There is no known proof for God

Any atheist (or even religious person) has probably, at some point in their life, fallen into one of the many rabbit holes regarding religion. Does God exist? And if he exists, what is the correct religion to follow? Given some religions claim our salvation is at stake, contrasting an eternity of pleasure against an eternity of suffering, it does seem like a very important question to answer.

In this essay, I will aim to demonstrate that there is no known proof for God, and I will argue that it is pointless to fall down these rabbit holes, as I once did.

Demonstration

That there is no known proof for God can be demonstrated by reductio ad absurdum.

Note that, when I speak about "proof", I do not mean mathematical proof. Descartes demonstrated that, in a mathematical sense, we cannot be sure of anything other than the fact that we exist; there is no way to disprove, for example, the "Last Thursdayism" hypothesis stating that the Universe was created last Thursday, complete with all memories, historical artifacts, etc.

By "proof", I mean "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", as in a court of law. If a murderer is tried and there is video evidence of him committing the murder from several different angles, all congruent with one another; several experts have testified the videos have not been tampered with; there are several eyewitnesses; there is no reason to believe someone would falsify evidence or lie about it not being falsified; and the video evidence is high resolution and leaves no doubts about the identity of the murderer, then he would rightfully be sentenced to prison.

In the above example, it would be bad faith to argue that the videos are fake…, that all experts are lying or being deceived, and all eyewitnesses are lying or are misremembering. The vast majority of people would agree that this murderer did, indeed, commit the crime, even though there is a non-zero chance that he didn't.

Given this, let $P$ be a proof that religion $R$ is correct.

$P$ could, in practice, be one of the following:

• An archeological proof that $B$, the holy book of $R$, is correct; $B$ depicts supernatural events that happened in the past for which we have found evidence, that evidence is rarely disputed by scholars, and $B$ is the only book to describe those events (there aren't multiple religions assigning the same supernatural event in their holy book; that would disprove atheism, but not prove their religion).

• A prophecy specified in $B$ that has been fulfilled, and couldn't have been faked (such as writing the prophecy after it happens and making it seem like it was written before), not obviously predicted (such as "there will be wars", as there always have been throughout history), not self-fulfilling (humans cannot make the prophecy happen by themselves), not vague, and $B$ has a good record of fulfilling prophecies (a book which gives a thousand prophecies will make it likely that one will be fulfilled, if only by chance).

• Scientific knowledge in $B$ which couldn't have been known at the time it was written, and therefore must have come from a supernatural power.

• Scientific, unbiased, reproductible studies proving the existence of $G$, the God of $R$. A scientific study showing that prayer to $G$ helps sick people recover faster, but prayer to other gods than $G$ has no effect or a negative effect, would satisfy that criteria.

• A philosophical (ontological and empirical) argument that $G$ has to exist and it could not be any other god.

• Any other proof where any reasonable person would be convinced, such that denying that proof would be denying lots of other things we take for truth in our life, as well as implying the existence of a grand conspiracy on a "Truman Show" scale to hide or falsify evidence.

Let us assume that $PP$ exists. This would imply the following premises:

• It is a fact that, for any $R$ today (or at least the major ones), there are people dedicating their entire life to spreading it. There are, as well, people who have spent their life professionally studying $R$ and $B$, and those people obviously have an overlap with the first group.

  Let $M$ be the group representing the missionaries of $R$ who have dedicated their life to study $B$ and spread the word of their religion.

  As $M$ is seeking to convert as many people as possible, they would certainly use $P$; it would be an extremely good argument against non-believers.

  As $P$ is, by definition, a known proof, this means at least one person has discovered it. Since $M$ dedicates their life to seeking $P$, it is extremely unlikely that, if $P$ exists, $M$ would not be aware of it:

  • In the case of archeological evidence, $M$ would keep watch of discoveries and notice $P$;
  • In the case of prophecies, $M$ would have noticed it thanks to their deep study of $B$;
  • In the case of philosophical arguments, at least one member of $M$ would have figured it out.

  There is a small chance that some dude discovered it and kept it for himself, but then for all intents and purposes it could not be considered as "known".

  We can thus say that (A) $MM$ is aware of $PP$.

• As $M$, by definition, is a group of scholars member of $R$ dedicating their lives to spread their belief, it is safe to assume that $M$'s next move is to spread $P$ to all members of $R$. $M$ is a minority in $R$, so before even trying to convert non-believers, they would first make all members of $R$ aware of $P$.

  One could argue that humans aren't rational, and non-believers would be too stubborn and close-minded to accept the veracity of $P$. However, there would be no reason why any member of $R$ would reject $P$; why wouldn't they want a proof that $R$, the religion they believe in, is correct? It would be an absurdity to argue in bad faith against a proof of your beliefs, and we can safely say that (B) The vast majority of $RR$ would accept $PP$.

  Every religion has some sort of organization, be it priests, rabbis, imams, shamans, etc. Therefore, $M$ would inform the religious authorities about $P$, who would then pass it on down the hierarchy until it reaches the average believer, who barely reads $B$ and occasionally watches videos about $R$.

  It follows that (C) $RR$ is aware of $PP$, or at least the vast majority of $R$.

• Common difficulties members of $R$ face is a loss of faith, especially when faced with life difficulties (such as "$G$ has abandoned me"), and as religious authorities must then re-strengthen their faith, they would no doubt use $P$ as the ultimate argument that $G$ exists.

