At the end of a long debate about where lies the burden of proof with regard to proving the existence of a divine being, a frustrated believer might concede a certain level of defeat about lacking the ability to prove the existence of God with evidence outside the bible, but will undoubtedly make what is often considered the final unchallengeable thrust against atheism — that God cannot be disproven.
I beg to differ.
Get your invisible teapot detection kit ready, and let’s disprove God!
To gain an understanding of the concepts involved, and to set the stage for the argument that you can successfully disprove God, start not with what it takes to disprove God, but rather what it takes to prove God. In other words, you’ll need to take the position of the believer who has the burden of proof. To make it easy, ask yourself what it would take for you to believe in God? Notice that it’s very important here that we’re not asking what it would take for you to believe in “a” god. The distinction is critical. For, “a” god is one of the most widely interpreted concepts; proving or disproving such ambiguity is pointless for both sides, since what would follow from the proof wouldn’t support the tenets of whatever scripture the believer wants to claim as true.
What would it take for you to believe in God? For me, it’s the following.
When:
1. God is defined by a specific, unwavering set of characteristics;
2. Sufficient evidence of each and every one of those characteristics is presented to me in such a way that I believed those characteristics to exist, or very likely to exist; and
3. None of the evidence can be attributed to anything other than the “god” as defined.
We can easily make an analogy here to any other proof of the existence of something. Let’s say you claimed to have a Ming vase in a locked cabinet, and you ask me what it would take for me to believe it exists, and to buy it from you for what you claim it’s worth. Well, I’d have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt (reasonable for the situation) that it’s a Ming vase, so I first ask you to open the cabinet — eyesight is sensory input which would give me at least some starting data. You tell me that you cannot open the cabinet until the vase is purchased — say that it’s some obscure inheritance rule. As a skeptic, what should I do next? Say, “Well, if you can’t show me, then it cannot be true?” I could, certainly, but then what would be the fun of that? I would say, for it to be a Ming vase, it must have some defining characteristics. Can you prove or disprove any of those characteristics without opening the cabinet? I expect so.
There are scanning tools that should give an indication of the contents of the cabinet. You might be able to determine the shape of the vase (if it’s even in there), and with even more fine-tuning, perhaps “see” engravings with sonics. You could also show me documentation, authentications, affidavits, photographs, samples, etc. There are myriad bits of evidence you could toss my way to help convince me that you really do have a Ming vase, and do you know what the kicker is? It might actually work. I might be convinced, with enough proof, and I might pay you for whatever it really is. When we open the cabinet, we’ll have more evidence one way or the other, and at the end of the day, it still might not be a Ming vase, and if I found evidence that it wasn’t, then I should adjust my view on the matter accordingly.
That’s the way we should handle proof of God. A believer isn’t saying there’s “some sort of god” in the cabinet. The believer is saying “my God” is in the cabinet. That’s the important distinction I mentioned. The believer’s god better have some characteristics. What are they? It varies from believer to believer. What should the skeptic do? Ask: What are the characteristics of your god?
The response could be:
1. Omniscience
2. Omnipotence
3. All-loving
4. Able to produce miracles
5. Trinity
6. Created everything
7. Answers prayers
8. Wrote (directly or indirectly) scripture
Any, all, or a selection of those, or other characteristics may be chosen.
The next step is for the believer to gather and present what evidence is available for each characteristic, and then for me to determine whether I feel each characteristic has been sufficiently proven by the evidence. The key here, as it was with the vase, is that these are defining characteristics – necessary characteristics. Take any one of them away, and it’s not the same god that was originally proffered. If you take one away, the believer must either give up or redefine. This continues until that happens, or I am satisfied with the evidence.
I’m not actually going to challenge any of the characteristics or evidence in this article, as all of them have been discussed repeatedly elsewhere. However, I will say that, for me, and for the vast majority of scientists and skeptics of the world, the evidence isn’t sufficient to prove the existence of God.
And that’s where the believer jumps in with, “Well, you can’t disprove God!”
Yes, I can. The same way the believer failed to prove God. By definition.
God is fully and wholly disproved when:
1. God is defined by a specific, unwavering set of characteristics; and
2. Sufficient proof is provided that at least one of those characteristics is not true.
Let’s test this. The believer decides to define God as omniscient, creator of everything, answers prayers. The believer offers up various arguments trying to prove each characteristic. When we test each one, we realize that prayer has repeatedly not worked as advertised. Reply to the believer: prayer is not answered, therefore your god does not exist. Why can I say that with such authority? It’s simple math (math/logic).
