Okay, that's not why.
But it's close :P
Anyway, the reason why I'd say God is unnecessary is because of the argument from improbability.
The argument from improbability is usually used in favor for God, although I don't know why...
Look, for example, at what's called usually The Watchmaker Argument, from William Paley's Natural Theology:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. (...) There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. (...) Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.
So, there, Paley is right in a few things.
He's right to say that, if you came upon a rock, you don't really need any explanation for its existence. Because a rock is simple, and the Earth makes them often enough, so rocks are common things to see on the Earth, and it doesn't strain credulity to say that the rock was created and got there by pure chance.
Then, he's right again to say that, if you found a watch lying on the ground, this time more explanation would be needed. A watch is much more complicated than a rock, and uses complex methods to convert energy for a purpose. A rock don't do that.
And so it would strain credulity to say that the watch was created and got there by nothing but pure chance. There has to be an explanation further than that.
In this case, the explanation is design, by a watchmaker, who for this argument will be me, the watchmaker.
I designed that watch, made it, and dropped it there, and that explains the watch's existence very neatly.
But then again, in this case, the argument from design doesn't explain anything, in fact it exacerbates the problem severely, because, while now the problem of the watch is explained, you now have a much bigger problem, to explain my existence, and I'm a lot more complicated than a watch.
Instead of explaining a few gears and a casing, you now have to explain, among other things, the human brain, one of the most complicated things known in the universe.
The theist would then say that there are only 2 possible explanations for my existence, pure chance, and design.
If it strained credulity to say the watch came about by pure chance, it would be ludicrous to say that I came about by pure chance.
And so then the theist would say that I, like the watch, was designed.
This time, by God.
But again, the design explanation has now exacerbated the problem to be much worse than it was before, because now you have to explain the existence of God.
And while the human brain might be the most complicated thing in the universe, God is certainly more complicated than the entire universe put together.
And this time, there is no explanation. God has exacerbated the problem and then left it, with a huge improbability to explain, much worse than me, much much worse than the watch.
The idea that the theory that complex things can only be created by more complex things explains anything makes no sense to me.
Because while that explains everything in the universe very well (Or not so well, for example look at the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It emerges out of your brain, goes down your neck, into your chest, past your heart, around your aorta, then goes back up your neck and into your throat to control speech and swallowing. For Giraffes, that nerve takes a detour of 7 meters, when the actual distance from start to finish is only inches, from the bottom of the brain to the throat. That's not too well explained by design, that's pretty weird, actually), all it does is exacerbate the problem hugely by then postulating the existence of something more complicated than the universe.
The watch just spontaneously assembling itself would have been far more likely.
No, a much better theory is at the very beginning everything was as simple as could be. Just quarks and fundamental particles flying around, and then eventually, after incredibly complex interactions with the 4 fundamental forces over billions of years, all this matter organized itself, and while once it created the human brain, the human brain then created other, less complex things, and those are explained by design, but the design argument doesn't work for the designer, the human brain.
That needs a totally different explanation, and that is evolution.
That complexity exists seems to me that it could only suggest that things organized themselves to get more complicated, and it doesn't even seem that hard, I mean, they had 14 billion years to do it.
Design can be used to explain certain things, but you must use a different explanation for the designer.
A way to see how our opinions have usually been Western Religion'd.
Have you ever heard Pascal's Wager?
Basically, if you don't believe in God, you stand to have eternal punishment. If you do, you only give up finite things in this lifetime.
So the choice is obvious: believe in God.
Uncertain brought that to me not long ago, and I'm disappointed I wasn't sharp-witted enough to say this:
Pascal's Wager is fucking stupid. It makes 2 totally unwarranted assumptions.
1. That God cares if you believe in him, and
2. That God punishes people eternally.
I could postulate any God I wanted to, that said anyone that doesn't believe in him goes to Hell, forever, and by not believing in Him (or Her, or It), and by not believing in him you are incurring infinite risk.
I would certainly hope that God is intelligent and big enough that he'd have better things to do than care if people believe in him, and also that any God who's even slightly loving wouldn't punish people forever, eternally.
That's just an exercise in how we don't even realize how our thoughts are just Western Religion'd.
And we don't even realize.
Goddamnit, these people.
Whatever, I'm tired. G'night.