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]

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.

Sure, I'm not disputing that. If we want to expand the term to include abstract concepts then I am happy to concede that God exists as an abstract concept. I have already indicated this. However, if we want to prove that God (not the concept of God) exists or does not exist then we have to go with a definition like the one I provided.

But still only a concept.

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

We have covered this ground already.

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

Being completely empty of X. Emptiness of X or lack of any X.

Huh? What is 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).

*sigh* You are still only appealing to a concept.

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.�

Good. Then a perfect void does not exist. Exactly as I said.

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.

No, (6) is not false in the sense that the word "non-existence" is being used up above. We only know of existence. There is no such thing as non-existence except as a concept. You can't point me to non-existence just as you can't point me to a true void. They are both just concepts. Specific things may not exist (having the property of not being existent) but that is a different usage of the word.

Anyway, it doesn't matter to my proof that I can see. This is all just a sideshow. I'm happy to fall back on nothing being indistinguishable from non-existence (P5). I still haven't seen you provide a plausible way to distinguish the two.

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.

No contradiction. I'm telling you what I believe (since you invited my opinion). The proof is based on the premises of what Christians believe about the nature of their God. It is that God which I am disproving.

[RedEye]

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.

Yes, but a unity of what exactly? That is the key question. It has to be something, right? If it's not something then what is being unified? It is irrelevant whether the something you propose is divisible or not. The only question is, what is that something and how is God not contingent (dependent) upon it for his existence?

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.

So you appeal to the unknown again. We have been through this. We can only argue from what is known. If you are going to invoke "magic" every time you can't deal with a logical argument then why bother with logic at all?

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.

There must be some confusion here. I do like that Christians define their God as non-contingent. It helps me to disprove that such a God exists!

[marco]

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.

Yes, but a unity of what exactly? That is the key question. It has to be something, right? If it's not something then what is being unified? It is irrelevant whether the something you propose is divisible or not. The only question is, what is that something and how is God not contingent (dependent) upon it for his existence?

We are clutching at straws now. Your contention was that the constituent parts that made up God caused his dependence on them. If he is complete in himself - the Christian definition is he alone exists of himself - then he has nothing lesser on which to depend; he owes his existence, in some curious way, only to himself; there are no contingencies involved with him. You erroneously submit that there are,

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.

So you appeal to the unknown again. We have been through this. We can only argue from what is known. If you are going to invoke "magic" every time you can't deal with a logical argument then why bother with logic at all?

Yes, well I am simply following your path. For the purposes of argument you assume a God, with the property that he's non-contingent. In doing so you know that such an entity defies the rules of our physical world. He's magic, as you put it.

I do like that Christians define their God as non-contingent. It helps me to disprove that such a God exists!

Well it hasn't helped all that much; you haven't proved anything that should alarm a Christian. I think you've failed to understand some of the arguments against your submission, for in your attempts to restate and refute, you seem confused in the detail.

Anyway, good to engage.

[RedEye]

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.

Yes, but a unity of what exactly? That is the key question. It has to be something, right? If it's not something then what is being unified? It is irrelevant whether the something you propose is divisible or not. The only question is, what is that something and how is God not contingent (dependent) upon it for his existence?

We are clutching at straws now. Your contention was that the constituent parts that made up God caused his dependence on them. If he is complete in himself - the Christian definition is he alone exists of himself - then he has nothing lesser on which to depend; he owes his existence, in some curious way, only to himself; there are no contingencies involved with him. You erroneously submit that there are,

Please identify the premise where I used the term "constituent parts". You are putting words into my mouth. The phrase "complete in himself" is meaningless and has nothing to do with my logical proof. It's just another way of saying that God is "magic" and is not subject to our understanding of reality. I have already explained why appeals to the unknown are not very productive.

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.

So you appeal to the unknown again. We have been through this. We can only argue from what is known. If you are going to invoke "magic" every time you can't deal with a logical argument then why bother with logic at all?

Yes, well I am simply following your path. For the purposes of argument you assume a God, with the property that he's non-contingent. In doing so you know that such an entity defies the rules of our physical world. He's magic, as you put it.