  To strengthen the faith of their audience, every sermon would include $P$ as a reminder of why $R$ is right and why people should follow it. This also includes non-professional authorities, such as influencers or personalities. This also includes parents; as one of their biggest fears is having their children leave their faith, they would make sure they're aware of $P$ as for why they shouldn't leave $R$.

  In fact, since $R$ asks their followers to spread the faith (we will see later on in this essay why it has to be the case due to Darwinism), even the average believer would use $P$ in basic religious debates over the internet and with their family and friends.

  We can infer that (D) The vast majority of religious debates about $RR$ would involve $PP$.

  Likewise, (E) The vast majority of websites, videos, sermons, or essays in favor of $RR$ (especially to non-believers) would involve $PP$.

• Even in atheist-dominant countries, everyone has heard of religions and their basic tenets. Additionally, most people have heard arguments for a given religion, whether they sought $P$ for themselves, or whether a member of $R$ told them $P$ in an attempt to convert them.

  Therefore, (F) The vast majority of non-believers would have heard of $PP$.

  By definition, $P$ would convince all reasonable non-believers to believe, as it cannot be refuted without going down to logical inconsistencies. Therefore, the remaining non-believers would be the stubborn, prideful ones who refuse to admit their beliefs are wrong.

  As they are stubborn and desperately want to refute $P$, they would passionately argue against it. Members of other religions than $R$ would do even more so, as they would have been losing lots of members due to knowledge of $P$. They would thus warn against $P$ in their sermons, and attempt to prove it is false.

  Thus, in a parallel to (E), we can say that (G) The vast majority of websites, videos, sermons, or essays against$RR$ would involve $PP$.

  Additionally, since $P$ is a proof beyond reasonable doubt, it would imply that arguments against $P$ would be obviously false, or riddled with bias and logical fallacies; and members of $R$ would not hesitate to point that out.

  In short, $P$ would be common knowledge; everybody would be aware of it, believer or non-believer.

---

The problem, of course, is that none of these premises are the case in our current reality.

• In the religious debates I've had, and in the websites I've seen, there is seldom someone who even claims that there is $P$; most members of $R$ say they don't know for sure that $G$ exists, just that $R$ is more likely than the alternatives. Or, they claim they are sure, but the proof they give does not fit the criteria for $P$ (such as a personal experience). As per (C) and (D), one would expect believers to state there is a proof.

• When asked why they believe, members of $R$ list out different reasons; there is no such thing as a common argument, and there is little overlap. One would expect $P$ to be a common point, and the only point, since $P$ makes any other proof unnecessary and redundant ($P$ alone would convince reasonable people, and any additional proof is unlikely to convince unreasonable people). This also contradicts (C).

• Debates between professional scholars such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foLI3KGbMnk do not spend the entire debate revolving around one single argument (which would be $P$), but explore many different arguments; and in the end, every point is a stalemate with no clear resolution. One can take a Christian having studied the Bible for 40 years, a Muslim having studied the Quran for 40 years, and an atheist having studied both for 40 years; after putting them in a room for 4 hours, everyone is at a standstill and nobody has made any progress. Additionally, the YouTube comments do not talk about one specific argument (whether to refute it or not). As per (D), this is not what we would expect if $P$ existed.

• When visiting apologist websites such as https://carm.org/ or https://aboutislam.net/, one would expect a big header "Here is the undeniable proof for $R$". Instead, the former hides the list of supposed proofs in the sidebar, and the latter has an article detailing 7 proofs, but it is nowhere to be found on the front page. As per (E), it is absurd that websites dedicated to spreading a faith would not prominently display a proof that the faith is true.

• (F) is obviously false, as I've very rarely heard people claim the existence of $P$ (and when they do, it isn't the same proof). Instead, I've more commonly heard people say you need faith to believe in God (which wouldn't be the case with $P$; it would just be a matter of science instead), and people say they "lost faith" and quit their religion (as it is a very psychologically heavy burden to quit one's religion, it would be absurd to deny $P$ out of bad faith; one would assume people would instead try their hardest to accept $P$).

  An example is Bart Ehrman who was born Christian yet went through a painful process of deconversion, losing his community and view of the world, after deeply studying the Bible on a professional level; how come none of the other Christians were able to convince him that God really exists? The comments in the linked video also share other deconversion stories, where people were desperate to find $P$ but couldn't.

• (G) is also false. In the pro-atheist websites I've read, there also isn't a common refutation of a single proof, neither a big headline "Here's why $P$ isn't true, despite what believers say". As the whole debate would revolve around $P$, so would the websites, but that is not the case.

As none of these premises are true (disproving (C) means, since (B) is obvious, that (A) is not true either), we can conclude that our initial assumption is false: There is no known proof for God.

What does happen is that people claim they have discovered $P$, but upon further inspection, that proof turns out to be false or dubious. Hence why such a proof didn't spread: it could not stand the test against counter-arguments.

Note, however, that this does not disprove God. What I have demonstrated here is that we are still at a stalemate regarding the question of "which religion, if any, is right".

What I am arguing for isn't to believe or not in a given religion. It is a warning against spending too much time in the rabbit holes, as they never end. I, myself, went down these rabbit holes for a while, investigating claimed proofs then discovering they didn't hold up to further scrutiny. I eventually developed the thesis for this essay, which led me to realize something: if there was such a thing as $P$, it certainly wouldn't be hidden in a 10k views YouTube video or an obscure website. Such a proof would make headlines all over the world and be widely known.

Censorship is also very unlikely to be an explanation for why $P$ wouldn't be known, as the Internet is difficult to fully censor (we can see with the alt-right, which made their own platforms to avoid censorship from the main platforms), religious debates on chat platforms couldn't be censored in real time, and real life cannot be censored: nobody could prevent a religious authority from spreading the word of $P$ at their place of worship.

