A Proof That God Does Not Exist

[RedEye]

Definitions
God is a non-contingent entity, ie. not dependent on anything or anyone else for existence.

Attributes of God: Independence
https://www.todayintheword.org/issues/2 ... y-matters/

Non-contingent - not dependent on, associated with, or conditioned by something else.

Non-contingent
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... contingent

Entity - a thing with distinct and independent existence.

Syllogisms
P1: If an entity is composed of something then it is contingent (dependent) on that something.
P2: God is a non-contingent entity.
C1: God is not composed of something.

P3: Nothing is the complete absence of something.
P4: God is not composed of something (from C1).
C2: God is nothing.

P5: Nothing is indistinguishable from non-existence.
P6: God is nothing (from C2).
C3: God does not exist.

Support for Premises
P1 - Self-evident.
P2 - By definition.
P3 - By definition.
P4 - From C1.
P5 - Self-evident (by definition).
P6 - From C2.

Can anyone find a flaw with this logical argument? I don't think there is much doubt that the argument is valid, ie. that the conclusions follow logically from the premises. The question is whether the argument is sound, ie. that the premises hold up to scrutiny. Therefore to invalidate this argument you must nominate a premise and then carefully explain why we cannot accept it. Only by invalidating a premise can you invalidate the argument as a whole. (Unless you can prove that one of the syllogisms has a conclusion which does not follow from its premises).

[RedEye]

GOD: An intelligent non-contingent energy, ie. not dependent on anything or anyone else for existence.

you are merely inventing this definition of God out of thin air.

And your definition of God is out of what....hot fudge?

No, it comes from a Christian source. I refer you to the link in the OP.

My definition is of the biblical God, yours is made up out of what?

No it isn't. There is no mention of God being made of "energy" in the Bible.

Of course you are welcome to define God as a grilled cheese sandwich and then debunk your own made up "cheese sandwich god" .. after all, everyone needs a hobby; but taking the biblical definition above, can we agree there is no way you can prove He doesn't exist?

Before we can discuss something we have to agree on the starting definitions. I don't agree with your definition of God since it is non-biblical (despite your assertions) and it relies on a form of energy which is simply not known to reality. You could substitute the word "spirit" for "entity" and it would be just as meaningless. In fact you could substitute "zzvbbvxcbv" and still be making as much sense, ie. none. All you are doing is creating an incoherent definition of God and then asking me to prove that it doesn't exist. I don't need to since you aren't defining anything coherent.

Now, would you like to return to my proof and find a flaw in it or do you want to continue with this transparent attempt to escape the logic of my proof forever?

[Tart]

Definitions
God is a non-contingent entity, ie. not dependent on anything or anyone else for existence.

Attributes of God: Independence
https://www.todayintheword.org/issues/2 ... y-matters/

Non-contingent - not dependent on, associated with, or conditioned by something else.

Non-contingent
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... contingent

Entity - a thing with distinct and independent existence.

Syllogisms
P1: If an entity is composed of something then it is contingent (dependent) on that something.
P2: God is a non-contingent entity.
C1: God is not composed of something.

P3: Nothing is the complete absence of something.
P4: God is not composed of something (from C1).
C2: God is nothing.

P5: Nothing is indistinguishable from non-existence.
P6: God is nothing (from C2).
C3: God does not exist.

Support for Premises
P1 - Self-evident.
P2 - By definition.
P3 - By definition.
P4 - From C1.
P5 - Self-evident (by definition).
P6 - From C2.

Can anyone find a flaw with this logical argument? I don't think there is much doubt that the argument is valid, ie. that the conclusions follow logically from the premises. The question is whether the argument is sound, ie. that the premises hold up to scrutiny. Therefore to invalidate this argument you must nominate a premise and then carefully explain why we cannot accept it. Only by invalidating a premise can you invalidate the argument as a whole. (Unless you can prove that one of the syllogisms has a conclusion which does not follow from its premises).

Wow... Certainly a logically drawn out proof... Funny though, how all the while it flies in the face of "Logos", built upon God and identified as Christ...

Is this "proof" logically invalid? when the foundations of logic are built upon the necessity of God, yes, i think you may have made a mistake...

[RedEye]

Wow... Certainly a logically drawn out proof... Funny though, how all the while it flies in the face of "Logos", built upon God and identified as Christ...

Well, if it disproves God then there is no Logos (invented by the Greeks) or Christ who the author of John asserted was a human incarnation of the divine Word. What is the problem?

Is this "proof" logically invalid? when the foundations of logic are built upon the necessity of God, yes, i think you may have made a mistake...

You are making an assertion about the foundations of logic. Can you support your assertion with evidence? If not, why would I accept your claim?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 102 by Tart]

Wow... Certainly a logically drawn out proof... Funny though, how all the while it flies in the face of "Logos", built upon God and identified as Christ...

If only Christians knew that logos is a pagan concept.
It would explain to them so much of their religion.
So much that they could never accept.

[jgh7]

While I appreciate a nice logical argument, this argument seems to be utterly defining God as "nothing" from the very beginning.

Non-contingent may as well be an equivalent synonym for nothing. So God is defined as nothing from start of this and then concluded to not exist since He was originally defined as nothing.

