Thread: A proof for the non-existence of God

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 don't get it. Sure, it would be impressive if god didn't exist and still created the universe, but who says it would have to be that "impressive."

Secondly, my rebuttal: God is so omnipotent that he can not exist but still create the universe (and exist at the same time, though still not existing).

Originally Posted by wasup

Secondly, my rebuttal: God is so omnipotent that he can not exist but still create the universe (and exist at the same time, though still not existing).

Darn that rapscallion deity. Good sir; you have won, yet only due to the slippery nature of the deity in question. Bravo.

if you think God is out to impress?

Originally Posted by juroara

if you think God is out to impress?

You think he's not?

He could have just waved his hand and forgiven all sin on Earth, but instead chose to embody himself (as a Son) in flesh and get nailed to a cross to do it (which he knew was going to happen because he's omniscient). If god chose to suffer for our sins in such a hideous, torturous way, one can only assume he decided to do it that specific way. He's God, he can do whatever he likes. But he chose to be brutally tortured and murdered. What a masochist. What a drama queen.

"I told you I was hardcore"

Blood and body sacrifice has its roots in pagan culture anyway. Why would your god want to associate with that?

Clearly God is a sadistic, lazy bastard.

If he cared so much why not just directly tell us? Or just make us believe? Huh?

Clearly God does not care then.

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.

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 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 Sandform

2 + 2 = 4 wouldn't save your life, 2 + 2 = 5 would save your life. Since you say you could believe that two coke cans and another two coke cans = five coke cans, you wouldn't feel worried because you believe that you can in fact make the coke cans = five.

Yeah indeed, good point. But thats where memory kicks in. Chosing your believes doesn't erase your memory about previous believes. You can hold paradoxical believes in your mind. Just like you do know. You chose to believe you can't chose your believes. That's a paradox.