Jump to content

Why God Cannot Exist (logical proof)


Recommended Posts

Those are facts established from experiments.

 

Have you actually read the article? It's actually even worse than I expected from SciAm.

 

I respond again with the following two points:

 

First, this is a circular argument. You start from a premise (P2), which excludes the existence of anything beyond space-time , then you "arrive" at the conclusion according to which 'God' does not exist, because it transcends space-time.

 

I thought you were all about validity. Circular arguments are valid.

 

p•q

Therefore q

 

is not only entirely valid (it's trivial to show that every model of a premise set containing only 'p•q' is also a model of 'q'), but it's typically a friggin rule in sentential logic!

 

But that's even largely irrelevant as the example you chose is not circular.

 

"According to the classical theism of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and their adherents, God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, God is free of matter/form composition, potency/act composition, and existence/essence composition."

 

In other words, there is no sense in which God exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Because of the amazing power of unicorns, there is no way to disprove them.   Because of the amazing power of Zeus, there is no way to disprove Him.   Because of the amazing power of The Flying S

! Moderator Note Per SFN Rules 2.1c, "Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited". Please refrain from using language and arguments that attempt to pass judgement on g

^ Elaborate? How does the the statement that everything exists within spacetime lead to your conclusion that (if this is true) spacetime cannot exist? Seems nonsequitur to me.

Have you actually read the article? It's actually even worse than I expected from SciAm.

 

Yes and I have also heard that if someone brings concrete evidence against one's views then they should simply accept it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and I have also heard that if someone brings concrete evidence against one's views then they should simply accept it.

 

Good thing you've done no such thing. The paper is essentially garbage. I can start a thread discussing it when I get home if you'd like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing you've done no such thing. The paper is essentially garbage. I can start a thread discussing it when I get home if you'd like.

 

Go ahead. Simply stating that a published paper is garbage without making any valid points adds no value to the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

 

To refute the existence of God, I must first define what I mean by God. It seems to me that God, defined in the broadest terms, is simply: the origin of all that exists. I think most theists could agree with this basic definition (with the exception of Mormons, who believe God to have evolved from a human being). It presupposes nothing of God's alleged qualities such as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience. Neither do we presume any attributes to God such as personality, gender, emotions.

 

Having defined God as that which is the origin of existence, we naturally move to our second definition: what is existence? Again, we will go for the broadest definition possible and say that existence is anything within space-time (including space-time itself). This definition covers not only what exists at present, but all that has or ever will exist. It includes not only the physical realm of sensible phenomena, but all that is metaphysical as well; since even something as impalpable as a thought must take place within a period of time and must arise from a brain which occupies space.

 

Having defined our terms, we will proceed with the following arguments:

  • God is the origin of all that exists.
  • All that exists, exists within space-time.
  • If 1 & 2 are true, then God is the origin of space-time.
  • If 3 is true, God cannot be within space-time.
  • If 2 & 4 are true, God cannot exist.
  • Therefore, God does not exist. God transcends existence.
So there you have it. God is a self-refuting concept.

Like most atheists (a presumption on my part) you begin with your version of the traditional God-concept, essentially a religious idea that was invented by men who thought that the earth upon which they lived was flat, and was the center of the universe. My cat could refute that kind of God-concept, if I had a cat.

 

For fun, let's take a look at your proposition 1, that God is the origin of all that exists.

 

This is not possible, given even the little we know of basic thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. God cannot have created energy. The best that any creator might have done is to restructure it into the stuff of the universe that we know.

 

By way of analogy, humans do not create wood. However, we can do a lot of different things with wood by restructuring it into houses, furniture, baseball bats, etc.

 

Arguing against any traditional monotheistic god-concept is a good start because it means that you've been thinking--- like a 4 year old kid who figured out all by himself that Santa Claus is a fiction . Good job! But do you get to quit thinking? Have you applied the same kind of critical analysis to Big Bang theory, or even easier, to abiogenesis?

Edited by Greylorn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like most atheists (a presumption on my part) you begin with your version of the traditional God-concept, essentially a religious idea that was invented by men who thought that the earth upon which they lived was flat, and was the center of the universe. My cat could refute that kind of God-concept, if I had a cat.

