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]

Peace to you,

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)

You are getting ahead of yourself. P1 does not reference God. It is just a general statement about entities. It could apply to you and me. Do you agree or disagree with the premise?

Disagree.

You have not established that an entity being composed of something means that entity is dependent upon that something.

For example, I am composed of arms, legs, eyes, etc, but I am not dependent upon those things to exist. Nor am I my arms, legs, or eyes. I am still me without them. And that is just me; you also have not established that all entities are dependent upon what they are composed of. I think Wiploc is correct that you would have to add another premise in order to make your first part valid: An entity is dependent upon what it is composed of. That still does not make your argument sound though.

I never stated that an entity is contingent on everything it is made of. At some level though you are very much contingent on what you are made of. If you had no brain or heart or any of a myriad of vital organs then you would not exist. If there were no such thing as cells then you could not exist. If there were no atoms and molecules then you could not exist. And so on. Yes, we are very much contingent on what we are made of.

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.

You could state (assert) anything you like. Unfortunately nothing you have stated has any bearing on the premises I have presented.

Have you not assumed in your C1 that God is composed of something rather than that God IS something, and so self-sustaining (still making God non-contingent)?

C1 has no assumptions. It is a conclusion arrived at from the two preceding premises. I'm not sure which premise you are now attempting to refute.

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.

Once again, "self-sustaining" is not in any of my premises. In order to refute a logical proof you have to deal with my premises, not invent new ones of your own. I can't help you if you don't understand this.

I know it is not listed in your premises. But how can your proof be sound if it does not take that into consideration?

The soundness of a syllogism is unaffected by anything external to it. It is self-contained.

[RedEye]

What I wrote above is an absolute disproof of necessary (non-contingent) gods. Of course, "non-contingent" can have more than one meaning. If, by "non-contingent," you only mean "not dependent on something else," and you don't mean, "couldn't possibly not exist," then my point may not be relevant to yours.

Ah, I see. Yes we are talking past each other here. I was carefully to identify what I meant by non-contingent in the OP by providing a definition.

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

A rainbow is composed of varying wavelengths of light within the visible spectrum. Essentially, photons.

If a rainbow is composed of the way see the rainbow, is a bear likewise composed of the way you see the bear?

No, that is not what I meant. A rainbow exists independent of humans. Those wavelengths are still scattered from the tiny prisms of each drop of moisture in the air when the Sun is behind them. It has nothing to do with whether we are there to see the rainbow or not. When we see a bear we are intercepting light reflected from the surface of the bear. The light is not the bear.

But let's not talk about rainbows. My point is that I'm unsure of P1. Consider anything that can be composed of different things. Waves, tornadoes, thunderclaps, rivers, fire, these things are constantly renewed. They constantly change what they are composed of.

If a wave is dependent on the water in it at this moment, then why will it still exist later, when different water is in it?

Can you call it the same wave, ie. is the wave an entity?

I will require an explanation of why it is not valid. (I suspect I have already addressed this in post #4).

It doesn't look valid. It doesn't resemble valid things.

It's not compelling. It's not ironclad. It's not a valid syllogism.

Please refer to post #4.

Not valid.

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

Isn't that exactly the same thing as C3?

If so, then the fix is easy. You can write either this:

P5: Nothing is indistinguishable from non-existence.
P6: God is nothing (from C2).
C3: God is indistinguishable from non-existence.

Or this:

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

Those are valid.

I understand and I appreciate your input. Thank you.

[RedEye]

That's just hand-waving the problem away. Do you agree or disagree that God is non-contingent as per my Christian source? That is the only real question as it pertains to my proof.

There is nothing on earth that is non-contingent. If we define God as non-contingent, as Christians do, then we deduce that God does not exist on Earth. If that's all you want to prove, your statements lead to that end.