Example of rabbit holes

As an additional argument that the above demonstration is correct, I will supply a few examples of rabbit holes I followed.

Evidence for the Exodus?

In the Exodus chapter of the Bible, the cartoonishly evil Pharaoh enslaves the Israelites. After deliberately hardening Pharaoh's heart to not let the Israelites go in order to show off his power (Exodus 10:1-2), and sending 10 progressively worse plagues upon Egypt, God stops his mind control and Pharaoh frees the Israelites; about 1.5 million people (Exodus 12:37-38) walk towards the promised land. (Some estimates say 2.5 million people, as Numbers 1:44-46 states that the 600,000 are the men of fighting age, which excludes the elderly.)

God, however, continues the mind control of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, in order to make them pursue the Israelites (Exodus 14:4), which leads to the well known "Moses splits the sea" event, and the loss of the whole Egyptian army (Exodus 14:28)

However, once they arrive there, they discover that the existing inhabitants are giants and too powerful to take on (Numbers 13:31-33), and the Israelites start to rebel (Numbers 14:2-3). God gets angry at their lack of faith, especially after he demonstrated his great power against the Egyptians and against other tribes who attacked them on the way, and sentences them to wander for 40 years in the Sinai desert (Numbers 14:32-34).

We thus have a massive exodus (roll credits) of 1.5 to 2.5 million people, who spent 40 years in a desert. Surely this could be confirmed by archeological evidence; one would expect such a migration to leave traces, be it the bones of all Israelites who died (Numbers 14:32-33), or the various tools and remains that such a large group would leave. Additionally, Egypt would be utterly destroyed by the 10 plagues.

And indeed, this website claims there is such archeological evidence: the 13th Dynasty of Egypt is "usually described as an era of chaos and disorder", which would fit the state of Egypt after the Exodus. Most importantly, it talks about the Ipuwer papyrus, dated to the 13th Dynasty, which has striking similarities with the story of the Exodus:

1. The papyrus talks about a "river of blood", consistent with the 2nd plague where Moses turns the Nile into blood (Exodus 7:20-21).

2. It claims that "gold and lapis lazuli, silver and turquoise, carnelian and amethyst, Ibhet-stone and [unknown] are strung on the necks of maidservants." This is consistent with Exodus 12:35-36 where God mind controls the Egyptians to let the Israelites plunder them before leaving.

3. The passages "Those who were Egyptians [have become] foreigners and are thrust aside.", "Behold, serving-men have become masters of butlers" and "The troops whom we marshaled for ourselves have turned into foreigners and have taken to ravaging." can be interpreted to refer to the Israelites no longer being enslaved.

When seeing that evidence, it is very compelling: the first two similarities are supernatural events, meaning that not only the Exodus occurred, but the supernatural events within it also did (something that archeological evidence of Israelite presence wouldn't prove). This would very well fit the criteria for $P$ and be considered as such (although, since it refers to the Old Testament, it would still be a stalemate between the three Abrahamic religions).

And indeed, especially given the premises stated in this essay, one ought to ask: why isn't anybody talking about this extra-biblical proof of supernatural events described in the Bible?

The Wikipedia article states that "[The assertion that the papyrus confirms the book of Exodus] has not gained acceptance among the majority of scholars", which is interesting. Indeed, reading the papyrus for ourselves, we can see that although there are similarities, it isn't a perfect fit:

• Important events are missing from the papyrus, most notably the Tenth Plague where every firstborn is killed (Exodus 12:29-30), the Plague on Livestock (Exodus 9:6), as well as the Egyptian army being swallowed by water. However, this doesn't disprove the papyrus, as there are many occurrences where text is missing.

• If we take the overall text of the papyrus, the passages which could be related to the Exodus are comparatively very few. Instead, we find that the general theme is "an upside-down world", with many quotes such as "Indeed, the land turns around as does a potter's wheel; the robber is a possessor of riches and [the rich man is become] a plunderer.", "he who could not build a room for himself is now a possessor of walls" or "he who had no yoke of oxen is now the owner of a herd, and he who could find for himself no ploughman is now the owner of cattle". This is not a description of the Exodus; poor men did not become rich after the Exodus, as the entire country was devastated by the various plagues, neither did they suddenly get to be "the owner of a herd" as all livestock was killed off.

• As the Wikipedia article itself states, "The papyrus' statement that the "river is blood" phrase may refer to the red sediment colouring the Nile during disastrous floods, or simply be a poetic image of turmoil." The red sediment theory is compelling and would explain how, from the atheistic perspective that the Exodus is a myth, the authors got the idea of a river of blood.

• Scholars state that the papyrus belongs to the "lamentations" genre, which is purely fictional (source).

• In general, professional scholars and egyptologists do not find it likely that this papyrus describes the Exodus (source).

All in all, for the layman, this is clearly a stalemate. One would have to dig deep and get acquainted with Ancient Egypt history to possibly refute the scholars' assertion that this papyrus isn't an account of the Exodus, and given the premises detailed in this essay which are clearly not met, it is extremely unlikely that this is an instance of $P$.

Scientific miracles in the Quran?

Some Muslims claim the Quran holds scientific knowledge that couldn't have been known at the time of writing and was only discovered relatively recently; and indeed, websites such as https://www.missionislam.com/science/book.htm present a list of such potential scientific miracles.

