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).

[bjs]

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

The flaw I see is that C2 does not follow from P3 and P4. Just because God (or any other things) is not composed of something, does not mean it is nothing. For instance, God (or something else) could be the base existence of which all other things are composed or created by.

Even in the physical world we know that there must exist something which is not composed of anything. The must be a “smallest unit of matter.� The prevailing theory is that quarks and leptons are the fundamental building blocks of matter, but it is possible there is something even smaller.

However, there must be something which is the smallest unit of matter and which is not composed of anything else. If there were not true – if everything were contingent on something else – then nothing could exist. Since something does exist we know that there must exist some smallest unit of matter which is not composed of anything else.

Similarly, traditional Christianity holds that God is not composed of anything. God is. He is the starting point, the non-contingent Being from which all else which exists was created. He is not composed of anything because he is the Beginning that does the work of composing all that is.

[Goose]

Can anyone find a flaw with this logical argument?

We can see the argument is problematic with a reductio ad absurdum.

Let’s replace God with the Empty Set.

P1: If an entity is composed of something then it is contingent (dependent) on that something.
P2: [The Empty Set] is a non-contingent entity.
C1: [The Empty Set] is not composed of something.

P3: Nothing is the complete absence of something.
P4: [The Empty Set] is not composed of something (from C1).
C2: [The Empty Set] is nothing.

P5: Nothing is indistinguishable from non-existence.
P6: [The Empty Set] is nothing (from C2).
C3: [The Empty Set] does not exist.

We see that we arrive at the conclusion the Empty Set does not exist. This, of course, is no problem for someone who utterly rejects set theory. But mathematicians will have a problem with the conclusion.

Now that doesn't address the argument itself it just shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the structure. Either the argument is invalid or a premise is false or both. So let's look at the actual argument.

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.

I won’t dispute the conclusion here.

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

The way you’ve defined nothing here it is not true nothingness in the sense where there is not anything at all – i.e. utter non-existence. Nothing, as you’ve defined it, is a void where nothing means a total lack of something.

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

P5 is problematic in light of P3. When we carry over your idea of nothing – which is a void - premise P5 becomes false. A void is not indistinguishable from non-existence. A void is simply a state of being empty. Non-existence is the state of not existing at all. These concepts are quite clearly distinguishable. P5 is false.

[RedEye]

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

The flaw I see is that C2 does not follow from P3 and P4. Just because God (or any other things) is not composed of something, does not mean it is nothing.

It follows. If you accept P4 then you have no choice but to agree that God must be a synonym for nothing.

For instance, God (or something else) could be the base existence of which all other things are composed or created by.

Could be? How does speculation invalidate a logical argument?

Even in the physical world we know that there must exist something which is not composed of anything. The must be a “smallest unit of matter.� The prevailing theory is that quarks and leptons are the fundamental building blocks of matter, but it is possible there is something even smaller.

Have you heard of string theory? The problem you have is that whatever that smallest "thing" is, it probably doesn't fit the definition of "entity" in the proof. The same thing is true for quarks and leptons. One quark with the same properties as another is indistinguishable from it - so no unique and independent existence. The same can be said for leptons.

However, there must be something which is the smallest unit of matter and which is not composed of anything else. If there were not true – if everything were contingent on something else – then nothing could exist. Since something does exist we know that there must exist some smallest unit of matter which is not composed of anything else.

See above.

Similarly, traditional Christianity holds that God is not composed of anything. God is. He is the starting point, the non-contingent Being from which all else which exists was created. He is not composed of anything because he is the Beginning that does the work of composing all that is.

Are you suggesting that God is as simple as a one-dimensional vibrating string (or even a quark)?

[RedEye]

Can anyone find a flaw with this logical argument?

We can see the argument is problematic with a reductio ad absurdum.

Let’s replace God with the Empty Set.

P1: If an entity is composed of something then it is contingent (dependent) on that something.
P2: [The Empty Set] is a non-contingent entity.
C1: [The Empty Set] is not composed of something.

P3: Nothing is the complete absence of something.
P4: [The Empty Set] is not composed of something (from C1).
C2: [The Empty Set] is nothing.

P5: Nothing is indistinguishable from non-existence.
P6: [The Empty Set] is nothing (from C2).
C3: [The Empty Set] does not exist.

We see that we arrive at the conclusion the Empty Set does not exist. This, of course, is no problem for someone who utterly rejects set theory. But mathematicians will have a problem with the conclusion.

A mathematical concept is not an entity as per my definition.

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

The way you’ve defined nothing here it is not true nothingness in the sense where there is not anything at all – i.e. utter non-existence. Nothing, as you’ve defined it, is a void where nothing means a total lack of something.