As I have already explained ad nauseam, it is not my assumption. It is what Christians believe to be the nature of their God. If you want to call it magic then you are telling us that Christians believe in magic. That is entirely your call. As for me, I simply take their view of God and set out to logically disprove it. I'm not sure how you can complain about that. What exactly is wrong with disproving a claim made by your opponent?

I do like that Christians define their God as non-contingent. It helps me to disprove that such a God exists!

Well it hasn't helped all that much; you haven't proved anything that should alarm a Christian. I think you've failed to understand some of the arguments against your submission, for in your attempts to restate and refute, you seem confused in the detail.

Anyway, good to engage.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. You will not be surprised to learn that I don't share it. I have diligently answered every valid objection which has been raised. What more could I possibly do?

[marco]

Please identify the premise where I used the term "constituent parts". You are putting words into my mouth. The phrase "complete in himself" is meaningless and has nothing to do with my logical proof. It's just another way of saying that God is "magic" and is not subject to our understanding of reality. I have already explained why appeals to the unknown are not very productive.

This is becoming tedious. To be composed of something is to have constituent parts. Your argument examines God being non-contingent and so not being composed of something. You say you don't understand the phrase: "complete in himself". It's like the Christian definition you hijacked for your proof. Christians believe that God is non-contingent; that is, he owes his existence to nothing and no one. He exists entirely of himself. I see you only want to borrow part of Christian doctrine for your purposes and discard the bit that doesn't suit. Fine, but let us not label the effort "proof" of anything; it is merely an illustration, with flaws. I'm not appealing to the unknown; you are, by choice of definition.

As I have already explained ad nauseam, it is not my assumption. It is what Christians believe to be the nature of their God. If you want to call it magic then you are telling us that Christians believe in magic. That is entirely your call. As for me, I simply take their view of God and set out to logically disprove it. I'm not sure how you can complain about that. What exactly is wrong with disproving a claim made by your opponent?

RedEye, I know it is not YOUR assumption; you have adopted it. That's how inductive proofs work. You have repeated yourself ad nauseam but the flaw is not with my understanding.

I have diligently answered every valid objection which has been raised. What more could I possibly do?

Sadly, attempting is not succeeding. You are force feeding your "adopted" definition of God into an area where he has no business to be, one involving physicality. To this objection you remark that we are dealing with the unknown, which is funny, because we are actually dealing with God. Do you know him? Christians would say that a being who is non-contingent exists in some special way. If you want to say this is an appeal to magic, that's okay - in a way it is. But your "proof" then relates to the non-magic world of physicality, and so it is relatively true, but not a denial of the existence of the Christian God.

You might as well argue in this way. "I don't believe in dimensions other than the one we know. But I am going to take the Christian definition which uses a property unknown in our sphere. I am going to show God cannot exist. I will use terms that are common sense or self evident in our sphere. Then I will deduce this God does not exist........ in our sphere.

But Christians don't place God as a visible entity in our sphere, so what's the point of your argument? Simply say you don't agree with them and stop pretending you have proved them wrong, for you haven't. Proofs about God ultimately fail because we don't have the tools to subject his existence to our examination. That's one of the benefits of being "non-contingent."

Let's waste no more time on this God bothering exercise. He invariably has the last laugh. "God is dead." Nietzsche, to which the reply is "Nietzsche is dead." God. He wins all the time!

[Goose]

Sure, I'm not disputing that. If we want to expand the term to include abstract concepts then I am happy to concede that God exists as an abstract concept. I have already indicated this.

I know you are happy to concede God exists an abstract concept. But I want you to concede that concepts can be entities. Go ahead and concede that for me, you’re almost there.

The moment you allow your definition of entity to fully capture all entities including conceptual ones your argument becomes absurd as I showed you in my first post. Not only does the Empty Set not exist, but also the number seven, marriage, an hour, love, mind, and many other things which we would certainly say exist are rendered equally non-existent.

However, if we want to prove that God (not the concept of God) exists or does not exist then we have to go with a definition like the one I provided.

We don’t adjust our definitions in such a way as to allow us to properly infer the conclusion we are trying to prove. That would be circular.