As stated at the beginning of the essay, this would be an instance of $P$. Let us examine one of the claims, the "mountains as pegs" verse:

Quran 78:6-7 and Quran 21:31 state that the purpose of mountains are to prevent the Earth from shifting. According to the above website, it was only discovered recently that mountains are peg-like in shape, have deep roots, and reduce the impact of earthquakes, which would make these verses either a very lucky guess, or divine revelation.

This website states several counter claims:

• Some mountains, such as volcanic mountains, do not have roots in the Earth.
• Mountains have changed over the course of Earth's history, which contradicts the Quran's teachings that Allah placed down the mountains during creation, implying they would never move.
• The idea that mountains act as pegs did not come with Islam, but was also found in the Bible, Homer's epics, and Hindu texts; hence, it cannot be divine revelation as the God of Greeks and Hindus isn't Allah. It has to be a mere lucky guess.

Additionally, wikiislam.net states that mountains don't always reduce the impact of earthquakes, but in some cases actually amplifies the shockwaves.

We unfortunately end up in another stalemate which is impossible to resolve without learning geology at a deep level.

The reader should also note the instances where the Quran states things known to be false, such as Quran 36:38 which implies belief in a flat Earth and the sun setting down to a fixed point. As some translations do not include "fixed", one could argue that it is to be taken from one's perspective; but then, it would be useless to state the obvious (anyone can see that the sun rises and sets every day).

Bible contradictions?

In the last two rabbit holes, I have not stated that the religion is wrong, but that it is a stalemate: we cannot know either way, and just like there is no known proof that God exists, there is no known proof that God doesn't exist. Using the same reasoning and stating that $R$ is atheism, we can show that just like nobody can prove their religion, nobody can also disprove their religion.

Indeed, although some Christians claim that the Bible is free of contradictions, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible claims a list of 560 contradictions. It itself links to Contradicting Bible Contradictions, which claims to have debunked 492 of those contradictions. At first glance, we seem to be again at a stalemate.

Let us investigate a specific contradiction: the "Rodeo Jesus" verses.

The Bible has four gospels, each detailing the account of Jesus doing miracles, being betrayed by Judas, dying on the cross, then being resurrected.

In Matthew 21, the author tells the story of Jesus coming to Jerusalem:

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."

This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

"Say to Daughter Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'"

The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.

Besides the fact that they didn't even ask the owner for permission to take their donkeys (which is called theft, and not very Jesus-like), the image of Jesus simultaneously riding on a donkey and a colt is obviously absurd (and impressive).

"Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world" - John 6:14

What is interesting, however, is that none of the other gospels mention two animals; the other three only mention the colt.

• Mark 11 states:

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here.

If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.'"

They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying that colt?" They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it.

• Luke 19 states:

As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here.

If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' say, 'The Lord needs it.'"

Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them.

As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?"

They replied, "The Lord needs it."

They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it.

• John 12 states:

The next day the great crowd that had come for the festival heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem.

They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting,

"Hosanna!"

"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"

"Blessed is the king of Israel!"

Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, as it is written:

"Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey's colt."

At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that these things had been done to him.

This is one of many contradictions between the gospels, and apologists say that technically, the other gospels do not exclude the existence of an adult donkey (although it is very unlikely that Jesus would only say to untie a colt, as stated in Mark and Luke, but was actually expecting his disciples to also untie a donkey to fulfill the prophecy).

That prophecy is also contradicted between Matthew and John, where John states that the king is only seated on a colt. The prophecy comes from Zechariah 9:9, which states:

Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!
Shout, Daughter Jerusalem!
See, your king comes to you,
righteous and victorious,
lowly and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Notice the lack of "and" compared to Matthew. In the prophecy, parallelism is used as a literary device for emphasis: "riding on a donkey, [even more specifically] on a colt, the foal of a donkey". But Matthew interpreted it as "on a donkey and on a colt", whereas the other three gospel writers correctly interpreted the prophecy as only referring to a colt.

The implications are deep: it implies that Matthew, having misinterpreted the prophecy, put Jesus as riding two animals simultaneously. But this means he has just made this story up; he didn't actually witness Jesus doing some rodeo. If Matthew is making up stories to fulfill this prophecy, then one can easily argue he also made up the other stories; then, one can argue the other gospel writers also made up the stories; and if you deny the historicity of the gospels, you pretty much deny the whole of Christianity.

Therefore, on the surface, it seems like a form of $P$ against Christianity: when faced with that, a reasonable Christian would have no choice but to accept that the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of stories and myths. So what are apologists' defenses against this potential proof that the Bible is false?

• As stated above, apologists claim that the other gospels simply forgot to mention the adult donkey; which, since they don't explicitly state there was only one animal, is a possibility, even if unlikely.

• Matthew 21:7 does not explicitly say Jesus sat on both animals at the same time; it could be interpreted as Jesus sitting on the cloaks, not the animals (and thus, Jesus was sitting on the colt, while the donkey rode besides him). Additionally, the mother donkey would've been included to calm the unridden colt.

  However, this doesn't solve the overall problem (riding two animals at the same time is physically possible, and would actually make an impressive entrance), which is that Matthew included two animals in his gospel solely because he misinterpreted the prophecy.

• Some say that the prophecy does actually refer to two animals; however, John clearly only mentions one animal in his telling of the prophecy. The theory that the donkey rode besides him cannot be true, as the prophecy states "riding on a donkey".

• Other apologists claim that small errors do not put into question the inerrancy of the Bible, and that Matthew included the adult donkey to echo the parallelism of the prophecy. (One could argue, however, why he didn't just specify the colt, as John did.)

