An Ontological Proof that God Does Not Exist

[Tiberius]

Premise 1: God is the greatest possible being.

Premise 2: God accomplished the creation of the universe.

Premise 3: To accomplish something while suffering a handicap is greater than accomplishing that thing with no handicap.

Conclusion: A God who created the universe while being handicapped is greater than a God who created the universe without being handicapped.

Premise 4: The greatest possible handicap is non-existence.

Conclusion: The greatest possible God necessarily does not exist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Premise 1: God is the greatest possible being.

'Being' needs definition.

Premise 2: God accomplished the creation of the universe.

Then you aren't addressing 'God' but a particular view of God limited to the physical realm. It is your intention to limit God to a being that is bound by time and creates things within time, not at all transcendent. Hence you have made a straw argument by choosing a God suitable to your argument but not the same one mentioned in the title of the thread.

Premise 3: To accomplish something while suffering a handicap is greater than accomplishing that thing with no handicap.

True

Premise 4: The greatest possible handicap is non-existence.

Conclusion: The greatest possible God necessarily does not exist.

That may not be the greatest possible handicap or even any handicap at all. You also presume we exist when we may simply be something like a platonian form or ghost world. In fact its possible that God, who may not exist, may have created the world in spite of not existing, reversing the argument.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Non-existence is not a handicap. Nice try, though.

 

[Tiberius]

Non-existence is not a handicap. Nice try, though.

A handicap is something that makes it harder for whoever has that handicap to do a particular thing.

A person who needs a wheelchair has a handicap that makes it difficult for them to walk thus requiring them to use the wheelchair.

Not existing makes it extremely difficult to do something. I've never seen anything that was accomplished by someone who didn't exist.

Of course, if you'd like to explain why non-existence isn't a handicap...

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Of course, if you'd like to explain why non-existence isn't a handicap...

A handicap is something that only applies to things that already exist. For example, women often have a handicap in golf because they can't hit a golf ball as hard as a man. Women exist. Something that doesn't exist can't have a handicap. If there was a golf ball that wasn't in a hole and nothing was there to hit it, it doesn't matter what the handicap would be because in this scenario the golf ball would and could never enter the hole. BUT, if the hole is creating the Universe, something must have happened in order for that ball to go in, regardless of its handicap.

 

[Tiberius]

'Being' needs definition.

As in some agent. As in a living being. I think we all know what I mean. Let's not quibble over words like that.

Then you aren't addressing 'God' but a particular view of God limited to the physical realm. It is your intention to limit God to a being that is bound by time and creates things within time, not at all transcendent. Hence you have made a straw argument by choosing a God suitable to your argument but not the same one mentioned in the title of the thread.

Wow. Your faith thingy says you are a Christian. So I have a Christian who believes that God created the universe, and yet when I say I'm speaking of a God who created the universe I get accused of creating a strawman.

And that's quite beside the point that a strawman is a misrepresentation of someone else's argument. Who's argument am I misprepresenting?

That may not be the greatest possible handicap or even any handicap at all.

A handicap is something that makes it more difficult to achieve a task than it would be if that handicap was not there.

It is much harder to do anything if you don't exist than it would be if you did exist. Therefore, not existing is a handicap.

You also presume we exist when we may simply be something like a platonian form or ghost world. In fact its possible that God, who may not exist, may have created the world in spite of not existing, reversing the argument.

Doesn't matter. If God created the world while not existing, then it still means that God doesn't exist.

 

[Tiberius]

A handicap is something that only applies to things that already exist. For example, women often have a handicap in golf because they can't hit a golf ball as hard as a man. Women exist. Something that doesn't exist can't have a handicap. If there was a golf ball that wasn't in a hole and nothing was there to hit it, it doesn't matter what the handicap would be because in this scenario the golf ball would and could never enter the hole. BUT, if the hole is creating the Universe, something must have happened in order for that ball to go in, regardless of its handicap.

