A lot of people wonder whether god exists or if we should even take the concept of god seriously on an intellectual level. As an atheist, I'm going to try to tackle those questions in this essay. First, I am going to attempt to justify a set of three criteria I believe should be applied to any claim or assertion. After that, I am going to try to apply those criteria to the concept of "god" in order to illustrate that we should not take the concept of god seriously.

For clarity's sake, I would first like to define the term "claim" as being essentially synonymous with the term "assertion."

To discuss any claims regarding god's existence, we should first discuss the nature of claims in general. It is extremely important to note that the burden of proof is always on the person making any claim.

I assert that that there are three criteria that should be met (in sequential order) in order to take any claim seriously.

Those criteria are as follows:

1) The claim must be logically possible.

2) It must be logically possible to prove the claim true.

3)There must be some evidence in support of the claim that indicates we should take the claim seriously and investigate it further.

To analyze the first criterion, let's look at a hypothetical claim:

"There are reptilian monsters on a a world called Planet X and they dress in spandex and have a fetish for Rick Astley's music."

A good way to re-conceptualize the first criterion is to ask yourself, "Is this claim capable of being true under certain conditions?" In my example the claim is definitely logically possible. After all, we can imagine that somewhere in the universe there may be spandex wearing reptiles singing "Never Gonna Give You Up." The fact that we can imagine it doesn't make it true. However, if we can imagine it existing, we can't automatically rule it out. There are things that don't meet the conditions set by the first criterion. For example, if somebody makes a claim like, "round triangles exist" then the claim can be discarded immediately based on the fact that such a concept isn't even logically possible due to the violations of logical laws. Examples of logical laws are: the law of identity, the indiscernibility of identicals, etc. Claims that are logically impossible (such as "There are round triangles" or "A = -A") should immediately be discarded and no further inquiry into them is justified or warranted.

To analyze the second criteria, let's use a different example:

Suppose I claim, "An alien race invented a technology that makes a small object invisible to the naked eye as well as any possible form of detection. They used that object to hide 'Object X' on Earth. The alien race that hid 'Object X' also destroyed themselves on their home planet . Due to their destruction, there are no records or traces of their existence or the existence of their technology. The aliens also never made contact with humans."

Once we have determined that something is logically possible, we need to ask ourselves, "Is it logically possible for us to prove the claim?" We can say that my sci-fi example I just provided might be logically possible. It might be a remote possibility that there is an alien race that invented a technology that is capable of making an object completely invisible. It is also logically possible that they completely annihilated themselves and all records of their existence (as well as the existence of their technology). However, the claim "Object X exists on Earth" is completely unprovable by definition. As such, even though such a claim might be true, we can't investigate it or prove it. Thus, there is no reason why anyone should investigate such a claim further.

To analyze the third criterion, let's go back to the first claim of the form:

"There are reptilian monsters on a a world called Planet X and they dress in spandex and have a fetish for Rick Astley's music."

Despite the fact that such a claim is logically possible and logically possible to prove, there is no evidence indicating that we should take the claim seriously or investigate it further. To put it bluntly, there is just no evidence that such creatures exist nor is there any proof that Rick Astley's glorious music has gained him extraterrestrial fans. The short question you should ask when determining whether a claim meets the third criteria is "Is there any evidence suggesting this claim might be true?"

It is worth noting that if a claim fails the first criterion, the second and third criteria become irrelevant. After all, if a claim is logically impossible, then evidence can't exist to prove it, nor will it be logically possible to prove it. Also, If a claim meets the first criterion but fails the second, the third criteria becomes moot. If a claim is logically possible, but impossible to prove - then there can be no evidence for it.

This brings us to an important juncture. We can now ask, "What criteria (if any) does the god concept meet?"

For the purpose of this analysis, I'm going to treat the term "god" as referring to any being that is said to possess infinite qualities, powers, or attributes. I'm also going to assume that the first criterion has been met and that an infinite god is logically possible.  I understand that such an assumption might be a stretch for some atheists and I understand the related arguments that an infinite god is logically impossible. However, the reason why I'm assuming the first criterion has been met is to demonstrate how even if we grant the first criterion, the god concept is doomed to fail the second criterion.

With that said, let's do another thought experiment:

Let's say you are in your room and a sentient being pops in through an open window. This being starts doing miracles to convince you that he is in fact, "god." He turns wine into water and moonwalks on the surface of it. He then balances the federal budget instantly while simultaneously revealing the secrets of cold fusion.

While all of those things would be ridiculously cool, there is one problem. How do you know that this being is "God" and not simply a space alien with superior technological prowess or a more powerful consciousness?

Most people would try to disprove this being's claim through a practical application of the proof-by-contradiction method. This normally takes the form of asking the being to fulfill the most fantastic and whimsical miracles that a person can think of. If the being can't perform some particular miracle, then it obviously isn't "all powerful."

There are two glaring problems with such an approach, though.

The first problem is that a finite being could never ever prove that anything has actual infinite attributes. At best, all we can do is demonstrate that something is beyond the reach of our measuring capacities, in which case the thing might be a practical infinity but we can't know if it is a true infinity. (assuming a true infinity actually does exist in the real world). Thus, proof by contradiction is doomed to fall flat on its face if the sentient being in your room is simply way more advanced than the human attempting to employ proof by contradiction.

The second problem is equally practical in nature. A person must be forced to consider the fact that the being claiming to be infinite might be capable of simply putting people in a realistic virtual reality simulation. Such a being might be able to manipulate our minds via technology or with an evolved form of consciousness (perhaps one that utilizes telepathy?) or perhaps even a controlled manipulation of organic agents that effect the mind (like LSD). Thus, you can't rule out the fact that all of the miracles the being attempts to demonstrate might very well be mind manipulations.

The question still remains: How can we ever separate god from malevolent space aliens with mind-manipulating powers? How can we ever prove that the god that is doing miracles for us isn't just some evil robot who has plugged us into "the Matrix" and is making us perceive such miracles with all of our senses? How do we know that we weren't kidnapped and thrown into a Star Trek-style Holodeck?

To truly "know" a possible god on any meaningful linguistic or cognitive level would require you to BE god. Otherwise, if you aren't god, you are just hedging bets (most likely on Pascal's Wager).

Therefore, it is my assertion that any claim of the form, "god exists" should be routinely ignored if it involves a being of supposedly infinite qualities or attributes. Any claim of that type fails the second criterion.

The failure of the god concept to meet the second criterion lets us infer that compelling evidence for god's existence simply cannot exist. As a corollary, attempting to "prove" the existence of god with scientific methods is a serious waste of time.

-Evan