A Theorem Concerning God
by
Robert G. Brown
Duke University Physics Department
Durham, NC 27708-0305
Copyright Robert G. Brown, 2024
Abstract
An Actual Theorem Concerning God
by Robert G. Brown (rgb)
It is rare in the history of mankind that an actual theorem has been
stated, let alone proven, concerning God. This lack of provable results
has been one of the major stumbling blocks to rational religion, and of
course that which is not, or cannot, be made rational remains
irrational to our great dismay and mutual destruction.
This document proves an actual theorem concerning God and the
Universe that might be of interest in the eternal conflict between those
that allege that God "created" the Universe and those that allege that
there is no God and that the Universe didn't require a creator. The
theorem does not resolve the question of whether or not there is a
God (as Hume showed long ago that neither reason nor inference are
sufficient to prove God's existence), but it puts an end rather
nicely to the question of whether or not any consistently
proposed God could have created the Universe.
By analyzing the question of God using information theory and
Godel's theorems, by using set theory in straightforward
ways, it demonstrates that only one model of God can be made to
satisfy the "standard properties of God": Omniscience, Omnipresence,
Omnipotence. It therefore establishes strict constraints on
theisms. Most theistic religions of the world are, to put it bluntly,
not in accord with this theorem. Because the theorem is based on
reason, and indeed its axioms are such that they can hardly be
challenged and end up with a system of rational knowledge at all, this
is simply too bad for those religions. They are wrong! Not just
incorrect at their periphery, flawed in some relatively minor manner of
scripture. Not just flawed in their scripture. Flawed at the
core -- the basic conception of God they advance is self-contradictory
and impossible.
In most cases this is painfully obvious from even a cursory
examination of their theistic mythology anyway, but again the
lack of an actual constructive theorem concerning God has left a
tiny window of possibility that the core belief and description of God
as a dualistic creator of the Universe it isn't actually unreasonable,
irrational, impossible so that those theism could be correct.
This window is now closed.
Be Warned! The article contains a gratuitous polemic against
theist scripture-based religions, especially those whose mythological
roots lie in the Bronze Age, a time when life on earth was ugly, nasty
brutish, and short (the mean life expectancy in central Eurasia was only
around 18). To quote Thomas Jefferson:
The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the
advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on
the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which
they live.
The advances of science have long since diced all of the
duperies (contained in the supposedly "divinely inspired" scriptures
that define their creed) upon which they live, demonstrating (for
example) that the entire book of Genesis is pure myth and is absolutely
disproven by science. It is precisely as reasonable to believe that the
computer screen upon which you are reading these words will
transmogrophy into a cloud of butterflies (violating any number of laws
of physics) than it is to believe Genesis. Simple common sense and
everyday experience suffices to reject it. Yet recent surveys suggest
that as much as 60% of the population of the United States still
believes that the events in Genesis actually happened!
This kind of self-deluded belief is not harmless, and is not without
consequences. We live in an age where single individuals can control
destructive powers that vastly exceed all of the armies in all of the
world of the Bronze Age, and to attempt to govern that power with a
Bronze Age morality, the morality expressed by Moses in Numbers
31 as he commanded his troops to commit genocide and slaughter the
Midianite captive women and children, sparing only the young virgin
girls whom he gave to his troops as sex-slaves, is unthinkable. The
world currently lives in a perpetual state of global war --
religious war, founded in ancient conflicts between competing
mythological superstitions. No country is immune, no person is safe as
long as these superstitions are insulated from the forces of
reason by common custom.
Those who choose to believe these fantasies have every right
to do so, but they have no right at all to expect that their beliefs
should be safe from being questioned by their neighbors in public
forums, as this too is a natural right of all freethinking
humans. To again quote Jefferson:
Of publishing a book on religion, my dear sir, I never had an
idea. I should as soon think of writing for the reformation of Bedlam,
as of the world of religious sects. Of these there must be, at least,
ten thousand, every individual of every one of which believes all wrong
but his own.
In this I respectfully disagree with Jefferson. It is my duty to
correct this situation every bit as much as it is my duty to correct
students in their errors in physics problems, and for the same reason.
Both exhibit an incorrect application of reason to the world in
which we live, and if evil exists at all in the natural world,
its name is unreason. Nothing is more frightening that the human
who acts against the dictates of reason; we call such individuals
insane. Why then, should we not give this same term to collective
institutions that systematically promote unreasonable
propositions as if they were truth and call this profusity of religious
diversity insane?
A hallmark of science, that is to say, reasonable belief
founded in a mixture of empirical observation and consistency with a
network of equally well founded beliefs with detailed predictive and
explanatory power, is that when presented with the same data and
arguments, two reasonable humans will, in general, agree on the
correctness or plausibility of the conclusions that are drawn from them.
Every student that studies Euclidean geometry proves the same
theorems from the sufficient axioms of the theory. A Muslim, a Hindu, a
Christian, and a Jew may disagree violently about precisely which foods
are unclean and forbidden by God (through divinely inspired scriptures
written by ignorant male humans in the dark ages of the past) to eat,
but presented with a telescope and verifiable astronomical data and
taught the calculus they will all agree that Newton's Law of
Gravitation correctly describes the motions of the little lights that
seem to move about the night sky, and that upon closer examination those
tiny lights are actually enormous worlds that companion our own as it
orbits the truly enormous sun.
Reason leads them to a common answer, and takes a dogmatic
theistic assertion of Genesis and proves it false. To continue
to hold to a belief that the sun goes around the earth, or the belief
that Genesis itself is still divinely inspired truth, is insane. This
work is therefore advanced in the pious hope that if humans wish
to continue to hold to a religious belief in God -- something that is a
matter of purely personal choice, given the evidence of their own lives
and observations -- they begin by applying the test of reason to any
theistic system they wish to adhere to by ensuring that its core
theology is compatible with the theorem. .
|
Contents
|