I'm not saying we can apply a handicap to something that doesn't exist.

I'm saying that non-existence itself is the handicap.

And if the hole didn't exist and yet you could hit the ball into it anyway, that accomplishment would surely be infinitely great. Sure, we lowly mortals can't do it, but we're talking about God here, not a person.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I'm not saying we can apply a handicap to something that doesn't exist.

I'm saying that non-existence itself is the handicap.

And if the hole didn't exist and yet you could hit the ball into it anyway, that accomplishment would surely be infinitely great. Sure, we lowly mortals can't do it, but we're talking about God here, not a person.

 

[74x12]

And if the hole didn't exist and yet you could hit the ball into it anyway, that accomplishment would surely be infinitely great. Sure, we lowly mortals can't do it, but we're talking about God here, not a person.

Anyone can hit a ball into a non-existent hole. Imagination.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As in some agent. As in a living being. I think we all know what I mean. Let's not quibble over words like that.

Thanks for attempting to clarify.

Wow. Your faith thingy says you are a Christian. So I have a Christian who believes that God created the universe, and yet when I say I'm speaking of a God who created the universe I get accused of creating a strawman.

And that's quite beside the point that a strawman is a misrepresentation of someone else's argument. Who's argument am I misprepresenting?

I understand the confusion. Rather than limiting God, belief in Christ leaves the question of God's nature open. The OP does only address a particular view and imagination of God useful for supporting the divine right of kings but not that which is relevant to Christ or necessary for Christians. I realize a lot of people (such as E. Kant) have attempted to prove God did create the physical world, however belief in Christ only requires believing that God creates the spiritual world of Christianity and of Judaism. Christ does not require that we know how the universe begins or where it comes from. This false world is irrelevant in Christ and is disappearing and being replaced by the true world in a process called 'Glorification'. It doesn't require belief in other kinds of creation such as what you'd subject God to.

That is why 'Being' is such an important clarification. You're referring to God as a being that is part of the universe, so of course such a being's existence conflicts with the creation of said universe. God may not have created this fallen universe which is being replaced or God may have.

A handicap is something that makes it more difficult to achieve a task than it would be if that handicap was not there.

It is much harder to do anything if you don't exist than it would be if you did exist. Therefore, not existing is a handicap.

What is the difference between existing and not? For one thing: things that exist follow rules. They seem to have rules. Why that is I do not know, but things that exist are consistent with the same rules that apply to me. Things that don't exist don't seem to follow any rules. You have therein the concept of chaos and lawlessness versus existence and law. Representation and existence are at times indistinguishable, because both are orderly and follow some kind of rules. They can be indistinguishable. Existing introduces rules and limitations.

For the above reason I view existence as the handicap.

Doesn't matter. If God created the world while not existing, then it still means that God doesn't exist.

That still places God into time, thus making God subject to rules. Saying God 'Created the world' is like saying that God became part of this world, this orderly universe and its rules. It assumes God exists or has somehow gone from not existing to existing.

 

[Tiberius]

I understand the confusion. Rather than limiting God, belief in Christ leaves the question of God's nature open. The OP does only address a particular view and imagination of God useful for supporting the divine right of kings but not that which is relevant to Christ or necessary for Christians. I realize a lot of people (such as E. Kant) have attempted to prove God did create the physical world, however belief in Christ only requires believing that God creates the spiritual world of Christianity and of Judaism. Christ does not require that we know how the universe begins or where it comes from. This false world is irrelevant in Christ and is disappearing and being replaced by the true world in a process called 'Glorification'. It doesn't require belief in other kinds of creation such as what you'd subject God to.

The only thing I said about God was that he created the universe. That si a generally accepted claim made of God.

That is why 'Being' is such an important clarification. You're referring to God as a being that is part of the universe, so of course such a being's existence conflicts with the creation of said universe. God may not have created this fallen universe which is being replaced or God may have.

Where did I say that God MUST be a part of the universe?