Yes, a true void.

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

P5 is problematic in light of P3. When we carry over your idea of nothing – which is a void - premise P5 becomes false. A void is not indistinguishable from non-existence. A void is simply a state of being empty. Non-existence is the state of not existing at all. These concepts are quite clearly distinguishable. P5 is false.

I haven't equated nothing to a void in your meaning. Presumably you are talking about empty space. However, so-called empty space is not empty. There is no true void in the universe. Even in a complete vacuum there are virtual particles being created and annihilated continuously. Therefore no true void exists. Therefore the nothing I am talking about (the complete absence of something, including space-time and vacuum energy) is indistinguishable from non-existence. If you think that they are distinguishable then please explain how you would distinguish them.

[Goose]

We can see the argument is problematic with a reductio ad absurdum.

Let’s replace God with the Empty Set.

P1: If an entity is composed of something then it is contingent (dependent) on that something.
P2: [The Empty Set] is a non-contingent entity.
C1: [The Empty Set] is not composed of something.

P3: Nothing is the complete absence of something.
P4: [The Empty Set] is not composed of something (from C1).
C2: [The Empty Set] is nothing.

P5: Nothing is indistinguishable from non-existence.
P6: [The Empty Set] is nothing (from C2).
C3: [The Empty Set] does not exist.

We see that we arrive at the conclusion the Empty Set does not exist. This, of course, is no problem for someone who utterly rejects set theory. But mathematicians will have a problem with the conclusion.

A mathematical concept is not an entity as per my definition.

Your definition of entity is rather vague and certainly leaves the door open for mathematical concepts like the Empty Set. So, is it only mathematical concepts which are not entities or is it all concepts which are not entities as per your definition?

Now, if you say the former then I have to ask why are mathematical concepts not entities if other concepts are? If you say the latter then it seems to me you are restricting entity to that which exists materially. And if that’s the case, then of course God does not exist as a material entity. No surprise there.

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

The way you’ve defined nothing here it is not true nothingness in the sense where there is not anything at all – i.e. utter non-existence. Nothing, as you’ve defined it, is a void where nothing means a total lack of something.

Yes, a true void.

Okay so you concede your idea of nothing means a void. Albeit it must be a true void.

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

P5 is problematic in light of P3. When we carry over your idea of nothing – which is a void - premise P5 becomes false. A void is not indistinguishable from non-existence. A void is simply a state of being empty. Non-existence is the state of not existing at all. These concepts are quite clearly distinguishable. P5 is false.

I haven't equated nothing to a void in your meaning.

Yes you did. You defined nothing as “the complete absence of something.� That is by definition emptiness (a void), not non-existence. And then you conceded above, “Yes, a true void.� A true void is a void, it’s just one that is true.

Presumably you are talking about empty space.

No, I said nothing about space and neither did you in your premise. I’m just talking about the state of emptiness or being void. That’s the definition you gave for nothing.

Therefore no true void exists.

False. The Empty Set is by definition a true void.

Therefore the nothing I am talking about (the complete absence of something, including space-time and vacuum energy) is indistinguishable from non-existence.

You are still describing a void. It’s a state where there is the absence or emptiness of something. In this case, the something which is absent is space-time and vacuum energy. Every time you use the word absence you imply a state of emptiness or not being present. The state of being empty or not being present is not the state of non-existence. It’s just the state of being empty or not being present.

It sounds like you might mean a state where there is no physical universe? Is that what you mean by nothing?

[Tart]

What if the argument is valid, yet the conclusion doesnt hold true?

(Rationalism... I dont think anyone believes that rationalism hold absolute truths anymore)

If you accept that the argument is valid then your only defense against accepting the conclusion as true is to show that the argument is not sound (ie. by refuting one of the premises) as I have already explained. If you can't show that the argument is unsound then you have no choice logically but to accept the conclusion.

Well rationalist come to many conclusions all the time, built upon logically valid arguments, but they even come to different conclusions. In many cases they come to conclusions that contradict other conclusions, but both being built upon rationally valid arguments... That is why rationalism collapsed... They have arguments that contradict each other.. Now in a philosophy class, they teach of opposing truths that came from rationalist, as if they all are valid...

I'm sorry but all I see are assertions. Are you suggesting that we should all embrace irrationality?

Creationist have come up with logical arguments that prove God exists... Like yours that proves he doesnt exist...

Unfortunately I have yet to see one which is sound.

But lets for example take into consideration the evidence (empiricism)... How would your argument say anything about the Christian God, revealed through Christ as the Messiah?

