Proof That God Cannot Exist

[MidasMulligan]

Today I decided that I wanted to write, in the shortest, simplest way possible, why there is no God and cannot be any God. Here's what I wrote. The sentences in parentheses are clarifications, but not actually needed for the argument.

Why God cannot exist

Premise 1, The law of identity: The universe and its contents exist in a consistent state not subject to the thoughts or feelings of anyone. (A is A, and it's the same A for me as it is for you, regardless of your reaction to it or awareness of it.)

Premise 2, The law of causality: The contents of the universe are affected by one another in a predictable manner. (If a set of circumstances yields a result once, it will yield that result every time.)

Definition- Supernatural: An adjective describing a thing which can break one of these laws. (Like God, or anything magical)

Conclusion: The idea of the supernatural is paradoxical, because for a thing to be a thing, it must not break these laws. No thing which may do this can be conceived by man; it is impossible to actually believe in it unless one believes these laws are not true, in which case there is no basis for understanding the universe, and therefore no basis for believing anything whatever, including the initial belief which prevents itself to be believed by being believed.

What do you think?

[Anders Chydenius]

It's weak. By definition, God is capable of breaking these laws. You've demonstrated that no entity existing within the laws of the universe is capable of acting with God-like powers, but no more.

[Petyr Baelich]

It's impossible to prove a negative. You would need to prove that a supernatural power does exist, not that it does not.

[MidasMulligan]

It's weak. By definition, God is capable of breaking these laws. You've demonstrated that no entity existing within the laws of the universe is capable of acting with God-like powers, but no more.

My point, though, is that the "existence" or any other word or idea you might care to use of something which exists outside the universe is a meaningless idea. Nothing "outside" the universe can possibly be conceived in any intellectually sound way.

It's impossible to prove a negative. You would need to prove that a supernatural power does exist, not that it does not.

This, I think, is true of any hypothesis regarding anything real, testable, or measurable. For example, you can't prove, if I propose it, there's no teapot circling mars that's so small no instrument can detect it, it's just as unlikely as unlikely gets- but still technically possible. However, you CAN prove, not through evidence but through the application of logic, that a proposition cannot be valid (different from true but equally important) because the proposition itself is absurd. For example, "I have an apple that is all red and all green at the same time." Or, "I created myself." These things are as untrue as they are untestable- unless, and this is important- one is willing to believe the laws of the universe are plastic or breakable. If this is the case, though, then nothing means anything and no fact can ever be relied upon, even the evidence your eyes are giving you right now of what I have just written.

[Anders Chydenius]

It's weak. By definition, God is capable of breaking these laws. You've demonstrated that no entity existing within the laws of the universe is capable of acting with God-like powers, but no more.

My point, though, is that the "existence" or any other word or idea you might care to use of something which exists outside the universe is a meaningless idea. Nothing "outside" the universe can possibly be conceived in any intellectually sound way.

Yes, and that's not really an important point. Even the theists would say that the concept of God is one which a mortal mind can't fully grasp.

[MidasMulligan]

Yes, and that's not really an important point. Even the theists would say that the concept of God is one which a mortal mind can't fully grasp.

So why attempt to discuss an idea which is patently absurd and therefore immune to discussion? I know of no concept outside of theology where such a futile effort is made.

[Anders Chydenius]

Exactly. You're not going to convince a theist using logic, and anyone who will listen to an argument grounded in logic already agrees with you.

[MidasMulligan]

Exactly. You're not going to convince a theist using logic, and anyone who will listen to an argument grounded in logic already agrees with you.

Suddenly we are in agreement! Or, it seems, we were the whole time. Neato.

[musashi]

My point, though, is that the "existence" or any other word or idea you might care to use of something which exists outside the universe is a meaningless idea. Nothing "outside" the universe can possibly be conceived in any intellectually sound way.

I am not so sure about this statement. The space and time dilation of black holes have been studied for quite some time, and quite intellectually. By definition every thing beyond the event horizon of a singularity is “outside” of our universe.

If you take it further, I believe the current “membrane theory” of the universe postulates an infinite number of alternate universes, so I would presume that all those other universes (not part of ours) are “outside” as well.

In my opinion the singularity exists to us – just like a mirror. And as we look at that mirror we can not be 100% certain that it is not complete barrier. I have to leave open the remote possibility that some greater power would have the ability to transcend the event horizon.

My disclaimer – I see benefits and harms associated with established religions; in general I think they are each based on mythology. But I can’t rule out the existence of GOD.

