Proof that God does not exist.

Think your art is better or your stick figures worse? Got a link to a site you want to share? Post it here!

Moderators: Jacque, Moderators General, Prelates

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:26 am UTC

Hi all,
I finally published a proof I had written years ago.

My English is probably not the best, so if you have any difficulties understanding a specific part or just a recommendation on how to write it better, please let me know.

Of course, I'm also interested in your opinion about the validity.

Here goes:
http://www.thoughts-of-genius.com/rando ... proof.html

regards,
ToG

User avatar
roc314
Is dead, and you have killed him
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:48 am UTC
Location: A bunker, here behind my wall
Contact:

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby roc314 » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:49 am UTC

I'm reproducing your proof here so people don't have to click away.
OP wrote:Proof that (the biblical) God does not exist.

Disclaimer: This proof only covers the christian god as described in the bible. It only holds in our currently accepted logic system (why this is important is explained later).

Premise I: God is almighty and omnipotent (as stated in the bible).
Premise II: Humans have a free will (as stated in the bible).

Premise III: There either is "perfect chance", or there is not.

Definition of "perfect chance": "perfect chance" exists, if there exists an event in the future, such that the outcome of that event is not predictable (perfectly random).

Proof Part 1: If "perfect chance" exists, then it is by definition impossible to predict the outcome of a certain event e. Even god could not predict the outcome of e. If god cannot predict the outcome of e, then he is not omnipotent. According to the bible, the christian god is omnipotent, hence a contradiction.
Note: Our system and the system "God" are not independent. If god could predict the outcome of e, he could theoretically communicate it to us and therefore e is not perfectly random (-> contradiction). The fact that communication between the two systems is possible is stated in the bible.

Proof Part 2: If "perfect chance" does not exist, then every event is theoretically predictable. This implies that all our future actions are predictable. If all our future actions are predictable, the outcome of our actions is already given. If every outcome is already given, we cannot choose any outcome. Hence, we do not have a free will. This contradicts premise II.

Conclusion: The god as described in the bible cannot exist. Either there is no such god or the bible is flawed.

Important: Obviously, this proof only applies to our logic system. It is possible that there is a god which does not follow the laws of our logic system. If that was the case, however, every reasoning would be meaningless, since outside of our logic system, we could prove anything (e.g. "1 = 2").

First, you can't disprove god just by disproving your narrow definition of god. Even if you were only disproving the Christian view of god (which you aren't by the way, not everyone would agree that your axioms reflect Christianity), that still is not disproving the existence of god. At the very least, you should change your title to reflect this.

Second, you don't define all your terms. What do you mean by free will and omnipotence? Saying "as stated in the Bible" does nothing, as it is quite controversial what exactly the Bible says. Until you fix this, you don't have the necessary support for your argument. (And even if you do that, judging by what you wrote, it would appear your definitions of free will and omnipotence differ from how many describe them.)

Third, something being predictable is not the same as something having an already given outcome.

(Mods, should this be merged with the religion thread?)
Hippo: roc is the good little communist that lurks in us all
Richard Stallman: Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.
suffer-cait: roc's a pretty cool dude

apeman5291
Posts: 634
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:19 am UTC
Location: Columbia, SC, USA
Contact:

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby apeman5291 » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:54 am UTC

This is kind of nit-picky, but "omnipotent" means "all powerful" and "omniscient" means "all knowing." I think you meant to use the latter of the two, which makes more sense in the context of how it's used. I hope that helps with your english. :)

Also, I do have some qualms about the arguments made. Part I is pretty sound, except that simply because a communication link can be made between the two systems doesn't mean it will be. But I get your point, that the possibility itself contradicts "perfect" chance. Part II is where I start to see some faults. It is possible for actions to be predictable and the result of free will and choice. You said in Part I that a possible scenario is that perfect chance does not exist simply because of Premise I, the omniscience of God. Following on that scenario, an omniscient God would also know what choice someone would make before they make it. Hence, you still choose to do something, it's just that God would know about it before hand and be able to tell people.

