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).

[marco]

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?

Thanks for humouring me. I was beginning to lose touch with reality. I said what I meant - we are in an Alice situation here, awaiting the March Hare. The question I asked - is God made of atoms if he's non contingent. The answer is he can have no constituent parts, including atoms, if he's non-contingent. Your question: Can God be non-contingent if he is made of atoms. Answer no: he cannot be non-contingent.

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.

I think in all this see-saw debacle the issue is whether we are willing to accept that concepts beyond the natural MAY exist. I'm open on that. Christians say certainly. You discount this, and for this reason you can say God does not exist. You are not deducing God's non existence and proving Christians wrong - you are simply saying there are no dimensions beyond our own or such beliefs are illusory, so no God. That is fine, but it's not a deduction from your syllogisms which apply in a physical world, not in the kind of world Christians uphold. I am not quarrelling with your dismissal; my whole point is that the syllogisms themselves do not lead to a refutation of Christian belief. I said earlier, you could have made your statement about the supernatural not existing to start with; no need for syllogisms.

Anyway I need a coffee to prove my existence now. Go well.

[RedEye]

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?

Thanks for humouring me. I was beginning to lose touch with reality. I said what I meant - we are in an Alice situation here, awaiting the March Hare. The question I asked - is God made of atoms if he's non contingent. The answer is he can have no constituent parts, including atoms, if he's non-contingent. Your question: Can God be non-contingent if he is made of atoms. Answer no: he cannot be non-contingent.

I'm sorry but your original question makes no sense (which really does have us down the rabbit hole). If God is non-contingent (not dependent on anything or anyone) then how could he be made of atoms (or anything else)?

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.

I think in all this see-saw debacle the issue is whether we are willing to accept that concepts beyond the natural MAY exist. I'm open on that. Christians say certainly. You discount this, and for this reason you can say God does not exist. You are not deducing God's non existence and proving Christians wrong - you are simply saying there are no dimensions beyond our own or such beliefs are illusory, so no God. That is fine, but it's not a deduction from your syllogisms which apply in a physical world, not in the kind of world Christians uphold. I am not quarrelling with your dismissal; my whole point is that the syllogisms themselves do not lead to a refutation of Christian belief. I said earlier, you could have made your statement about the supernatural not existing to start with; no need for syllogisms.

I'm not sure that all Christians would accept you as their spokesman. If your only way (as spokesman for Christians) to counter my argument is to appeal to the unknown then I have no problem in dismissing it. The unknown is the unknown. Appealing to it to counter a logical argument is an obvious fallacy. I need say no more. I am not inclined to stay on this merry-go-round any longer. If you have nothing new to offer then I won't respond again to this same restatement of your position.

Anyway I need a coffee to prove my existence now. Go well.

And I need to get off this computer and relax with some TV otherwise I won't be able to sleep. Cheers.

[marco]

I'm sorry but your original question makes no sense (which really does have us down the rabbit hole).

I would not have written a sentence that makes no sense. You have simply lost the thread of the discussion.

I said: " To be composed of something is to have constituent parts."


You said: "Not necessarily. There are many things which are composed of something but have no constituent parts. A gold bar for example."


In this you are wrong, for a gold bar has atoms. And this pertains to the question you think makes no sense - "Can God have atoms if he's non-contingent?" No, he can't, and so we return to my original - that God may be something NOT COMPOSED OF anything, even atoms.

You seem confused about the implications of taking non-contingency as a premise. But I've explained it sufficiently well; it leads to an important flaw but you seem to think it's something to do with inventing other worlds or using magic. So be it.

I am happy to close the discussion there. Equus ad aquam ductus cogi bibere non potest as Cicero might have remarked in my position.

[avalon]

Hello,

It seems you all have had a nice discussion. Therein the problem describing nothing. Which is the problem I also have. And the problem with creating something from nothing.

"No physical experiment can disprove the existence of God. Let's get that out of the way so we can concentrate on the interesting stuff. However every experiment takes us closer to understanding his mind and eventually being able to observe his essence"

A Description of nothing: "If you consider some area of space far from anything, then this is a pretty good definition of zero energy because there's nothing there, but lets just take it as zero energy."

To explain this zero energy we go back to our patch of land where there is order and substance full of usable dense energy. Suppose we wanted to create a ball from nothing calling this ball "the universe". This costs energy because even a stationary ball has energy, therefore we are saying we wish to create energy. Just so happens in the shape of a ball, I can demonstrate as when I pick it up a ball it falls and gains kinetic energy. But suppose at the same time we create the ball with a matching negative energy. Such as making a sand castle will create a hole in the beach. The void we create in the sand is the negative energy, the castle we created is our orderly high grade usable energy.