[Petyr Baelich]

My point, though, is that the "existence" or any other word or idea you might care to use of something which exists outside the universe is a meaningless idea. Nothing "outside" the universe can possibly be conceived in any intellectually sound way.

If you take it further, I believe the current “membrane theory” of the universe postulates an infinite number of alternate universes, so I would presume that all those other universes (not part of ours) are “outside” as well.

The same theory also explains how one "brane" can have no meaningful interaction with another brane as if any point on one intersects another (sharing the same space), both branes are either annihilated, or at the very least something akin to the Big Bang would happen. Other theories postulate that the branes are in a constant state of expansion and compression, annihilating and creating new "Universes".

Therefore, if an entity "outside our Universe" did somehow exist, it could not be defined by the rationalizations of theology. The existence of one supernatural being is as unlikely as any other. Both God and Dargahnan the magic omnipotent toad living on Saturn are equivalent concepts and equally absurd.

[musashi]

Therefore, if an entity "outside our Universe" did somehow exist, it could not be defined by the rationalizations of theology. The existence of one supernatural being is as unlikely as any other. Both God and Dargahnan the magic omnipotent toad living on Saturn are equivalent concepts and equally absurd.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

It is true that by our current conception physical interaction between universes appears to impossible, but thinking it does not make it so. Our understanding of the Universe is unfolding, and what we know today may be modified tomorrow. The immense size of our Universe and our minor place in it should temper the rigidity of our statements.

If an entity was able to traverse between universes I would consider that a “GOD-like” power. What other capacities would that entity have? Perhaps they would be a GOD compared to humans. The thing is I can’t say. And I don’t think science and math can say either at this point, so we are right back to “You can’t prove a null condition without the existence of an alternate condition.”

Heck even within our Universe… Couldn’t a Superior entity exist? And if they existed, could they also choose the terms by which they reveal themselves to humans? How is that this hypothetical Superior entity any difference than a GOD?

[Petyr Baelich]

Heck even within our Universe… Couldn’t a Superior entity exist? And if they existed, could they also choose the terms by which they reveal themselves to humans? How is that this hypothetical Superior entity any difference than a GOD?

Sure, and ghost monkeys could fly out of my butt. I consider the existence of beings with supernatural powers an equally meaningless bromide. You cannot prove that they do not exist, just as you cannot prove that incorporeal monkeys are not going to fly out of my digestive tract. It does not profit you or affect your life positively in any way to conceptualize the "might be" without any basis in the "is".

To conceptualize the supernatural is pure fantasy, and can serve only as mental relaxation. To use it as the basis for a moral philosophy is absurd, damaging to one's mental faculties, and fundamentally immoral.

[musashi]

To conceptualize the supernatural is pure fantasy, and can serve only as mental relaxation. To use it as the basis for a moral philosophy is absurd, damaging to one's mental faculties, and fundamentally immoral.

But the original question, was not “Does religion have value?” or “Is it moral to be religious?” Interesting questions to me, especially considering the churchys generally attempt claim the highest moral ground in most circumstances. Of course churchys don't have a monopoly on the zealotry market. It seems to me that facts and reason become sparse anytime a conversation descends to a the murky and subjective world of morality.

The question was “Does GOD exist?”

[Petyr Baelich]

The question was “Does GOD exist?”

Which I've ignored as it's not an interesting/meaningful question. In the place of god one may substitute any supernatural entity: gremlins, vampires, werewolves, etc. The arguments for/against will be the same and the end result equally inconclusive, (from the relativist "but you can't disprove it" standpoint).

I made a simple extrapolation that such concepts should not be used to form the basis for a moral philosophy; something which I believed would be a more meaningful topic for discussion. We can continue to debate magic if you wish.

[Jaober]

Of course churchys have a monopoly on the zealotry market.

Oh ... I don't know about that ... there have been more than a few groups of Atheists that have been on what many would consider a crusade over the last several years.

That said ... I believe that Petyr's point is more to the tune of 'the existence of God (or other supernatural power) is irrelevant to the universe.' The point being that it is impossible to prove or disprove and as such the expenditure of time on the effort is destructive to reason.

Do I personally believe in the existence of a 'greater power', yes, but I don't expect that greater power to do my thinking for me, and I don't believe that he/she/it is 'watching over and protecting me' nor do they have a plan for my life. In short … the existence or non-existence of this being is irrelevant to my life.

[musashi]

Oops I meant to write they "don't have". Srry for the slip.