I presume that what you mean by "Earth" is "universe". The deduction is not that God doesn't exist just inside our universe. The deduction is that God doesn't exist in any reality where an entity is contingent on what it is made of. Do we have any reason to doubt that this is a true premise? No, you aren't offering one. You are only speculating on what might be possible "outside" of the universe. Before we can entertain that as a valid objection, you must first show that you have knowledge that there is an "outside of our universe". Do you have such knowledge?

If you want to extend your conclusion to non-Earth, then your assumptions about beings being dependent on parts does not necessarily hold, since we've no idea what non-contingency involves. I have said many times that your conclusions are correct given an appropriate domain of validity. You appear not to understand this.

The domain of validity is what we know about reality. What else can we go on?

I exemplified my point by showing that assumptions about root 2 do NOT lead to us to say root 2 does not exist but they DO lead us to find fault with our definitions. Root 2 doesn't exist in the rational number set where we wrongly defined it to be; and God does not exist as a terrestrial being. Your implications for contingency and God are flawed because God isn't subject to the laws we know, since he's non-contingent.

Firstly, I have already shown that your mathematics example actually proves my point, not yours. I'm not going to address it again.

Secondly, the statement "and God does not exist as a terrestrial being" implies that you have knowledge that God exists. Why would I accept this? Ditto for "God isn't subject to the laws we know". How do you know what you claim to know? You are proceeding on the basis that God exists which is completely circular reasoning.

[RedEye]

Three problems.

The first is rather informal; it is best, in my opinion, to word your syllogisms such that there is no possible way for them to be invalid (the possibility of equivocation notwithstanding). An example would be instead of:

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

write

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

Of course a statement like "Nothing does not exist" has a kind of grammatical awkwardness to it. However, rewording to smooth over such awkwardness isn't going to make your argument any better.

The second problem is that, as Marco said in the very first reply, C2 is not valid. It would require another implied premise, that "not being composed of (any) something is the same as being the complete absence of (any) something". And personally it is this hidden premise that I find most disagreeable. Better than having a hidden premise would be that P3 read "An entity not composed of something is nothing".

Finally, P1 is not true. It doesn't precisely reflect the meaning of contingency, and precision is of the utmost importance when making a formal deductive argument like this. P1 should read: If an entity is composed of something else then it is contingent (dependent) on that something. This word "else" is right there in the definition you linked, and it is quite important. That one word, or its absence, changes everything.

Here is what your argument looks like to me (this is me applying "repairs" for the 3 problems I mentioned above):

P1: A non-contingent entity is an entity not composed of something else.
P2: God is a non-contingent entity.
C1: God is an entity not composed of something else.

P3: An entity not composed of something else is nothing.
P4: God is an entity not composed of something else (from C1).
C2: God is nothing.

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

Because of the combination of P1 and P3, the argument implies that all entities are either contingent or they don't exist. I don't see how a "thing" would be different from an "entity" in this regard, so the logic would apply universally to any real or hypothetical naturalistic thing, like "energy" or "quantum spacetime", just as it would to God. It is quite a severe assertion, leading to an infinite regress of one thing being contingent on the next. The Christians will disagree with P3. I am more agnostic with regards to P3 (in spite of its severity), but I will at least say that I don't find it self-evident.

That's a very thoughtful reply. Thank you.

I confess that I don't like your P3 much. I would have trouble defending it.

I agree that a couple of the syllogisms in the OP could be formed better but I haven't had that much trouble deflecting the attacks on them. Your radical surgery on them may have killed the patient though (or at least traumatized them).

[JehovahsWitness]

You need to make your mind up. Are we discussing God or energy?

God is energy. When we say the word biblically refering to the Almighty God, that is what we are talking about. My understanding in debate that be for one proceeds one defines the terms.

God: infinite, self contained, self generated ENERGY.

So are you proposing such an entity/thing must be "nothing"? If so why?

[marco]

The deduction is not that God doesn't exist just inside our universe. The deduction is that God doesn't exist in any reality where an entity is contingent on what it is made of.