The ball we fashion from matter will create and have an equal shape from the materials we use proven in observation of the negative space we created. God himself was the geometer of the sand castle and the energy given to the sand to be arranged was given by God. We can say we have created the ball from wood, yet to others who cannot understand how the tree grows back and repairs cannot see that space and they cannot prove the balls origin.

We could observe a spherical shape in the tree, lets call the tree "matter" if we were around at the correct time we would know and make a record of it but over time the tree grows back removing the proof and we cannot demonstrate that process of creation and therefore becomes theory, speculation, and myth.

Humans cannot observe the void from where the ball the universe came from and the energy used to move the sand of castle on the beach was never really energy that was removed or lost just over time becomes scattered and useless.

Instead God can say from the negative space that is your origin. The ball and equally the sand castle hole canceled out on the beach by the forces of water, so we cannot see the kingdom of the castle from its origin, and where it came from. As the higher forms of its own creation were canceled out like the tree which repaired itself or the sea which washed away the hole. That is called order and all life is order.

Creating a ball from nothing may seem an unreasonable thing to do. Well, don't take my example too literally since you've probably noticed that balls don't pop into being every day. The point is that when you start thinking about the creation of the whole universe you can make the sums work.

For all energy there is negative energy. For example, if I dig a hole I will end up with the pile and the hole. The pile represents energy and mass and the hole represents negative energy if there was nothing to change over time then we would see the effects of its creation and the negative space which it came however nothing remains unchanged in time or space.

The equation is extremely simple. 1+-1 =0 If everything adds up to nothing, we don't need a God to create anything.

But I think a health warning is in order here. All these ideas are speculative since we have no firm theory to describe how the universe started, just lots of interesting ideas.

However that being said, can we define what God is. What is existence? can rocks exist? If rocks exist, how can you know?

P1. Only to understand a rock exists, is through a sense.
P2. A sense is a reaction
C1. Existence is sensed by reactions.
C2. Therefore all things in observable existence is reactions.

Define: What is non-existence?
P1. Something indistinguishable, from nothing.
P2. All things in existence are visible reactions
C1. Nothing is a state of non reactions.
C2. Non-existence is a state of loss
C2. Loss is entropy
C2. Entropy is disorder

The sand castle was Gods creation and the Abyss he equally created in our creation.

I will now have a comforting break and a sip of water.

God Is Order he is the One

[avalon]

Hello,

Apologies for my post as it failed to address the substance of God because everyone knows his creation is real as they are here talking about it. What I tried to explain is the state of order and that brings change and growth opposing the loss of energy. Transitions between high grade energy into zero energy. With energy you can create things and that requires only energy and time. However God does not need energy or time to create.

A difficult question that people sometimes struggle with is this: What created God? If everything has a beginning or creator, then how did God come into existence? Who created Him? And if something (or someone) created God, what created it? What Created God? What Substance is God Made of? Can God Exist Without a Creator?

It all comes down to this simple fact: The universe as we know it didn’t always exist. God created the universe, and He created it using matter and energy. He created it within the context of time. So time, energy, matter, and everything else is a created thing. Every single atom, molecule, and particle was created by God, and not even a speck of dust in this universe moves without His permission.

Logic dictates that anything that had a beginning had a first cause, or creator. God is outside of time/matter/space/energy. He has always existed, therefore does not need to be created or have a first cause. He is not made of matter or space, etc. He is something completely different. But since the universe was created or had a definite beginning, it has to have a first cause.

We have a universe, and we know the universe had a point of creation. So we can logically ask, “What or who created the universe?� That is a valid question, because anything that has come into existence has a first cause, or creator has an end.

So God was never created, and He is not bound by these constraints of time, matter, energy, or anything else. God simply “IS.� He always has been, and always will be. He wasn’t created, nor will He ever cease to exist. That is pretty powerful stuff, and mind boggling, isn’t it? But this also raises another interesting question: What’s God made of?

So What Substance is God Made Of?
Since all matter, time, and energy had a beginning, we can probably make the assumption that God is not made of Matter. He simply IS. The Bible describes God as a spirit.

So when you say what is spirit it is the vital principle or animating force within living beings. Incorporeal consciousness. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death. However energy is within us and thus we are that energy transitioning into spirit upon death.

