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]

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).

Formally, there may not be much wrong with the syllogism, but nowadays there are much more to reality than God "being non-contingent".

Well, maybe that is the case and maybe not. However, the proof only requires this one attribute of God (as defined by Christians) in order to debunk him.

[jgh7]

While I appreciate a nice logical argument, this argument seems to be utterly defining God as "nothing" from the very beginning.

Non-contingent may as well be an equivalent synonym for nothing. So God is defined as nothing from start of this and then concluded to not exist since He was originally defined as nothing.

Kind of a nonsensical argument, so something must be wrong. If God exists, He is something that depends on nothing else for existence.

We have to accept what Christians tell us about God being non-contingent. It's not a synonym for nothing. However, if it then leads to a particular conclusion, whose fault is it?

I don't have to accept this argument even if it's from a Christian. If not all Christians agree on everything, then certainly there's more to finding truth then to accepting it because some Christians say so. And I'm not here to focus on fault, I'm here to debate this logical argument.

If you have God being something then he must be contingent on the existence of that something. It's only common sense. You can't, in the same breath, claim that God depends on nothing else for existence.

You're separating God and that something as two different things, the latter sustaining God's existence. I'm not. That is why I'm arguing that God is something dependent on nothing else for existence.

[RedEye]

While I appreciate a nice logical argument, this argument seems to be utterly defining God as "nothing" from the very beginning.

Non-contingent may as well be an equivalent synonym for nothing. So God is defined as nothing from start of this and then concluded to not exist since He was originally defined as nothing.

Kind of a nonsensical argument, so something must be wrong. If God exists, He is something that depends on nothing else for existence.

We have to accept what Christians tell us about God being non-contingent. It's not a synonym for nothing. However, if it then leads to a particular conclusion, whose fault is it?

I don't have to accept this argument even if it's from a Christian. If not all Christians agree on everything, then certainly there's more to finding truth then to accepting it because some Christians say so. And I'm not here to focus on fault, I'm here to debate this logical argument.

Okay, well if you don't accept it then you must hold the position that God is contingent on something for his existence. That makes him dependent on that something. Doesn't that contradict the Christian view that God is the source of everything? God in Christianity is the eternal being who created and preserves all things. All things cannot include what God himself is made of or you would have a contradiction.

Everything is supposed to stem from God. Everything. He has been called the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. If you are contradicting that view then you need to explain yourself.

If you have God being something then he must be contingent on the existence of that something. It's only common sense. You can't, in the same breath, claim that God depends on nothing else for existence.

You're separating God and that something as two different things, the latter sustaining God's existence. I'm not. That is why I'm arguing that God is something dependent on nothing else for existence.

Yes, but what is that something? All you seem to be arguing is that God is made of God. That's incoherent. It's like telling us that gold is made of gold. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to insist that God is made of something then you need to identify what that something is.

[JehovahsWitness]

No it isn't. There is no mention of God being made of "energy" in the Bible.

ISAIAH 40:26

Who has created these things? ... Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power

RELATED POSTS





Did God have a beginning?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 192#925192

[Tcg]

No it isn't. There is no mention of God being made of "energy" in the Bible.

ISAIAH 40:26

Who has created these things? ... Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-in.

"Isaiah 40:26 (NASB)

Lift up your eyes on high
And see who has created these stars,
The One who leads forth their host by number,
He calls them all by name;
Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power,
Not one of them is missing."

Not sure what version you are quoting. It doesn't really matter though. Your quote simply refers to Bible God as possessing energy, not being energy.

Properly understood, it's simply saying that Bible God is powerful. In no way does this support your claim.

[JehovahsWitness]

No it isn't. There is no mention of God being made of "energy" in the Bible.

ISAIAH 40:26

Who has created these things? ... Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power

NOTE To clarify, this response addresses a loaded question (which is never a good idea), so I must stipulate, I reject the notion of God being "made up" of energy as if that energy is a an attribributed component rather than an integral aspect of his being. To support the notion that the God of the bible is presented as being "All powerful"(as opposed to simply having a lot of power), we have several passages where he claims to be such.

GENESIS 17:1

Jehovah appeared to Aʹbram and said to him: “I am God Almighty* [ Heb el shaddai]

* Translated in various ways in the Septuagint including Pantokrator meaning All Powerful.




JW

[RedEye]

[quote="RedEye"
No it isn't. There is no mention of God being made of "energy" in the Bible.

ISAIAH 40:26

Who has created these things? ... Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power

I don't know what translation you are using. The NIV has:

"Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing".

It doesn't matter anyway. Nowhere in either translation does it say that God is made of energy. He just possesses great power and strength (and maybe energy). Enough to create all the stars in the sky. You are clutching at straws.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 117 by RedEye]

Did you not read the note in my post #116 ?

JW

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 117 by RedEye]
Did you not read the note in my post #116?

Yep, sure did. You are trying to make some distinction between your claim of "God is energy" (which has no scriptural support whatsoever) and God being composed of energy. I fail to see the distinction. All you are doing is asserting that there is one.

It doesn't really matter anyway because you can't identify a form of energy which is not a possessed attribute of another object. You are appealing to some magical form of energy which is not known to exist, ie. an imaginary concept. To top that of, even if you could identify such an energy, you then deny that it is the substance which God is made of.

It's an absurd circular argument. You are asked what God is made of. You state energy: God is energy. What sort of energy? Um, don't know. Okay, so he is made of some unknown form of energy. No, he is not made up of that energy. Then I'll ask the original question again. What is God made of?

[2ndRateMind]

Can anyone find a flaw with this logical argument?

I wouldn't call it a flaw. Just a category error. God is sometimes asserted to be 'pure consciousness'. But what is consciousness made of? What is the sensation of, say, red, or chilli powder, or a Beethoven symphony, made of? If we ever manage to solve the 'hard problem' of consciousness; why we have sensation at all, and why certain physical events give rise to phenomenal experiences, and what those experiences are composed of, we might get that much closer to an understanding of God.

Best wishes, 2RM.