 

For fun, let's take a look at your proposition 1, that God is the origin of all that exists.

 

This is not possible, given even the little we know of basic thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed. God cannot have created energy. The best that any creator might have done is to restructure it into the stuff of the universe that we know.

 

By way of analogy, humans do not create wood. However, we can do a lot of different things with wood by restructuring it into houses, furniture, baseball bats, etc.

 

Arguing against any traditional monotheistic god-concept is a good start because it means that you've been thinking--- like a 4 year old kid who figured out all by himself that Santa Claus is a fiction . Good job! But do you get to quit thinking? Have you applied the same kind of critical analysis to Big Bang theory, or even easier, to abiogenesis?

 

 

Greylorn do you want to back up that assertion that the big bang and abiogenesis are fictional in the same respect as santa claus in reference to evidentiary support?...

 

Oh btw, good to see you again greylorn, still pedaling that same digital demise of dna?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. God cannot have created energy. The best that any creator might have done is to restructure it into the stuff of the universe that we know.

 

What evidence do you have that the universe is all that exists? In the absence of such evidence - which many of us would be fascinated to see - then there is no automatic reason to prohibit the creation ex nihilo of the universe we inhabit. Secondly, what evidence do you have that the laws of thermodyanimcs must apply to all universes at all times? Again, I would be enchanted to see the evidence you have for that.

 

You applaud the hypothetical four year old boy for working out that Santa Claus is a fiction. Don't you think it is time you abandoned the simplistic notion that all possible universes must follow the same rules, or do you wish to remain a child forever?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comment is not worth a cogent reply. I did not say that the universe is all that there is. Do not make up crap to start an argument.

 

Similarly I did not "applaud" a four-year old boy. I hypthesized the existence of such an advanced person by way of example.

 

I assume that this is your customary style of posing questions. Therefore I will not reply to further questions from you. Not worth the time.



Greylorn do you want to back up that assertion that the big bang and abiogenesis are fictional in the same respect as santa claus in reference to evidentiary support?...



Oh btw, good to see you again greylorn, still pedaling that same digital demise of dna?

 

I wrote a book, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul, to back up those assertions in great detail. However it is not a trivial book, like a comic book, and is only accessible to intelligent readers who do not need to open a dictionary upon encountering 3-syallble words.

 

BTW I think that the word you were looking for is "peddling," which means selling, marketing, or promoting, not "pedaling," which refers to the biomechanical operations needed to ride a bicycle or other foot-operated mechanism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I wrote a book, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul, to back up those assertions in great detail. However it is not a trivial book, like a comic book, and is only accessible to intelligent readers who do not need to open a dictionary upon encountering 3- syallble words.

 

 

I suggest you use a spell check Greylorn, it looks like you are having a little spelling trouble as well... Writing a book doesn't make you knowledgeable or correct as you found out on another forum. But I am sure it will be pointed out to you here as well...

 

BTW I think that the word you were looking for is "peddling," which means selling, marketing, or promoting, not "pedaling," which refers to the biomechanical operations needed to ride a bicycle or other foot-operated mechanism.

 

Thank you Greylorn for the correction...

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative


 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

 

Problem with your theory is it is a double negative and a burden of proof fallacy. The second part is that existence only sets up the idea of determinism or causality. The true nature of god is to be no longer guilty, to be without sin.


The true nature of God, creation The true nature of creation an endless cycle. An Ourobours and endless cycle. The true nature of existence, the endless cycle of the sun. The creation of the sun a big bang theory. The action of a prime mover the actual sun. Energy is constant therefore eternal and an endless cycle. Matter is eternal therefore an endless cycle. The sun creates all energy for life on planet Earth in fusion. This Sets up big bang theory of constant eternity of a prime mover from the creation of the sun.