In the end, although it does seem like a blatant error, apologists manage to get around it by claiming the meaning is distorted, and I haven't heard of anyone losing their faith because of this proof. We thus, as usual, get into a stalemate.

This is, in practice, what happens every time a "proof against God" is put forward. When faced with a potential contradiction or scientific mistake, apologists claim either a bad translation, a misinterpretation, or that the story is metaphorical (the most well known case being the story of Genesis and Noah's Ark, which if taken literally gives rise to Creationism, stating that the Earth is 6000 years old, which is easily disproved). As no holy book explicitly states "this is literal" and "this is metaphorical", and all holy books do make use of metaphors, this gives rise to a stalemate as we can neither prove nor disprove whether a given passage is metaphorical.

---

As we've seen, and as I've experienced myself, and as the questioning atheist or believer no doubt experienced themselves, every single rabbit hole ends up in a stalemate; it is a never-ending series of claims, debunks, counter-debunks, and counter-counter-debunks, that would require deep experience to distinguish truth from falsehoods.

The reader could argue that I didn't follow these rabbit holes deep enough; that this website, or this video, has a supposed solution to the question one way or the other. Or that I picked the wrong rabbit holes, and if I follow another one, then surely I will be convinced of the existence of $G$. There are, of course, many other candidates for $P$, such as the Testimonium Flavianum, the splitting of the moon by Prophet Muhammad, etc.

But this is the whole point of this essay: these rabbit holes are numerous, endless, and pointless to follow, as they all end up in a stalemate. They have to, as if they didn't, then $P$ would exist; but we demonstrated that $P$ didn't exist.

If the reader claims to hold an instance of $P$, then no need to tell me; as, by definition, $P$ needs to be scientifically based, one ought to publish a rigorously written paper and pass the peer review process, then be subject to criticism from other professionals. If that paper is free of criticism, then the premises stated at the beginning of this essay will hold true: $P$ will spread across the entire world. If it doesn't, then it was no proof in the first place. At the very least, if a member of $R$ claims to hold $P$, they should inform their faith first; how many members of a religion frequently lose faith in $G$, and are desperate for such a proof?

Additionally, to only take the two major religions, the field of Biblical/Islamic studies and archeology is still very well alive; to claim it is solved one way or the other, especially by a non-scholar, would be very pretentious.

Both Christianity and Islam also have devout believers and websites stating pages upon pages of proofs, but both are mutually exclusive and can't be right; if they're still at a stalemate, it is very unlikely you would be the one to solve this age-long debate.

The "just in case" argument

What I am arguing for in this essay is to not fall down the rabbit hole of "which religion, if any, is right", as it would take many decades of deep immersion and learning in various subjects to hope to come to an answer. If established scholars cannot get to the bottom of it and are still debating to this day, then you, an amateur in all fields, surely won't come to a conclusion. And if scholars ever get to a consensus, don't worry; you'll know.

However, there is one last argument to cover in order to justify why I don't spend my life researching religion, and why I don't believe you should either.

Consider three of the major religions in effect today: Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism.

All three of these religions preach exclusivity and do not tolerate the belief in other gods, or non-belief in their god:

• John 3:18 states that belief in Jesus is necessary to not be condemned;
• Quran 4:48 forbids polytheism, Quran 3:85 forbids other religions than Islam, and Quran 2:135 makes Islam exclusive with Christianity and Judaism despite being an Abrahamic religion as well;
• Despite being based on the Bible, Mormonism explicitly rejects all other Christian denominations as "an abomination" and "corrupt" (source), and mainstream Christian denominations reject Mormonism as well, taking Mormonism to be "a different gospel" which is forbidden according to Galatians 1:8.

In short, one can believe in either Christianity, Islam, or Mormonism, but not two of them at the same time.

Moreover, all three of these religions preach the existence of Hell, which is eternal torment, for non-believers:

• The Bible states that there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 41-42), that Hell is a "lake of fire" (Revelation 20:12-15), and that the damned will have "no rest day or night" (Revelation 14:9-11);
• The Quran states various abhorrent eternal punishments for non-believers in Quran 4:56 and Quran 22:19-22;
• The Book of Mormon states that God delivers from the "endless torment" of the "lake of fire and brimstone" (2 Nephi 9:19).

Interestingly, from a cursory research, other religions (Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc) either do not have exclusivity or do not have the belief in an eternal Hell for non-believers. However, the argument still holds for any n ≥ 2 religions with those two criteria.

Therefore, one could make the following argument:

• Although it has been demonstrated that a known proof for God does not exist, there is still a non-zero chance that a proof for God exists, whether it has been found and not widely spread (a non-believer could've kept it for itself, or not realized its importance, or live under heavy censorship), or whether it remains to be found (an overlooked archeological paper, a connection between two facts nobody has made, etc).
• For any of the three religions listed above, the stakes are high: non-believers will suffer eternal torment. Although Pascal's Wager has been debunked (see my refutation or Adam Lee's) and it is wrong to say that one should believe in one of those three religions to at least have a 33% chance of not going to Hell, it cannot be denied that it would be much more likely to find proof for those three religions than for any other ones. Plus, there is a chance of finding a proof for another religion not listed above which would still hold exclusivity and the doctrine of Hell.
• In conclusion, given infinite torture is at stake, one should dedicate their life to attempt to find a proof for God, in order to potentially find the right religion and escape Hell.

Although this argument is sound, I will argue that it is extremely unlikely that Hell, in any of the above three religions, exists; and that even if it did, believing would not change the probability of not going to Hell.