God (G) is the set of characteristics with the elements: omniscience (O), creator of everything (C), prayer-answerer (P).
So,
G ≡ (G = {O,C,P}) & (O & C & P)
~P
∴ ~G
Translation:
God exists if and only if the set of God’s characteristics is omniscience, creator of everything, and prayer-answerer AND each of those characteristics is True. (for each rehash of the “definition” of God, the set of characteristics is changed to match — there’s no cheating!)
Prayer-answering is not True.
Therefore God does not exist.
(sorry if my notation is rusty — I’m using a mix of math and logic)
So, even if we stipulate O and C, the god as defined (G) does not exist, because we’ve determined that a necessary element of G (P) is not true. At this point, the believer might reply that it’s fine to just drop the prayer part, but God exists otherwise. As a skeptic, you might want to respond, “Okay, assuming God as defined by omniscience and creator exists, what then?” The believer (and these are responses I’ve received from this argument!) might go on to say that it follows that if God exists, then the bible is true, or that the quran is true, or that God loves you, or that if you don’t believe in God, you’re going to hell, or that all morality derives from God and therefore religion. Something like that. Proper retort? None of those were characteristics of God as defined (i.e., they weren’t elements of the set of G). If the believer would like to start over again, adding to the set of elements, then we can analyze the revised definition of God. Merely because one characteristic might be plausible or even true does not make another characteristic true by its scriptural or alleged intuitive relationship with that characteristic. In other words, even if everyone in the room agreed that an omniscient being exists, it does not follow that the omniscient being, by nature of it being omniscient, created the universe, answers prayers, or sends people to heaven or hell.
So, you can definitively say that God does not exist.
One factor not to be overlooked is alternative natural explanations. If a believer attributes lightning to God, but it’s shown that lightning is a product of nature, God cannot have the characteristic that it is the only thing that can produce lightning. If the believer claims that everything is God, including nature, that potentially resets the characteristics, which need to be defined further if we’re not meant to just shrug our shoulders at the declaration that “God” exists (and that non-believers merely call it nature). In short, if a believer wants others to do something based on interpretation of scripture, or a subjective interpretation of what “God” is telling the believer, then the believer must provide more specific and thorough characteristics, and they must not be able to be explained by way of natural phenomena. If something is a characteristic that is not evident (i.e., something that cannot be currently proven or disproven (string theory, for example) ), it is not logical to attribute it to anything definitively — so, god of the gaps arguments are insufficient. Until then, everything that exists is nature, natural, and not God, and therefore God does not exist.
If desired, the model above can be modified to reflect the “if not explained by natural phenomenon” restriction:
T ≡ ( (T = {Th,L}) & (Th & L) ) & ( (Th OR L) ≠ N)
Th = N
L = N
(Th OR L) = N
∴ ~T
Thor exists if and only if the set of characteristics of Thor is Thunder and Lightning, AND Thunder and Lightning are true (exist), AND Thunder OR Lightning aren’t explained by natural phenomenon.
Thunder is Natural, Lightning is Natural, so one of the characteristics is Natural.
Therefore, Thor does not exist.
If it works for Thor, and you really think Thor doesn’t exist (you don’t, do you?), then why can’t it work for something called “God” with characteristics that either don’t exist, or can be easily explained by nature, just like Thor’s lightning and thunder?
If a believer makes one last shot in the dark by saying that with all these logical restrictions, it’s impossible to prove that anything exists, let alone God (and therefore, we can’t disprove God, either), then the proper response is that if God is such that God’s characteristics lack the sufficient presence to be tested, such that we cannot prove or disprove God, then if God did exist, God has absolutely no influence on anything in the world — for if God did, then we’d be able to detect it, test it, and prove or disprove its relationship to God. If the believer says we wouldn’t be able to detect it, then that proves the lack of influence, and therefore effective lack of existence. In other words, if God lacks detectable influence, God is irrelevant.
Faults in my logic? Hit me!
-Procrustes
Endnote: If you haven’t figured it out, this analysis is really just about rejection of religion, not necessarily the rejection of the potential for there existing some greater being. There’s no reason not to believe there is something greater out there, but there is a better reason not to believe. Where the above analysis comes in handy is discussions with people who intend to use their proof of God to link back to the alleged truth of scripture or other divine intervention claimed to exist by the religious. When that is the case, there is always some link back to text, and that will always include some reference to an act the god allegedly committed, which helps define that god, at least subjectively with regard to that specific text or the specific religion being touted. When I say I can disprove God, I’m not saying I can disprove the existence of every potential incarnation of everything anyone can possibly call “God” or a greater being. I’m saying that if someone proffers a god with specific characteristics, and those characteristics don’t pass muster, that god does not exist. It’s interesting how our society has been coerced to believe that it is the duty of the unbeliever to continue to battle this pointless fight while the believer “fights” by way of smug stagnation.
