An Ontological Proof that God Does Not Exist

[F1fan]

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

As long as God isn't hogging all the space.

 

[dybmh]

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.

Non existent outside this universe (your conditions, not mine) is a special case because it presumes that there are places outside the universe. How do you propose find evidence of something existing outside this universe?

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

 

[soulsurvivor]

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. ...

The above conclusion is untrue. It is not even a conclusion. No God ever created the Universe while being handicapped.

 

[Tiberius]

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

Then God can be real and also non-existent.

 

[Tiberius]

Why? What if god has a god?

Then this argument would apply to that God. And the original God is not worthy to be called "God" anymore (at least according to those who claim God is the creator of all things).

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.

Feel free to substitute "multiverse"

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

Then it's not a handicap for this situation and thus doesn't apply.

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

But I'm not talking about worse fates, I'm talking about the severity of a handicap.

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.

The traditional ontological argument has the same falws.

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.

Again, the original ontological argument for God has the same flaws.

 

[Tiberius]

Non existent outside this universe (your conditions, not mine) is a special case because it presumes that there are places outside the universe. How do you propose find evidence of something existing outside this universe?

I proposed this as a response to those people who believe that the ontological argument for God is valid. The same question would apply to them, and yet they don't see it as a problem. If it's not a problem for them, I'm not going to consider it a problem for me.

 

[Tiberius]

The above conclusion is untrue. It is not even a conclusion. No God ever created the Universe while being handicapped.

Unsupported claim.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Then this argument would apply to that God. And the original God is not worthy to be called "God" anymore (at least according to those who claim God is the creator of all things).

Then why is this the greatest being? What if this Creator is nothing more than another Force of Life form of Creation making it all happen?

Feel free to substitute "multiverse"

Then how do we determine this is the greatest creation?

Then it's not a handicap for this situation and thus doesn't apply.

That still doesn't establish why it's a greater achievement. Do the end results mean nothing in the end? Are we evaluating the character of the Creator or the result that is Created? Are we awarding merit points for effort, or the result of the effort?

But I'm not talking about worse fates, I'm talking about the severity of a handicap.

Existence is a handicap. Being human is a handicap. And non-existence isn't typically thought of as a handicap. Is a cloud at a handicap when it ceases to be a cloud and becomes a nother form of existence?

The traditional ontological argument has the same falws.

That's not what the OP is discussing. It's your claims.

Again, the original ontological argument for God has the same flaws.

Those aren't the claims being provided.

 

[rational experiences]

My sperm ovary non memory image. Direct.

My baby development image. Direct.

Human adult memory two other selves in my way. My self view.

Born a baby my image new self. Given a mother's water feedback life saving. By causes nuclear heavens experiments. Burning heavens gases owned by fused rock only.

Advice correct is instant. Not about a God.

Human advice no God.

Water mass is mass itself as the water body.

Stopped the attack.

Oxygen as it's mass unseen. Stopped the attack.

By mass of it's natural body is not any human theory about one human and what a human theist says one body owns.

Lying.

Mass saved biology.

The founding. Hypocrite. Was because you were still rich. Not any truth owner.

Natural human never poor was the honest human. No man is God.

Human natural was always naturally good

Man theist mind says personally as you still theory is bad.

Bible. Testimonial against science was shut.

Legal oath shut book.

Natural human knew their own self first is not religion science.

Science outlawed.

Church building for brain entrained medical meditation healing. Only. Medical. Not scientific.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Unsupported claim.

What do you mean 'Unsupported claim'? I don't need to support a negative statement. It is up to you to prove that it actually happened.

If I say 'The universe was not created by a God who was 5 foot tall' - that is not a claim I need to support.

 

[rational experiences]

If the universe a human caused to exist by maths science on earth. Equals man only thought about maths science on earth.

That chain reacted heated cause by an asteroid passing earth...chain reacts cause.

Then using just man's maths about mass he would prove by calculus of a small body a man everything that he in fact activated as just a man.

It would return calculated as a destroyed humans man image of various sized causes...no longer a man.

As humans vary in body height as natural men.

No longer universally supported he would quote as the background type not space as every type of its own presence.

Seeing no human owned why energy as mass itself existed.

It was mans proof he did it.

 

[Tiberius]

What do you mean 'Unsupported claim'? I don't need to support a negative statement. It is up to you to prove that it actually happened.

If I say 'The universe was not created by a God who was 5 foot tall' - that is not a claim I need to support.

I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in God. I'm pointing out the flaws in the ontological argument, showing how the same logic that it uses can be used to show the exact opposite position.

 

[Tiberius]

Then why is this the greatest being? What if this Creator is nothing more than another Force of Life form of Creation making it all happen?