 

The mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is "conserved" over time. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed. The law implies (requires) that during any chemical reaction, nuclear reaction, or radioactive decay in an isolated system, the mass of the reactants or starting material must equal the mass of the products

 

It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means energy is localized and can change its location within the system, and it can change form within the system, for instance, chemical energy can become kinetic energy but it can be neither created nor destroyed

 

 


 

Best Video Below

 

 

 


This concept was proven over four thousand years ago with Aristotle over the idea of the Primnum moven and Immanuel Kant with the concept of synthetic intuition aka memories of total recall or apriori. I must emphasize the idea of an Ouroboros which is the idea of an endless cycle. The Ouroboros encompasses the idea of your false double negative and burden of proof fallacy. This then instills the concept you had given of existence, the idea of all creation. This includes the ideas of god’s omnibenevolence, omnipotent and omniscient. The endless cycle starts with the idea of the law and someone’s basic opinion of good and evil, which ends up self defeating with ideas of Nietzsche, is good and is evil. You can not have anything in judgment of benevolence more then opinion and all not in a singular junction of one judges opinion would then be sin and death. Therefore one judge must be chosen and one judgment created and all opposed an executioner or executioned.


 


References Below:


 


P.S. Beyond Good and Evil results from independence and co dependency the essential truth to all civilization. A Master Slave Morality! An end result and injury to any judgment of good and evil.


 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros


 


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html


 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_cause?useFormat=mobile


 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality


 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

 

 

A priori[edit]


By contrast, consider the proposition, "If George V reigned for at least four days, then he reigned for more than three days." This is something that one knows a priori, because it expresses a statement that one can derive by reason alone.


 

Nietzche Good & Evil

Specifically, he accuses them of founding grand metaphysical systems upon the faith that the good man is the opposite of the evil man, rather than just a different expression of the same basic impulses that find more direct expression in the evil man. The work moves into the realm "beyond good and evil" in the sense of leaving behind the traditional morality which Nietzsche subjects to a destructive critique in favor of what he regards as an affirmative approach that fearlessly confronts the perspectival nature of knowledge and the perilous condition of the modern individual.


 


He then contests some of the key presuppositions of the old philosophic tradition like "self-consciousness," "knowledge," "truth," and "free will", explaining them as inventions of the moral consciousness. In their place he offers the "will to power" as an explanation of all behavior; this ties into his "perspective of life", which he regards as "beyond good and evil", denying a universal morality for all human beings. Religion and the master and slave moralities feature prominently as Nietzsche re-evaluates deeply held humanistic beliefs, portraying even domination, appropriation and injury to the weak as not universally objectionable.


 


Determinism is a metaphysical philosophical position stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen.


 


Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[2]


Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public arena of ideas. Assuming both sides have agreed to reasoned discourse,[4] the burden of proof can serve as an effective tool to ensure that all relevant arguments from both sides of an issue are introduced. After common assumptions are established the mechanism of burden of proof takes over to keep those engaged in discourse focused on providing evidential warrant and cogent arguments for their positions.[5][6][7]


Description of Burden of Proof


Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:



  1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.


  1. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.


In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).


Examples of Burden of Proof



  1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
    Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
    Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"


  1. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
    Jill: "What is your proof?"
    Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."


  1. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

 

Laws of Thermodynamics aka Predictability of time! Except like a butterfly effect at times mathmatically impropable of perdiction with the exception of a glass spin.

 

If two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.

 

First law of thermodynamics: The increase in internal energy of a closed system is equal to the difference of the heat supplied to the system and the work done by it

 

Edited by Jack421
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Having defined God as that which is the origin of existence, we naturally move to our second definition: what is existence? Again, we will go for the broadest definition possible and say that existence is anything within space-time (including space-time itself).

 

No. God could exist outside of space. Maybe He's in another dimension, but I think He is in a whole other universe. Existence doesn't have to be in space-time.

 

Because of the amazing power of God, there is no way to disprove Him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of the amazing power of God, there is no way to disprove Him.

 

Because of the amazing power of unicorns, there is no way to disprove them.

 

Because of the amazing power of Zeus, there is no way to disprove Him.

 

Because of the amazing power of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, there is no way to disprove Him.

 

 

 

Either there's a lot of amazing power flying around, or perhaps there's another explanation. Maybe it has something to do with beings who can't be directly observed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. God could exist outside of space. Maybe He's in another dimension, but I think He is in a whole other universe. Existence doesn't have to be in space-time.

 

Because of the amazing power of God, there is no way to disprove Him.

Disprove? Really njaohnt? Are we back to that yet again? How about you prove there is a god and show some actual evidence of his amazing power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

 

Because of the amazing power of unicorns, there is no way to disprove them.