Endnote2: Much of the feedback I’ve received from this analysis regards an argument that “answers prayers” is not necessary characteristic of God, nor is it even uniform among believers. My general response to that criticism is that the system of disproof I’ve proffered doesn’t require that God have that characteristic. It merely uses that characteristic as one of many potential example characteristics that can and have been used by believers to define what they call “God.” The sets of characteristics vary from belief to belief, but that has no bearing on whether this disproof works, because this concept is based on identifying whatever characteristics for “God” are proffered at the moment of analysis, not, however, on potential characteristics. In other words, whoever is advocating in the existence of something must define it in a substantial way, and if any bit of that definition is false in such a way that negates the possibility of that thing existing, then it doesn’t exist. So, to answer the criticism with regard to “answers prayers,” I merely say, then how do [i]you[/i] define what you call “God”?
Sometimes I get the rebuttal of “Well, lots of people claim that God answers prayers, and you can’t disprove them, so your disproof is wrong.” Merely because a lot of people claim something doesn’t make it true. More importantly, if we performed extensive studies that showed with reasonable accuracy that those prayers are, in fact, being answered, then that would be evidence in favor of “God,” as defined, but it would not make my disproof equation incorrect. My disproof equation doesn’t say “God does not exist.” The equation is merely a tool. Insert data, and it’ll spit out “God does not exist” or “/shrug.” If you look at the equation without entering data, it says nothing. Therefore, even if God really exists, my equation is not incorrect.
Tags: answers, Atheism, bible, creator, election, god, Logic, Love, miracle, moral, Morality, omnipotence, omniscience, omniscient, photo, photograph, prayer, Procrustes, proof, Quran, Religion, Science, scripture, skeptic, teapot, theory, trinity, truth, universe
I am not going to point out flaws, but I am going to point out a common theist response to your argument. The argument that I most often see from thinking theists when pushed by logic is, that God is outside logic and science. This places the supernatural to it's true definition; which is undefinable, unmeasurable, untestable and undetectable. The atheist at this point realizes the argument from logic is useless and retreats to his reason fortress. Of course this doesn't change your final conclusion that God is irrelevant, but the theist is still safe and secure in his supernatural "blanky".
The problem with that argument. For GOD to be classified as 'Supernatural' he has to have 0 effect on the natural realm. Because the moment GOD influences the natural realm, the effects of such influences would be detectable.
Point out flaws! Please!
Yes, supernatural = undefinable, unmeasurable, untestable, undetectable. Which equals nonexistent.
If an undefinable, unmeasurable, untestable, undetectable object falls in the woods…
Procrustes, as for your point about God as prayer-answering.
I don't think you'll find any "believers" out there who claim that the God they believe in is defined by the characteristic of immediately answering every prayer made in the way hoped for by the praying individual.
I don't know of anyone who has made such a claim, so I don't see any point in offering your (quite correct) demonstration that the existence of such a God is easily disproven.
The more common understanding of God as "prayer-answering" is that God is able to answer prayers. With this understanding in mind, it would be easy enough to find a number of believers who will provide empirical (although anecdotal) data of prayers that they observed to have been "answered". I'll leave it for someone else to discuss what constitutes the "answering" of a prayer.
Noumenon:
There have also been several influential theologians (often more commonly known as philosophers) who maintained that God must necessarily be accessible to reason and logic. For example, I've seen one "proof of God" that was based on Descartes.
[God] is defined as "infinitude of being//an infinite object"
"I think therefore I am," says Descartes. He observes himself thinking, which he takes to be proof that there is a thinker. He doesn't know anything about specifically what he is, just that the fact of his existing is self-evident.
If [I think] then [I] exist.
The next step in the proof was to point out that in identifying the concept [I], a distinction is made between [I] and [Not I]. If there was no such thing as a [Not I], then your previously demonstrated concept [I] would have no meaning. But having accepted [I] as something that exists, we also have to accept the existence of this "other" concept [Not I].
If [I] exist then [Not I] exists.
This next part really deserves some criticism, but it was still very interesting.
[I] + [Not I] = [Infinitude].
[Infinitude] = [God].
Therefore, [God] exists.