What is the difference between existing and not? For one thing: things that exist follow rules. They seem to have rules. Why that is I do not know, but things that exist are consistent with the same rules that apply to me. Things that don't exist don't seem to follow any rules. You have therein the concept of chaos and lawlessness versus existence and law. Representation and existence are at times indistinguishable, because both are orderly and follow some kind of rules. They can be indistinguishable. Existing introduces rules and limitations.

For the above reason I view existence as the handicap.

And yet everything that we've ever seen accomplished was accomplished by people who exist. There is nothing that was accomplished by those who don't exist. If existence is a handicap, why is it that those who don't exist have never accomplished anything, despite being free of that handicap?

That still places God into time, thus making God subject to rules.

No it doesn't.

Saying God 'Created the world' is like saying that God became part of this world, this orderly universe and its rules. It assumes God exists or has somehow gone from not existing to existing.

I don't know how you get the idea that it requires that God goes to existing when the entire point of the argument is that God does not exist.

 

[Tiberius]

Anyone can hit a ball into a non-existent hole. Imagination.

Could you demonstrate it then?

 

[74x12]

Could you demonstrate it then?

You could to yourself. Just hit a ball and imagine it went into a hole that doesn't exist. Done. Couldn't be easier.

 

[dybmh]

Where did I say that God MUST be a part of the universe?

If God is not a part of the universe, then the logic breaks down at the last premise. God could exist somewhere else (including the handicap), while not existing here... in this universe.

 

[Tiberius]

You could to yourself. Just hit a ball and imagine it went into a hole that doesn't exist. Done. Couldn't be easier.

But the ball doesn't go into a hole.

Imagining a thing doesn't mean the thing is real. Imagining hitting the ball into a non-existent hole doesn't mean you've actually done it. I'd question anyone who claims they can imagine it anyway.

 

[Tiberius]

If God is not a part of the universe, then the logic breaks down at the last premise. God could exist somewhere else (including the handicap), while not existing here... in this universe.

Non-existent doesn't mean "exists somewhere else."

By that logic I could claim that elephants don't exist because there aren't any in my property.

 

[74x12]

But the ball doesn't go into a hole.

Imagining a thing doesn't mean the thing is real. Imagining hitting the ball into a non-existent hole doesn't mean you've actually done it. I'd question anyone who claims they can imagine it anyway.

I don't think you really grasp the concept of nonexistence. True non-existence can't be "real" by definition. So imagination is about the only place it can exist.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't think you really grasp the concept of nonexistence. True non-existence can't be "real" by definition. So imagination is about the only place it can exist.

Only if we are bound by logic. So if it applies to God, then we are saying God is bound by logic, which introduces a whole host of other problems.

 

[74x12]

Only if we are bound by logic. So if it applies to God, then we are saying God is bound by logic, which introduces a whole host of other problems.

There is no problem if God is the source of logic then he isn't bound by it. He is it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

New Premise 1: God is the greatest possible being.

Why? What if god has a god?

Premise 2: God accomplished the creation of the universe.

Why? And it's looking like this may not be the only universe. We haven't found evidence for this, but it does seem likely and indeed we do keep on finding the totality of Everything is much greater than we previously thought and we must update our image of existence to include an ever greater expanse than we thought possible.

Premise 3: To accomplish something while suffering a handicap is greater than accomplishing that thing with no handicap.

Why is this so? What if the handicap doesn't effect what is being done?

Premise 4: The greatest possible handicap is non-existence.

Some fates are, I would argue, far worse than non-existence.

Conclusion: A God who created the universe while being handicapped is greater than a God who created the universe without being handicapped.

While that follows your argument, it's based on nothing more than assumptions. And it's problematic with the assumption of a handicap, and to assume it's better to do something while handicapped than it is without.

Conclusion: The greatest possible God necessarily does not exist.

This is simply nothing more than your own views on it. You can't actually support this beyond your own logic with concrete evidence.
A pile of assumptions, nothing more.