Proof of Agnosticism: Points That Prove That God May Or May Not Exist

1. No one has ever seen God, and whoever claims they did has no veritable evidence that they saw him. Just as well, there is not a single claim of God backed with anything except a claim, and no claims are backed with empirical evidence. At best, the claim of God's existence is ad populum, and hearsay.

2. The existence of one thing does not imply another. Just because something suggests something about the nature of God, does not necessarily mean he exists, because "necessarily" implies sub-mechanics of syllogism and necessary implication things like "f(x) therefore x". (Note: It's easy to say that this is too rooted in the presumption of objective reality and empiricism, but why accept the handicap of not having that point of reference, in the use of rationality? That contributes nothing to the question of whether a god(s) exist, or not, so it's a pragmatic fallacy)

For example, let's say you find blood on a sidewalk. On an emotional level you may conclude that there was a murder, but instead, a person could have been injured, could have been coughing up blood due to a lung disease, or that person could have been a woman who had a surprise period. So while "following your heart" tells you one thing, thinking about the truth makes the situation more ambiguous.

The same concept applies to religion, and I will explain it further. There are three basic levels of conclusion. The first is seeing a suggestion, such as the splatter of blood, then making a single theory. The second is looking at a collection of facts, and making an extraneous conclusion, when the facts say something else, and may invite other possibilities beyond one, either viable or not, theoretical conclusion. This is educated guessing. The third is the actually accurate one. This is where you look at facts, and then the conclusions you draw are directly referable from those facts. The belief in God, by observation of the belief itself, and its emotional nature, simply doesn't use that mode of reasoning, and without nuanced observation! So to understand my reasoning here, you have to understand what the whole mental process of belief in God is, or you and I are not on the same page, talking about the same thing.

If we define this concept analytically in a different way. The following lines of reasoning show that because those who believe in god(s) and those who do not try to address the question of whether god(s) even exist, then therefore by the scenery of the situation, we know that god may or may not exist, and agnosticism has it correct:

i. There is some general a in the infinite set A, make of consequent small a's, and a complementary b of some different set B, of the complement of A in the same all-encompassing space, made of consequently small b's. Facts, b.

ii. So therefore we have A, B

iii. Therefore A, and therefore A, also not A, that is B.

iv. Therefore A is in union with B, and that's facts, B.

v. Therefore A or B is the resulting language. End of proof. Facts, B.

vi. Therefore we do not have the exclusive disjunction of A,B

vii. Therefore we are, in the condition that A or B are that "God(s) do exist or do not exist", in a loop of the union of A and B.

viii.Therefore to tell if we have a bullet-proof argument, we must prove that A and B both have a viability above zero, and that the probabilities for each are both above zero. If the argument doesn't pass this test, then agnosticism doesn't win the contest of true belief.

ix. Axiom: By observation, evidently both A and B meet those four conditions. A and B are not only arbitrarily viable or not viable, but logically necessarily both viable.

x. Therefore we have the union of A and B, and that's facts, B. This is with only an arbitrary and not logically necessary loop, like in line vii. This argument is made of "therefores" because collective speculation created the "thereforeing", so by the method of "therefore" we have that "thereforeing".

3. The universe is not perfect. On a general level, it is perfect, but it is rife with geometric flaws, disasters, misery, and other negative things, so it is quite likely that intelligent design is not true. Every curve and skew on the smallest level is a bunch of angulated straight lines, but this immense amount of straight lines has a p>0 probability for randomly occurring, with the other option, with respect to theism, being that a cosmic, incorporeal ghost, with godly powers made these lines. We get p>0 because we know that space is infinite, even if the volume of the multiverse is not, so some typical tendencies of probability, such as purely analytical guarantees, will logically break down here. This principle also extends to arguments analogous to "There is no chance that X will happen without miracles, so intelligent design becomes put in question, here."

4. Science is almost unanimously in favor of there most likely not being a God. People in the high IQ range of 125+ think the same way, That's a lot of clear thinking brains to contend with. If you argue against people of John Von Neumann, it becomes like arguing arithmetic with your TI-83 calculator; it is just NOT going to work.

5. If there is a God(s), then why do half of the things that he, or they, hates or hate, still happen? There is no logical reason for it. He's omnipotent, so he should be able to make the universe to his liking, instead of making himself upset all the time with people's sins, and the like. In the least, this should force a person to re-think for a plausible kind of God. (I did this, but it's none of your business because I am already giving you a free lesson in logic and theology. If you think I am held yoke by conventions here, pay me 100 bucks, and I will speak my mind more.) I think this reality should also make a person think about a real definition of sin, and one that is not taken for granted from the Bible.

6. God is incorporeal. That means he has no mass, and therefore no material, and cannot exist, and if he's not incorporeal then he does not exist within the framework of your religion. So if there is a incorporeal God, he is automatically not real and that means that the way you think of your god(s) are not real.

7. There have been over two thousand religions, and they have all been proven false, fallen to tons of logical flaws, then have died out, with largely no NECESSARILY divine consequence. What makes you think YOUR religion got it right, when it is built on almost the same circular premise that "God exists because my religion says God exists"? See? This premise is not logical.