_________________
And of course someone who had been exposed to the Indian philosophy in the Upanishads took it a step further.
[God] was defined as "infinitude of being", and infinitude does not permit the existence of boundaries, or limitations. In other words we can't define the concept [God] as distinct from any other concept, because that distinction would constitute a limitation.
Then:
If [I] exist, and If [God] exists,
Then [I] = [God].
[I] (in this case the Hindu philosophical concept "Atman" — the soul) = [God] (Brahman — the philosophical God-yness, not a distinct god named "Brahman" which is also featured in Hindusim.)
This was the basis for the Hindu philosophical proof for Atman=Brahman. (Soul = God).
listen to say you can disprove god is just dumb really and honestly and i say this not cause i belive in god but in the fact your trying to use math to say "hey listen to me i made an equation that says god isnt real cause i say he doesnt answer prayers" but if youve ever read the bible it doesnt say hey cry to god and hell make it better hes not a fucking babysitter it says that hes there but isnt going to interfear with us or our choices. to say that if you belive in jesus or not would also show that he doesnt bother with us cause even tho it was his human child he still allowed him to take pain teach us the basics of leading a decent life and have us follow. to show that we must bare our own problems and make the best of the life were leading. so prayer answering is not an option for your math equation thus making it false.
If you are Christian/believe in a “god”, then why are you posting on a page titled “how to disprove god?” Just so you could bring about your bad spelling and nonsense. God has been disproved years ago, because of the discovery of Neanderthals and, simply, life before humans. According to the bible (and I may be a little wrong, if so please feel free to correct) God created everything, and the Earth. He then made Adam and Eve, and then they started the race of man, and then the Satan stuff happened. Uh, I am sorry, but how could god create Adam and Eve, when dinosaurs were here WAY before any other sign of any type of Homo Sapiens appeared on the planet. There are also planets and star systems forming RIGHT AS WE SPEAK. How did god create everything if things are being created even now on their own? And to your “prayer” argument, either god is not real or he is a heartless bastard and doesn’t give a fuck, because when I was younger, and prayed to god for people in the world to get better, and for family members to get better when they were sick, nothing happened. The only reason people believe in the abomination known as christianity is because their parents force it upon them. If my parents had forced religion upon me, I would surely not be typing this right now, and would definitely not have the free thought that I have right now. It is about as ridiculous as santa claus, or the easter bunny. I know that this will not make you come to your senses, because you have already been made close minded enough to block out all other possibilities except for christianity.
and im not saying your going to hell but i am saying your a idiot. but heres this math problem for you this waste of time thread + you trying to disprove god doesnt exist with your belifes on what god is supposed to do (whyd youd have a personal belifes on what god is supposed to be and do since you dont belive in him) = your a fucking douche-fag shut the fuck up. listen just cause someone in your family died cause they were cocksuckers doesnt give you the right to try and disprove god. so go to whoevers grave cut your self light candels then drop a bottle of zoloft and top it off with some everclear ok faggot have a nice life buddy haha o and hope i hit a nerve fag
Procrustes, Noumenon, and other readers:
After reading State of Protest for awhile, I've written up a post about the atheism-religion debate on my own blog. The direct link to the article is here:
http://brendannewlon1fiction.wordpress.com/2009/0...
P & N, since I've had discussions with you both in the past, I would particularly appreciate your thoughtful responses!
Thanks
Thanks for the invite, Brendan. I left a comment, but it's apparently still waiting for moderation.
Wonkifier on Reddit has this to say:
"I love how he starts with How to disprove the Existence of "God" and ends by saying really just about rejection of religion, not necessarily the rejection of the potential for there existing some greater being.
I take that back, no I don't. I really don't like deception in logic.
Glancing through his proof I also see
" God is fully and wholly disproved when: 1. God is defined by a specific, unwavering set of characteristics; and 2. Sufficient proof is provided that at least one of those characteristics is not true."
And no, a deist god is not disproven by this at all, and his "Answers prayers" doesn't handle the normal Christian understanding of answering prayers.
There's also the detectability or understandability of those attributes… ugh.
Full of holes, inconsistent logic, deceptive statement of goals.
Yeah, pretty sure I really don't like this… certainly not enough to finish reading it detail everything wrong in it.
-
He starts from a fairly reasonable position, but doesn't plug the holes. I have not run into a description of a god that is BOTH logically consistent AND relevant. ie, if your god exists, created the universe, and has nothing more to do with us, I don't care about him. But when you start layering in effects and desires, you venture over into the "not logically consistent" part."
