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).
A Proof That God Does Not Exist
Moderator: Moderators
A Proof That God Does Not Exist
Post #1Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Re: A Proof That God Does Not Exist
Post #2RedEye wrote:
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.
Your second syllogism has a false conclusion. It says:
A has property X; God has property X; therefore God is A.
A sheep is white. Snow is white. Therefore a sheep is snow.
You are using nothing in the sense of being incorporeal, free of physicality or matter. God simply shares this property with nothing as does the concept of truth or beauty. So we can also conclude truth is nothing or beauty is nothing.
All you have shown is that God is a non-physical entity. We suspect this.
Apart from this, your third syllogism equates nothing with non-existence, but virtual particles qualify as nothing, but they can become real. I suspect God can do even more amazing tricks both with physicality and semantics.
In effect all you've done is defined "nothing" in a way that makes God fit your defining factors.
I think he's still in his heaven and all's right with the world. But doubtless you disagree.
Post #3
Hello,
The only flaw I find is, my perception of your scientific argument. But I could not argue as logically as you. The problem with logic is you need to eliminate other possibilities for it to be accurate. I feel this is a elegantly simple.
Definition: A Bus are vehicles to transport people. -- Correct
P1. There is no one at the bus station so no people are being transported.
C1. Therefore a bus is not a vehicle.
nice try at disproving something.
But as a term nothing is something i have a problem with.
P1. Nothing is indistinguishable (from non-existence)
C1. Therefore non-existence, is the same as nothing.
Define: 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 existence is reactions.
Define: What is non-existence?
P1. Something indistinguishable, from nothing.
P2. All things in existence are 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
Therefore God is Disorder.
The only flaw I find is, my perception of your scientific argument. But I could not argue as logically as you. The problem with logic is you need to eliminate other possibilities for it to be accurate. I feel this is a elegantly simple.
Definition: A Bus are vehicles to transport people. -- Correct
P1. There is no one at the bus station so no people are being transported.
C1. Therefore a bus is not a vehicle.
nice try at disproving something.
But as a term nothing is something i have a problem with.
P1. Nothing is indistinguishable (from non-existence)
C1. Therefore non-existence, is the same as nothing.
Define: 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 existence is reactions.
Define: What is non-existence?
P1. Something indistinguishable, from nothing.
P2. All things in existence are 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
Therefore God is Disorder.
Re: A Proof That God Does Not Exist
Post #4I think it is more like this:marco wrote:Your second syllogism has a false conclusion. It says:RedEye wrote:
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.
A has property X; God has property X; therefore God is A.
A sheep is white. Snow is white. Therefore a sheep is snow.
The definition of A is this (to lack X); God lacks X; Therefore God is A.
Normally you would have a point, that such a conclusion is not warranted because A and God might have other properties which distinguish them. However, nothing (A) has no other properties by definition. Similarly God can have no other properties because if he had other properties then he would be contingent (dependent on them) for his existence. The only property that nothing (A) and God share is to not be composed of something. (You could claim other properties for God but they would only be assertions - you couldn't prove any of them). Therefore they (God and nothing) must be one and the same thing.
That's a very good effort though.
Yes but truth and beauty are not entities (see my definition). They are only concepts existing in the brains of sentient beings.You are using nothing in the sense of being incorporeal, free of physicality or matter. God simply shares this property with nothing as does the concept of truth or beauty. So we can also conclude truth is nothing or beauty is nothing.
The proof does not contain the term non-physical and is therefore not restricted to it. If you believe that God exists then he must be composed of something, whatever you choose to call it, spirit or some other word. He would then be contingent on the existence of this "spirit" and it would require an explanation independent of the existence of himself.All you have shown is that God is a non-physical entity. We suspect this.
