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).

[Goose]

Concepts are the products of minds and therefore are not things which have a unique and independent existence.

It sounds like you are committed to Nominalism.

How are you defining existence? Are you defining it in a materialistic way, where only physical objects exist? Because it appears that way.

You can't call a concept an entity.

Why not? Many mathematicians do call mathematical concepts entities. They are known as Mathematical Platonists.

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).

No, not as a mathematical concept. I’m trying to ascertain how you are defining what qualifies as a real entity. And it seems to me you are defining it with the assumption of materialism. In other words, it seems the way you are defining what constitutes a real entity is in such a way that only those things which exist physically outside our brains can be real entities.

You're still only talking about a mathematical concept.

Irrelevant. It is patently true that the Empty Set is by definition a true void.

Concepts only exist in sufficiently complex minds. They have no reality outside of brains.

So for something to be real it must exist in the physically world outside the brain? Is that what you are saying?

You can no more show me an Empty Set than you can show me pi. You are confusing mathematical notation with reality.

So if I can’t show you (and by show you I presume you mean show you a physical object) the Empty Set it isn’t real?

Let’s start here. Do you do think the number three is real? If the number three isn’t real then it is a figment of your imagination, it doesn’t exist. There is no number three then. But then how would you know the following statement is true if the number three isn’t real?

3+3=6

Why no response?

I did give a response. A void is distinguishable from non-existence because a void is the state of emptiness whereas non-existence is the state of not existing at all.

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

Then using your own reasoning you can’t show that “nothing� exists since it doesn’t correspond to the physical world. That would mean your definition of “nothing� where Nothing is the complete absence of something is purely conceptual. But you argued “Concepts are the products of minds and therefore are not things which have a unique and independent existence� and “They have no reality outside of brains.� So how can you conclude God is nothing if the concept of nothing cannot be shown to have reality outside of your brain?

[bjs]

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.

Just because you see the words “it could be� does not mean it is speculation.

If I say, “I will flip this coin and you have no choice but to accept that it will be heads.� You could respond, “I could be tails.�

That’s not speculating. It is explaining different reasonable possibilities.

You wrote, “If you accept P4 then you have no choice but to agree that God must be a synonym for nothing.� I responded, “God (or something else) could be the base existence of which all other things are composed or created by.�

That is not speculating. That is explaining different reasonable possibilities and pointing out how the syllogism is invalid.

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?

Two quarks could be indistinguishable and therefore not unique. That was not the significant part of you claim. You have yet to show how that would mean that they could not exist independently.

“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.

I want to be sure I understand your point. Are you un-ironically claiming that you do not exist?

[William]

[Replying to post 19 by RedEye]

If you object to how I have characterized "consciousness" then I would be interested to hear your objections and the basis for them succinctly here in this thread. I'm not going to read a whole bunch of other threads to try to glean what you specifically object to. Sorry.

No need to apologist RedEye. My purpose is to leave a trail, nothing more. The arguments between theist and atheist are circular and have been for as long as both have existed.
One only has to peruse the forum threads from the beginning to see that the arguments are always the same, only the generations come and go to 'refresh' the pages, and sometimes anomalies occur through said process.

Perhaps you simply don't find the subject all that interesting to want to make the effort to investigate information offered, and would rather force the one offering to waste time repeating himself?
Perhaps that will change in due course. Meantime the reader at least has access to the links I provide in relation to the OP topic and subsequent arguments being presented...

Well the Christian idea of GOD does have its limitations, but how does that premise therefore give proof that 'GOD does not exist'? Perhaps what you are saying is that the Christian GOD does not exist?

Yes and no.

Which will you finally choose is what interests me RedEye...

...I tossed a coin once to tell me which road to take. The results where fine, but I was sure either way would have been. I just couldn't make up my mind, and since I had found the coin a few hours earlier, (it was the only cash I had on me at the time), I thought I would make good use of it.
As it turned out, the next ride I got only took me a mile on, and exactly where I got off over the other side of the road was a sign advertising bags of kiwifruit for 20¢... the very amount I had o me!
Since I hadn't eaten for slightly more than a day, that bag of fruit didn't last too long and was much appreciated.

I digress...