My reply:
"Squarounder: A squaround exists. ASquarounder: Define a squaround. Squarounder: It's a square with round edges. ASquarounder: A square cannot exist with round edges, therefore a squaround cannot exist, therefore a squaround doesn't exist. Squarounder: But you can't deny that it's possible that a squaround exists!
My argument is a reiteration of the Epicurean argument: omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, but evil in the world = no god, at least not as defined.
If you define something, and a principle element of the definition is untrue, that's justification for the denial of the existence of that something. The door is still open for the redefining of something, but in the meantime, there's no justification for accepting even the possibility of something on faith. In other words, if someone says that there "could" exist an invisible pink unicorn floating around Io, as a skeptic and rational person, I should say "No, there isn't." Instead of saying, "I guess there might be, so I better pray to it for mercy."
That doesn't mean that when some evidence crops up that might suggest the existence of the unicorn, we should fight it. Instead, we should reconsider the possibility of its existence. Again, that doesn't equal immediate acceptance. What it should equal is us asking, "Prove it."
What happened to burden of proof? What part of my analysis deviates from the fact that the burden of proof lies with the person trying to prove the existence of something, not the non-existence of something? The non-existence of something is the default without sufficient evidence otherwise. If there's no sufficient evidence otherwise, then there's no existence."
So, am I wrong? Am I right? Is there a solid answer?
The article could also be like this: “It is said that there is a God who answers all prayers, however when I prayed no one answered, so God doesn’t exist”. Which is true but irrelevant, since nowhere is said that God immediately answers all prayers. Moreover it is almost impossible to determine whether the prayer was conducted correctly or not.
Also there was no need for such a long explanation and formula building. Formulas are used to automate thinking, however it is only necessary when dealing with many similar cases. Since in this article no other case than the proof of non-existence of God is mentioned, the use of all those long explanations and formulas was unnecessary.
This is what I love about intellectuals. They try to disprove what they think is imaginary using their imagination as evidence for their case.
First of all both of your premises are false.
God is fully and wholly disproved when:
1. God is defined by a specific, unwavering set of characteristics; and
2. Sufficient proof is provided that at least one of those characteristics is not true.
The above shows the level of your ignorance as there is no logical way to fully disprove something. Anyone who says that they can do this either cannot use logic correctly or does not understand the basis of rational thought. As such this alone shows that frankly you do not know what you are talking about.
God is defined by a specific, unwavering set of characteristics; and
Yet another fallacy in your thinking. There is no evidence that God has a “a specific, unwavering set of characteristics” any more than mankind does as a whole. People in general do not have a “specific, unwavering set of characteristics” and yet still exist. People who are insane do not have “a specific, unwavering set of characteristics.” and yet still exist. So by your own premise you show that insane people do not exist. Of course this is absurd. And so is your premise.
“Sufficient proof is provided that at least one of those characteristics is not true.”
How can one person say they can disprove God and yet lack the intelligence to understand how absurd and nonsensical the above statement is?
All the above would prove is that God was not what you expected God to be. It would not prove that God does not exist.
Let’s take number seven of your criteria, answers prayers. There are plenty of people that state that God answered their prayers. But what would you call that? You would more than likely say delusion. Interesting how that works isn’t it? I mean it must be nice to set up the criteria and then ignore the evidence when that criteria is fulfilled. Thus you show like the typical intellectual that you ignore the evidence when it suits your case but reject it when it does not. You are therefore biased.
In fact your arguments are so flawed in their bases, so absurd in their explanation that if I were indeed to take your advice and “hit you” you would not survive the attack. Although even if you could disprove something logically it does not mean it does not exist.
After all, you can use logic to justify almost anything. That is its power…and flaw.
In fact, to explain all of the flaws in your reasoning would take far more time than I have at this point. After all, I am busy for the next ten years or so.
Hello.
I’m glad you’re sharing some love with the intellectuals. Oh, or was that sarcasm?
Your counter-argument regarding my premises speaks to their truth value, not their value with regard to validity. You either ignorantly or purposely overlooked the fact that I was making an if/then statement, not a statement of fact. I was not saying that God is defined by a specific set of characteristics. I was saying that in order to disprove something defined as “God,” it must have characteristics; otherwise, it’s just a word. If, then, something is characterized, but one of its characterizations cannot be true, or it has logically conflicting characterizations, then it cannot exist as defined. This is really rather simple.
You said that “there is no logical way to fully disprove something.”
Let’s make an example to prove you wrong.
I’m going to prove that a “sphbox” doesn’t exist.