Kind of a nonsensical argument, so something must be wrong. If God exists, He is something that depends on nothing else for existence.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 105 by jgh7]

If God exists, He is something that depends on nothing else for existence

With the pronoun "He", you gave "God" a single gender ...

With the pronoun "He", you gave "God" a single number ...

And then you told us what "God" actually is.

Can you back ANY of those things up with any sort of, good, hard, old-fashioned, independently verifiable evidence of any sort of your choosing at all ...?

In my experience, ALL of those things - with regard to anyone's version of "God" - only exist inside the heads of believers.

But I am MORE than happy to be shown that anyone's version of "God" really does exist.

Because then I can embrace THAT version of "God" from amongst the competing plethora of divinities clamouring for my devotion and tithes.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 105 by jgh7]

If God exists, He is something that depends on nothing else for existence

With the pronoun "He", you gave "God" a single gender ...

With the pronoun "He", you gave "God" a single number ...

And then you told us what "God" actually is.

Can you back ANY of those things up with any sort of, good, hard, old-fashioned, independently verifiable evidence of any sort of your choosing at all ...?

In my experience, ALL of those things - with regard to anyone's version of "God" - only exist inside the heads of believers.

But I am MORE than happy to be shown that anyone's version of "God" really does exist.

Because then I can embrace THAT version of "God" from amongst the competing plethora of divinities clamouring for my devotion and tithes.

As soon as I finish building my DeLorean I will travel back in time and video tape Jesus performing miracles on my Samsung Galaxy. But then come to think of it, you would then assert that I just fabricated all of it with special effects. You still wouldn't believe. So there really is no way for me to prove it to you. The only way I think would be for you to experience a miracle yourself. And even then my guess is you still wouldn't believe.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 107 by jgh7]

But then come to think of it, you would then assert that I just fabricated all of it with special effects. You still wouldn't believe. So there really is no way for me to prove it to you.

A couple of standard Christian dodges in one right there ...

There must be a book of them.

It's the "I really do have evidence, but I'm not going to tell you because you won't believe it anyway" ...

Combined with the "look at the shiny Samsung (or whatever) absurdity" distraction.

I put it to you very carefully that you know perfectly well that you cannot produce a jot or a tittle of any sort of evidence for any of the three claims you made regarding "God".

If you HAD ...

You would slam it on the table and shut me down immediately.

And NOT give me whatever it was you thought you were giving me.

[RedEye]

While I appreciate a nice logical argument, this argument seems to be utterly defining God as "nothing" from the very beginning.

Non-contingent may as well be an equivalent synonym for nothing. So God is defined as nothing from start of this and then concluded to not exist since He was originally defined as nothing.

Kind of a nonsensical argument, so something must be wrong. If God exists, He is something that depends on nothing else for existence.

We have to accept what Christians tell us about God being non-contingent. It's not a synonym for nothing. However, if it then leads to a particular conclusion, whose fault is it?

If you have God being something then he must be contingent on the existence of that something. It's only common sense. You can't, in the same breath, claim that God depends on nothing else for existence.

[Aetixintro]

Can anyone find a flaw with this logical argument? I don't think there is much doubt that the argument is valid, ie. that the conclusions follow logically from the premises. The question is whether the argument is sound, ie. that the premises hold up to scrutiny. Therefore to invalidate this argument you must nominate a premise and then carefully explain why we cannot accept it. Only by invalidating a premise can you invalidate the argument as a whole. (Unless you can prove that one of the syllogisms has a conclusion which does not follow from its premises).

Formally, there may not be much wrong with the syllogism, but nowadays there are much more to reality than God "being non-contingent".

See for example "The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality" which makes God "more" plausible than a non-God Big Bang and explanation of Universe.

We also have the existence of souls, telepathy, truth of moral nature both in us and elsewhere in nature, with the animals, with the fishes, with all organisms and even with the inorganic, including the photons.

So there should be 2 links for you to learn about, Facebook and Blogspot:
1. https://www.facebook.com/notes/lukas-f- ... 606236984/.
2. https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... sm-is.html.

In addition, Atheism has a few other problems like these 3:

"Atheism by moral blindness can cause death by stupidity, the breakdown of the nervous system!"

"It's dangerous to be an (immoral) Atheist in a group with other (immoral) Atheists because some of us are monsters!"

"I find it credible that Atheists are fleeing their awful immoral thoughts and actions and therefore are incapable to believe in Hell psychologically. This implies that they can't believe in The Devil, God and Heaven either. This doesn't mean, though, that Hell awaits them in the after-life regardless! Booo!"

and a joke of Atheism:

"Atheists everywhere, hurry to hide or else I will prove this:

"Atheism by moral blindness can cause death by stupidity, the breakdown of the nervous system!" (Very black indeed, bold types, black ink!)

by investigating you! And what a massive negative PR it will become! So to preserve yourselves, never be seen by agents of the "white-list" religions again! Beware of the sunlight (of truth) too, if you please!

The investigation of you, possibly, if you do not HIDE:
For a start, we pick the "most suitable" of you and inquire about intelligence, metabolism, etc. Some "even" (how dare they!) suggest that (Kantian) ethical and moral character is related to intelligence (or IQ) directly! We merely need to radiologically beam you to find that you are stupid!"

Cheers!