You may hope this is the case.
You've defined God as non-contingent whatever that might mean, and wherever that might apply. You then try to give God constituent parts, like an arm or tonsils, and deduce he's dependent on these assumed attributes. So you are making your non-contingent God contingent, through definition. You are killing him as you define him.


You misunderstood the root 2 example. It is relevant here. The correct conclusion would be that the definition that it can be expressed as p/q is wrong. It is NOT the case that root 2 does not exist.

In your submission, your defining terms are flawed. That is the correct conclusion, not that God does not exist - as you incorrectly conclude.


You say the following are "self-evidently" true: -

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

P5: Nothing is indistinguishable from non-existence.


You are appealing to self-evidence in an area where you assume something that is certainly not self-evident - a non-contingent entity. Such a stratagem is not open to you.

Then your use of "nothing" is semantic playfulness. "Nothing" exists as an important concept - we could not do without it in mathematics.

The word "indistinguishable" implies a human distinguisher. So this statement says simply that for humans God is indistinguishable from nothing. Perhaps he is. But that is many miles away from saying God IS nothing.


It's an interesting and thought-provoking submission. But God is bigger than "nothing", so to speak, or the same sort of useful concept. And perhaps his non-contingency has much to do with his being free of constituent parts. Incomprehensible? Yes, and so is non-contingency.


Go well.

[RedEye]

You need to make your mind up. Are we discussing God or energy?

God is energy.

I have already explained that energy is a property of other things. There is no such thing as something being energy. Something can possess energy.

I'm not sure that there is much point in continuing this discussion if you are just going to keep asserting the same thing and ignoring my objections.

[RedEye]

The deduction is not that God doesn't exist just inside our universe. The deduction is that God doesn't exist in any reality where an entity is contingent on what it is made of.

You may hope this is the case.

It's not hope if I have provided a proof based on this premise.

You've defined God as non-contingent whatever that might mean, and wherever that might apply.

I have clearly defined what it means and explained to you that it applies to reality as we know it. How much more could I do?

You then try to give God constituent parts, like an arm or tonsils, and deduce he's dependent on these assumed attributes.

No, my starting premise is that God is non-contingent. I suggest that you refer back to the OP.

So you are making your non-contingent God contingent, through definition. You are killing him as you define him.

If you say so. I would only request that you identify which post I did what you claim. Thank you.

You misunderstood the root 2 example. It is relevant here. The correct conclusion would be that the definition that it can be expressed as p/q is wrong. It is NOT the case that root 2 does not exist.

I understood the root 2 example perfectly. I even explained carefully in post #40 what you were doing and how it correlated with what I was doing. I'm sorry if you missed it. You were really trying to prove that root 2 does not exist as a rational number (even if you don't realize that this is what you were actually doing). You did prove that and I congratulated you for it! A similar thing happens in my proof in relation to God not existing as non-contingent entity.

In your submission, your defining terms are flawed. That is the correct conclusion, not that God does not exist - as you incorrectly conclude.

*sigh* As I have already explained, my conclusion that God does not exist follows logically from the definitions and premises which the syllogisms rely upon. You don't have to like the conclusion. If you reject it then you need to identify which premise (or definition) is flawed. You can't just assert that something is wrong.

You say the following are "self-evidently" true: -

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

P5: Nothing is indistinguishable from non-existence.

You are appealing to self-evidence in an area where you assume something that is certainly not self-evident - a non-contingent entity. Such a stratagem is not open to you.

That stratagem is wide open to me if Christians define their God that way!

Then your use of "nothing" is semantic playfulness. "Nothing" exists as an important concept - we could not do without it in mathematics.

Yes, it does exist as concept. (Not so much in mathematics). I have no problem with that. Why do you imagine that I do?

The word "indistinguishable" implies a human distinguisher. So this statement says simply that for humans God is indistinguishable from nothing. Perhaps he is. But that is many miles away from saying God IS nothing.