The Darwinism of religions

Consider two religions $R_1$ and $R_2$.

• $R_1$ is a very basic religion: it claims there is a God, along with a creation myth, and explanation for seemingly supernatural events, but stops there.
• $R_2$ has the same components, with the addition of a "divine law": those who follow this law will be rewarded with luck and prosperity, and those who don't will be punished by diseases and famine.

Let us imagine two tribes $T_1$ and $T_2$, each respectively believing in $R_1$ and $R_2$.

Upon contact, these religions will "compete" with each other; just like the Darwinism theory where species compete for resources and reproduction, religions compete for believers.

It is trivial to conclude that $R_2$ will win:

• If $R_1$ is true, then believing in $R_2$ will not have any consequences, as $R_1$ does not specify any consequences for believing or disbelieving.
• However, if $R_2$ is true, then following $R_1$ (and thus not following the law of $R_2$) could have consequences.

Without even investigating whether $R_1$ or $R_2$ is true, even if $R_1$ has a 99% chance of being true and $R_2$ only has a 1% chance of being true, it will always be advantageous to believe in $R_2$ over $R_1$; so $R_2$ will win over everyone from $T_1$, while $R_1$ won't win over anybody from $T_2$.

Therefore, religions with a punishment for disobeying a divine law will win over the ones without.

However, $R_1$ still lives on, as although $R_2$'s law decrees punishments for murder, theft, adultery, etc, it still respects the freedom of religion. Therefore, many people from $T_1$ actually still believe in $R_1$, but follow $R_2$'s law just in case.

Consider now $R_3$ which has the same components as $R_2$, but the law specifies exclusivity: $G_3$, the God of $R_3$, explicitly states that non-believers will be punished, and forbids polytheism. To not be punished over $R_3$, you have no choice but to believe in $R_3$ and not believe in any other religion.

It turns out that $R_3$'s law is very similar to $R_2$, such that following $R_3$ would still make you favored by $G_2$. But, as the reverse isn't true, $R_3$ easily wins, and all tribes convert to $R_3$ as it is the most avantageous move. $R_1$ and $R_2$ eventually vanish from records and are relegated to myths, as $R_3$ is vehemently against other religions.

Hence, religions with an exclusivity clause will win over the ones without.

Last, consider $R_4$ which is the same as $R_3$: a divine law, punishment, and an exclusivity clause. Normally, this would end in a stalemate, with proof of either religion being considered to find out with one is more likely to be true. However, the distinguishing factor of $R_4$ is its punishment: although the punishment for not following $R_3$ was earthly and finite, $R_4$ claims an infinite punishment; an eternity of brutal torture.

As $R_4$'s punishment is infinite, it will always be advantageous to believe in it (which is the Pascal's Wager argument). Consider the case where $R_3$ has a 99.99% chance of being true (and $R_4$ only a 0.01% chance), and let $p_3$ be the punishment of $R_3$:

• If $R_3$ is true, then not following $R_3$ will lead to $0.9999\ast p_3$ punishment.
• But if $R_4$ is true, then not following it will lead to $0.0001\ast \mathrm{\infty }=\mathrm{\infty }$ punishment.

Note that Pascal's Wager works here because we are assuming the Gods $G_{1,2,3,4}$ are as described in $R_{1,2,3,4}$, while the refutation for it involves discarding that assumption.

All tribes will end up believing in $R_4$, as infinity cannot be overtaken by any amount of finite punishment.

Thus, religions with eternal punishment will win over the ones with a finite punishment.

Using the same reasoning, we can find out additional criteria that successful religions must have:

• A religion which could be easily disproven (eg "Gods are on Mount Olympus") will lose against a religion that is impossible to disprove;
• A religion mandating its followers to actively spread the belief (even if by force) will outcompete a religion that respects the freedom of religion and avoids proselytization, as the former would gain converts from the latter but not the opposite;
• A religion with a developed lore and advanced wisdom will win over a religion considered "primitive", as being considered more likely to be true.

It is, then, of no surprise that the two major religions today - Christianity and Islam - hold all of those criteria (eternal Hell, exclusivity, impossible to disprove, have missionaries and holy wars, developed lore and advanced wisdom compared to other religions), and are at a stalemate as they lack any additional criteria to ensure a clear victory over the other. However, as they hold all the necessary criteria to win, they have had no difficulties converting almost the entire world.

What must be kept in mind is that religions converge to exclusivity and an eternal Hell, and this is not necessarily a feature of the creator of the Universe, but a fact of Darwinism that is as evident as 1/x converges to zero.

The injustice of Hell

As was seen in the previous section, any major religion will have an eternal Hell for non-believers. However, we are only investigating three religions, and all of them claim their God is "good" and "just":

• Deuteronomy 32:4 and Psalm 100:5 emphasize the justice, benevolence and love of God, while Romans 2:5-8 states that people will be rewarded according to their actions.
• Quran 16:18 states that Allah is extremely forgiving and merciful (and emphasizes these attributes throughout the Quran), and Quran 4:40 as well as Quran 21:47 specify that justice will be dealt fairly on the Day of Judgment.
• The Book of Mormon is based in Christianity, and 2 Nephi 2:10 shows that it does not deviate from Christianity in that aspect.

Of course, as we have seen, successful religions must have an exclusivity clause, and all three of these religions do have one. But the concept of eternal torture for non-believers could hardly be described as "just".

Consider two people: Jack committed a violent murder, while John was listening to Freebird and did 80 in a 75. Both people are tried for their crimes. However, we are in North Korea, and in his infinite might, Kim Jong-Un is ready to forgive anyone who believes in him.

