Thread: A proof for the non-existence of God

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

I still don't understand how I am meant to figure out the existence/nonexistence of god without using logic. What am I meant to do, guess?

What's good for the goose...

Originally Posted by Omicron

Actually this isn't a real proper argument, but I find it funny. This is more of a parody of the many "logical" arguments for God's existence, rather than an argument in itself.




Not a solid or upstanding argument, but rather fun nonetheless.



1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore, God does not exist.

The third premise might seem odd; the intuition is that we are generally more impressed by, for example, a four-year-old child composing a marvelous symphony than the same composition of a professional. In fact, Graham Oppy, an expert on the ontological argument, who isn't particularly impressed with this parody, does not object to (3). Writing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy he is mainly concerned with the first premise, asking "what reason is there to believe that the creation of the world is 'the most marvellous achievement imaginable.' Gasking was apparently thinking of the "world" or "universe" as the same as "everything."

If one is willing to accept the first premise, one has no choice but to accept the fourth premise. Thus, the philosophical point of this parody is to highlight problems when existence is taken as property: "whereas Anselm illicitly supposed that existence is a perfection, [Fred] is illicitly invoking the inverse principle that non-existence is a perfection."

I haven't read this all yet, but I remembered this logic problem... it's meant as a philosophical, hypothetical paradox but whjy does that mean you shouldn't take it seriously? Here it is:

Facts -

- the God in question is omnipotent.
- "omnipotent" means "with the ability to do absoloutely everything".

Assuming those facts are correct, can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? It would seem not - which would prove that such a god cannot exist.

I mean, you can argue that the Bible contradicts itself over everything but this really is something special.

I doubt the peasants of the 1st century thought about the philosophical implications of the word "almighty" before using it. They may have assumed that omnipotence of the sort you describe is by it's nature illogical as you pointed out, so it's a given that they didn't mean that. What they probably meant by "almighty" is "more powerful than the king, and with more chiselled abs than hercules".

Yes, you're right - but the original definition doesn't matter, the way "almighty" is interpreted today does, because it is today's interpretation and the people following it that we are discussing.

For example, maybe when the Bible was written when it said "Do not lie with another man" or something it meant "Keep to your side of the bed when camping" (don't say that the possible example is absurd, it is no less absurd than saying that God very powerful as opposed to omnipotent). But the modern interpretation interprets "Do not lie with another man" as "It's wrong to have sexual intercourse with other men" (or something).

Original interpretations are irrelevant to the discussion lof how religion is followed/interpreted today.

This is the problem with the "Yeah? Well MY DAD is better than YOURS because -" child-like mentality of giving your gods powers. In order to make your god 'better' than someone elses, you have to give him/her more and more powers. You quickly reach a point where there is such a thing as 'too powerful', because it begins to conflict with anything you can observe about the works of said God.

God is omnipotent - therefore, he can do anything. (all powerful)
God is omniscient - therefore, he knows everything including your thoughts before you think them. (all knowing)
God is omnipresent - therefore, god is everywhere in the universe simultaneously. (all seeing)

How do you reconcile these properties with the observed suffering in the world? Incoming argument for 'suffering creates chances for generosity' and arguments for humanities free will causes suffering in 3.... 2.... 1....

Originally Posted by Alextanium

This is the problem with the "Yeah? Well MY DAD is better than YOURS because -" child-like mentality of giving your gods powers. In order to make your god 'better' than someone elses, you have to give him/her more and more powers. You quickly reach a point where there is such a thing as 'too powerful', because it begins to conflict with anything you can observe about the works of said God.

God is omnipotent - therefore, he can do anything. (all powerful)
God is omniscient - therefore, he knows everything including your thoughts before you think them. (all knowing)
God is omnipresent - therefore, god is everywhere in the universe simultaneously. (all seeing)

How do you reconcile these properties with the observed suffering in the world? Incoming argument for 'suffering creates chances for generosity' and arguments for humanities free will causes suffering in 3.... 2.... 1....

God is also all being.

That really falls under omnipresent.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Still, tell me, how do I distinguish truth from lies in the absence of logic?

Excuse my stupidity! Logic - of course there must be! What I originally meant was: "This is not a logical matter", because I myself defined logic as: common sense, lateral thinking, maths etc. Not in the fuller, proper context of a system of reasoning. My bad.

Clearly, spiritual logic can not be found with lateral thinking as I have demonstrated.

Originally Posted by The Fishy

Facts -

- the God in question is omnipotent.
- "omnipotent" means "with the ability to do absoloutely everything".