We have covered this ground already.

Huh? What is X?

*sigh* You are still only appealing to a concept.

Good. Then a perfect void does not exist. Exactly as I said.

Of course perfect voids exist. They are mundane. They exist anywhere we have a complete absence of (X).

Your premise P3 says: Nothing is the complete absence of something.

Something is simply some unspecified thing (X). Something is not all things. All things would be everything, not merely something.

So, Your P3 implies: Nothing is the complete absence of (X).

Let (X) be pigs.

There is a complete absence of pigs in the pigpen. There is a perfect void of pigs in the pigpen. The pigpen is completely empty of pigs. There is nothing in the pigpen (and by nothing we mean there are no pigs).

It does not follow that pigs do not exist because there is a perfect void of pigs. In fact, the pigs are in the barn sleeping.

No, (6) is not false in the sense that the word "non-existence" is being used up above. We only know of existence. There is no such thing as non-existence except as a concept. You can't point me to non-existence just as you can't point me to a true void. They are both just concepts. Specific things may not exist (having the property of not being existent) but that is a different usage of the word.

If there is no such thing as non-existence then your premise P5 is doubly incoherent. If there is no such thing as non-existence how could nothing be indistinguishable from something that does not exist? If there is no such thing as non-existence how can you conclude God does not exist?

But it gets worse because you then say some things may not exist. But how can that be the case if it’s true that, “there is no such thing as non-existence except as a concept�?

You can’t argue for there being no such thing as non-existence then argue some things may not exist. That’s a contradiction. It can’t be the case that there is no such thing as non-existence yet some things do not exist.

If you aren’t using non-existence to mean the state of not existing then I haven’t got a clue what you mean by non-existence. The only thing I can think of is that you mean something like a state where there is no universe when you say non-existence.

Anyway, it doesn't matter to my proof that I can see. This is all just a sideshow. I'm happy to fall back on nothing being indistinguishable from non-existence (P5). I still haven't seen you provide a plausible way to distinguish the two.

A void (perfect or not) or the state of complete emptiness is not indistinguishable from non-existence. I just showed that with the pig analogy. It’s a self evident. It needs no further explanantion.

P3 is still in trouble.

[RedEye]

Please identify the premise where I used the term "constituent parts". You are putting words into my mouth. The phrase "complete in himself" is meaningless and has nothing to do with my logical proof. It's just another way of saying that God is "magic" and is not subject to our understanding of reality. I have already explained why appeals to the unknown are not very productive.

This is becoming tedious. To be composed of something is to have constituent parts.

Not necessarily. There are many things which are composed of something but have no constituent parts. A gold bar for example. I draw a distinction between "parts" (as in a car) and what the gold bar is composed of (atoms). You may want to dispute this but I don't think your introduced muddy terminology is aiding the discussion or moving it along.

Your argument examines God being non-contingent and so not being composed of something. You say you don't understand the phrase: "complete in himself". It's like the Christian definition you hijacked for your proof. Christians believe that God is non-contingent; that is, he owes his existence to nothing and no one. He exists entirely of himself. I see you only want to borrow part of Christian doctrine for your purposes and discard the bit that doesn't suit. Fine, but let us not label the effort "proof" of anything; it is merely an illustration, with flaws. I'm not appealing to the unknown; you are, by choice of definition.

This is indeed becoming tedious. Are you seriously blaming me for what Christians believe to be the nature of God? I don't need any other imagined attributes of God (meaningful or not) to disprove the God who is defined as non-contingent. You adding extra ad hoc attributes does nothing to counter the presented proof. You say I have hijacked the Christian definition. How exactly is it hijacking to accept what Christians believe and use it as a starting point in a proof? You have a very strange idea of what hijacking is.

As I have already explained ad nauseam, it is not my assumption. It is what Christians believe to be the nature of their God. If you want to call it magic then you are telling us that Christians believe in magic. That is entirely your call. As for me, I simply take their view of God and set out to logically disprove it. I'm not sure how you can complain about that. What exactly is wrong with disproving a claim made by your opponent?