It definitely applies to the Christian God but it would also apply to any concept of a God who was defined as non-contingent.

Would that apply to a GOD who does not need anything but creates things for the experience anyway?

"Yes" or "No"?

I'm not really concerned about the source of the assertions. In my view they are delusions of the mind.

Well one would have to change one's view if one is to have interaction with me. Otherwise it can be taken as a personal attack.

(I experience a personal relationship with Reality, not with mythical beings).

Hows that going for you?

I don't recall claiming to say a creator-GOD is a 'mythical being' and that all relationship one has with such an entity is 'delusions of one's mind'. I understand one's capacity to think in such terms, but that does not in itself mean the one thinking such, is correct on the matter.

Something worth keeping at the front of the mind. Precisely what I do.

♦ What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

The problem is that such assertions can be tossed around but they are of no real use unless they have reasoning and/or evidence to back them up (which would then elevate them away from mere assertions).

Generally I assert my experience. Subjectivity is of value to the subject. I would suppose the evidence you refer to is material and testable through science.

♦ Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine "verifiable evidence"

Science is not an ideal device for investigating metaphysical ideas.

I respectfully suggest you go back and read the OP again.

There is no evidence therein. It focuses upon a definition and idea of a type of GOD, and declares proof that that GOD 'does not exist'. Is it simply a case of 'there is nothing to see here folks - move along'?

If not, then can/will you answer the questions I ask in this post?

[tam]

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.

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)?

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?

Peace again to you!

And peace to you too!

Thank you, and peace again to you!

[wiploc]

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

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

Therefore, non-contingent gods cannot exist.

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).

Modal logic is logic. Where you might say, "If I had dropped that lightbulb, it would have broken," modal logic would say, "There are possible worlds in which which I dropped that bulb, and, in those worlds, the bulb broke."

I had to learn a bit of modal logic in order to read one of Plantinga's books. I don't apologize for sometimes still thinking in those terms.

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.

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.

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

That seems weak to me; I'm not making a strong argument. But it may perhaps be strong enough to get across why I'm not perfectly confident in P1. It may be possible for something to exist without being dependent on what it's composed of.

I'm not sure P1 is false, but I'm not sure it's true either.

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).

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

Here's a valid form:
P1: If A then B.
P2: A.
C: Therefore, B.

That's not the only valid form, but you see how the A's repeat, and the B's. There's nothing new in the conclusion.

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

You've got "complete absence of something" in P3, and that doesn't show up again anywhere. Your form is more like this:

P3: If A then B.
P4: Something arguably related to A.
C: Something that may have to do with B.

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

If you want to make it valid, you can start adding premises. You could add, for instance, "Anything not composed of something is the complete absence of something." That would be a step towards validity.

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?

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.

There are rules which need to be followed when trying to refute a formal logical argument.

Also when making one.

[marco]

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.


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.


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.

[FarWanderer]

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).

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.

[RedEye]

Concepts are the products of minds and therefore are not things which have a unique and independent existence.

It sounds like you are committed to Nominalism.

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

How are you defining existence? Are you defining it in a materialistic way, where only physical objects exist? Because it appears that way.

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

You can't call a concept an entity.

Why not? Many mathematicians do call mathematical concepts entities. They are known as Mathematical Platonists.

• entity
  /ˈɛntɪti/
  noun
  noun: entity; plural noun: entities
  
  a thing with distinct and independent existence.

I have already explained why concepts don't qualify.

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).

No, not as a mathematical concept. I’m trying to ascertain how you are defining what qualifies as a real entity. And it seems to me you are defining it with the assumption of materialism. In other words, it seems the way you are defining what constitutes a real entity is in such a way that only those things which exist physically outside our brains can be real entities.

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

You're still only talking about a mathematical concept.

Irrelevant. It is patently true that the Empty Set is by definition a true void.

But still only a concept.

Concepts only exist in sufficiently complex minds. They have no reality outside of brains.

So for something to be real it must exist in the physically world outside the brain? Is that what you are saying?

No. Already explained above.

You can no more show me an Empty Set than you can show me pi. You are confusing mathematical notation with reality.

So if I can’t show you (and by show you I presume you mean show you a physical object) the Empty Set it isn’t real?