Firstly, I am not sure which premise you are attacking. Secondly, virtual particles do not qualify as "nothing". They arise from the vacuum energy of space. They have a very brief existence and then annihilate. I fail to see how that invalidates my third syllogism. Space-time is not nothing and virtual particles are merely a feature of space-time.Apart from this, your third syllogism equates nothing with non-existence, but virtual particles qualify as nothing, but they can become real. I suspect God can do even more amazing tricks both with physicality and semantics.
You object to my definition of nothing as the complete absence of something? How would you define nothing?In effect all you've done is defined "nothing" in a way that makes God fit your defining factors.
I'm wondering where heaven is exactly and whether God is contingent on its existence.I think he's still in his heaven and all's right with the world. But doubtless you disagree.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21512
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 814 times
- Been thanked: 1150 times
- Contact:
Re: A Proof That God Does Not Exist
Post #5RedEye wrote: 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?
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
Re: A Proof That God Does Not Exist
Post #6RedEye wrote:
Normally you would have a point, that such a conclusion is not warranted because A and God might have other properties which distinguish them. However, nothing (A) has no other properties by definition. Similarly God can have no other properties because if he had other properties then he would be contingent (dependent on them) for his existence. The only property that nothing (A) and God share is to not be composed of something. (You could claim other properties for God but they would only be assertions - you couldn't prove any of them). Therefore they (God and nothing) must be one and the same thing.
We are wading into semantics. In mathematics we say there is no solution to the equation (x squared) + 4 = 0, but this assumes we are dealing with a real number system. We can say God does not exist as an entity in the world we know; it is claimed he does exist in a dimension beyond our own and so what applies here or what seems impossible here may not be impossible elsewhere.
It is circularity to argue for God not existing and at the same time assume he has no properties. Contingency rules apply where physicality applies. Existence can mean occupation of physical space; nothing is absence of such occupation, and yes, God does not occupy physical space - perhaps - but that simply means God is not a physical entity. That is the substance of your argument.
And by the same token God is not an entity such as a tree or a thermostat or a piece of print. You have come to that conclusion but erroneously crossed the border into another dimension where we need new definitions.
Yes but truth and beauty are not entities (see my definition). They are only concepts existing in the brains of sentient beings.
It is assumed.The proof does not contain the term non-physical and is therefore not restricted to it.
If you believe that God exists then he must be composed of something, whatever you choose to call it, spirit or some other word.
Elizabeth 1 on her death bed warned a counsellor not to dare to say "must" to her. I think the same applies to God. You impose restrictions and then rejoice in the discovery of your own restrictions. I think all proofs concerning God fall against such rocks.
Interesting try. Doubtless others have dabbled like yourself. You define nothing in a particular way; define God in the same way and ergo, God is nothing - by definition. You have defined being into nothingness. Nietzsche would be pleased.
But I don't for a minute think you really believed you'd proved God doesn't exist. If my ad hoc arguments don't quite meet your standards of rebuttal, blame my imperfections not the non-existence of God.
Go well and welcome to the forum.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14441
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 929 times
- Been thanked: 1681 times
- Contact:
Re: A Proof That God Does Not Exist
Post #7[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]
"Being perfect as GOD is perfect." Post #50 in the "What type of design is this? - 2nd atttempt" thread.
Also;
♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD
♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.
♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.
♦ Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.
In relation to most - if not all - of human ideas regarding 'GOD' this is an entity which is self-aware and powerfully creative. Your points in the OP blurb seem to have neglected to include these attributes.
Consciousness is not a thing either. It observes itself through the interaction with the physical which acts as a type of way of self referencing....C1: God is not composed of something...
...C2: God is nothing...
...C3: God does not exist.
"Being perfect as GOD is perfect." Post #50 in the "What type of design is this? - 2nd atttempt" thread.
Also;
♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD
♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.
♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.
♦ Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.
In relation to most - if not all - of human ideas regarding 'GOD' this is an entity which is self-aware and powerfully creative. Your points in the OP blurb seem to have neglected to include these attributes.
Re: A Proof That God Does Not Exist
Post #8Then God would be contingent (dependent) on the existence of this energy. However God is defined as not being contingent on anything.JehovahsWitness wrote:RedEye wrote: 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?