[RedEye]

I'm sorry but your original question makes no sense (which really does have us down the rabbit hole).

I would not have written a sentence that makes no sense.

Why? Are you incapable of making a mistake? Your question is analogous to:

"Can the fire engine be red if it is colourless?"

It's a question that makes no sense.

You have simply lost the thread of the discussion.

I said: " To be composed of something is to have constituent parts."

You said: "Not necessarily. There are many things which are composed of something but have no constituent parts. A gold bar for example."

In this you are wrong, for a gold bar has atoms.

I have already said that I will humour you on this (even though I don't agree) in order to move the discussion along. Why are you beating a dead horse?

And this pertains to the question you think makes no sense - "Can God have atoms if he's non-contingent?" No, he can't, and so we return to my original - that God may be something NOT COMPOSED OF anything, even atoms.

And once again you assume the existence of God (circular reasoning) in order to assign an attribute to God. You also once again appeal to conjecture (an appeal to the unknown). God may be ...

This is becoming very, very tedious.

You seem confused about the implications of taking non-contingency as a premise. But I've explained it sufficiently well; it leads to an important flaw but you seem to think it's something to do with inventing other worlds or using magic. So be it.

And yet you have identified no flaw. Yes, you are invoking magic to escape a logical conclusion. Yes, this circus has to end sometime.

I am happy to close the discussion there. Equus ad aquam ductus cogi bibere non potest as Cicero might have remarked in my position.

This discussion actually ended quite some time ago when you failed to refute any of the premises in my proof. I am happy to end it here too since we are just going around in ever diminishing circles.

[RedEye]

We have a universe, and we know the universe had a point of creation.

We don't actually. That is an assertion.

So we can logically ask, “What or who created the universe?� That is a valid question, because anything that has come into existence has a first cause, or creator has an end. So God was never created, ...

So you make a rule (see bolding) and then immediately break it in the case of God? That hardly seems logical.

So What Substance is God Made Of?
Since all matter, time, and energy had a beginning, we can probably make the assumption that God is not made of Matter. He simply IS. The Bible describes God as a spirit.

Then God is dependent on this "spirit" for his existence. You now need an explanation for its existence independent of God. Let's hear the explanation.

So when you say what is spirit it is the vital principle or animating force within living beings. Incorporeal consciousness. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death. However energy is within us and thus we are that energy transitioning into spirit upon death.

These are all assertions. There is no "animating spirit", "incorporeal consciousness", or "souls". You can't appeal to other imaginary things to explain the original imaginary thing (God). You have to proceed from known things (facts).

[marco]

Why? Are you incapable of making a mistake? Your question is analogous to:

"Can the fire engine be red if it is colourless?"

My infallibility is not the problem; rather it is my honoured antagonist's comprehension of what the question meant and why it was posed. To be fair to you, I see there is a tonal ambiguity, but all the same the question you pose about the colourless fire engine would surely supply philosophy students with thought for an hour exam answer. When Shylock asked: When you prick us, do we not bleed? - he was simply making a point, not beginning a medical thesis. When I asked: "Can God be made of atoms if he is non-contingent?" the listener was meant, under his breath, to say : 'of course not!' Then one would examine the idea that he's a being with no component parts, entirely due to the way we have defined him, whether or not we bought the definition in a fish shop or a florist's. I find it helpful to assume those with whom I am debating have the basic elements of understanding, even if they cannot tell the protasis of a conditional from the apodosis. Accord me the same courtesy.


I suspect that elsewhere our opinions won't clash so resoundingly. I believe we use the same hymn sheet, even if one of us sings out of tune. Go well.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

That's for you to prove. Just making the statement doesn't mean it so.


So why do you say such a thing cannot exist?

[marco]

So What Substance is God Made Of?
Since all matter, time, and energy had a beginning, we can probably make the assumption that God is not made of Matter. He simply IS. The Bible describes God as a spirit.

I think one introduces, "I believe", and the rest follows automatically, though not logically. Faith makes the absurd digestible. We can make as many assumptions about God as we want - they are not founded on truth but on faith that's he's there. It's always surprising that those who are keen to assert that God exists don't use the simple stratagem of asking him, and returning with the incontrovertible truth. For a being who has been so busy, he is remarkably silent. We would usually take that as a sign he's missing in action, presumed dead. The labours may have taken their toll.


Anyway, we would get a good proof if we visited the watchmaker himself, and carried back his pronouncement. I wonder why that's not a possibility.