An “sphbox” is defined by having the characteristics of being spherical and of being square.
Logically, definitionally, nothing can be both spherical and square.
Therefore, as defined, a “sphbox” doesn’t exist.
(By the way, this has nothing to do with imagination.)
Let’s do another:
I’m going to prove that a “pongyong” doesn’t exist.
A “pongyong” is defined by having the characteristics of being the size of the moon and of traveling twice the speed of light.
Nothing can travel twice the speed of light (and certainly nothing the size of the moon).
Therefore, a “pongyong” doesn’t exist. (because it cannot exist)
What you’re doing in your counter-argument is affirming the consequent. You’re making the assumption that God (as you define it) is the default, already existing, in need of no proof. You’re likely someone who tries to place the burden of proof on the atheist with regard to the existence of “God,” and yet you won’t even take the first and most basic step of trying to define it.
When I’m talking about a specific set of unwavering characteristics, I do so because people across the world tend to define “God” in many different ways. If we returned to the “sphbox” example, and you said, “Sphbox exists,” and I asked you “Well, what is an “sphbox?”, if you said that it doesn’t have any set characteristics, and you couldn’t give me any more than that, that doesn’t make the “sphbox” suddenly come into existence due to your inability to successfully define it. Your inability to prove the existence of a very specific thing opens the door for a variety of things loosely related to that thing you don’t wish to pidgeonhole.
I’ll give you an example. If you said that “God” was the creator of all, and I asked, “Well, why couldn’t there have been two or three creators of all?”, you’d likely assert that “God” MUST be a single entity. Why would you answer that? Because otherwise, it wouldn’t fit in your pre-existing world view. It wouldn’t fit the bible or the koran. It might fit some other religious beliefs, but not yours. That’s affirming the consequent. There’s no evidence to show that there weren’t a billion “creator” beings, all of equal power. But that’s not even within consideration for you, is it? But the moment I ask you to give me a characteristic of your idea of “God,” you tell me that “God” cannot be defined by any unwavering set of characteristics. Isn’t “creator of the universe” one of them? Are there any set of characteristics that you’d offer to help define “God”?
Why on earth would you put forth so much effort in believing something that you cannot (or will not) even define?
You accuse intellectuals of trying to disprove what we think is imaginary. That’s not exactly what we’re doing. We’re being skeptical about the claims of others, and using tools of observation and logic to debunk claims when they appear to be nonsense. When they do appear to be nonsense, yet people keep believing in it (like Uri Geller’s ability to bend spoons with his mind), intellectuals assert that those people are probably imagining things, or are delusional. Quite often, it’s because they want to believe in something so badly that their desire overrides their reasoning.
your an idiot….
Logic by definition is indisptible. the fact that you claim to see pot holes and erros in any logical proof only implies that said proof is infact not a proof at all or you don’t know what your talking about.
now logicaly i can deduce by your statement you have little to no knowledge of what propositional logic is. i reccomend reading up on the subject before responding any further. i can deduce this because
“I’m going to prove that a “pongyong” doesn’t exist.
A “pongyong” is defined by having the characteristics of being the size of the moon and of traveling twice the speed of light.
Nothing can travel twice the speed of light (and certainly nothing the size of the moon).
Therefore, a “pongyong” doesn’t exist. (because it cannot exist)”
….wrong.
observe:
there is such an X that if X can travel two times the speed of light and X is the size of the moon then X is a “PongYong” (assumption)
for all Y if Y can travel twice the speed of light and is the size of the moon then X=Y
what this says is that of all things in the universe if there is a thing (no matter what its name is) if it contains the property to move at 2x the speed of light AND the property of being the size of the moon than no matter what you call it it IS a “PongYong”! And LOGICALY that is sound.
ALSO your entire bottom argument involving the number of god(s) is completely unfounded! no where in this proof is god said to be singular. the exsiostetial quantifer mean AT LEAST one, it implies a subset of soemthing wheather the set contains 1 or 1000 it matters not.
logicaly however it is possible to state there is one and only one god! Observe:
there is such an X that if X is god and then for all Y if Y is god then X=Y
what this means is that if such a thing exsists and it is god than anything else that exsists and also claims to be god then those thing are actually one and the same. now this may not seem like much but it proves logicaly that of everything we call god (jesus adoni god whatever you call it) is all the same thing!
Of course God can be disproved…Remove all human beings from this earth..and God disappears too. However as long as the Human Race exsists, the faith in God will exsist..That is the truth of our God.