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Re: A Proof That God Does Not Exist
Post #9I'm not sure what that means or how it relates to the proof. I agree that consciousness is not a thing/entity so my proof does not apply to it directly. What premise are you disputing?William wrote: [Replying to post 1 by RedEye]
Consciousness is not a thing either. It observes itself through the interaction with the physical which acts as a type of way of self referencing....C1: God is not composed of something...
...C2: God is nothing...
...C3: God does not exist.
Yes, because I didn't need them to disprove a God who is not contingent (dependent) on anything. These human ideas about God are all only assertions anyway and they have evolved over time. No-one has any real knowledge about God since God is completely undetectable. Some even say unknowable."Being perfect as GOD is perfect." Post #50 in the "What type of design is this? - 2nd atttempt" thread.
Also;
♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD
♦ Biological Evolution is a platform in which intelligence can and does display itself.
♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.
♦ Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.
In relation to most - if not all - of human ideas regarding 'GOD' this is an entity which is self-aware and powerfully creative. Your points in the OP blurb seem to have neglected to include these attributes.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Re: A Proof That God Does Not Exist
Post #10You 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.marco wrote:We are wading into semantics. In mathematics we say there is no solution to the equation (x squared) + 4 = 0, but this assumes we are dealing with a real number system. We can say God does not exist as an entity in the world we know; it is claimed he does exist in a dimension beyond our own and so what applies here or what seems impossible here may not be impossible elsewhere.RedEye wrote: Normally you would have a point, that such a conclusion is not warranted because A and God might have other properties which distinguish them. However, nothing (A) has no other properties by definition. Similarly God can have no other properties because if he had other properties then he would be contingent (dependent on them) for his existence. The only property that nothing (A) and God share is to not be composed of something. (You could claim other properties for God but they would only be assertions - you couldn't prove any of them). Therefore they (God and nothing) must be one and the same thing.
I'm not assuming it. I have already explained why God can have no other properties.It is circularity to argue for God not existing and at the same time assume he has no properties.
It's more nuanced than that. I haven't used the terms "physical" or "non-physical". My proof rests on the fact that God must be made of something (with no constraints on what that "something" is) otherwise he is indistinguishable from nothingness. As soon as you accept that God must be composed of something then you violate the definition of God as not being contingent (dependent) on anything for his existence.Contingency rules apply where physicality applies. Existence can mean occupation of physical space; nothing is absence of such occupation, and yes, God does not occupy physical space - perhaps - but that simply means God is not a physical entity. That is the substance of your argument.
I never suggested that God was an entity like a tree or any other object you can name. Nevertheless he must be an entity (as per my definition) and that is all my proof assumes.And by the same token God is not an entity such as a tree or a thermostat or a piece of print. You have come to that conclusion but erroneously crossed the border into another dimension where we need new definitions.Yes but truth and beauty are not entities (see my definition). They are only concepts existing in the brains of sentient beings.
Where?It is assumed.The proof does not contain the term non-physical and is therefore not restricted to it.
Then you should be able to show where my proof fails by refuting one of the premises. You can't just assert that my proof fails.Elizabeth 1 on her death bed warned a counsellor not to dare to say "must" to her. I think the same applies to God. You impose restrictions and then rejoice in the discovery of your own restrictions. I think all proofs concerning God fall against such rocks.If you believe that God exists then he must be composed of something, whatever you choose to call it, spirit or some other word.
I'm still not clear which premise you are disputing.Interesting try. Doubtless others have dabbled like yourself. You define nothing in a particular way; define God in the same way and ergo, God is nothing - by definition. You have defined being into nothingness. Nietzsche would be pleased.
Thank you.But I don't for a minute think you really believed you'd proved God doesn't exist. If my ad hoc arguments don't quite meet your standards of rebuttal, blame my imperfections not the non-existence of God.
Go well and welcome to the forum.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.