[musashi]

I made a simple extrapolation that such concepts should not be used to form the basis for a moral philosophy; something which I believed would be a more meaningful topic for discussion. We can continue to debate magic if you wish.

For the most part I agree with you, without proof a higher being no religion should have a legitimate standing. The mysticism of each is a bunch of hog wash. Very often religions have odd and often comical customs and morays. Each seems to have its ultra passionate believers willing to burn down the world in its name. The list goes on. But I’ve always seen religions on more complex terms.

I also consider the concept in the spirit of performing some ritual “religiously”. To me that means a few things - certainly predictable and repeated actions, but also a consistency of action between flock. Take driving; it might fit my concept of religion. Many of us perform it in predictable and repeated manner. We depend on the rest of our “flock” of drivers to follow the rules of the road adherently and consistently. But around the world the concept of driving is quite changeable. I might consider an Italian driver to be of a different “religion” than say a New Yorker Even if each is following the same rules of the road. Each culture has developed a religion of “driving” that works in there place and with their people.

I believe that religion is one of the historical roots of all the societies I can think of. I think of the oldest laws: the code of Hammurabi – religion is there; the Justinian Law Code – religion again. Religion has served as a regulatory structure in the past. I am not certain it is still needed going forward. And I wonder what a world without religion would look like. But if for nothing else it seems that since religion has played this historical role in society in makes sense to study them to some degree.

[Neuropaw]

I've only read a few of the responses to far, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone.

I'm sure you realize this but, religion is not a matter of logic, but of faith. Therefore, attempting to apply logic to religion/god is a fallible endeavor from the start.

If one were to travel back in time and show the greeks how lightning is created. Their faith would be no less diminished in Zeus. One would simply prove to them that not all lightning strikes are created and thrown by Zeus himself.

Faith can't really be argued against... unless their religious tenants contradict science I suppose... Christianity (specifically catholicism) has gone through one or two science-induced tranformations in the past.

To err is human. We are flawed. It is in our nature. As such, we must assume that our logic, no matter how sound/solid it seems to us, is also flawed. Until man can attain perfection, he will never be capable of logically ruling out the existence of a perfect god. That's my logic anyway =)

If one truly wants to rid the world of god, they must strive to push humanity to a point where god is no longer essential for everyday life and eventual death (cure for aging anyone?), or perhaps just develop humanity to the point where prophecies, predictions, or basic tenants prove untrue or inapplicable.


I'm new to TTI so don't be too hard on me =P

[Sellmak]

To err is human. We are flawed. It is in our nature. As such, we must assume that our logic, no matter how sound/solid it seems to us, is also flawed. Until man can attain perfection, he will never be capable of logically ruling out the existence of a perfect god. That's my logic anyway =)

I was ok with the first part, but to assume that logic is flawed because human beings are not perfect is an incorrect premise. You have essentially said, 'humans use logic + humans are flawed = all human logic is flawed'.

If one truly wants to rid the world of god, they must strive to push humanity to a point where god is no longer essential for everyday life and eventual death (cure for aging anyone?), or perhaps just develop humanity to the point where prophecies, predictions, or basic tenants prove untrue or inapplicable.

God is already not essential. Here, allow me to show how correct premises work; 'humans exist + god does not = humans do not need god to exist'.

It is a common mistake that people make since they have been offered no other alternative. But if you have faith, this is a moot argument since; 'faith is belief without proof + logic is belief that requires proof = faith is the absence of logic' and therefore we cannot have this discussion.

I'm new to TTI so don't be too hard on me =P

[Petyr Baelich]

I've only read a few of the responses to far, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone.

No danger of that.

I'm sure you realize this but, religion is not a matter of logic, but of faith. Therefore, attempting to apply logic to religion/god is a fallible endeavor from the start.

If one were to travel back in time and show the greeks how lightning is created. Their faith would be no less diminished in Zeus. One would simply prove to them that not all lightning strikes are created and thrown by Zeus himself.

Really? I think you'd find certain few of the greek philosophers receptive, Aristotle for one. Time has nothing to do with it, A is A.

Faith can't really be argued against... unless their religious tenants contradict science I suppose... Christianity (specifically catholicism) has gone through one or two science-induced tranformations in the past.

To err is human. We are flawed. It is in our nature. As such, we must assume that our logic, no matter how sound/solid it seems to us, is also flawed. Until man can attain perfection, he will never be capable of logically ruling out the existence of a perfect god. That's my logic anyway =)

ITT: Your logic is indeed flawed. The fact that someone believes something does not make it true anymore than unbelief makes things untrue. Reality exists objectively from any observer. Proof of that reality can be induced or deduced by interacting with it.

