God Probably Doesn't Exist

I will provide two arguments that I hope are simple, but effective. Contention 1: Incoherency Here I will argue that the conception of God is contradictory. The properties of focus will be omniscience and being the efficient cause of the universe. P1: If God has a contradictory property, then God doesn’t exist. P2: God does have a contradictory property C: God does not exist. Premise one is self evident. Something that is contradictory cannot exist as it violates the law of noncontradiction. Premise two is the one that needs defense. Which I will do now. In order for God to know something, that thing must exist. God does not know what kind of pizza I am eating right now because I am not eating a pizza right now (unfortunately). If God did know what kind of pizza I am eating, he wouldn’t exist because he would be wrong, since there is no pizza. In order for something to have the property of being known, it must exist, otherwise there is nothing to know. It is quite simple. God is omniscient. He has all knowledge. He knows everything you have done, everything you are doing and everything you will do. He knows everything there is to know about the past, present and future. However, since God knows the past, present and future, they must exist. The problem with this is since God has always known all of time, then all of time must have always existed such as in a block universe. Thus God couldn’t have caused the universe because the universe must have always existed with him because he has always had omniscience. . God’s property of always being omniscient contradicts with his property of being the efficient cause of the universe. The conclusion follows. This argument was inspired by David Kyle Johnson’s formulation of the free will/ omniscience problem. Contention 2: The Problem of Evil This is probably the most well known, used, and simplest argument against God today. It simply states that since evil exists, God does not. I will be using Rowe’s inductive formulation [1]. There (probably) exists instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. Premise one is probabilistic and intuitive. William Rowe gave his famous example in support of it "In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. ” [ibid] It is intuitively probable from everything we have seen. We see many instances of suffering with no apparent good outcome. The sheer number of instances makes it likely that at the very least one could have been prevented without losing some greater good or permitting some other evil. Premise two follows from the definition of what it means to be all knowing, powerful and good. God would know where evil is, how to stop it, and would want to since he is wholly good. The conclusion follows from the premises. Not much needs to be said, it is a straightforward, simple and powerful argument. Sources [1] Rowe, William L. 1979. “The Problem of and Some Varieties of Atheism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335-41.