 

Because of the amazing power of Zeus, there is no way to disprove Him.

 

Because of the amazing power of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, there is no way to disprove Him.

 

 

 

Either there's a lot of amazing power flying around, or perhaps there's another explanation. Maybe it has something to do with beings who can't be directly observed.

 

Those are all true, but every one of them doesn't have any evidence either.

Disprove? Really njaohnt? Are we back to that yet again? How about you prove there is a god and show some actual evidence of his amazing power.

 

I would, but you wouldn't listen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Those are all true, but every one of them doesn't have any evidence either.

 

and neither does God.

 

unless of course you actually have empirical evidence to suggest the existence of it/them, in which case i think we all would like to see it.

 

frankly, i'm excited to see your evidence.

Edited by andrewcellini
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are all true, but every one of them doesn't have any evidence either.

 

 

I would, but you wouldn't listen.

NJ,

Presuming that you are talking about the traditional God of modern monotheism, MTM is correct. You've no idea how much it pains me to say that. I will need to grab a beer right after finishing this and hit myself over the head with the empty bottle.

 

That God-concept is a theological invention that bears no logical relationship to reality. God is defined to be a "spirit," and as such is not observable by any instruments in the physical world. But if God really is separate from the physical universe, how did he manage to create it?

 

One of these days I will initiate a thread designed to introduce a different God-concept, that of a creator who is limited by logic and the principles of physics. Neither you nor MTM will like it. But consider this before you pursue these subjects...

 

What is the important core belief set to you?

 

Would you accept the notion that the universe was created by a consortium of highly intelligent entities who were, and remain, an integral part of the universe? Or is it important that you accept the limited beliefs you were taught in childhood, before your mind was sufficiently developed to distinguish foolishness from logic?

 

Can you accept the idea that the Creators of the Universe had an origin, and that they learned how to think and create on their own? Or must there be only a single omnipotent Creator, a being without beginning, who willed the universe into existence from knowledge that he had always possessed?

 

Consider that either way you get to believe in a created universe. Is the exact nature of the Creator more important than the result?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Those are all true, but every one of them doesn't have any evidence either.

 

I would, but you wouldn't listen.

 

Quite the contrary njaohnt I am completely open to evidence, I would welcome it, the idea of life after death and being with lost loved ones is a very powerful meme. Let's hear it, give me some real empirical evidence, I'll get on my knees and pray with the best of them... but I have a couple of serious questions to ask this god thing you speak of....

 

NJ,

Presuming that you are talking about the traditional God of modern monotheism, MTM is correct. You've no idea how much it pains me to say that. I will need to grab a beer right after finishing this and hit myself over the head with the empty bottle.

 

That God-concept is a theological invention that bears no logical relationship to reality. God is defined to be a "spirit," and as such is not observable by any instruments in the physical world. But if God really is separate from the physical universe, how did he manage to create it?

 

One of these days I will initiate a thread designed to introduce a different God-concept, that of a creator who is limited by logic and the principles of physics. Neither you nor MTM will like it. But consider this before you pursue these subjects...

 

What is the important core belief set to you?

 

Would you accept the notion that the universe was created by a consortium of highly intelligent entities who were, and remain, an integral part of the universe? Or is it important that you accept the limited beliefs you were taught in childhood, before your mind was sufficiently developed to distinguish foolishness from logic?

 

Can you accept the idea that the Creators of the Universe had an origin, and that they learned how to think and create on their own? Or must there be only a single omnipotent Creator, a being without beginning, who willed the universe into existence from knowledge that he had always possessed?

 

Consider that either way you get to believe in a created universe. Is the exact nature of the Creator more important than the result?

 

 

MTM? Mary Tyler Moore? Seriously Greylorn, I know you think I enjoy going after you but the truth is that your ideas about a god creature are no better supported than anyone else's, you make some enormous assumptions that really need more than logic to be considered but if you came up with empirical evidence for your god creature I would be very much interested. In fact I can't imagine anything more interesting than actual empirical evidence of a god or creative god like force. I would be "Q's" best buddy in a heart beat...

