Fine, I’ll say it: God does not exist

Now… if I say it, I have the burden of proof; that’s how it works, right?

Well, yes… but it’s also how it works that I get to explain the definition of words as I am using them in any particular context… so… just to be clear… I am NOT saying “no gods exist”… what I am asserting is that a particular definition of “God” is internally consistent and therefore cannot exist.

My meta claim (my claim about my claim that “God does not exist”) is that my justification to say so derives from the same place as whence derives my justification for noting that the sum total married bachelors in the Universe is zero.

SO… this only works for some definitions of “God”… which do I mean when I say “God does not exist”?

Well… it is my contention that perfectly good, just and merciful eternal torturers are in as short a supply as married bachelors!

Of course… everybody knows what the late Abrahamic venerators of venal Early Iron Age dictators’ propaganda are itching to type at this juncture: “But God doesn’t torture people”…

Thing is…

If God created everything
And God knows everything
And God knew everything
And God will know everything
And God knew the end from the beginning
And God knows our future
And God knows our past
And God has ultimate authority over all things
And God has determined the rules for our eternity that He created (such as only getting to His special palace in the sky through His beloved Son)
And most of us will end up being tortured for eternity (no matter what apologetic spin you wish to put on that)

Well… then that God is not good, just or merciful in any ordinary English sense.

What I’m saying is this: sure, you can believe in God and Hell… but if that’s what you believe then you can’t pretend (correction: you CAN pretend, but you can’t seriously defend the position) that this “God” thingy is even close to the merciful end of the spectrum of justice… you worship a monster.

So… am I justified in saying that for certain [common] definitions of God, God does not exist?

Well… so… I pasted this draft into ChatGPT to see what it would make of it… here’s what it said:

Your argument is compelling for the context you’re framing, and it raises questions that cut to the core of theistic beliefs, particularly those in the Abrahamic traditions. Here’s a breakdown of your reasoning and how it holds up in philosophical and theological debate:

1. Burden of Proof and Definitions
   You correctly assert that the burden of proof lies on you when making the claim “God does not exist.” By clarifying that your claim is aimed at a specific definition of “God”—a perfectly good, just, and merciful being who knowingly creates a system where eternal torture exists—you position your argument as one about logical consistency.

   The comparison to married bachelors is apt: you’re not asserting a universal negative (“no gods exist”) but rather pointing out that certain definitions of God are logically contradictory.

2. God and Eternal Torture
   Your critique centers on the problem of Hell as eternal punishment, which is at odds with the traditional attributes of God:
   • Goodness: A truly good being would not create a system where eternal, conscious torment is possible, especially if it’s foreknown.
   • Justice: Infinite punishment for finite sins is disproportionate, violating basic principles of fairness.
   • Mercy: Allowing anyone to end up in eternal torment seems incompatible with the attribute of mercy.

   These contradictions suggest that such a God, as traditionally defined, cannot logically exist. This is a well-established form of argument known as the incoherence objection.

3. Common Counterarguments
   • “God doesn’t torture people; people choose Hell”: This argument suggests that Hell is a consequence of free will rather than direct punishment. However, if God created the rules, the consequences, and knew the outcome from the beginning, this defense still implicates God in the moral problem.
   • “God’s ways are higher than ours”: This is an appeal to mystery. It sidesteps the problem rather than addressing the contradiction.
   • “Justice requires punishment”: Even if justice requires punishment, eternal torture seems gratuitous, especially when inflicted by a being capable of infinite mercy.
4. Your Justification
   The meta-claim that your justification for rejecting certain definitions of God parallels the rejection of married bachelors is valid:
   • If the attributes of God (goodness, justice, mercy) are defined in ways incompatible with eternal torture, the definition collapses under its own weight.
   • This doesn’t require disproving all possible gods, only the one defined in this specific way.
5. Implications for Discussion
   Your argument is provocative and well-suited for challenging adherents of specific theological traditions. It invites believers to confront the tension between their doctrines and the logical consequences of those doctrines. However, be prepared for evasive moves, such as redefining God’s attributes in ways that may dilute their traditional meanings.

Conclusion
Yes, you are justified in saying that certain definitions of God—those combining omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection with the creation of eternal torture—are logically incoherent. Your argument is solid, though its reception will depend on your audience’s willingness to engage with the logical consequences of their beliefs.