Assuming those facts are correct, can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Yes, he can. He can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift while still remaining omnipotent. That's why it's called omnipotent. Because he can do it.

There are two acts involved - the creation of the stone that is too heavy for him to lift (act 1), and the lifting of the stone (act 2).

Originally Posted by Korittke

Yes, he can. He can create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift while still remaining omnipotent. That's why it's called omnipotent. Because he can do it.

You have said, I think: Yes, he can do act 1, because he is omnipotent. But for that to be true, he will have to be unable to lift the stone, rendering him as not omnipotent.

There's a quote from Wiki that sums this up:

"J.L. Cowan attempts to resolve the paradox in "The Paradox of Omnipotence Revisited." He proposes the following:

1. Either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift.

2. If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot lift the stone in question).

3. If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone in question).

4. Therefore God is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence implies that God can lift anything, therefore it is illogical to say God can make a stone which He cannot lift. It is however logical to say if God can lift anything, then he is not capable of making a stone He cannot lift. Because He cannot make a stone He cannot lift, omnipotence is negated."

So unless you're making some claim that God is able to do anything (having the power to realise all opprotunities, no matter how they conflict) this makes so sense. If you are making that claiom, could you elaborate on it?

Originally Posted by The Fishy

So unless you're making some claim that God is able to do anything (having the power to realise all opprotunities, no matter how they conflict) this makes so sense. If you are making that claiom, could you elaborate on it?

God is omnipotent - therefore, he can do anything. (all powerful)

God can lift something even if he himself made it so that he can't life it.

But if that's true, it means that in that case the rock IS liftable and so God has failed.

Originally Posted by The Fishy

But if that's true, it means that in that case the rock IS liftable and so God has failed.

God is omnipotent, thus he can lift an unliftable rock and still have it be unliftable.

As for the unliftable rock thing.

God can make himself into an irreversible form of a pussy, so that he can not lift a rock, however he wouldn't want to. OR. God HIMSELF doesn't adhere to logic so such conceptions don't exist for him.

Originally Posted by Korittke

God is omnipotent, thus he can lift an unliftable rock and still have it be unliftable.

When you say "unliftable" at the end in this quote, do you mean merely unliftable or unliftable for him? Because if you mean the former definition, the rock is not unliftable, but if you mean the latter definition that "the rock is still unliftable, even for him" than it makes logical sense. Is this claim that God can embody absoloutley all opprotunites in the Bible? Or is it later interpretation? I've never heard of it.

Oh, btw, Elis D. : God doesn't adhere to logic, yes, I think we can agree on that, because it's not logical that there exists an invisible higher being that sees your every thought and is everywhere. But I'm not talking about the concept of god, I'm talking about the specific concept of his omnipotentcy. Are you waving away the logical paradoxes this causes by stating that logic doesn't matter? You are discussing rules religious people live their life by, are you serious posing "it doesn't have to make sense" as a reasonable argument?

Originally Posted by Alextanium

God is omnipotent - therefore, he can do anything. (all powerful)
God is omniscient - therefore, he knows everything including your thoughts before you think them. (all knowing)
God is omnipresent - therefore, god is everywhere in the universe simultaneously. (all seeing)

Well, God sure made some big booboos when it comes to biochemistry of the cell. Why would God make DNA so easily mutatable? Why would it be that if a mutant gene produces human pathology has the same effect when transformed into a mouse?

Also, why is it that all embryos of every animal look the same, why do they all develop into neural tubes, why do all the cells differentiate in the presence of morphogens and transcription factors?

From this argument, you can extrapolate that animals should have access to God just as equally as we do. BUT, animals cannot choose good or bad...therefore there can be no GOD. I am trying to say that everything living on this earth is RELATED to one another, humans are not special creatures. We only have a well developed neocortex.

We must all have sex just like animals do. Some bacteria also have sex (sex pilus insertion).

Anyway. Cells and DNA disprove God.

Why couldn't God make a parable that told everyone about DNA, the most important thing of life seen throughout all of nature?

Originally Posted by fy_iceworld

Well, God sure made some big booboos when it comes to biochemistry of the cell. Why would God make DNA so easily mutatable? Why would it be that if a mutant gene produces human pathology has the same effect when transformed into a mouse?

Also, why is it that all embryos of every animal look the same, why do they all develop into neural tubes, why do all the cells differentiate in the presence of morphogens and transcription factors?

From this argument, you can extrapolate that animals should have access to God just as equally as we do. BUT, animals cannot choose good or bad...therefore there can be no GOD. I am trying to say that everything living on this earth is RELATED to one another, humans are not special creatures. We only have a well developed neocortex.