You don't have to attain "appleness" to conceptualize an apple. The fact that humans can form abstracts from observation of concretes is the basis for all rational thought.

If one truly wants to rid the world of god, they must strive to push humanity to a point where god is no longer essential for everyday life and eventual death (cure for aging anyone?), or perhaps just develop humanity to the point where prophecies, predictions, or basic tenants prove untrue or inapplicable.

Sophistry. If something exists, it exists; it doesn't matter if people need it or not. Humanity has progressed beyond using sharp rocks as tools, that does not suddenly negate the fact that rocks exist. An omnipotent supernatural being either exists or does not exist. It is my contention that one does not exist as there is no proof of that existence, ofc this cannot be disproved logically just as it is impossible to disprove other things which do not exist such as gremlins and kobolds.

I'm new to TTI so don't be too hard on me =P

Not much chance of that.

[Braimen Vakes]

Premise 3: That an all-knowing, all-good and all-wise creator would not only settle for an imperfect creation that required intervention from time to time, but also that such a creator would intervene rather than to permit the aforementioned perfectly just laws to punish bad choices of the inhabitants of this creation in due course.

Gödel always remarked, and I am inclined to agree, that logic is a mighty bloodless substitute for reason, and that a necessary and contingent proof of atheism requires one not only to prove that God does not exist, but that God cannot possibly exist. For this, you must disprove Premise 3, above.

Take your time, I intend to profit while you puzzle it over.
--
Vakes.

[Petyr Baelich]

Oh please.... fricking Godel? In addition to the god delusion he believed people were trying to poison him, he wouldn't eat unless his wife tested his food for him and died of malnutrition. Axiom 3 rests on the fact that G(x) must be positive; an unqualified and arbitrary assumption. His entire argument can be summed up as: "God exists because I want to go to heaven. Can you prove it's not true? HA! Didn't think so! Neeener!"

[Sophid]

His entire argument can be summed up as: "God exists because I want to go to heaven. Can you prove it's not true? HA! Didn't think so! Neeener!"

Actually, that's a pretty valid point... Religion exists for two reasons: to overcome the fear of death, and to explain the unexplainable.

The fact that people are afraid to die is a very compelling reason to believe in God. The Catholic Church has used this fact to its advantage for a very long time, remember the sale of indulgences?

Every pre-scientific culture developed a different supernatural explanation for mysterious things happening in the universe, from the creation of the world, genetic diversity, the weather, astronomical events, etc.. As these cultures expanded and interacted, the one whose religous theories were proven correct were the ones who fared more strongly in warfare, or whose deities promised the most pleasant afterlife... And as science began to explain things, the roots of doubt over the explanations that religion provided began to grow...

Now we have physics, genetics, electron microscopes, CAT scans, exceptions to special relativity... And lots of things that befuddled our less informed ancestors are now easily explained by science. But we don't know how the universe was created, we have very little understanding of its true nature, and therefore there is still room to say that God Hath Made It... And the idea of there being one God, as opposed to an entire pantheon of squabbling soap opera actors is a very, very new idea...

But as we understand more, and become capable of more, the need for a higher power to explain what we don't understand will diminish... And if our lifespans are extended, the urgency to have god in his place in the heaven that is waiting for us will diminish too...

[musashi]

Religion exists for two reasons: to overcome the fear of death, and to explain the unexplainable.

You are so right. And all those darn religions have been so wrong, for so long it makes it hard to take much of what any of them say as gospel.

therefore there is still room to say that God Hath Made It...

Creation seems to be at the bottom of most Religions, but is being the “Maker” God’s only supernatural power that counts? I mean what if we came across an entity that had powers like creating life, or resurrection, or the ability to move and live in more time dimensions than we can, but they didn’t make the Universe. Should we still call such a powerful being a God?

Yes I know we might as well imagine to the possibility of Gremlins. But to me it seems far more likely to come across one of these supernatural beings, than a creator of the Universe. Not that either event has even the slightest degree of probability. But to the original question about the existence of GOD gets more likely if we expand our definition of what GOD is.

[Sophid]

But to me it seems far more likely to come across one of these supernatural beings, than a creator of the Universe. Not that either event has even the slightest degree of probability. But to the original question about the existence of GOD gets more likely if we expand our definition of what GOD is.

One of Arthur C. Clarke's three laws is that technology that is sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic... If we encounter a being or beings who can do these things, would it truly be supernatural?