The Miraculous Impossibility | How to Prove God Doesn't Exist

Objectivism is a philosophical system created by Ayn Rand and developed/articulated by Leonard Peikoff. It holds existence to be the fundamental and self-evident truth from which all knowledge and philosophical thought is based. Objectivism’s ‘primacy of existence’ leads its adherents to conclude, contrary to religious mystics, that no being can ever overturn the laws of nature, thereby usurping the supremacy of reality. Beings can understand, manipulate and master the laws of nature, as is evident in human progress, but no being can ever will away nature’s laws. As a consequence of the truth that existence exists, Objectivism regards reason as man’s only means of gaining knowledge, rejecting faith in the process. This essay will apply the Objectivist understanding of metaphysics to refute God’s existence, fully and certainly, from the implications of the truth that existence exists.

Two main philosophical perspectives dominate contemporary culture’s dialogue on the question of God’s existence. The first perspective is that of religious believers, who use either faith, argumentation, or both in an attempt to prove the existence of God. They believe that God exists, but disagree over whether God can be proved by reason alone. The second perspective is that of agnostic atheists, who notice the lack of evidence pointing to the existence of God, regarding it as an arbitrary assertion, and doubt the existence of such a being on the grounds that evidence is absent either way.

This essay will attempt to prove that both philosophical perspectives are wrong, and will show the certainty of God’s nonexistence. It will present an unconventional and radical argument illustrating why God is a metaphysical impossibility, assuming the truth of three premises: (1) entities exist, (2) entities each have a particular nature (3) entities must always act in accordance with their nature.

Firstly, it is necessary to define the terms used in this essay. By “entities”, I refer to a unit of existence separable to other units of existence. By “miracle” or “miraculous”, I mean that which can suspend metaphysical identity and causation. By “God”, I refer to a miraculous being. By “physical”, I mean an attribute of an entity preventing it from overlapping with other entities, within, for our purposes, three dimensional space.

The very essence of God’s godhood is the ability to perform feats which surpass the laws of nature. Without this ability, the word “God” becomes meaningless, referring only to an alien who possesses a certain, limited set of abilities, and which is metaphysically subservient to objective reality. Such a concession entails that God is merely an arbitrary claim, such as a pink giraffe, and is no longer the subject of this essay. Such a concession also grants sufficient philosophical victory which this essay aims to accomplish.

Existence is the fundamental, self-evident axiom and truth from which all knowledge is based. The axiom of existence necessarily entails two corollary axioms: identity and causation. Identity is the recognition of the fact that to exist is to exist as something in particular; i.e. to possess a specific nature which is mutually exclusive from other natures, actual or potential. Identity entails that A is A. A can also be things in addition to A, such as B, if A and B are compatible, but A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same respect. For example, a sphere cannot be completely white on its surface and completely black on its surface at the same time. It can have a partially black and partially white exterior, or it can have a completely black exterior and a completely white interior, or it may be completely black on its surface and completely white on its surface at different times. But nothing can possess two or more mutually exclusive characteristics at any given time. Nothing can exist without defining characteristics, i.e. without a specific nature. Even in quantum physics, which suggests the existence of non-physical entities, i.e. waves, those waves still have a particular nature, albeit a non-physical one. What exists beneath the physical reality, however, is not contradictory. It is not the case that quantum entities exist simultaneously in multiple places at once, as nonphysical entities cannot possess any particular point in space. Rather, these non-physical entities exist in a wave function of potentialities, and become physical within certain, objective contexts. Non-physical entities each possess a specific nature, which while nonphysical is just as definite as any other characteristic. A lead atom is always a lead atom. It does not magically transform into a gold atom from collapsing into a wave and reappearing. Entities can behave like particles in certain contexts and behave like waves in others. But entities cannot be physical and non-physical at the same time and in the same respect. In short, things are what they are, and aren’t what they aren’t.