We must all have sex just like animals do. Some bacteria also have sex (sex pilus insertion).

Anyway. Cells and DNA disprove God.

Why couldn't God make a parable that told everyone about DNA, the most important thing of life seen throughout all of nature?

Whats your definition of God?..

Well, God sure made some big booboos when it comes to biochemistry of the cell. Why would God make DNA so easily mutatable? Why would it be that if a mutant gene produces human pathology has the same effect when transformed into a mouse?

Also, why is it that all embryos of every animal look the same, why do they all develop into neural tubes, why do all the cells differentiate in the presence of morphogens and transcription factors?

From this argument, you can extrapolate that animals should have access to God just as equally as we do. BUT, animals cannot choose good or bad...therefore there can be no GOD. I am trying to say that everything living on this earth is RELATED to one another, humans are not special creatures. We only have a well developed neocortex.

That's true, and we do die just like any other animal... but apparently there is another part of us which is not physical and lasts forever. It gives us our sentience and free will in a deterministic world. All the animals are like computers, even us, except we can control our bodies with something outside the deterministic world. That's how we're special. (At least that's what I'm thinking right now.)

Why couldn't God make a parable that told everyone about DNA, the most important thing of life seen throughout all of nature?

Don't you know what a parable is? It's like an analogy, it uses something that lots of people will understand to explain something new. So making a parable about DNA wouldn't make much sense.

Anyways, I think God made DNA and all the other complex things in the universe for us to explore on our own. Telling us about it would ruin the surprise And imagine if you went back in time to when the Bible was written and tried to explain to people all about DNA. I don't think they'd understand it without learning a bunch of other stuff about science that they wouldn't have discovered yet.

God was made by man
Aliens made man

Let me guess -you've been indocrinated into believing science-fiction as to how the world was created, by a cult who you've now donated over $1000 to?

If not, please explain your remarks instead of posting random statements, it's really making people think you're on 24-hour weed intake.

Originally Posted by cannabisman

God was made by man
Aliens made man

Who made the aliens?

Turtles the whole way down.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Either they believe it or they were just lying. All I can tell you is I'm merely addressing a common view of god via parody by... basically retelling it verbatim as I had heard it so many times.

Because you repeated yourself, you've obviously missed my points.

Originally Posted by The Fishy

There are two acts involved - the creation of the stone that is too heavy for him to lift (act 1), and the lifting of the stone (act 2).

...

I'm sorry, but your claims and Cowan's are flawed right from the from the very beginning. This is especially evident in the failure to recognize what you are trying to prove (coupling with what God Really Is).

God is the Almighty and most Powerful; therefore you can draw no line where He can exhaust himself. God is not a separate thing. He is not a man, exclusively. He is All things; He is In the man.

Since God is Omnipotent, not only could he make a stone infinitely heavy, he could make himself, in any way, infinitely powerful to lift it. Whether the stone is heavy is dependent upon two separate issues; one relationship. Therefore this paradox is uselessly irrelevant.

Originally Posted by The Fishy

It is however logical to say if God can lift anything, then he is not capable of making a stone He cannot lift. Because He cannot make a stone He cannot lift, omnipotence is negated."

It is only negated with the misunderstanding that Omnipotence gives Him no ability to make himself infinitely strong.

Originally Posted by The Fishy

Oh, btw, Elis D. : God doesn't adhere to logic, yes, I think we can agree on that, because it's not logical that there exists an invisible higher being that sees your every thought and is everywhere.

Yes, He is logical, but can not be understood with typical, limited logic, I.e. that of lifting rocks.

Originally Posted by The Fishy

But I'm not talking about the concept of god, I'm talking about the specific concept of his omnipotentcy.

It is better to understand one thing before moving on to the next. When you understand the concept of God, your following concept is already explained.

Originally Posted by Dr. David Hawkins, 'Power vs. Force'

"A statement may be true at a high level of understanding, but be incomprehensible to the average mind. Its value may therefore be corrupted when the statement is distorted by the limitations of the listener. This has been the fate of religions throughout the ages when pronouncements originating from high levels of awareness were later misinterpreted by followers vested with authority."

^ I hope this quote is read and understood by everyone. Dr. Hawkins writes books worth everyones eyesight.

Originally Posted by really

^ I hope this quote is read and understood by everyone. Dr. Hawkins writes books worth everyones eyesight.

Wrong. He's yet another self-proclaimed guru who pukes out unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the human without having shit to back it up.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Wrong. He's yet another self-proclaimed guru who pukes out unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the human without having shit to back it up.

He may be but he is 1000 times smarter then you will ever be and he knows alot more then you about alot of things.