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).

[JehovahsWitness]

It doesn't really matter anyway because you can't identify a form of energy which is not a possessed attribute of another object.

Sure I can, based on an analysis of the biblical description, I identify it as "divine energy". Thus the biblical definition of God, which cannot be disproved.

JW

[RedEye]

Can anyone find a flaw with this logical argument?

I wouldn't call it a flaw. Just a category error. God is sometimes asserted to be 'pure consciousness'. But what is consciousness made of? What is the sensation of, say, red, or chilli powder, or a Beethoven symphony, made of? If we ever manage to solve the 'hard problem' of consciousness; why we have sensation at all, and why certain physical events give rise to phenomenal experiences, and what those experiences are composed of, we might get that much closer to an understanding of God.

See the definition of "entity" at the top of the proof. Consciousness is not an entity - it is directly dependent upon the functioning of sufficiently complex brains. Consciousness is not made of anything. It is merely the name we give to what is produced by such active physical brains. There is no such thing as "pure consciousness". This is an imaginary concept, ie. an appeal to a magical something that is not known to exist.

[RedEye]

It doesn't really matter anyway because you can't identify a form of energy which is not a possessed attribute of another object.

Sure I can, based on an analysis of the biblical description, I identify it as "divine energy". Thus the biblical definition of God, which cannot be disproved.

Appealing to an imaginary term like "divine energy" does not help you one iota. You can't justify the existence of one imaginary thing (God) by appealing to another imaginary thing (divine energy). I'm not sure just how many times we have to go through this fallacy before you recognize what you are doing. Besides, I searched the NIV and the term "divine energy" gave zero matches. It's not Biblical. You are just making it up as you go along.