I'm sorry. It sounds like you are challenging P5 which states:

• P5: Nothing is indistinguishable from non-existence

Yes, that is our human understanding. What other understanding do you suggest that we use?

It's an interesting and thought-provoking submission. But God is bigger than "nothing", so to speak, or the same sort of useful concept. And perhaps his non-contingency has much to do with his being free of constituent parts. Incomprehensible? Yes, and so is non-contingency.

I'll take this as a rhetorical comment and not something which requires a response (since it doesn't address any part of my proof directly).

[Goose]

I guess I am. Does putting a label on me change anything?

No. It just helps me understand where you are coming from. William Lane Craig is also a nominalist.

No. Concepts exist. They don't qualify as entities though.

Interesting assertion. Let’s keep this in mind for later.

I have already explained why concepts don't qualify.

Okay let’s keep in mind here that you assert concepts don’t qualify as entities.

I have followed a dictionary definition, ie. the understood usage of the word.

�An entity is something that exists as itself, as a subject or as an object, actually or potentially, concretely or abstractly, physically or not. It need not be of material existence.� - Entity.

�something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality� – Entity

I guess it just depends which definition one uses.

But still only a concept.

So what? The Empty Set is still by definition a true void.

No. It's real as a concept inside of brains but doesn't qualify as an entity (ie. having independent existence), by definition.

What does “real as a concept inside of brains� mean? Let’s again keep in mind concepts, according to you, don’t qualify as entities.

How many times would you like me to answer the same question?

As many times as it takes to get your premises sorted out. Your terms are poorly defined and weakly supported. Simply appealing to dictionaries to define key terms in a premise just doesn’t cut it in formal argumentation.

Your question is irrelevant to the definition of an entity.

That’s because the question was about how you understand the nature of reality.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any distinction. How would you identify a perfect void?

Being completely empty of X.

What properties would you look for?

Emptiness of X or lack of any X.

As I have already explained there is no such thing as a perfect void.

False. The Empty Set remember? And whether or not there exists is a perfect void is irrelevant anyway. You defined nothing as a void (P3).

If you want to have a perfect void "outside" of the universe then you can't posit God there otherwise it would not be a perfect void.

That’s fine by me. I’m not arguing for “a perfect void "outside" of the universe.�

Therefore a perfect void is a synonym for non-existence.

1. A perfect void is a synonym for non-existence (your statement above).
2. If a perfect void is a synonym for non-existence then a perfect void means non-existence.
3. A perfect void means non-existence (via Modus Ponens from 1&2)
4. There is no such thing as a perfect void (your statement above).
5. If there is no such thing as a perfect void, then there is no such thing as non-existence.
6. There is no such thing as non-existence (via modus ponens from 4&5).

Clearly (6) is false. Since the argument is valid, either one or both your statements (1) and (4) are false.

Easily. Because God too is a concept which has no reality outside of brains.

That’s simply an assertion and doesn’t even make sense in relation to what you’ve argued. If God is a concept which has no reality outside of brains then God is, by your definition, decidedly not an entity. Yet your premise P2 asserts God is an entity, albeit a non-contingent one.

You’ve contradicted yourself.

[marco]

It's not hope if I have provided a proof based on this premise.

Let's go to your syllogisms, then, since my indication of flaws made no impression.


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

One might suppose that if God alone exists of himself then he has no constituent parts on which to depend. Thus it would seem that our non-contingent entity comes as unity, indivisible into component parts. So we don't conclude God is nothing.

Your conclusions work perfectly in a world that does not have non-contingency in it. So the best we can say is that in the world of your premises, God does not exist, but he may well do in a world where non-contingency is possible.

You may declare that you are making conclusions that are universally true, but how can they be when one of your assumptions is non-contingency? Where do you see that demonstrated? Yes, yes, It's the Christian definition and in that definition God exists invisibly. If you don't like it, don't assume non-contingency or accept that your conclusions are true in a limited sense.