Proofs by contradiction are tricky. It's easy to get caught up in the webs resulting from the assumptions that form the basis of the contradiction, and forget about possible exits.
What you don't understand, you can make mean anything.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:32 am UTC

Also, many religious groups like the descendants of Calvinism do not believe in free will per say. I suppose this is kind of a contradiction in of itself, but for all practical purposes a God could exist which has created souls that live for 60 years on a rock, decide how they will act then give them eternal pleasure or pain based off of how he decided they should live.

On a different note, if you accept a being is all powerful couldn't he exist outside of our perception of the world, interjecting his own actions from time to time in a manner where he can observe the outcome? In this case, we progress through time as free agents but God himself still can affect the world itself at any given moment, knowing the overall outcome based off of whatever actions he might take. While from our perspective there is no means to predict the outcomes, God would simultaneously exist throughout the entirety of time as a unified being even if we do not. I guess what this argument comes down to is that you presume that all existence is limited to the same dimension we are in, whereas there is no absolute reason as to why a greater dimension cannot exist. That being said we have no reason to expect such a being should exist, but the use of Occam's Razor is not logical proof, it's just a useful tool in understanding certain things.

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:38 am UTC

apeman: I changed "omnipotent" to "omniscient", thanks for the correction.

simply because a communication link can be made between the two systems doesn't mean it will be

the fact that it can be suffices.

Regarding part 2:
Since there are no events of "perfect chance", the complete path of outcomes is already unfolded along the time axis. This means that at any given point in time, every state at any other point of time is known.
Where on the time axis would we then be able to make a decision? Certainly not in the present.

...it's just that God would know about it before hand...

To my understanding, it's not just that. See the argument above, that every "decision" is known at any point in time. Hence that decision cannot be made during our lifetime or we would violate the principle of action and reaction.

User avatar
roc314
Is dead, and you have killed him
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:48 am UTC
Location: A bunker, here behind my wall
Contact:

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby roc314 » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:43 am UTC

thoughts-of-genius wrote:To my understanding, it's not just that. See the argument above, that every "decision" is known at any point in time. Hence that decision cannot be made during our lifetime or we would violate the principle of action and reaction.
No it wouldn't, especially if it is known by some higher being who never gives you the knowledge. An example of this concept: we go to the ice cream store together. I know that you will choose chocolate ice cream because you really like chocolate. I don't tell you that I know this. You choose chocolate. Did I in anyway limit your free will in choosing what ice cream flavor you wanted? Of course not, you still could have made any choice you wanted. Me knowing how you will choose does not in anyway affect your choice. Unless you are claiming that I hold some power over your choices?
Hippo: roc is the good little communist that lurks in us all
Richard Stallman: Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.
suffer-cait: roc's a pretty cool dude

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:51 am UTC

roc314:
I stated:
The god as described in the bible cannot exist. Either there is no such god or the bible is flawed.


I admit the title is somewhat exaggerated. I wanted to draw some attention after all :)
Also, I completely agree that "my" definition is very narrow. The implication is that my proof at least shows the bible is flawed.
Of course there will always be people who are able to bend every word in a way such that it still makes sense to them. My experience with such people just showed me that it always ends with reasoning outside of our mathematical logic.

What do you mean by free will and omnipotence?

free will: able to make a decision in the present - that is, defining the outcome of an event by own choice.
omnipotence: as suggested by apeman, I changed that to omniscient.

something being predictable is not the same as something having an already given outcome.

A very valid point. My arguing goes in the direction that, if somebody predicts an outcome in the sense that he knows the outcome, there can be only one outcome. If there is only one outcome, the outcome is already given.