Identity entails a third axiom: causation. Causation means that since things are what they are, since A is A, things must thereby act in accordance with their nature. If a tree is struck with an axe, it will not thereby melt into water, nor will it phase through the earth onto another continent, nor will it transform into a flying pink elephant. A tree will not react in any of these ways because it has a specific nature, and possesses characteristics mutually exclusive to other entities, i.e. those entities, if any, which will melt into water when struck with an axe. Even quantum processes cannot cause things to spontaneously transform because of the causal closure principle; non-physical entities must become physical before being able to enact any physical causes. This is why we don’t see tables polymorphing into hammerhead sharks; quantum processes do not extend so far so as to fundamentally change macromolecular entities.

In summary, the three fundamental metaphysical axioms are: existence, identity, causation. If you accept the truth of these three philosophical starting points, you must reject any possibility that God exists. God is a metaphysical impossibility because its existence would contradict the second and third axioms of existence: identity and causation. A God is a being alleged to have the ability to suspend the laws of reality; to undo the nature of identity with its very existence and with the capacity to undo the nature of causation by making entities act in ways mutually exclusive to their nature. It is crucial to stress that God is not merely a powerful being, such as an alien or artificial intelligence. The essential quality of God is to be miraculous, which means to possess the capacity to suspend the laws of reality.

Some theists may reject this characterization of God as a miraculous being, regarding it as a strawman. They might argue that God is a being who is maximally powerful, and whose abilities are limited only to what is logically possible. To fully answer this objection we must inquire as to what the source of logic is.

Theists such as Descartes held that God is the ultimate standard of all knowledge, thus holding God to be the source of logic. In this case, this objection makes absolutely no sense, as God would retain his reality-usurping ability.

If the objecting theist instead agrees with Objectivism, that existence is the source of logic, then that belief entails that God is limited by existence. If God is metaphysically subservient to reality, as is accepted by certain religious believers, then God loses all meaningful godlike characteristics, being defined down to a powerful alien.

Firstly, identity. God is a being alleged to possess every possible characteristic (perhaps with the exception of negative characteristics) and thus contradicts the law of identity. If God is all-powerful, God can take the shape of a sphere and a cube simultaneously, which is metaphysically impossible given that spheres and cubes possess mutually exclusive characteristics. God can be completely black on its surface, and completely white on its surface at the same time. It can be solid, liquid, and gas at the same time, and in mutually exclusive ways. Since identity is true, God can’t exist. And what does exist cannot be godlike.

Secondly, causation. God is a being alleged to possess the capacity to make entities act in ways mutually exclusive to their nature. God can magically cause water to turn into wine without undergoing the necessary chemical process. It can walk on water without the necessary physiology or technology to do so. God can suspend gravity, reanimate the dead, split oceans, etc. not by understanding, utilizing and mastering the laws of reality, as humans do, but by merely willing that the laws of reality not be.

This argument does not even need to invoke the seemingly endless cascade of self-defeating contradictions which follow from the premise of God’s infinite ability, such as if it can surpass its own ability by creating a rock too heavy for it to carry, or create a car too fast for God to chase, etc. Simply by observing and recognizing the primacy of existence, one can infer that no consciousness can overrule it.

Agnostic atheists make the disastrous mistake of believing that God is merely an arbitrary assertion, such as a winged giraffe, and they justify their doubt of God’s existence on the premise that no evidence for or against it exists. They then conclude that it is irrational to consider the existence of God, even though according to them its existence is theoretically possible, In reality, God is more akin to a square-circle, of which there can be no reconciliation between the mutually exclusive characteristics, and no possibility of existing. The agnostic atheists believe that there is probability involved in the question of God, such that they believe you would be more likely to find God by searching the entire United States, rather than simply one state, such as California. But one would quickly realize the futility in estimating the probability of finding a square-circle in California versus the entire United States.

The impossibility of the existence of a God is inescapable. You can know for certain that no being will ever be capable of making contradictions true, making two plus two equal five, or turning water into wine without the process dictated by nature. God is not merely an arbitrary assertion, but a metaphysical impossibility, a self-refuting paradox evidenced by the self-evident and undeniable laws of existence.