The Inductive Argument Against Religions, Based on Science and Antiquity

The Inductive Argument Against Religions, Based on Science and Antiquity:

Why All Religions are False
(Syllogistic Formulation)

P1: There is more than one religion in the world, and more than one sect/denomination per each religion. Many of these are mutually exclusive.

C1: Due to P1, it logically follows that it's impossible for ALL religions and denominations to be true.

P2: It is observable today that large numbers of humans are gullible and tend to believe falsehoods.
That includes people believing religions which are false (and based on C1, we know these exist). It also includes more "mundane" falsehoods such as con-jobs, deceitful sales pitches, sting operations, psuedo-science, superstition, and more.

P3: The more scientifically literate a person becomes, and the more knowledgeable they become, the less likely they are to being gullible and susceptible to believing falsehoods.

P4: The scientific revolution is a recent achievement, compared to the entirety of human history. In other words, it is only relatively recent that many people started becoming scientifically literate and knowledgeable.

C2: From P2, P3, and P4 it follows, that the farther back in history we go, the less scientifically literate and knowledgeable many people were, and therefore were more susceptible to believing falsehoods and superstition.

P5: All major known religions first appeared very far back in known human history, or were based upon religions that first appeared very far back in known human history.

The Epic of Gilgamesh Tablets

C3: From P5 and C2 it follows, that during those days of early human history, most people were gullible and scientifically illiterate, and therefore susceptible to believing falsehoods and superstition.

P6: Using the scientific method and the modern knowledge we've accumulated till this day, not a single supernatural claim could ever be proven. Instead, every single supernatural claim that could have been tested using scientific methods, was tested and was found to be either caused by completely natural processes, or even fraudulent. This means that while it has been proven and demonstrated that humans tend to ascribe supernatural beliefs to completely natural, although misunderstood, phenomenons, till this day it has never been proven that supernatural beliefs were ever justified.

C4: From C3 and P6 it follows, that all religions that first appeared in the early days of human history, are most likely based on falsehoods and superstition, and from C2 it follows, that human gullibility and ignorance are what allowed these religions to flourish and spread.

C: From C4 it follows, that all ancient religions, and those based on early religions, are most likely false.

Timeline of the Evolution of Myth & Religion

These days, we know a lot about just how fragile the human mind is and how susceptible it is to believing in falsehoods. This is the reason for the invention of the scientific method: As a mechanism to counter human fallibility.

Watch: Psychology of Belief Playlist:

The Inherent Fallacy in the Argument from "Fine Tuning"

The argument from "fine tuning" is a broken and fallacious argument from its very core.
It's completely meaningless to argue about the small points and whether some phenomenon is actually true and/or amazing and/or "has to be exact in order for us to exist".

I mean, sure it's a bonus when so many creationists get SO MANY scientific facts so terribly wrong while trying to invent scientific support for their "fine tuning" argument.
But pointing out those errors isn't going to change anything.
They'll just keep making new errors.

The fact of the matter is very simple:

The "fine tuning" argument is NOT an argument FOR god.
The "fine tuning" argument is an argument AGAINST god.
Think about it.

What if the universe wasn't fine tuned the way it is? What if it was vastly different?
Obviously, we would not exist. At least, that's what any sensible and reasonable person would say, and that's also the main point that creationists are trying to get across:
We exist because we exist in a universe whose physical laws allow us to exist.

But... What's so amazing about that? What does it actually prove?
That in order for us to exist, certain conditions must be met, and since we observe that those conditions are indeed met, then that proves... what?
It's nothing but a tautology - a truth statement proving nothing but itself.

Not only that, but this argument also assumes that everything that exists comes from nature, because everything must obey natural laws...
In other words... This argument assumes NATURALISM.
And isn't that the opposite of arguing for a supernatural God?

But you know what WOULD have been amazing?

If we existed in a universe WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED US TO EXIST.
Think about it.

Imagine if we had found ourselves in a universe where the laws of physics shouldn't have allowed us to exist.

I'm not talking about our existence being "unlikely" or "highly improbable" or "having an infintecimal chance of happening" or however you want to call it.

I'm talking about a physical impossibility.
Wouldn't THAT be actual evidence of an 'all powerful intelligent designer'? Wouldn't THAT be an actually amazing supernatural miracle - by definition!?