“Our God”? You do realize that monotheism is a relatively new human invention, right? Well, unless, of course, you think the Earth is 6000 years old.
very nice, unfortunatly youve left open a few loose-ends
you state that for god to exsist his characteristics must be proved to not occur naturaly. although your logic seems sound at first glance youve made a critical error in your deduction that because something had the properties to occur naturaly that does not mean it can not also possess qualitys that allow it to occur phenomenonly.
i cant find the existential and universal quantifiers on my laptop so im gonna have to write this all out bear with…
there is such an X that for all Y if X exsist than it was created by Y (assumption)
there is such a Z that for all R if it is the case that (if Z is alive then R created Z) then R is god (assumption)
For all Z if Z is alive than Z exists (assumption)
now using these assumptions our goal is too first prove that god created everything (i know it seems backward but in order to disprove something it must first be “something” and since religion can offer no real argument for their beleifs we mustdo it for them!) next we must prove that in order for there to be creation there must have prevuisly been nothing. it is here that we can actualy disprove gods exsistence! unfortunatly that is also as far as i can take this as i am currently faced with a very difficult issue. it seems to me impossible to prove that nothingness can exsist AND also prove god can not exsist. if we prove nothingness exsists than we disprove that all things must come from something, and if we disprove all things come from something we cannot begin to show than some one thing can not have created all things because we have removed our own set peramiters.
i found this rather interesting.but i find myself thinking at times,if theres all these different religions,how do we know whos right? and the bible was written by people and people arent perfect..our brains can be manipulated,nothing exists..but at the same time everything exists.if that makes sense
Exactly!
Set theories dont work for living things
Humans defined{walks, talks, breaths, reproduces, learns,moves}
Some humans can be born that can’t move.
Humans dont exist?
easy.
In the same way that no computer can solve all math problems, defining something that is inherantly undefinable is impossible. Until the qualities of Omniscience can be defined, which by definition is impossible (1 can be added to any number), the answer to the question can only be discussed.
(Not the same James as previous James who posted)
So, I just got done listening to/watching a Lawrence Krauss lecture on how a universe could come from nothing. It basically stated, by the end of it, that, if the universe were infinite, then there would be all this dark matter/energy and it could possibly create other universes (moving away from each other faster than light speed, there for unobservable) with different laws of physics, etc.
Now, let’s stop for a moment and think about this. If the energy is infinite, and could create a universe from nothing, then it has. Given an infinite amount of time, something that is infinitely improbable will happen. Now, could it be possible that one of these universes (our own, maybe?) gave rise to a being that could control everything that is in that given universe, with the impossibility of detecting it? Assuming what I just watched wasn’t an hour of bullshit, yes.
I’m tired, it’s 3:30 in the morning, I’m not sleeping for another 6 hours, and I’m just bored.
Anyway, according to my religious beliefs (yes, I am a Christian, please flame me for it), God is. My view on the religious aspect of “why is there ‘evil’ in the world if God is a loving God” is that God put us on Earth for a purpose. God wanted to have a personal relationship with something. That something was created in His own image, which was man.
Now, let’s say you have a relationship with something. You have two scenarios:
1) This something is a robot, programmed to love you forever and ever and never do anything wrong.
2) Something that’s imperfect, has free-will, and actually gravitates towards choices that you COMPLETELY disagree with 99.99999% of the time.
Which of those relationships would be more special, if you found yourself in a relationship with that other something?
That’s right, #2.
That’s why *I* believe that humans were made imperfect, with the pull towards “sin” as it may be known.
Anyway, that last section, if Krauss is correct, is irrelevant, so you don’t have to read it.
Here’s my “proof” for God. Take it, poke holes in it, run away, agree, die, whatever. Please stab this through the heart.
God is perfect. If God is perfect, one of the qualities of perfection would be existence.
If God did not exist, God would be imperfect. If God were imperfect, then God would not exist. However, God is perfect, and therefore must exist.
Hey, James not James. Thanks for posting.
I’m not really sure that we’re in the flaming business here, but I guess counter-arguments sometimes seem that way. If someone chooses to be Christian, hey, who am I to argue? But if they take the step of explaining why they made that choice, and then following up with a tautological proof for the existence of the divine being of their choice, then it’s just asking to be poked.