RedEye, I know it is not YOUR assumption; you have adopted it. That's how inductive proofs work. You have repeated yourself ad nauseam but the flaw is not with my understanding.

Then what exactly is it that you are you complaining about?

I have diligently answered every valid objection which has been raised. What more could I possibly do?

Sadly, attempting is not succeeding. You are force feeding your "adopted" definition of God into an area where he has no business to be, one involving physicality.

If Christians believe that to be the nature of their God then how I am force feeding anyone? (And you have it backwards. Christians believe in the non-contingency of their God because it removes their God from physicality).

To this objection you remark that we are dealing with the unknown, which is funny, because we are actually dealing with God. Do you know him? Christians would say that a being who is non-contingent exists in some special way. If you want to say this is an appeal to magic, that's okay - in a way it is. But your "proof" then relates to the non-magic world of physicality, and so it is relatively true, but not a denial of the existence of the Christian God.

What would you like me to say to this? Is there a refutation of one of my premises in there? I don't see one. I reject appeals to magic as would any rational person. All you seem to be doing is saying "Yes you have a sound argument but I refuse to accept it". If that is the case then fine, we are done.

You might as well argue in this way. "I don't believe in dimensions other than the one we know. But I am going to take the Christian definition which uses a property unknown in our sphere. I am going to show God cannot exist. I will use terms that are common sense or self evident in our sphere. Then I will deduce this God does not exist........ in our sphere.

If by "in our sphere" you mean "reality" then you are right. That is precisely what I am doing. Is there anything outside of reality?

But Christians don't place God as a visible entity in our sphere, so what's the point of your argument? Simply say you don't agree with them and stop pretending you have proved them wrong, for you haven't. Proofs about God ultimately fail because we don't have the tools to subject his existence to our examination. That's one of the benefits of being "non-contingent."

You should ask yourself this question. If such tools do not exist, what reason is there to believe that God exists? You can't have it both ways. We can't start assigning attributes to a God (non-contingency, complete in himself, etc.) when you admit that no-one has the tools to examine said God. You are, in effect, admitting that God is an entirely imaginary concept. If that is the case them my job is done - I have no need to disprove an imaginary concept.

Let's waste no more time on this God bothering exercise. He invariably has the last laugh. "God is dead." Nietzsche, to which the reply is "Nietzsche is dead." God. He wins all the time!

I'm afraid that such assertions (whilst they sound great) presume that God exists. If you like circular reasoning, then please be my guest. Just don't expect that anyone else will find it convincing.

[RedEye]

Sure, I'm not disputing that. If we want to expand the term to include abstract concepts then I am happy to concede that God exists as an abstract concept. I have already indicated this.

I know you are happy to concede God exists an abstract concept. But I want you to concede that concepts can be entities. Go ahead and concede that for me, you’re almost there.

As I have already indicated it would be pointless to expand the definition of entity in my proof as that would allow God in as only a concept. I don't think I can make this any clearer.

The moment you allow your definition of entity to fully capture all entities including conceptual ones your argument becomes absurd as I showed you in my first post. Not only does the Empty Set not exist, but also the number seven, marriage, an hour, love, mind, and many other things which we would certainly say exist are rendered equally non-existent.

Yes, they exist as concepts in brains. If you are happy to relegate God to be a concept within brains then I already accept that. How many times are we going to repeat this same dance?

However, if we want to prove that God (not the concept of God) exists or does not exist then we have to go with a definition like the one I provided.

We don’t adjust our definitions in such a way as to allow us to properly infer the conclusion we are trying to prove. That would be circular.

That's not what I have done. I have restricted the definition to the precise thing which is to be disproved, ie. God (the actuality) not the concept of God. There is nothing circular about that.

Good. Then a perfect void does not exist. Exactly as I said.

Of course perfect voids exist. They are mundane. They exist anywhere we have a complete absence of (X).

Your premise P3 says: Nothing is the complete absence of something.

Something is simply some unspecified thing (X). Something is not all things. All things would be everything, not merely something.

So, Your P3 implies: Nothing is the complete absence of (X).

Let (X) be pigs.