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:58 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy:

I guess what this argument comes down to is that you presume that all existence is limited to the same dimension we are in, whereas there is no absolute reason as to why a greater dimension cannot exist


Not really. See my argument of a possible communication channel between what you call dimensions (and I called "systems").
Also: I accept the fact that a god might exist in a greater dimension but noted that such a greater dimension would deprive itself of our logic.
As stated in the proof, no arguments can be made about matters outside of our logic system.

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:04 am UTC

No it wouldn't, especially if it is known by some higher being who never gives you the knowledge.


This is why I introduced the theoretical possibility of a link/communication channel. He could give that knowledge.

An example of this concept: we go to the ice cream store together. I know that you will choose chocolate ice cream because you really like chocolate. I don't tell you that I know this. You choose chocolate. Did I in anyway limit your free will in choosing what ice cream flavor you wanted? Of course not, you still could have made any choice you wanted. Me knowing how you will choose does not in anyway affect your choice. Unless you are claiming that I hold some power over your choices?


Every other choice than chocolate would contradict your knowledge of my choice. Hence, I cannot choose anything else.
or the other way around:
The only way you can know for sure that I will pick chocolate, is if that is the only option I have.

User avatar
roc314
Is dead, and you have killed him
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:48 am UTC
Location: A bunker, here behind my wall
Contact:

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby roc314 » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:04 am UTC

thoughts-of-genius wrote:Also, I completely agree that "my" definition is very narrow. The implication is that my proof at least shows the bible is flawed.
I don't think that many would disagree that the bible is flawed in some way. The problem is, since everyone interprets the bible differently, you can't really prove that the biblical god does not exist because there is not one biblical god. Whose god is correct according to the bible: the Catholics', the Lutherans', the Baptists', the Mormons', the Calvinists', the Anglicans', or the nondenominational Christians'? You can prove that god does not exist as you define god, but few will agree with your axioms.
Hippo: roc is the good little communist that lurks in us all
Richard Stallman: Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.
suffer-cait: roc's a pretty cool dude

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:09 am UTC

roc314:
I don't think that many would disagree that the bible is flawed in some way.


Oh, I know many would disagree!

The problem is, since everyone interprets the bible differently,...


If everybody recognized that it is only his personal interpretation that he believes in, I would be more than happy!

User avatar
roc314
Is dead, and you have killed him
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:48 am UTC
Location: A bunker, here behind my wall
Contact:

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby roc314 » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:13 am UTC

thoughts-of-genius wrote:If everybody recognized that it is only his personal interpretation that he believes in, I would be more than happy!
I agree here, and it appears that you already agree with what I was trying to say. I just wanted to make sure you didn't think that your disproof of your interpretation disproves anyone else's interpretation.
Hippo: roc is the good little communist that lurks in us all
Richard Stallman: Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.
suffer-cait: roc's a pretty cool dude

User avatar
Maseiken
The Candylawyer
Posts: 2827
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:13 am UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby Maseiken » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:04 am UTC

I think we can agree that this is a viable proof.
Provided you accept these Postulates and assume them to be unaltered by outside influence.
Which is a very big "Provided"
"GRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOWR!!!!"
(Translation: "Objection!")

Maseiken had the ball at the top of the key...

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby GodShapedBullet » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:46 pm UTC

I think you could help yourself if, when talking about the God of the Bible, you provide references to the relevant Bible passages. For instance, where in the Bible does it say God is omniscient.

(I'm not saying it doesn't say that; I'm just saying it would be helpful to your proof)

Also, how do you cope with this, the new ontological proof of God:

The New Ontological Proof of God

No mortal knows what “ontological” means (it's a difficult word).
Someone must know, or no one would talk about the ontological proof of God.
People talk about the ontological proof of God, so someone must know what “ontological” means.
Everything is either mortal or immortal.
An immortal being exists.
Knowing what “ontological” means has to be the last thing a being would know.
If a being knows what it means, that being must also know everything else.
The being that knows what “ontological” means is therefore immortal and omniscient.
This being that knows everything would know how to accomplish any possible task.
If a particular task was beyond that being’s abilities, given the being’s omniscience, it would know how to overcome that lack of ability.
The being would be omnipotent.
There exists an immortal, omniscient and omnipotent being.
An immortal, omniscient and omnipotent being is a reasonable description of God.
God exists.