Indeed many creationists do try to claim such evidence that would suggest that our existence is "impossible" based on physical laws and observations.

Their most favorite is the argument against Abiogenesis: i.e. it's impossible for a living being to naturally evolve from non-living matter through purely chemical processes (a.k.a. "chemical evolution", "origin of life", etc.).

Unfortunately for them, multiple scientific experiments have proven the exact opposite:
Chemical evolution of non-living matter into a living organism is very much possible, and in more ways than one, even.

Sure, scientists have yet to prove which of the possibilities gave rise to our own biological evolution specifically, and indeed the chances of any such process to happen naturally is rather improbable (which supports the observation that biological life is indeed very rare on a cosmic level).

But it doesn't matter.
It is proven to be possible and that alone is enough to undermine the entire creationist argument of "fine tuning".

Why does God take credit for the good things but not the bad?

Well, first of all, god doesn't "take" anything, because god doesn't exist.

It's the people who assign to him the credit.

But why do they do that?

In the past, when polytheism was prevalent, people used to assign the bad things to the gods as well, not just the good things. Gods were often seen as capricious, erratic, and even irrational in their "behavior". And while it better matched the reality of how nature "behaved", it would instill a strong sense of inconvenience in the hearts of people. Imagine having your life governed by a bunch of capricious, erratic and irrational powerful beings. Doesn't seem very nice, does it? Quite depressing, even. It can make you feel powerless and helpless in the face of such odds.

Greek gods and goddesses influencing human affairs from above the clouds

Enter Christianity: Here we have these new 'preachers' who go around talking about an "all-loving" and "perfect" god. Such that always has our best interest in his heart. Such that even 'sacrificed' his own life for our benefit.
After years living under the tyranny of capricious and sadistic beings, now all of a sudden it appears that it wasn't these powerful beings who were at fault at all... Because they didn't even exist. But it was us the humans who were at fault.

Now, all of a sudden the "power" to "fix" the world lays in our hands. And all we have to do? All we have to do is to "fix" our belief system. Just believe in a different god who is "the one true god". Suddenly the people don't feel powerless anymore. Suddenly the good fortunes and benefits are right behind the corner, and it's super easy to get there! All you have to do is say "I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior" and ABRACADABRA you are now without illness or sadness and you are "saved", if not in this life then in the next.

The 'one true God' loves you and wants to help you. But there is something you must do in return.

From the movie "Agora" (2009)

It's almost like voting in political elections:
You vote for the candidate who promises you the best things.

If people had not assigned the good things to their god, then their god is redundant and unnecessary. Such a belief system would simply not survive as a religion.

If people had assigned the bad things to their god, then it makes their god capricious and undesirable. You wouldn't want to "vote" for such a "candidate". It also makes the people feel powerless to fix the bad things that happen in their life.

Bottom line is:

People assign the good things to god, and the bad things to themselves, due to wishful thinking.

They wish to have the power to change things for the better (using minimum effort as possible), and they wish that the god they worship would be a good god - and therefore worthy of worship.

To this effect, Christianity is the result of "religious evolution" where the religion that sounds better to the people (i.e. tells them what they want to hear) is the religion that survives better than the rest (and not because it's more "true" than other religions).

Special thanks to Atheist Republic for the inspiration to this post.

Everyone, deep down, is an Atheist

Throughout all of known human religious history, mankind has always "put" gods in the places that seemed most unreachable to mankind:

In the depth of a cave.
In the bottom of the sea.
At the top of the mountain.
Inside a volcano.
In the sky above the clouds.
Somewhere out in space.
In a parallel dimension.
In a parallel reality.

But all this proves one thing and one thing only:

Mankind has always known, deep down, that gods are undetectable.
But if these gods are "undetectable", then how could they reach conclusions about them in the first place?
And most importantly, how could these conclusions be so vastly different between different cultures (religions) and even between different individuals within the same culture (religion)?

Using Occam's Razor, the simple answers become very apparent:

Gods are "undetectable", because that's how non-existing things tend to be.
Gods are differently represented by different people, because gods are manifested within the imagination of individuals.

Mankind has always known, deep down, that gods are undetectable.
That's why whenever a person imagines a god, the first thing they need to do... is to put this god in a place which would be unreachable by humans...

For the sole purpose of justifying their apparent non-existence.

There is only one place where gods were ever proven to exist:

IN HUMAN IMAGINATION.