Why You Shouldn't Believe in God

Should you believe in God? The answer to this question is exquisitely clear once you understand a few things about the nature of the "god" concept.

When Pigs Fly

Believing in God is a lot like believing in a species of pig that can fly. Both beliefs...

• lack a method by which you could test it. (non-falsifiable)
• have no physical (repeatable, testable, scientific) evidence to back them up.
• violate our current understanding of the world based on physical (repeatable, testable, scientific) evidence.
• rely exclusively on "eye-witness" testimony for validation.

You don't have to be rocket scientist to know that beliefs fitting these criteria epistemologically cry out for our disbelief. But if you remain unconvinced, let's get straight to the heart of my disbelief. In particular, the third bullet point: they violate our current understanding of the world.

"Supernatural" Really Means "Anti-natural"

You and I don't believe in flying pigs (even if someone claimed they saw one) primarily because their existence would be inconsistent with things we know about the world we live in:

• Pigs don't have wings (at least not naturally.)
• Pigs lack an aerodynamic shape, size and density. The lift generated from the pig's wings would be insufficient to sustain flight.

God belief is similar because the "god" concept would also be inconsistent with something we know about the world:

• Intelligence is a direct consequence of physical brains.

To accept that God exists is to deny (at least in part) that intelligence is a product of brains. This is the trouble with supernatural claims in general (water to wine, resurrection, reincarnation, etc.) Metaphysically, they claim something that's "beyond" nature. An existence behind existence as it were. Epistemologically, they claim something that's contrary to nature (as we know it.) Putting verifiable, scientific facts against the "someone said so" of testimony should be a no-brainer.

What About Abductive Reasoning?

Some people (usually Christians) will point to God as the "best" explanation for some event or feature of the natural world (cosmological anthropics, the resurrection, etc.) To understand why I reject this form of reasoning, read my previous post on abductive reasoning. God is like the "invisible aliens" explanation in that post. We don't have any knowledge about "god" nor do we have any positive evidence for it. Before you can abduct to an explanation, you must first have some inductive knowledge about that explanation that justifies suspecting it.

What are your thoughts on the God question? Are there any epistemological angles that I am neglecting?