There is a complete absence of pigs in the pigpen. There is a perfect void of pigs in the pigpen. The pigpen is completely empty of pigs. There is nothing in the pigpen (and by nothing we mean there are no pigs).

It does not follow that pigs do not exist because there is a perfect void of pigs. In fact, the pigs are in the barn sleeping.

Now you are not being serious. The pigpen may not have pigs but it has ground, air, etc. etc.. It is not nothing. I am not going to waste any more time on this.

No, (6) is not false in the sense that the word "non-existence" is being used up above. We only know of existence. There is no such thing as non-existence except as a concept. You can't point me to non-existence just as you can't point me to a true void. They are both just concepts. Specific things may not exist (having the property of not being existent) but that is a different usage of the word.

If there is no such thing as non-existence then your premise P5 is doubly incoherent. If there is no such thing as non-existence how could nothing be indistinguishable from something that does not exist? If there is no such thing as non-existence how can you conclude God does not exist?

See the bolded text above.

But it gets worse because you then say some things may not exist. But how can that be the case if it’s true that, “there is no such thing as non-existence except as a concept�?

I'm not sure if you are not understanding or if it is deliberate. It's the age-old question of why there is existence instead of non-existence. You seek to confuse it with a specific thing not existing, which is a different concept entirely. I won't waste any more time on this either.

Anyway, it doesn't matter to my proof that I can see. This is all just a sideshow. I'm happy to fall back on nothing being indistinguishable from non-existence (P5). I still haven't seen you provide a plausible way to distinguish the two.

A void (perfect or not) or the state of complete emptiness is not indistinguishable from non-existence. I just showed that with the pig analogy. It’s a self evident. It needs no further explanantion.

P3 is still in trouble.

If you say so.

[marco]

[Replying to post 67 by RedEye]



Okay, we are wasting our time. Your conclusions relate to "reality" and what is there beyond reality.? Imaginary numbers, maybe? Your conclusions are sound in the real world. So why bother using a definition involving non-contingency that cannot apply to reality? If there is circularity, you have employed it.

You use a definition that does not apply in the real world.
You draw conclusions from this definition.
Then you accept your conclusions apply only in the real world - bemusedly wondering what other world there is, when you've employed one.


The best we can say for your submission is that in the physical world common sense applies, and God defies common sense. Incidentally the atoms of a gold bar ARE component parts, and the bar depends on the structure of those atoms. Is God made of atoms if he is non-contingent?


You have proved God is not a goose or a geranium. Interesting. He might be a ghost, though.

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 67 by RedEye]
Okay, we are wasting our time. Your conclusions relate to "reality" and what is there beyond reality.? Imaginary numbers, maybe? Your conclusions are sound in the real world. So why bother using a definition involving non-contingency that cannot apply to reality? If there is circularity, you have employed it.

We don't know that it does until we put it to the test. As you did when you put to the test whether root 2 could be a rational number. Remember? Were you engaging in circular reasoning too?

You use a definition that does not apply in the real world.

Because Christians assert that this is the nature of their God. Take it up with them. (And you did exactly the same thing when you started with the premise that root 2 could be expressed as a fraction).

You draw conclusions from this definition.
Then you accept your conclusions apply only in the real world - bemusedly wondering what other world there is, when you've employed one.

I'm not sure what the last bit means. The conclusion I drew was that such a non-contingent God could not exist in reality as we understand it. Why you have a problem with this perplexes me. Should I draw a conclusion based on non-reality?

The best we can say for your submission is that in the physical world common sense applies, and God defies common sense.

No, that assumes the existence of God which is circular reasoning.

Incidentally the atoms of a gold bar ARE component parts, and the bar depends on the structure of those atoms.

Okay, I'll humour you and accept that the gold atoms are "component parts" of the gold bar. So what?

Is God made of atoms if he is non-contingent?

Do you mean: Is God non-contingent if he is made of atoms?

The answer is no. He would be dependent on the existence of atoms (and the weak/strong nuclear forces, electromagnetism etc.).

You have proved God is not a goose or a geranium. Interesting. He might be a ghost, though.

Yes, he could very well be another imaginary concept.