A Proof That God Does Not Exist

[RedEye]

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

Attributes of God: Independence
https://www.todayintheword.org/issues/2 ... y-matters/

Non-contingent - not dependent on, associated with, or conditioned by something else.

Non-contingent
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... contingent

Entity - a thing with distinct and independent existence.

Syllogisms
P1: If an entity is composed of something then it is contingent (dependent) on that something.
P2: God is a non-contingent entity.
C1: God is not composed of something.

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

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

Support for Premises
P1 - Self-evident.
P2 - By definition.
P3 - By definition.
P4 - From C1.
P5 - Self-evident (by definition).
P6 - From C2.

Can anyone find a flaw with this logical argument? I don't think there is much doubt that the argument is valid, ie. that the conclusions follow logically from the premises. The question is whether the argument is sound, ie. that the premises hold up to scrutiny. Therefore to invalidate this argument you must nominate a premise and then carefully explain why we cannot accept it. Only by invalidating a premise can you invalidate the argument as a whole. (Unless you can prove that one of the syllogisms has a conclusion which does not follow from its premises).

[JehovahsWitness]

Definitions

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 admit I can't say I fully understand what is being said here... but if God is infinitite self generating, self contained energy....how does that fit into the above scenario?

Then God would be contingent (dependent) on the existence of this energy.

But isn't that circular ... it amounts to saying that God's existence is contingent (dependent) on God existing? God *is* the energy, he doesn't depend on any source of energy, energy is what he is...just as light isn't dependent on light to be light...its not "contingent" on light to be light...its what it is.

So if God is energy and nothing can stop, reduce or increase that energy, what happens to your scenerio?

JW

[marco]

Yes, but that definition is obtained from Christian sources. It is Christians who believe that God is responsible for everything which exists.

Regardless of which drawer you got the definition from it defines God in a particular fashion that is peculiarly open to contradiction. God is regarded as the supreme spirit who alone exists of himself, whatever that might mean. And "existing of himself" would cover the problem of his constituent parts, if he has any.

You are free to not accept that definition of God from your fellow Christians. If that is the case then you must believe that God can be contingent (dependent) on something else for his existence. The onus then falls on you to explain the existence of that thing which God is dependent upon. I await your explanation with interest.

I am not arguing that there is a God, merely quibbling with your thesis. When we postulate the existence of a being not contingent on anything else we have already accepted the problem of who made him.

Or, another way to put it, the fraction which is the rational square root of 2 does not exist. This is exactly the argument I have made with respect to God. Thank you!

It may have been your argument but you've failed to understand the conclusion. When we try to place root 2 as a rational number we are wrong, not because root 2 does not exist - it does! - but because we have wrongly defined it. So the flaw in your arguments about God is in the definitions.

There is no mention of infinity or prime mover or first cause in my proof. I fail to understand what you are objecting to in the proof.

I know you do. I am attempting to bring enlightenment. The basic problem with "proofs" FOR the existence of God is the extrapolation from valid conclusions in a physical world to one where we deal with infinite quantities or uncaused beings. Your definitions have validity as long as they are applied in the appropriate domain; introduce unnatural concepts and your definitions are flawed.

But you accept that if we define God in the way that is done at the top of the proof, then such a God is impossible. Correct?

I can accept that Yahweh is an impossibility. I have no idea what runs in dimensions beyond my own and I know such dimensions make sense since we use them in mathematics. To an extent if you use limiting terms for God you will reach a contradiction and this will show your limited God does not exist; but more properly it shows the definitions are flawed in some way.

[RedEye]

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?

Concepts are the products of minds and therefore are not things which have a unique and independent existence. You can't call a concept an entity.

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.

Do you want to sneak God in as a (mathematical) concept? I have no problem with the concept of God. The concept certainly exists (in the minds of humans).

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.

Okay. If you are not talking about space (as I thought), then I agree.

Therefore no true void exists.

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

You're still only talking about a mathematical concept. Concepts only exist in sufficiently complex minds. They have no reality outside of brains. You can no more show me an Empty Set than you can show me pi. You are confusing mathematical notation with reality.

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.

I think they are one and the same. See below.

If you think that they are distinguishable then please explain how you would distinguish them.

Why no response?

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

Well, there is no place I know within the universe which has a complete absence of something.

[RedEye]

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...

You seem to have some strange ideas about rationality. Rationality doesn't produce obvious contradictions and rationality hasn't collapsed. Logic and reason are still in heavy demand, I can assure you. I don't know where you get the idea that rationality ignores evidence. It's irrational people who ignore evidence.

Anyway, this is all way off-topic and unless you want to address the soundness of my proof, I won't respond further.

[RedEye]

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?

Follow the link I provided in the OP. I take it as a Christian position on the nature of God.

[RedEye]

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.

You were speculating. When someone says "it could be ..." that is speculation. What you have speculated on has nothing to do with whether C2 follows logically from P3 and P4. If the syllogism is valid then the conclusion cannot be denied. That is how a valid syllogism works.

