead to logical contradictions.Logical contradictions in a definition, however, are proof of non-existence.
Example:Are there “married bachelors”?Certainly not. There may be married people who live as if they are bachelors, but that doesn’t make them “married bachelors.” For the terms are contradictory in themselves, a young woman is not married and a married person is not a bachelor, no matter how he performs.
In order to be able to talk about the existence of God even in the beginning, there would have to be a definition that is as universal as possible, that it is in itself uncontradictory and does not contradict known facts.Before the believers (can or want to), the existence of God in the sense of the word is indisputable.There is no need to prove that a God does not exist without attributable qualities.
So the best reason not to believe in God is that he is not defined.
Now, if the faithful refuse, we can fall back on the Bible and see what qualities are attributed to God.Then you will quickly realize that even individual properties are logically contradictory, or the combination of properties is it. This is quite sufficient as a reason to assume that such a god does not exist. One cannot assume a revelation of God, but then claim that God has not revealed himself with his attributes, but one knows from the Bible what God is.This is pure nonsense, and there is no need for proof or any other reason why one should not believe nonsense. In the language of psychologists, the term cognitivelyempty, which means that even the faithful have no idea what they believe in.
The manoeuvre of the faithful, with which they want to circumvent the problems, is called in the analytical philosophy immunization against criticism.However, a critically immune term is always nonsensical.
Internally, the faithful get an idea of God.Pascal Boyer has found this with a question procedure that he half ironically refers to as “experimental theology”. It emerges that the God, the believer defends against critics, and the one in whom they believe, do not have much in common with each other. Basically, the believers believe in two gods, which I have called the “head god” and “belly god”:
The head god is the one they defend against critics (e.g. atheists), and another is the belly god, in which they actually believe out of a gut feeling.This God is different for everyone, I have never met two monotheists in my life who believe in the same God. This suggests that every monotheist thinks up his god. It shows that God is fictional, and is a good reason not to believe in Him. It is often noted in discussions that the qualities of God that he is supposed to have, although no one can know which ones are, change in the course of the debate – because the believers invent their God ad hoc.God should never be what the critics suspect, but always exactly what the believers are saying.
It is undisputed that God should be the Creator of the universe and all that is in it.One can shorten this to: God is the creator ofmatter.This implies that it does not consist of matter itself, but of pure spirit. The idea arose from the fact that one cannot intuitively imagine that the universe and life in it should have been created without an active creator. It must be said that all our intuitive ideas about the nature of the world arewrong.It would be a miracle if our intuition were not wrong here. The worst argument against a crime in the world is: I cannot imagineit.No one can imagine what is happening in quantum physics, and yet, it happens even though it is completely counter-intuitive.
So God arises from the idea that one cannot imagine how the world came into being.But this notion of the unimaginable boils down to a complete logical contradiction: one cannot imagine that the world has always been there, or that it has arisen, but one imagines that God has “always been there”. It is claimed that the world cannot have been created out of nowhere – because you cannot imagine nothing – but you don’t wonder what that means. Something can be described as “created out of nowhere”, by definition, if it has no cause and no origin. But that is exactly what is true of God. The world cannot exist without cause and without origin, but God already, because supposedly nothing can be without origin, but God can do what one contradicts oneself with.A not so perfect world cannot have been created, although we see that everything is subject to development, but there can be a perfect God without one. Everything that cannot be imagined in the world should suddenly be conceivable when it comes to God.
It is then thought very black and white: either, everything springs from a plan of a thinking being (God), or everything originated “by chance”.The latter is pure nonsense, because chance is defined as the “absence of a causal explanation”. Nothing arises from the fact that people cannot find a causal explanation.
One has to ask: where does this plan come from?God cannot have imagined him, because he is omniscient, so he “always” knew him. The plan has neither a cause nor an origin, and it was not created by God’s thinking, but rather it was “always already present”. What should be impossible for the not perfect world is suddenly possible for the perfect plan! Except that the “perfect plan” somehow did not lead to a perfect world. Perfect is what you call something that cannot be improved, but we have already improved this world in many ways. There is pain and suffering, which is not enough to perfection, but we also found remedies for pain and suffering. Every painkiller is proof that we can make the world better, which God obviously could not – then he is not almighty – or he did not want, then he is malicious. This fact speaks against God.
We see that when it comes to God, this leads to contradictions about contradictions.If you leave God out, all contradictions will be resolved – and that is a good reason not to believe in him.