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).

[Tart]

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).

What if the argument is valid, yet the conclusion doesnt hold true?

(Rationalism... I dont think anyone believes that rationalism hold absolute truths anymore)

[William]

[Replying to post 9 by RedEye]

I agree that consciousness is not a thing/entity

Consciousness is not a thing but is an entity, given an entity is being. Consciousness experiences itself as well as things.

Yes, because I didn't need them to disprove a God who is not contingent (dependent) on anything.

So the GOD you are conceptualizing is one which does not exist because it does not depend on anything?

These human ideas about God are all only assertions anyway and they have evolved over time.

That is the nature of the metaphysical and subjectivity. Assertions are expressions which are heard through what is subjectively experienced by the one who experiences.

No-one has any real knowledge about God since God is completely undetectable. Some even say unknowable.

And some say GODs do not exist. All assertion to those hearing.

[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).

What if the argument is valid, yet the conclusion doesnt hold true?

(Rationalism... I dont think anyone believes that rationalism hold absolute truths anymore)

If you accept that the argument is valid then your only defense against accepting the conclusion as true is to show that the argument is not sound (ie. by refuting one of the premises) as I have already explained. If you can't show that the argument is unsound then you have no choice logically but to accept the conclusion.

[marco]

You are appealing to the unknown and suggesting that I accept it. Why would I do that? The unknown is unknown. A claim that God exists in some other dimension is pure speculation. Anyway, regardless of where he exists my proof applies.

Well your proof would then apply by declaration only.

Fine, let us approach the question in another way.

First of all you "defined" God in this way:
Definition : God is a non-contingent entity, ie. not dependent on anything or anyone else for existence.


In the same way as you, I am not compelled to accept your definition of God. There are problems with "defining" God in the strict sense of definition, which means placing within finite limits. Here is your argument:


"I think God is a non-contingent entity. If God possesses something in his make-up, that makes him contingent. He's not - so he's nothing. I can conclude he does not exist."


What we can say is that since we meet contradictions in attempting to "define" God, then we conclude that our defining terms are flawed in some way.

The parallel to your definition problem in mathematics is to suppose the square root of 2 is rational: i.e. can be expressed as a fraction in its lowest form, p/q say. This means when we square p/q we get an even number 2, and we can conclude that since the square of p is even, so is p. We can then write p as 2k, and then we find that 4 times k squared is twice the square of q, showing q is also even, which contradicts our definition. Thus our attempt at defining 2 as p/q is wrong.

In the same way, it is your defining terms that are flawed. Proofs of God's existence move from conclusions in a finite sphere to conclusions regarding infinity, which is unsafe. He's the prime mover, the first cause or whatever.

But it seems fatuous to attempt redefinition since we can only guess at the unknown as you correctly point out in saying : "The unknown is unknown."

Go well.

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 9 by RedEye]

I agree that consciousness is not a thing/entity

Consciousness is not a thing but is an entity, given an entity is being. Consciousness experiences itself as well as things.

No, I don't agree. You and I are entities. Consciousness is merely the name we give to a fully functioning brain. Consciousness is not a thing in itself. It is only a property of sufficiently complex brains.

Yes, because I didn't need them to disprove a God who is not contingent (dependent) on anything.

So the GOD you are conceptualizing is one which does not exist because it does not depend on anything?

According to the Christian source I provided God cannot and does not depend on anything for his existence otherwise he would not be God. I have used that as a starting premise in my proof to arrive at a logical conclusion.

These human ideas about God are all only assertions anyway and they have evolved over time.

That is the nature of the metaphysical and subjectivity. Assertions are expressions which are heard through what is subjectively experienced by the one who experiences.

When I use the word "assertion" I mean "a positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence". In other words, a statement of belief without feeling the need to try and substantiate it. These human ideas about God are all only assertions.

No-one has any real knowledge about God since God is completely undetectable. Some even say unknowable.

And some say GODs do not exist. All assertion to those hearing.

Am I only asserting or am I providing a proof?

(I could raise the fact that the BoP rests with the person making the positive claim and not with the one rejecting the existence of something for which there is no evidence).

[William]

[Replying to post 15 by RedEye]

No, I don't agree. You and I are entities. Consciousness is merely the name we give to a fully functioning brain. Consciousness is not a thing in itself. It is only a property of sufficiently complex brains.

And then we can debate 'what is consciousness?" and " Are jellyfish conscious?" ect.

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

♦ The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD

♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.

♦ Is consciousness an emergent property of the brain?

♦ It is worthwhile being cautious in regard to arguments coming from materialistic world views.

♦ Consciousness supports its own existence.

♦ Consciousness with in form motion.

According to the Christian source I provided God cannot and does not depend on anything for his existence otherwise he would not be God. I have used that as a starting premise in my proof to arrive at a logical conclusion.

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?

When I use the word "assertion" I mean "a positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence". In other words, a statement of belief without feeling the need to try and substantiate it. These human ideas about God are all only assertions.

I understand how you are using the word RedEye. What I was attempting to explain was that all assertions are what the person hearing them describes them as.
The person experiencing relationship with GOD and speaks of that, is heard by the listener to be asserting.

The subject being metaphysical means that there is no requirement for evidence unless of course the particular assertion makes that the case.

My claiming to have a 'relationship with GOD' does not in itself require me to provide evidence to show this as being the case, although MY rule of thumb is that anyone having a relationship with GOD would naturally show through their behavior and that would be sufficient evidence.

And some say GODs do not exist. All assertion to those hearing.

Am I only asserting or am I providing a proof? :Wink:

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

(I could raise the fact that the BoP rests with the person making the positive claim and not with the one rejecting the existence of something for which there is no evidence).