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.

I agree that at present it is an unprovable hypothesis. However, you opened the door by stating "it is possible there is something even smaller". I only walked through it.

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?

Easily. It is established physics that any two like sub-atomic particles are indistinguishable from one another. If they are indistinguishable then in what sense can one or the other be unique?

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.

Not at all. I am happy to concede that I am contingent on what I am made of.

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.

Yes, but I have refuted that it pertains to my proof by showing that you are not dealing with something which can be classed as an entity. Therefore you have no examples of an entity which is composed of nothing. My proof still stands.

[RedEye]

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.

Sorry, but I want to discuss logic not philosophy. If you are suggesting that God must be contingent then you have the onus to identify what he is contingent upon and provide an explanation for that something (independent of God).

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Isn't that exactly the same thing as C3?

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.

That's pretty much what I am arguing in the proof. The trouble is that people won't accept words. That is why I have made it a more formal argument via a set of three syllogisms. There are rules which need to be followed when trying to refute a formal logical argument.

[RedEye]

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?

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.

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.

Peace again to you!

And peace to you too!

[RedEye]

Definitions

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 admit I can't say I fully understand what is being said here... but if God is infinitite self generating, self contained energy....how does that fit into the above scenario?

Then God would be contingent (dependent) on the existence of this energy.

But isn't that circular ... it amounts to saying that God's existence is contingent (dependent) on God existing? God *is* the energy, he doesn't depend on any source of energy, energy is what he is...just as light isn't dependent on light to be light...its not "contingent" on light to be light...its what it is.

So if God is energy and nothing can stop, reduce or increase that energy, what happens to your scenerio?

JW

You need to make your mind up. Are we discussing God or energy? You can't use the terms interchangeably. Firstly, energy is not a thing in itself. It is only a property of other things. Nothing can be composed of energy. Something can possess energy. Secondly, if you are saying that God is energy then why do we need a different name for energy? That makes no sense. Lastly, if you are asserting that God is composed of energy then you very much do need an explanation for that energy. You can't hand-wave the problem away. It would be like saying that gold is made of gold. It's not only unhelpful, it is meaningless.

[RedEye]

Yes, but that definition is obtained from Christian sources. It is Christians who believe that God is responsible for everything which exists.

Regardless of which drawer you got the definition from it defines God in a particular fashion that is peculiarly open to contradiction. God is regarded as the supreme spirit who alone exists of himself, whatever that might mean. And "existing of himself" would cover the problem of his constituent parts, if he has any.

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.

You are free to not accept that definition of God from your fellow Christians. If that is the case then you must believe that God can be contingent (dependent) on something else for his existence. The onus then falls on you to explain the existence of that thing which God is dependent upon. I await your explanation with interest.

I am not arguing that there is a God, merely quibbling with your thesis. When we postulate the existence of a being not contingent on anything else we have already accepted the problem of who made him.

I'm confused. If God is non-contingent then he wasn't "made". That's what non-contingent means as per my supplied definition.

Or, another way to put it, the fraction which is the rational square root of 2 does not exist. This is exactly the argument I have made with respect to God. Thank you!

It may have been your argument but you've failed to understand the conclusion. When we try to place root 2 as a rational number we are wrong, not because root 2 does not exist - it does! - but because we have wrongly defined it. So the flaw in your arguments about God is in the definitions.

Once again. It is not my definition. Christians define him that way. I accept that definition for the sake of argument and use it as a starting premise (as you did with your starting premise of the square root of 2 being rational). It is quite valid to do this in a logical argument. We are not necessarily accepting the premise as true but seeing what conclusion it leads to. If the conclusion leads to a contradiction (as it did in your case) then we can go back and reject the premise. All well and good. In the case of my proof it leads to the conclusion that God does not exist. Christians are free to accept or reject that conclusion. If they reject it, then they can question the definition of God as non-contingent. However, that creates its own problem as I have already explained.

There is no mention of infinity or prime mover or first cause in my proof. I fail to understand what you are objecting to in the proof.

I know you do. I am attempting to bring enlightenment. The basic problem with "proofs" FOR the existence of God is the extrapolation from valid conclusions in a physical world to one where we deal with infinite quantities or uncaused beings. Your definitions have validity as long as they are applied in the appropriate domain; introduce unnatural concepts and your definitions are flawed.

But I haven't introduced any unnatural concepts, have I? It's only you that is talking about infinite quantities and uncaused beings. They are not in my proof.

But you accept that if we define God in the way that is done at the top of the proof, then such a God is impossible. Correct?

I can accept that Yahweh is an impossibility. I have no idea what runs in dimensions beyond my own and I know such dimensions make sense since we use them in mathematics. To an extent if you use limiting terms for God you will reach a contradiction and this will show your limited God does not exist; but more properly it shows the definitions are flawed in some way.

I still don't see anything which relates to the soundness of my proof. I repeat: But you accept that if we define God in the way that is done at the top of the proof, then such a God is impossible. Correct?