Link to post
Share on other sites

MTM? Mary Tyler Moore? Seriously Greylorn, I know you think I enjoy going after you but the truth is that your ideas about a god creature are no better supported than anyone else's, you make some enormous assumptions that really need more than logic to be considered but if you came up with empirical evidence for your god creature I would be very much interested. In fact I can't imagine anything more interesting than actual empirical evidence of a god or creative god like force. I would be "Q's" best buddy in a heart beat...

Sorry about not using your full handle. It evokes images of an old gentleman exposing his posterior to the full moon, then inviting someone to admire his moon-tan. I just cannot handle that.

 

In no way would I have implied a reference to Mary Tyler Moore. She showed class, and a modicum of intelligence. I apologize if you were offended.

 

You have no idea what my ideas are, yet feel qualified to dismiss them. Therefore I have zero respect for either your intelligence or personal integrity.

 

Evidence will never change your "mind." Your brain's axons have been myelinated decades ago, and your brain is limited to defending the beliefs fixed therein.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That God-concept is a theological invention that bears no logical relationship to reality. God is defined to be a "spirit," and as such is not observable by any instruments in the physical world. But if God really is separate from the physical universe, how did he manage to create it?

If he was part of the physical universe that he created, wouldn't that imply he created himself? I would expect a creator to be separate from his creation. There is no reason for me to believe it, but since we are speculating, why not? Couldn't God exist in a different universe and invoke its will from there?

 

Also, this theological invention has evolved, I think gods were seen as very much a part of the physical world until rather recently.

 

 

You have no idea what my ideas are, yet feel qualified to dismiss them.

slur removed by mod,

 

When people make extraordinary claims, it makes sense to be highly skeptical, especially if they are just some random person on the web. This is how we avoid investing in Nigerian accounts and believing in all kinds of consipiracy theories.

 

Don't promise me money, show me the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I would, but you wouldn't listen.

The evidence says that he would (unless you are calling him a liar).

 

So, go on-

" How about you prove there is a god and show some actual evidence of his amazing power."

otherwise your statement is false.

You now have two choices,

Evince you claim or admit that you can't, and that you were not telling the truth when you said you could do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence says that he would (unless you are calling him a liar).

 

So, go on-

" How about you prove there is a god and show some actual evidence of his amazing power."

 

otherwise your statement is false.

You now have two choices,

Evince you claim or admit that you can't, and that you were not telling the truth when you said you could do so.

John,

The distortions and confusions surrounding the currently popular God-concepts make discussing an alternative creator-concept in the depth that you request impossible on a blog. I've tried it before. New ideas get quickly smothered in hate and false assertions by individuals clinging to their trusted beliefs, atheists and religionists alike. However, I did write a 500 page book that deals with these ideas, Digital Universe -- Analog Soul that includes an exhaustive presentation of my ideas, and others. I'd be delighted to discuss them at length with anyone who has taken the trouble to study them.

 

Should you be one of the few with the mind and curiosity needed to honestly evaluate ideas that differ from those you've chosen to believe (very, very difficult), please read the book no faster than one chapter at a time. Even better, reread the previous chapter before perusing the next. Those who do so invariably discover ideas they had missed on their first reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and neither does God.

 

unless of course you actually have empirical evidence to suggest the existence of it/them, in which case i think we all would like to see it.

 

frankly, i'm excited to see your evidence.

 

I have 400 posts with evidence of God, and my reason for why I think Moontanman would not listen... I don't think you'll listen though.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64226-christian-evidence/

 

And, one more thing. A little while ago I was sick. I prayed, and two hours later I was better. Is there a two hour sickness? I have never heard of one.

One of these days I will initiate a thread designed to introduce a different God-concept, that of a creator who is limited by logic and the principles of physics. Neither you nor MTM will like it. But consider this before you pursue these subjects...

 

 

I see no reason to do that. Why not believe the Bible, if God is real and can do anything?

Edited by njaohnt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I had a headache, I took a pill and twenty minutes later I didn’t, I felt better; what was your point?

 

Edit- “I see no reason to do that. Why not believe the Bible, if God is real and can do anything?”

 

The bible contradicts itself so much, as to almost provide evidence; it is a hoax and any god based on a hoax must therefore be...

 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen no evidence that definitively proves that god doesn't or cannot exist, so I cannot entirely dismiss that possibility, but the evidence suggests it is extremely unlikely. So I must conclude that, given the probability that god doesn't exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.