Take, for example, your proof for God. It begins with a premise that includes God as existing (i.e., you can’t say “God is X” without first proving God is; you can’t use “God is X” as a premise in an argument to prove God is). That’s what’s called the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. I’m not going to further disassemble your proof because it’s logically flawed. That isn’t to say you’re not right, however, in your conclusion. It’s quite possible that “God must exist.” However, your proof doesn’t logically lead to that conclusion. You might be convinced, but it’s just not a rational argument. (And has absolutely nothing to do with your intelligence, good-naturedness, piety, character, etc. People of all sorts make logical fallacies all the time (even Einstein appealed to tradition and authority on occasions, to his regret)).
I tried to find some neutral sites describing logical fallacies for you to peruse, specifically regarding Begging the Question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/f/fallacy.htm#Begging%20the%20Question
This is from a Christian blog, that aims to argue that it is a fallacy to argue against a proof using the begging the question fallacy, but the lengthy and interesting commentary below is worth a read.
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/02/begging-question-fallacy-fallacy.html
And, finally, here’s a decent summary: http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/begging.html
Of course, you can Google to find others.
Interestingly, I saw the same Krauss lecture and found it fascinating. What concerns me more than the beginning of the universe is that due to the spreading of it, we will eventually be unable to see the most distant celestial bodies, and even further into the future still, we will be able to see nothing other than our own galaxy, leading to the assumption that our galaxy is alone in the universe, with absolutely no evidence to the contrary other than our own records (which, if you’ve read up on history, are not safe from natural and intentional destruction or manipulation).
I do think your ideas are interesting on why God would have created humans. Perhaps even compelling, especially for someone who wants or needs certain gaps in understanding to be filled. For example, the biggest gap (likely because it’s an imagined gap, not a real one), “Why are we here?” I think the biggest difference between atheists and religious believers is that our biggest gaps differ by a single word: instead of “Why are we here?”, atheists focus on “How are we here?”
Of course, philosophers focus on the former, and it’s argued that philosophy is the successor to religion, as science is the successor to philosophy. In any event, the question of “Why” we’re here being answered by someone who believes in a divine authority tends to try to impose the answer upon all others (because, to that person, it’s the absolute truth). On the other hand, the question of “How” we’re here is subject to a much more strict analysis, and is quite often challenged successfully, being modified over and over again, being refined. The latter has no supreme authority, and thus is perceptibly “weaker” to some, but is stronger to the rational because of the very fact that it is subject to modification due to new evidence.
Again, thanks for commenting!
My anti-logic tells me that you cannot even prove or disprove your own existence.
You cannot show logic to be valid or invalid.
Logic, all of its characteristics, all of its rules for validity and invalidity are only in your mind.
You will attempt to prove your mind’s existence via the logic which exists only in your mind.
You may continue this recursion until you are satisfied, but I am certain that you will remain anti-satisfied.
You cannot show my anti-logic to be valid or invalid.
My anti-logic, all of its characteristics, all of its rules for validity and invalidity are only in my mind.
You will attempt to prove my mind’s existence via the logic which exists only in your mind.
You may continue this recursion until you are satisfied, but I am certain that you will remain anti-satisfied.
As you continue to attempt to apply logic or anti-logic to validate or invalidate your own logic or anti-logic, keep in mind that I may only exist in your mind, and you may currently be arguing with your own logic or anti-logic.
Procrustes,
Have we become so arrogant to think we are able to answer all question, on all matters, that exist in our finite reality! Yes, human beings (in general), believe we can ,(or will have the ability at some later date), to answer all questions. This is absurd !! If we can’t prove “something” by mathmatics, physics, etc…, than it cannot possibly be true. Again, this is absurd !!
Human’s will always feel we lack some understanding of the self and our existence. We cannot understand the void within all of us. The nothing within ourselves. The nothing that is part of every atom. The nothing that is part of every molecule. The nothing which escapes perception. Until “anyone” can answer the question of “what is nothing”, we will continue to come back to what we as individuals subjectively believe. Scientists and Theologians will continue to go round and round.
Some scientists and philosophers define “True nothing” as that immeasurable, zero-energy, non-existent thing that did not exist before the universe, and all the space in it, came into existence. Well, the obvious question is how did existence come from non-existence, or the age old question, how do you get something from nothing.
Great thinkers have gone insane trying to answer the unanswerable. Look up Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Friedrich Nietzsche, Kurt Gödel. I believe God is one of those “things” we do not have the ability to fathom. Infinitude cannot be logically understood. I thoroughly enjoy these discussions but believe they are, in the end, futile.
If this analysis was really about rejecting religion and not God, then I believe you have erred. Religion is a byproduct of belief in a God who gives us moral understanding. If we (the created) take that byproduct and manipulate it in immoral ways, that is not the fault of God but is the fault of the free willed human.