No. It's real as a concept inside of brains but doesn't qualify as an entity (ie. having independent existence), by definition. How many times would you like me to answer the same question?

Let’s start here. Do you do think the number three is real? If the number three isn’t real then it is a figment of your imagination, it doesn’t exist. There is no number three then. But then how would you know the following statement is true if the number three isn’t real?

3+3=6

Your question is irrelevant to the definition of an entity.

Why no response?

I did give a response. A void is distinguishable from non-existence because a void is the state of emptiness whereas non-existence is the state of not existing at all.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any distinction. How would you identify a perfect void? What properties would you look for? As I have already explained there is no such thing as a perfect void. They don't exist except as a concept within brains. 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. Catch-22. Therefore a perfect void is a synonym for non-existence.

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

Then using your own reasoning you can’t show that “nothing� exists since it doesn’t correspond to the physical world. That would mean your definition of “nothing� where Nothing is the complete absence of something is purely conceptual. But you argued “Concepts are the products of minds and therefore are not things which have a unique and independent existence� and “They have no reality outside of brains.� So how can you conclude God is nothing if the concept of nothing cannot be shown to have reality outside of your brain?

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

[RedEye]

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.

Just because you see the words “it could be� does not mean it is speculation.

It could be that it is.

If I say, “I will flip this coin and you have no choice but to accept that it will be heads.� You could respond, “I could be tails.�

That’s not speculating. It is explaining different reasonable possibilities.

So you are speculating on the possible outcome. What are you having difficulty with?

• speculation
  /ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/
  noun
  noun: speculation; plural noun: speculations
  
  1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

You wrote, “If you accept P4 then you have no choice but to agree that God must be a synonym for nothing.� I responded, “God (or something else) could be the base existence of which all other things are composed or created by.�

That is not speculating. That is explaining different reasonable possibilities and pointing out how the syllogism is invalid.

Do you have firm evidence for what you claim? If not, then you are merely speculating. You can't refute a syllogism with speculation. Regardless, your claim has nothing to do with P4 which came directly from C1. If you want to refute P4 then you must show that the first syllogism is not sound. Where have you done that?

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?

Two quarks could be indistinguishable and therefore not unique. That was not the significant part of you claim. You have yet to show how that would mean that they could not exist independently.

In the definition of what qualifies as an entity, you must have both uniqueness and independence. Hence my question above which you have ignored.

“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.

I want to be sure I understand your point. Are you un-ironically claiming that you do not exist?

Um, no. What gave you that idea?

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 19 by RedEye]

Well the Christian idea of GOD does have its limitations, but how does that premise therefore give proof that 'GOD does not exist'? Perhaps what you are saying is that the Christian GOD does not exist?

Yes and no.

Which will you finally choose is what interests me RedEye...

I believe that I have.

It definitely applies to the Christian God but it would also apply to any concept of a God who was defined as non-contingent.

Would that apply to a GOD who does not need anything but creates things for the experience anyway?

"Yes" or "No"?

Yes. That God would have to exist first. We can discuss God's actions and motivations only once we have established that he exists. It's fairly pointless otherwise.

I'm not really concerned about the source of the assertions. In my view they are delusions of the mind.

Well one would have to change one's view if one is to have interaction with me. Otherwise it can be taken as a personal attack.

I'm sorry you have taken it that way, but in fairness, you raised the subject. It's no secret that the human brain is very good at deluding itself. Lots of children have imaginary friends. The vast majority grow out of them. I'm sure that you would be the first to agree that members of every other religion apart from your own are deluded about the specifics of what they believe in. That represents a sizable fraction of the world population. So, in principle, you probably have no problem accepting that humans can and do engage in self-delusion. The only question then is, what exempts the members of your own religion from what is a known and common trait of human beings?

(I experience a personal relationship with Reality, not with mythical beings).

Hows that going for you?

Really well. Thank you.

I respectfully suggest you go back and read the OP again.

There is no evidence therein.

We weren't talking about evidence. This is what you wrote:

• If you are 'providing a proof' then I have yet to identify that, which is why I presently regard your claim as an assertion.

Are you disputing that I presented a proof in the OP? Seriously?