Then it's not God.

Then how do we determine this is the greatest creation?

I'm not aware of one greater. Are you?

That still doesn't establish why it's a greater achievement. Do the end results mean nothing in the end? Are we evaluating the character of the Creator or the result that is Created? Are we awarding merit points for effort, or the result of the effort?

If a person drives a car, that's an accomplishment. If a person drives a car with the handicap of having no limbs, that is a greater accomplishment, despite the fact that the end result is the same (that the car has been driven down the road). The increased greatness comes from the fact that the person with no limbs has had to overcome a challenge that the other person did not.

Existence is a handicap. Being human is a handicap. And non-existence isn't typically thought of as a handicap. Is a cloud at a handicap when it ceases to be a cloud and becomes a nother form of existence?

Please, tell me what you have trouble doing as a result of being handicapped by existence that would be made easier if you did not have the handicap of existence.

That's not what the OP is discussing. It's your claims.

The OP has taken the logic of the ontological argument and used it to show the exact opposite.

Those aren't the claims being provided.

The ontological argument is about, "I can't imagine a being greater than God. Thus God is the greatest. If God doesn't exist, then a greater God can be imagined - a God who DOES exist. Therefore, if the God I imagine is the greatest, then that God must exist."

I am using the same reasoning to show that God doesn't exist.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Does not make any sense. Fallacious argument. But I am guessing this is just a joke so can't really call it fallacious if that is the case.

 

[firedragon]

I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in God. I'm pointing out the flaws in the ontological argument, showing how the same logic that it uses can be used to show the exact opposite position.

Are you saying this is a serious argument you had made?

 

[F1fan]

The above conclusion is untrue. It is not even a conclusion. No God ever created the Universe while being handicapped.

Well since we are being truthful, no God is known to exist, nor known to have created the universe.

 

[Tiberius]

Does not make any sense. Fallacious argument. But I am guessing this is just a joke so can't really call it fallacious if that is the case.

Yeah. It's not a serious argument that God doesn't exist. I'm using it to point out the flaws in the traditional ontological argument.

Are you saying this is a serious argument you had made?

No, it's not a serious argument. I wouldn't accept this argument for the same reason I wouldn't accept the ontological argument that God does exist.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah. It's not a serious argument that God doesn't exist. I'm using it to point out the flaws in the traditional ontological argument.



No, it's not a serious argument. I wouldn't accept this argument for the same reason I wouldn't accept the ontological argument that God does exist.

OMG.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Premise 1: Only a maniac would drive a car down a sidewalk.
Premise 2: You might get run over by a maniac.
Premise 3: You likely would not be run over by a non-maniac.
Conclusion: It is safer to walk down the middle of a road than on a sidewalk.

Sometimes logic scares me.

We think of a handicap as a restriction (which makes something less able).

While it is true that it is amazing to accomplish something while handicapped, it is probably a lot easier to accomplish if one is not handicapped.

I greatly admire Dr. Steven Hawking, for theorizing, writing, and teaching while only being able to move one muscle on his body (twitch one muscle in one cheek). Even I can't accomplish that much.

Handicap (horse racing) - Wikipedia

My neighbor handicapped horses. One would think that handicapping means "predicting horses who have the greatest chance of winning," not hitting the horses in the legs with a baseball bat.

However, I've seen harness races, and assumed that the harness was a wheel chair.

I always bet on female horses (because they are racing for purses, and male horses would look silly carrying purses).

We can start out with one idea, then lead to an entirely different idea, one that might be wrong, and all of this while following a trail of logic. It's like listening to Gracie Allen talk.

 

[Clara Tea]

Non existent outside this universe (your conditions, not mine) is a special case because it presumes that there are places outside the universe. How do you propose find evidence of something existing outside this universe?

If no mass can escape from the universe, it seems to me it could be deemed a black hole. I've always been told that a black hole would crush us if we got near it. Apparently, we are not crushed inside this black hole (if it is a black hole).

Apparently time doesn't exist outside of the universe. If this is true, then nothing can travel toward us.

However, things do get sucked into black holes (they spin around the poles before betting funneled down a narrow opening, and if too much matter is trying to get through, it is tossed away.

So, can matter external to our universe enter our universe? If time doesn't exist outside, then no, but otherwise, yes.

Apparently the metric of the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. This means that some stars in the universe are sufficiently far apart to travel away from each other faster than the speed of light. But shouldn't that mean that the other star would not sense light nor gravity from the other star.

Thus, we conclude that there are parts of the universe that are outrunning the gravity field of other parts of the universe. Wouldn't that cause an acceleration (less gravity pulling it in)?