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:53 pm UTC

hey GodShapedBullet,

Nice reading. Well here's how I cope with your proof:
Although it's flawed from start to end, the biggest mistake is made in line 2:

Someone must know, or no one would talk about the ontological proof of God.


If you ever watched TV or listened to the radio you would know that many many people talk about things they don't know...
(Don't get me started on how many people WRITE about stuff they don't know.... on the internet....)

nice try though :D

apeman5291
Posts: 634
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 12:19 am UTC
Location: Columbia, SC, USA
Contact:

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby apeman5291 » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:22 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:Also, many religious groups like the descendants of Calvinism do not believe in free will per say. I suppose this is kind of a contradiction in of itself, but for all practical purposes a God could exist which has created souls that live for 60 years on a rock, decide how they will act then give them eternal pleasure or pain based off of how he decided they should live.

As a presbyterian, I could spout tons of information on the subject, but I'll keep it short to prevent derailing the thread. I think what you're referring to is "predestination," which has more to do with Christianity itself instead of free will in general. Basically, there are two main camps of christians: those who believe they go to heaven/hell based on their actions, and those who believe that they go to heaven/hell based on whether or not they believe in the God of the Bible. Calvinists take a third road they call "salvation through grace," i.e. "we didn't do a damn thing, it was all Jesus, and there's nothing we can do to gain or lose our spot in heaven/hell." So within Calvinism there is free will, but none of it affects spiritual matters.

thoughts-of-genius wrote:If everybody recognized that it is only his personal interpretation that he believes in, I would be more than happy!

However, not only do people believe in their interpretation, they also believe that their interpretation is the correct interpretation, and thus equivalent to the notion of God.


To further the ice cream shop anolgy, even if there is a set order of events in the future, that doesn't impair choice in the present. You also have to consider the effect telling someone about the future has on the future itself. I'm assuming you, like everyone else on the internet, has seen The Matrix multiple times. The scene that comes to mind is the one in which Neo first meets the Oracle. Obviously, the Oracle is the omniscient being in question, and Neo is the one making or not making a decision. The Oracle knows that Neo is the ONE. Yet, she tells him that he is not, so that he will act upon that knowledge and save Morpheus, which was her plan. Neo still chose to go save him, but that choice was orchestrated by the Oracle's interaction with his realm of knowledge.
I draw from these analogies that the existence of God and a set path for the future does not contradict free will, since the path would be set by the choices people make, which would be in turn influenced by God.
What you don't understand, you can make mean anything.

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:12 pm UTC

apeman:
Neo still chose to go save him, but that choice was orchestrated by the Oracle...


The problem I see is the following:
If the Oracle was orchestrating that choice KNOWING for 100% sure how he would choose, didn't then the Oracle make the decision and Neo merely executed it, believing he had made choice?

I would understand your point if the Oracle would orchestrate/influence the choice HOPING he would then choose the better outcome. But that is not the case. Knowing of an event means its probability of occurrence is 100%. This implies that the probabilities of all other events is 0%. After the Oracle influenced the action, of all future paths to go, there is only one left. Hence no choice to make.

But I suspect we could go in circles here and end up in the philosophical discussion whether believing one has a choice is the same as having a choice.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:07 am UTC

I don't see how a being outside our known reality contradicts logic. Whenever something is observed that contradicts our known laws of physics we don't throw up our hands and say "well, looks like the whole logic thing was a crock," alls it means is that our observations previously were too limited to be able to correctly draw a complete conclusion. Not knowing the exact means of how our universe runs doesn't mean logic is invalid, it just means we do not have sufficient information to create statements of absolute truth regarding it.