• Jack apologizes for his crime and recognizes that Kim Jong-Un is the Supreme Leader; he is let off with not even a fine and invited to Kim's palace, where he eats at an amazing banquet and enjoys all the wonders of North Korea.
• John recognizes that what he did was wrong, and it was a honest mistake; he's not seeking to break the speed limit when he drives. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge Kim Jong-Un's power, claiming instead that he is a mere man. Kim throws him into the pit of torture, and artificially extends his life so that he stays down there until the Sun swallows up the Earth; although John later repents and explicitly says that Kim is the Supreme Leader, Kim doesn't want to hear it, stating he should've acknowledged that beforehand.

Obviously, nobody would consider that to be justice; surely Jack ought to have a heavier punishment than John. Yet, because Jack believes and John doesn't, John is the one sent to the endless torture pit.

As shown above, those three religions follow the same pattern, and they have to. Otherwise, people could just say "I live a good life anyway, God won't send me to Hell" and not see a need to convert; it is thus the religions emphasizing the need to believe that win followers.

But this is in plain contradiction to the statements of those religions stating God is "just" and "merciful" (note that no mention is made that one can redeem itself in Hell; obviously, otherwise it would not be an infinite punishment, and we have seen that finite punishments lose against infinite ones).

We must then consider that those religions aren't entirely truthful. Three possibilities arise:

1. God is evil.

Although God describes himself as "just" and "loving", he is lying (as evil entities do) and does not dispense justice in any way; he simply enjoys watching non-believers suffer disproportionately for the minor crimes they have committed throughout their life.

However, if God is evil, then it would stand that he puts everyone in Hell. Imagine a devout believer who spent their entire life praising God and faithfully following his law, then finding out they are thrown into the torture pit like the rest; wouldn't an evil God delight upon seeing that believer's reaction?

But if God is evil, and Hell awaits us no matter what we do, then belief is unnecessary; even if we find a proof for God and start believing in him, it will change nothing to our life.

2. God is vain (and has a big ego).

Just like Kim Jong-Un would be described as vain in the example given above, a God who places belief in him above all else when judging people could not be described as anything other than vain (and we could argue evil, since it is a matter of justice for an eternity of afterlife). Notably, the Bible explicitly states that God is extremely jealous in Exodus 34:14.

Although the implications of worshipping a vain, evil God can be debated, they are irrelevant to this essay. If God is vain, and he places belief in him above all else, and non-believers receive eternal torture, then so be it; the best thing to do is to believe in him.

However, God cannot be vain, as it would be absurd. Not only did this essay demonstrate that there is no known proof for God, anyone can acknowledge that God does not readily make himself known. But if God was vain, then he would want as much praise as possible; just like Kim Jong-Un would want everyone to recognize him as Supreme Leader. This would mean God would make himself readily apparent, performing various miracles so people can see his power. As seen above, the Exodus is a very good example, where God explains in Exodus 14:4 that his aim is to demonstrate his power and make the Egyptians recognize his glory.

There is no reason why God couldn't continue to perform those miracles, especially as God is described as omnipotent; surely, if he created Hell and has the power to judge who goes to it, he can also affect Earth in a way which would make people acknowledge his power. In the non-zero chance that he has no power to perform miracles (either he is no longer omnipotent, or lied about it), we are hypothetizing a vain God, not an evil God. An evil God would throw everyone in Hell, but a vain God would recognize that people didn't believe in him because of the lack of proof, not out of contempt; therefore, on the Day of Judgement, he would simply ask people if they recognized his glory (and the vast majority of people would say yes, not only to avoid the pit of torture, but also because they couldn't deny it).

Hence, if God is vain, then he would recognize that we wouldn't have had the proper opportunity to acknowledge his power (that we only read about in books, not witnessed for ourselves), and would forgive us for that and give us an opportunity to do so after our death. Thus, belief is also unnecessary.

3. God is just.

As justice is incompatible with the concept of eternal Hell for non-believers, and we are assuming the existence of Hell for the purposes of this essay, assuming a just God requires us to drop the exclusivity clause: non-believers can, indeed, go to Heaven.

This, of course, contradicts the holy book of all three religions. But one can argue for a just God despite those clauses:

• A just God would have known (as the demonstration is pretty straightforward) that any successful religion must have an exclusivity clause. Knowing that, when giving the true religion to his people, he would've included it; but it was written just to win the Darwinian fight, and is not actually enforced.
• At the time the holy books were written, other religions generally couldn't be described as good, as they did abhorrent practices such as child sacrifice (eg Leviticus 18:21). Therefore, the "non-believers" would've referred to those practicing evil acts, and not people who didn't believe but who could be considered to live a morally good life.
• God considers "belief" not as acknowledging his existence and praying to him, but as following his law. This would be consistent with a just and benevolent God: such a God wouldn't be concerned with whether people believe in him (as we have seen, that would be vanity), but as whether people do good or evil.

In the case of a just God, what matters would be following the laws, and it is generally accepted that the laws of all three religions align with the current view of morality (none of those religions promote child sacrifice or anything that would be considered plainly evil).

As one should strive to be a morally good person anyway, belief would also be unnecessary in this case: a just God would reserve Hell for the worst possible crimes imaginable, and so far I have certainly not committed crimes worthy of eternal torture (and if I do in the future, then I would see nothing wrong with being sentenced to my righteous punishment).

As such, for all three religions, belief is unnecessary, and it is thus unnecessary to dedicate your life to seeking proof for any of those religions.