8. Prove that God exists, if he exists. See? Can't do it, let alone doing one without sparking an argument. Guess why. If something exists, there is always going to be evidence.

8.5 So there is this notion that some party(s) should believe in God, and follow faith. However, this premise is not essentially different than the premise of the human versus the cockroach, because the human is the much higher life form, and the cockroach is the subordinate. The cockroach, to explain the analogy, has no intellectual capacity to understand the whims of his deity, the human, because of the human's sheer relative complexity, so here we see the essential similarity in the God(s) vs. human relationship. However, the prescription here is to follow a faith, and believe in God(s), which is almost the same thing as to tell someone that they need to believe in something that they cannot actually receive definite communication from. So to encapsulate this briefly, we don't demand that the cockroach abide the human, because we know he won't come to grasp it. So therefore, we don't demand that the human abide to God(s).

9. Claiming that God exists because the Bible says he exists is a fallacy called "appeal to authority". That basically means that claims are not proof, that because credibility assigned to a source is not the same as certitude and that is where that argument is wrong.

10. Your religion already says there is no proof of God existing, accept that having faith and being able to prove something is different.

11. People like to argue that without religion, there would be no morality. However, morality is just a part of religion, and secondly, reason and empathy are localized to the brain, and thus do not solely come from religion. That being said, society would not collapse from a lack of religion, because people have things like foresight, reason, and compassion for others, which is hardwired into their body.

12. If there is a God, then there is no reason for us to have free will, because we would have to follow his design, but we do have free will, so obviously either God does not care what we do, or he simply does not exist.

13. The history of the belief in God is well-documented, and very telling of its questionable nature. They teach this in courses on the History Of Judaism in colleges. Historical records state that Jews who had been living in Hellenic Greece based God off of zeus, and combined traits with other gods, all of which you do not believe in. That being said, what makes you think that God is real when the origins of his conception are so fabricated?

14. Many like to reference the authority of the Bible and other religious texts as evidence of God. This is rooted in the fallacies of circular reasoning, and appeal to authority, and I will explain why.

Just because something says it is true, does not mean it is true. So while a religious text may try to pass itself off as reality, without any references or pointings to reality, it is simply giving baseless claims that fly in the face of logical discourse, full of fallacies like self-fulfilling prophecies, and analogous things that arise from the self-fulfilling property of language.

For example, if I say "There is an apple on the table", I do not indicate a specific table in a specific place in time, so ultimately the truth value for this statement fluctuates between true and false from interpretation to interpretation, and statements in the Bible are analogous to this, if one would recall the subject matter.

 So without reference, it is just messages with no reality, and therefore no necessary truth comes from these texts, and that is sound logic by consequence.

15. Gods of previous civilizations (Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc.) were largely analogous to the Abrahamic god, with small differences like abilities, and nebulousness. That being said, what makes you so sure that your god exists, when he is very much like all of those gods?

15.5 The Christian study of Hermeneutics comprises of several theories on how to interpret the Bible. If, on the highest level of the Christian community, there is no consensual way to interpret the Bible, then what makes people think that the Bible has a divine origin? Why would God write a book and make it so no one would ever be able to understand it for sure? This extends by a lurking analogy to other religions, by right of fit, so what makes any person think that anything their scriptures say is actually IMPORTANT to the will of their God(s)? Faith in scripture is presumptuous!

16. In doing the right introspecting and observing to understand the viability of there being a God, there is a syllogistic chain of reasoning that works like this: (The numbering is weird because I added stuff at the top, but needed things always in order)

-2. With respect to reality, if nothing is real, then there is nothing, or no reality.
-1. Therefore, there must be something real, and that is reality.
0. All of reality is understood as syllogism. A, therefore A: {a}, therefore C, so therefore we have the "therefore statement" A, therefore C.
1. There is reality, and there is a language of reality, by definition we speak those languages, which is  for reality, and that language sways belief in many directions.
2. Because arguments exist for and against God(s), by definition there are also logical foundations for those arguments, where each side is counter-intuitive to the other.
3. There is a viable case for God(s) or something analogous to him/them, and a viable case against him, or something analogous to him/them.
4. The universe can be explained in both natural terms, and religious terms, both plausible through logical explanation and analysis.

Therefore, some deity(ies) may or may not exist, and therefore because we have reality, we also therefore either have a deity(ies), or we don't, and this is why the case for Agnosticism beats out the case for other perspectives on the existence of God(s).

So in the end, believing in religion comes down to true belief vs. culture, with respect to lifestyle. It's just that one cannot think religion or anti-religion are necessary truths, and whether they are worth anything is determined by the quality of their communities.

I think that with description and action being at the same time, the description of this that we obtain is that there may or may not be god, but that is just the message of the primary cognitive formulation of action.

I also find that the adoption of the belief of God tends to lend itself to the concept of disabuse of first formulation, and the reason being is that when God is believed to be supreme over everything, then the product of his actions are omnipresent, and therefore every first formulation becomes an interruption of thought, compromising on freedom of consciousness.