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:03 am UTC

McCoy: You would be right if I hadn't a proof!

Look at it the following way: If I have a proof in some system S that some thing T cannot exist, but T does exist, it means that T is not in S.

Example: I could prove that the number (3/2) does not exist in the set of integers. Yet, the number does exist. But it follows completely new rules (e.g. an+1 = an + 1 doesn't hold anymore).

Now, if we switch back to our logic system, for now, everything is part of that system. Our whole perception of the world relies on facts like "if B is true and B relies on A, then A is true". The existence of god given a proof of his non-existence in our logic system means that one of our fundamental assumptions is wrong.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:24 am UTC

You're not making sense, I criticize the basis for how you regard God and then you say I'm wrong because you have a proof. You didn't address my point, what you essentially said in so many words is "you'd be right if I wasn't wrong," without any real mention or discussion of how God must defy some laws of nature as we can observe them by definition (like creating things out of nothingness).

What it comes down to is you have a stipulation that does hold true should the givens be, but I do not know of any Christian group that believes in the same God your proof talks about. The being you desrcibed has to exist and progress through a timeframe identical to our own, yet there's no direct implication within the bible that God exists this way; in effect you are straw-manning God.

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:14 pm UTC

McCoy: Sorry, I was not clear. I referred to the following statement of yours:

I don't see how a being outside our known reality contradicts logic.


and tried to show that if a proof is given that something cannot exist, whether or not it is outside our known reality does not matter.
UNLESS being outside our known reality implies being outside of our known logic!

Of course I understand that god must defy some laws of nature, as you state. However, by doing so, all attempts to prove the existence of God must immediately fail. Therefore, the existence of god is as probable as the existence of the (well-known) flying spaghetti monster.

Yet another point of view:
If ever someone tried to reason that god must exist by logic, I have a contradicting proof using that same logic.

I do not know of any Christian group that believes in the same God your proof talks about


Yeah, that is a problem... :) Well, here I have to refer to my argument that every group only believes in its own interpretation.
Essentially, my proof then shows that one can always bend the words of the bible such that they fit the individual interpretation.

by the way:
Whenever something is observed that contradicts our known laws of physics we don't throw up our hands and say "well, looks like the whole logic thing was a crock,"

if someone was to show that e.g. "2 = 3", then that's exactly what we would do!

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:42 am UTC

thoughts-of-genius wrote:Essentially, my proof then shows that one can always bend the words of the bible such that they fit the individual interpretation.


You mean like come up with a deliberately simplified version of the concept of God and create a strawman argument so you can feel smug about "disproving" its existence?

thoughts-of-genius wrote:by the way:
Whenever something is observed that contradicts our known laws of physics we don't throw up our hands and say "well, looks like the whole logic thing was a crock,"

if someone was to show that e.g. "2 = 3", then that's exactly what we would do!


Saying that time can be observed differently from the way we see it occur is not in itself a logical contradiction, physical laws regarding time have been rewritten before and logic certainly survived Einstein.

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:04 am UTC

McCoy:
deliberately simplified version


You may call it that and I call it "the way it is written in the bible". Honestly, if you have to interpret and bend everything that's written in the bible (that is, take it above that "simplified version"), what's the point of having a bible? Taking it to the extreme, you could fill it with random letters and blame bad translation.

Saying that time can be observed differently from the way we see it occur is not in itself a logical contradiction, physical laws regarding time have been rewritten before and logic certainly survived Einstein.


If the other way you describe violates the actio/reactio statement, then it is a logical contradiction, since we could construct a paradox.
Regarding physical laws: Physics is not an exact science. As opposed to logic, those aren't really laws in the strictest sense. As you state, they are observations or approximations. Logic or mathematics are very different.

Einstein never questioned logic. The only thing he questioned was quantum theory :)

On a side note, so we're clear about that: I enjoy discussing with you and "come in peace", so to speak. I really am interested in your opinion, still I try to defend myself as well as possible. I hope you see it the same way!