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

♦ I am arguing that science is not the right tool for the job re ideas of GOD.

♦ Demanding unspecified evidence to prove that GOD does exist, is fallacy.

♦What kind of thing(s) would you expect to see which would convince you that GOD exists?

♦I do not rationally expect anyone to come up with the actual evidence of science to support their assertion that science is saying that GOD does not exist.

[Tart]

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).

What if the argument is valid, yet the conclusion doesnt hold true?

(Rationalism... I dont think anyone believes that rationalism hold absolute truths anymore)

If you accept that the argument is valid then your only defense against accepting the conclusion as true is to show that the argument is not sound (ie. by refuting one of the premises) as I have already explained. If you can't show that the argument is unsound then you have no choice logically but to accept the conclusion.

Well rationalist come to many conclusions all the time, built upon logically valid arguments, but they even come to different conclusions. In many cases they come to conclusions that contradict other conclusions, but both being built upon rationally valid arguments... That is why rationalism collapsed... They have arguments that contradict each other.. Now in a philosophy class, they teach of opposing truths that came from rationalist, as if they all are valid... Creationist have come up with logical arguments that prove God exists... Like yours that proves he doesnt exist...

But lets for example take into consideration the evidence (empiricism)... How would your argument say anything about the Christian God, revealed through Christ as the Messiah?

Could Christ as the Messiah be true, even if your statement is logically valid?

Are they independent of each other?

[RedEye]

You are appealing to the unknown and suggesting that I accept it. Why would I do that? The unknown is unknown. A claim that God exists in some other dimension is pure speculation. Anyway, regardless of where he exists my proof applies.

Well your proof would then apply by declaration only.

It's a set of syllogisms actually.

Fine, let us approach the question in another way.

First of all you "defined" God in this way:
Definition : God is a non-contingent entity, ie. not dependent on anything or anyone else for existence.

Yes, but that definition is obtained from Christian sources. It is Christians who believe that God is responsible for everything which exists. He has been called the Alpha and Omega. The Beginning and the End. 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.

In the same way as you, I am not compelled to accept your definition of God. There are problems with "defining" God in the strict sense of definition, which means placing within finite limits.

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.

Here is your argument:

"I think God is a non-contingent entity. If God possesses something in his make-up, that makes him contingent. He's not - so he's nothing. I can conclude he does not exist."

What we can say is that since we meet contradictions in attempting to "define" God, then we conclude that our defining terms are flawed in some way.

Or, the other possibility which you ignore, that such a God is impossible. Right?

The parallel to your definition problem in mathematics is to suppose the square root of 2 is rational: i.e. can be expressed as a fraction in its lowest form, p/q say. This means when we square p/q we get an even number 2, and we can conclude that since the square of p is even, so is p. We can then write p as 2k, and then we find that 4 times k squared is twice the square of q, showing q is also even, which contradicts our definition. Thus our attempt at defining 2 as p/q is wrong.

Absolutely. 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!

In the same way, it is your defining terms that are flawed. Proofs of God's existence move from conclusions in a finite sphere to conclusions regarding infinity, which is unsafe. He's the prime mover, the first cause or whatever.

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.

But it seems fatuous to attempt redefinition since we can only guess at the unknown as you correctly point out in saying : "The unknown is unknown."

Go well.

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?

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 15 by RedEye]

No, I don't agree. You and I are entities. Consciousness is merely the name we give to a fully functioning brain. Consciousness is not a thing in itself. It is only a property of sufficiently complex brains.

And then we can debate 'what is consciousness?" and " Are jellyfish conscious?" ect.

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.

According to the Christian source I provided God cannot and does not depend on anything for his existence otherwise he would not be God. I have used that as a starting premise in my proof to arrive at a logical conclusion.

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

When I use the word "assertion" I mean "a positive statement, usually made without an attempt at furnishing evidence". In other words, a statement of belief without feeling the need to try and substantiate it. These human ideas about God are all only assertions.

I understand how you are using the word RedEye. What I was attempting to explain was that all assertions are what the person hearing them describes them as. The person experiencing relationship with GOD and speaks of that, is heard by the listener to be asserting.

I'm not really concerned about the source of the assertions. In my view they are delusions of the mind. (I experience a personal relationship with Reality, not with mythical beings). 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).

.

And some say GODs do not exist. All assertion to those hearing.

Am I only asserting or am I providing a proof? :Wink:

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

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

[RedEye]

What if the argument is valid, yet the conclusion doesnt hold true?

(Rationalism... I dont think anyone believes that rationalism hold absolute truths anymore)

If you accept that the argument is valid then your only defense against accepting the conclusion as true is to show that the argument is not sound (ie. by refuting one of the premises) as I have already explained. If you can't show that the argument is unsound then you have no choice logically but to accept the conclusion.

Well rationalist come to many conclusions all the time, built upon logically valid arguments, but they even come to different conclusions. In many cases they come to conclusions that contradict other conclusions, but both being built upon rationally valid arguments... That is why rationalism collapsed... They have arguments that contradict each other.. Now in a philosophy class, they teach of opposing truths that came from rationalist, as if they all are valid...

I'm sorry but all I see are assertions. Are you suggesting that we should all embrace irrationality?

Creationist have come up with logical arguments that prove God exists... Like yours that proves he doesnt exist...

Unfortunately I have yet to see one which is sound.

But lets for example take into consideration the evidence (empiricism)... How would your argument say anything about the Christian God, revealed through Christ as the Messiah?

Could Christ as the Messiah be true, even if your statement is logically valid?

Are they independent of each other?

Please read the OP again. I am interested in someone finding a flaw in the logical argument I have presented. You are way off-topic.