Could Christ as the Messiah be true, even if your statement is logically valid?

Are they independent of each other?

Please read the OP again. I am interested in someone finding a flaw in the logical argument I have presented. You are way off-topic.

If it is an untrue statement, in the clothing of rationality... It seems to me, that would be "embracing irrationality".... rationalism has come to conclusions that arent, and can not be true... That is why it collapsed. When people take into consideration, only rationality, despite any evidence, it has lead people to self-contradicting truths...

[Tart]

I am interested in the premises though... When you say "God is a non-contingent entity..", what is that and how do you know it?

[bjs]

It follows. If you accept P4 then you have no choice but to agree that God must be a synonym for nothing.

For instance, God (or something else) could be the base existence of which all other things are composed or created by.

Could be? How does speculation invalidate a logical argument?

I was not speculating. I was pointing out another logical option to show that C2 does not necessarily follow from P3 and P4. If something, such as God, is not composed of anything then that something could be a synonym for nothing, or it could exist independently. It is not true that accepting P4 means that we have no choice but to agree that God must be a synonym for nothing. I was providing another choice.

Even in the physical world we know that there must exist something which is not composed of anything. The must be a “smallest unit of matter.� The prevailing theory is that quarks and leptons are the fundamental building blocks of matter, but it is possible there is something even smaller.

Have you heard of string theory?

Sure, but I was limiting myself to what is known instead of including an unprovable hypothesis.

The problem you have is that whatever that smallest "thing" is, it probably doesn't fit the definition of "entity" in the proof. The same thing is true for quarks and leptons. One quark with the same properties as another is indistinguishable from it - so no unique and independent existence. The same can be said for leptons.

Here you make a massive, unestablished claim the flies in the face of logic and common since. How exactly do we get from saying that two things are indistinguishable from each other to saying that this means they have no unique and independent existence?

You provided a good logical argument to start us off. Can you provide a logical argument to show how this apparent non-sequitur is true?

However, there must be something which is the smallest unit of matter and which is not composed of anything else. If there were not true – if everything were contingent on something else – then nothing could exist. Since something does exist we know that there must exist some smallest unit of matter which is not composed of anything else.

See above.

“See above� does not seem sufficient here. You argument, if it were valid, would mean that nothing can exist. Your own existence suggests that isn’t true.

Similarly, traditional Christianity holds that God is not composed of anything. God is. He is the starting point, the non-contingent Being from which all else which exists was created. He is not composed of anything because he is the Beginning that does the work of composing all that is.

Are you suggesting that God is as simple as a one-dimensional vibrating string (or even a quark)?

No, I was pointing out that something can exist without being made of anything. I then applied this fault in the logical argument to the existence of God, pointing out that God need not be made of anything to exist.

[wiploc]

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

A non-contingent god would exist in every possible world. But godless worlds are possible. Therefore, non-contingent gods would have to exist in godless worlds, which is a contradiction.

Therefore, non-contingent gods cannot exist.

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.

I wonder what a rainbow is composed of. I'm just not confident of the truth of P1.

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

That's not valid.

I'm not saying you couldn't make it valid. You could maybe add premises like, "P: A thing is what it's composed of," in order to make it valid. But, as it stands, not valid.

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

Not valid.

From those premises you could validly conclude that god is indistinguishable from non-existence.

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).

I've been known to say things like, "There's not a hair's-breadth of difference between not existing at any place or time and not existing at all." That seems right, commonsensical. I would only weaken it by styling it as a syllogism-not-quite-pulled-off.

Perhaps something like, "If god isn't composed of anything, then god is nothing. And if god is nothing, then he doesn't exist." That may not be compelling, but it seems to me stronger than what you had just because it is simple and clear.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

Seems to me that there is something wrong with the very first statement with regard to God:

P1: If an entity is composed of something then it is contingent (dependent) on that something.

You seem to be basing your argument on God being composed OF something rather than God BEING (something). (I see that bjs also mentioned this)


For instance, you could state that God is love (rather than stating that God is comprised of love). Or you could also simply insert 'x' to cover anything a person thinks about what God is.

God is 'x'.
If 'x' ceased to exist, God would cease to exist. But that is obvious. That is no different than saying if God ceases to exist, then God ceases to exist.


That is what you argument seems to boil down to, to me.



But also (and JW touched upon this earlier in the thread) the definition that you supplied of non-contingent is this:

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

Agreed, absolutely. God is not dependent upon anyone or anything else for His existence. But that does not preclude God from being SELF sustaining.

You do not seem to have taken that into consideration.




Peace again to you!