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:55 am UTC

thoughts-of-genius wrote:You may call it that and I call it "the way it is written in the bible". Honestly, if you have to interpret and bend everything that's written in the bible (that is, take it above that "simplified version"), what's the point of having a bible? Taking it to the extreme, you could fill it with random letters and blame bad translation.


The Bible is outrageously cryptic, going on about how one ultimate being is comprised of the three different beings of the Holy Trinity, God being the Alpha and the Omega, being Truth and the Word, etc. I can understand frustration and lack of interest due to this, but I think it's wrong to conjecture that you can take a handful of lines about God being all-powerful and humans having free will and know exactly what God is supposed to be. The Bible certainly sets guidelines as to how Christian belief can look, but there's is a lot of leeway in terms of its absolute meaning. Your "proof" does hold true for a certain interpretation of the Christian God, but not all of them.

thoughts-of-genius wrote:If the other way you describe violates the actio/reactio statement, then it is a logical contradiction, since we could construct a paradox.
Regarding physical laws: Physics is not an exact science. As opposed to logic, those aren't really laws in the strictest sense. As you state, they are observations or approximations. Logic or mathematics are very different.

Einstein never questioned logic. The only thing he questioned was quantum theory :)

On a side note, so we're clear about that: I enjoy discussing with you and "come in peace", so to speak. I really am interested in your opinion, still I try to defend myself as well as possible. I hope you see it the same way!


The modifications the the action/reaction of the new system is not a logical contradiction, it's merely a difference of observation. We progress through our world in accordance to time, but God could theoretically exist on level such that the end has already happened to him, even if he's capable of toying with the past. Scientific? No, but not logically contradictory.

thoughts-of-genius
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:10 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thoughts-of-genius » Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:15 pm UTC

Your "proof" does hold true for a certain interpretation of the Christian God, but not all of them.


That I accept.
The problem of proving it for all interpretations seems to be nlc-hard (non-linear to the number of christians :) )

Scientific? No, but not logically contradictory.


Maybe I oversimplify. But let's look at this example:

Let there be two binary variables A and B.
Let there be the facts A -> B as well as -A -> -B ("if A is true, then B is true" as well as "if A is not true, then B is not true")

Let A be false. Then B is false.
If we now switch A to true, B becomes true as well.

Let us assume, action and reaction does NOT have to fulfill time(A) < time(B).
Then we could produce a state such that B is true and A is false, hence contradiction, right?

Imagine the example with a traffic light (A; red or green) and a car (B; standing or driving)

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:49 am UTC

I'm not sure if your logic on that one is completely sound. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that one point in time does not beg another. But this isn't really an argument against God anymore, this is an argument against the concept of free will.

User avatar
Eleni
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:51 pm UTC
Location: Honolulu
Contact:

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby Eleni » Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:41 am UTC

Hmm, this has become a bit of a ToG vs. McCoy thread, but I just thought I'd chime in.

I'm not an expert on the Bible, but as previous responses have implied, it seems to be debatable exactly what "the Christian God as described in the Bible" is. It might be best simply to say that your proof is a proof against the existence of God, where God is defined as an omniscient, omnipotent being (an acceptable definition for a god, if not a universally accepted definition for the God), and leave it at that. It may not sound as grand or impressive as a proof against the Christian God, but it is much more defensible and would eliminate a good chunk of your problems.

Now, I'm not an expert on philosophy either, but free will is a sticky, sticky subject. You may know this already, but there is a huge volume of philosophical discussion on the subject of free will and determinism, which has been slightly touched upon, if not by name, in some of the responses. Anyway, the debate surrounding free will and determinism means that your statement, "If every outcome is already given, we cannot choose any outcome. Hence, we do not have a free will," does not work without substantial discussion of free will and choice and determinism. In one response, you define free will (something you might want to put in the proof itself):
free will: able to make a decision in the present - that is, defining the outcome of an event by own choice.