Hell is unnecessary

Consider why the earthly, human justice system exists, and why prison exists. The purpose of prison is threefold:

1. Redemption: we ideally want criminals to repent and reintegrate society as a morally good person. This is why most prison sentences are not life sentences.
2. Exclusion: for hardened criminals (murderers, gang leaders, etc), redemption is unlikely and reintegration would be too risky. In this case, the purpose is simply to protect society by making sure those people cannot commit any other crimes.
3. Deterrence: criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they can see how other criminals suffer in prison. This is for example the purpose of solitary confinement.

The purpose of Hell cannot be redemption, as none of the three religions state that you can repent in Hell; nor can it be exclusion, as by the time you get to Hell, you cannot affect society anymore (which cannot be defined as protection; imagine if serial killers were only imprisoned 30 years after their trial).

Therefore, the purpose of Hell can only be deterrence. But it is in contradiction with our current reality: we have no evidence of Hell (as we have no proof for God), which hardly serves as deterrence (indeed, it hasn't stopped many believers from committing atrocious crimes).

One would expect Hell to be much more obvious, such as frequent visions of the screams of the damned. Or, as all three religions describe an omnipotent God, a 24/7 livestream where Twitch chat selects the next punishment. This would be within the reach of the God described in those religions, would act as a very good deterrent, and help to uphold his law.

As none of this is the case, we can say that Hell has no purpose; in which case, why would it exist at all, and why would all three religions warn against it? The only explanation is that Hell only exists to win the Darwinian competition, and there is no actual Hell, just like the exclusivity clause was included solely to win over other religions.

God doesn't want us to have proof

All three religions state that, back then, God's presence was obvious; whether it was God itself or his prophets, miracles were abound, and it was the way many people initially converted.

However, we have no such thing today. Presumably, as God is described as omnipotent, and we have no reason to assume he has lost his powers since then, he could still perform miracles as he did in the past. Yet, he doesn't.

Believers put forward various arguments to explain the "divine hiddenness", such as faith no longer being faith if it were obvious, or upholding free will. Whether these arguments are accurate does not change the conclusion: God, for some reason, does not want us to have proof.

In which case, trying to find a proof for God would be a fool's errand (and likely anger God). There is no reason why God would send us on an endless treasure hunt to have a proof of his existence, rather than providing us with an undeniable, recent proof, not based on millenia-old manuscripts hard to verify and prone to be tampered with.

If anything, one could assume God would be filled with sadness to see us waste our life trying to find a proof that doesn't exist, rather than live the gift of our life.

A fourth religion

Although we have now demonstrated that none of the three mentioned religions are compatible with an eternal Hell for non-believers, one cannot put aside the non-zero possibility of a fourth religion which would be compatible with such a thing.

Consider the possibility of a God with the following attributes:

• He is not omnipotent; he does not have any power over Earth, and as such has no way to make us aware of the divine law, let alone the right God to follow.
• He is vain, and places belief above all else. Even if you live a perfectly good life, you would still go to Hell if you did not believe.
• He does not forgive, and if you did not believe in him while on Earth, you will not be given a second chance despite the lack of proof.
• Alternatively, he is unaware of the state of Earth, and is only given reign over the judgement of souls (imagine it isn't God, but an angel God entrusted to do the judgement, and the non-omniscient God is unaware that the angel is not really respecting his justice), thinks there is plenty of proof, and that the only reason people reject God is because they are evil.

Consider, also, the fact that this religion was once on Earth, but has been forgotten for one reason or another. Therefore, there could exist some kind of archeological artifact in a remote corner of the Earth, detailing the true religion to believe in to be saved from Hell, along with a proof that it really is the right religion. Although there is very little chance that I, an amateur, could find anything (especially before the professional archeologists actively searching for such proofs), that chance is still non-zero, which is equivalent to 100% when considering infinity.

Given this, the best move does seem to be to dedicate our lives to find that proof, however unlikely it is.

But the refutation is the same refutation as for Pascal's Wager: we cannot assume that God would be telling the truth. Suppose a God as described above, but doing the opposite (sending people to Hell for believing, despite saying in its holy book that it will send them to Heaven). This could be because that God is evil, or the judgement machine is broken. Nevertheless, we must assume equal probabilities for both of those gods.

As we have an equal probability of going to Hell for believing as for not believing, finding a proof does not change anything.

Note that this also applies for the three religions listed above. Even if you believe the idea of an eternal Hell for non-believers is compatible with those religions, finding a proof and believing still wouldn't guarantee an escape from Hell.

Conclusion

• There is no known proof for God. If there was such a proof, it would be widely known and not hidden away in some YouTube video.
• The doctrine of an eternal Hell, along with the requirement for belief, can easily be explained as a consequence of Darwinism.
• Even if one of the three biggest religions having an eternal Hell for non-believers (Christianity, Islam, Mormonism) is true, it would be incompatible with their description of God, so it is unnecessary to dedicate a significant amount of time to finding the "right" religion.
• Last, even if we postulate the existence of a religion we have yet to know about where the doctrine of Hell would be compatible, the refutation of Pascal's Wager still applies and finding proof would not help us.

We can therefore conclude that the right thing to do is to not waste our finite, earthly life trying to solve a debate raging since the dawn of time, and certainly not be emotionally fearful of a doctrine whose sole purpose is to make the religion victorious against the competition.

Instead, realize that it is likely there is no God at all; every single rabbit hole I have ever investigated ends up either in stalemate or towards the side of atheism. We only have one life, and we should live it.