Atheism literally means, without god, or god-less. In early human history, an atheist was anyone's political enemy: an animal-like barbarian, who had no ideals or values. These days, atheism is usually non-belief in the existence of personal deities and supernatural beings.
My definition of atheism is best. I define atheism as rejection of the mentality that creates gods in the first place. That is, I reject attachment.
However, the reasoning for atheism also needs a clean-up. So, let's look at how atheists usually reason that a personal God, which is also a supernatural being, is not credible.
First, we need a clear definition for God. A personal God is a creative force, that creates things, and is like a person, in that it has a personality and actively seeks out and maintains personal relationships, with humans and other things, supposedly.
Now, the line of reasoning that atheists usually take is inductive. Meaning, their conclusion is not certain. They reason that, because there is no empirical evidence for a personal God, therefore it is not reasonable to believe in its existence. I'd like to clean-up this line of reasoning. There are a few problems with it.
1. Scientific induction always produces an uncertain conclusion
The first problem is the method will always bring uncertain results. It supposes the personal God that creates things can be scientifically measured, much like gravity, where changes in the behaviour of things are observed relative to some instrument. This method is always reliant on relative measurements. Data is never absolute proof, only disproof that can be overturned with new evidence. New evidence can turn up to show that the measuring instrument was affected by some other creative force, so all the evidence must be discarded. So the atheist that takes this line of reasoning will never be certain one way or the other.
A. An illustration of the uncertainty of empirical evidence,
especially that given "not at arms' length"
The other problem is in the evidence. Evidence of a personal God that creates things and has personal relationships can only be: things that have its 'brand' of design, and evidence of personal relationships, given by those in them.
Suppose for the sake of argument that some things seem to have similar 'craftsmanship'. This may be the result of aliens having a joke with humans, or mere chance, or evolutionary closeness. There are countless possible interpretations for things being similar. What about the observer's cerebral setup capable only of perceiving certain things, for instance? So again, this evidence is not certain.
Let us now look at the evidence of personal relationships. Humans rightly recognise the strong influence that personal relationships hold over people. For instance, a character reference by your mother or spouse is considered unreliable, given that the personal relationship constitutes a conflict of interest with presenting an unbiased opinion. We even have words to describe the reliable relationship: "at arms' length", meaning, a disinterested, neutral relationship as between strangers, or those without emotional bonds to each other. And "not at arms' length" signifies that there's some hugging and bonding going on between certain parties. Those who claim to know a personal God usually say, "I feel God is close to me," or "I pray to God and He answers," or "God loves me, because the Bible tells me so, and the Bible is the Word of God." Clearly, all these statement indicate not at arms' length relationships. I'm embarrassed to have to take it all this seriously, for it should be blatantly obvious that such humans are in love. They're definitely biased towards a good character reference, so to speak. So their evidence is not reliable.
B. Evidence of a personal God being your Significant Other is demonstrable to others, in the same way a stalker's addictive behaviour is demonstrable to others, but evidence of a personal God actually being involved is not demonstrable.
The technically credible form of scientific proof is the ability to demonstrate a consistent result to others. But no one can demonstrate the feelings of God's closeness to others. This is why Aldous Huxley invented the term 'Gaseous Invertebrate' to describe sarcastically the invisibility of a personal God. The answering of prayers is also not demonstrable to others, because the measuring instrument used is inside the believer's own skull - no one else hears the reply.
The third example means that the Bible itself is evidence of God. Since humans are actively involved in writing and publishing books, and Bibles come into existence by a process of writing and publication, it can only mean that God is given the nature of a divine muse. This also is not demonstrable to others, and can also be discarded.
All this is simple and logical. Using the scientific method to argue against or for God is destined to end in uncertainty. It always comes back to the believer as sole witness of evidence. And, the believer always says, "God loves me" and "We all need love". As I see it, this is just how the average atheist wants matters to rest. The atheist is not willing to confront the unreason of love, because of how important love is, in his or her own life.
Atheists dig themselves a grave by arguing against God on the basis of relationships. On one hand, they can never be certain that believers in Gods aren't really being psychically channelled by aliens. On the other hand, they themselves believe relationships to be of vital importance; so they turn the reasoning into an ad hominem argument. They conclude: God-believers are probably psychologically needy people, who need imaginary friends. While this is highly probable, it basically means you can be a suck of a person, so long as you have real friends.
2. Logical deduction can produce a certain conclusion
I resolve it simply. The creator God can either be finite, meaning it creates some things, but not every thing; or it can be infinite, in which case it creates everything. There is no logical alternative. God is either finite or not-finite. If God is a person-type creator, with specific relationships, then it is finite. The reason it must be finite is because it is not an impersonal-type or a non-person-type creator, or any other kind of creator. For instance, a God having personal relationships, like the swan with Leda, is not having a celibate relationship with Leda. There is definitely finiteness is specific relationships. So in this case, I don't care if there is evidence or not. It is essentially the same as an alien inventor, who has itself come into existence, just as I have. Being finite, it is definitely not eternal.
To clarify: Eternal means, has no beginning or ending. But anything that is finite, has a beginning and ending somewhen. There is no such thing as a thing that is timeless and finite; for, to be timeless, a thing must exists everywhen, therefore, it must exist in every possible instant. Therefore, the only possible 'thing' that can carry the attribute 'eternal' is every thing. So, I am certain that a personal God is not eternal.
The alternative to finite, is not-finite. If the creator God is not-finite, and creates everything, then it cannot be any particular thing such as personal or impersonal. Personal and impersonal are relative qualities. They are aspects of finiteness. So the infinite creator God has no relative qualities whatsoever. It cannot be big or small, powerful or weak, distant or near, old or young. To be not-finite, it cannot start or stop. So it must be eternal. The only logical conclusion, based on my reasoning here, is that the creator God is literally everything. Only Everything, meaning, the Entire Universe that simultaneously includes all that is ever known and unknown, has no boundaries or relative qualities.
In the next chapter, we'll look closely at hypocrisy. I will examine the nature of attachment, which will help explain why something as simple and logical as the non-existence of a personal creator God is almost totally unknown.