But this doesn't solve the problem. For one thing, you seem to imply that the ability to make a decision necessarily implies the ability to define the outcome of an event, which is certainly not true (I'm sure you can think of a situation where someone's decision does not define the outcome of an event). More importantly, though, what is choice? What is the ability to make a decision? These may seem like silly questions, but I don't think they are much sillier than asking someone to define free will in the first place. If you haven't already, you should probably read different arguments on free will and determinism (I realize I'm being totally obnoxious by referring to this without giving any examples/recommendations, but it's been a while since I read any; if I find or remember something, I'll add an edit). Make sure your definition of free will can be reasonably accepted by your audience. This is important, since it would be all to easy to prove God does not exist if Premise I is that "God is a married bachelor."

[Edit] So, I guess what I was referring to was "Compatibilism", i.e., the idea that determinism and free will are compatible. Try Wikipedia for an overview of the issue.

That said, I'm not sure I'm satisfied by your response to roc's ice cream analogy.
if somebody predicts an outcome in the sense that he knows the outcome, there can be only one outcome. If there is only one outcome, the outcome is already given.

There is only one outcome (we're not dealing with multiple realities). This merely implies that, of all the choices you have, you will only choose one.
Every other choice than chocolate would contradict your knowledge of my choice. Hence, I cannot choose anything else.

Or, at least, you will not choose anything else. You will choose chocolate (after all, you don't like the other flavors). But we're still using the word "choice".... I need more to be convinced that if the god figure knows my choice, it is not my choice. [/Edit]
http://rpgcalledlife.blogspot.com/
(aka "Maybe if my blog is witty enough someone will finally love me")

thatthatguy
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:58 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby thatthatguy » Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:14 pm UTC

Whole different direction on this discussion. What if God does not know what choice you will make (thus side stepping the free will discussion), but does know the outcome of all possible decisions and the probability for each. Does that make God any less omniscient?

What if this knowledge of statistics and consequences God is able to make valid predictions about future events? If a chemist mixes two chemicals together in a beaker, and he/she knows they will react and turn the solution blue, the chemist doesn't need to know how every molecule in the solution will behave in every interaction. Free-will / random chance is preserved, but the stated prediction of the future is still true. Maybe we just take the idea of "omniscience" too far. What if God just knows "enough" (another Matrix Oracle reference).

User avatar
a23
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 7:45 pm UTC

Re: Proof that God does not exist.

Postby a23 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 8:27 pm UTC

We could see humans as built by God, so if a human builds a robot, he "knows" what the choices will the robot take, if for example it hits a wall, due to the program put in the robots, by human in this case

If a programmer makes a program that chooses "at random", it was built like this by it's programmer, at random can take several form in fact.

But in the case of God there should be no randomness, that in fact then, the choice of a person who thinks "at random," was in fact preprogrammed by God, or the choices the person has, since the two level, human-understanding, God-understanding can be totally different for this way.

Since a human cannot understand the God-view, it will say : I don't understand why the choice, so it's just a choice made by me, that's all what god leaves for the human, more or less.
.
That God is unique comes from that God creates everything, if there were 2 gods, at same level, then 1 would not have created everything.

If a logical proof of the existence exists ? since in logics, at some point, before the proof, there are definitions and axioms which are to be accepted without proof, else it looks like circular reasoning : if God created everything, it created itself, since something exists, it necessary exists.

A proof of the existence of God were weak, the existence of God is stronger than a proof.
If a proof exited, that were part of the reason, with a certain derivation out of rules and premises, and this could be in some sense dismounted.
In some sense a proof of the existence of God could be seen as a 2step process of the belief strength, since after the proof, people will grip at the proof steps and maybe lose some beliefs in it ?
Then the beliefs is put on the proof and not God.


Return to “Your art and links”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests