Logical and Scientific Arguments That Disprove God

[Tathagata]

As per requested, here are the logical and scientific arguments that disprove the monotheist God's existence. Let me note that these arguments aren't necessary because the Theist has the burden of proof for their claim, whereas Atheists aren't required to disprove anything.

I am going by this definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself." - Monotheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And to those who believe in some sort of impersonal God or spiritual force, then these arguments don't apply. Though, I really don't think an impersonal force can be considered "God" because "God" is a personification. Also, if you feel that this God or force plays a role in your life, you pray to it, or it intervenes, then your God is actually a personal God.

If you believe in a God that is unknowable or beyond human comprehension, then your position is ultimately meaningless because you are asserting a concept that we can know nothing about and thus cannot derive meaning from this unknowable concept.

Now, on to the arguments:

The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).


Argument from Evil

P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil should not exist.
P2: Gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God does not exist.

(Gratuitous evil is random evil that happens for no reason i.e. a baby dies at birth, a young child dies in a natural disaster, etc.)

Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox

P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.

Sources: http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Arguments_against_the_existence_of_god


.

 

[Thief]

So....Buddha is what?

 

[Tathagata]

So....Buddha is what?

Um, an Atheist, lol.

Buddha: "All such notions [of a]...personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind." [Lankavatara Sutra]


Edit: He's not a god if that's what you are thinking. He was simply an Enlightened being.

.

 

[fantome profane]

The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

P3 is not necessarily valid, to be transcendent “God” you must exist outside of space (or outside of something) but it does not mean that “God” cannot simultaneously exists inside and outside. “God” has been defined as both transcendent and omnipresent, both within and outside of space. If you accept the concept of omnipresence this is not a contradiction. A logical proof has to be more substantial than just a word game.

Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

P2 is only one questionable interpretation of quantum theory. Another is that when an observer collapses a wave function the wave collapses only for that observer. For example if I flip a “quantum coin” it will exist in a state of superposition (both heads and tails) until I observe it. After I observe it the wave collapses for me, however for an observer on the other side of the room who has not yet seen the coin it still exists in a state of superposition. (yes, as strange as it sounds that means that I exist in a different universe than the person on the other side of the room. This is why quantum physics is so strange).

I don’t think these strange and incomprehensible interpretations of quantum theory are substantial enough to make a logical proof.

The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

2 is not valid, there is a difference between being a person and being a personal entity. Equivocation fallacy.

 

[Thief]

Um, an Atheist, lol.

Buddha: "All such notions [of a]...personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind." [Lankavatara Sutra]


Edit: He's not a god if that's what you are thinking. He was simply an Enlightened being.

.

An enlightened Being would not be God?
But then, eternal life would also be there.
How about for you?

 

[LuisDantas]

An enlightened Being would not be God?

Of course not. Why would he?

But then, eternal life would also be there.
How about for you?

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. May you put it in some other way, perhaps give some context?

 

[Eliot Wild]

Would the OP care to explain quantum superpositions? The following is a link to a site that gives a very brief and basic definition for quantum superpositions:

What is superposition? - Definition from Whatis.com

Apparently, superpositions are a principle in quantum theory that stipulates a particle is in all possible states simultaneously, as long as we don't check to verify. It is only the measurement of a particle that limits it to one possible state.

Even if your typical, run-of-the-mill, every-day-guy-or-girl-nextdoor theist who doesn't have an advanced degree in theoretical physics still understands quantum superpositions on a level that allows them to formulate and present a cogent rebuttal, isn't much of quantum physics still indeterminately theoretical? And furthermore, wouldn't the Being who supposedly conceived and engineered the physical laws of the universe be able to side-step quantum principles, if He chose to do so?

I honestly don't know. I freely admit I'm a complete idiot. Hell, I'm still trying to wrap my little head around quantum superpositions.

 

[LuisDantas]

To this day I wonder why anyone would use Quantum Physics for religious arguments, be it to prove or disprove God. It simply doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

As per requested, here are the logical and scientific arguments that disprove the monotheist God's existence. Let me note that these arguments aren't necessary because the Theist has the burden of proof for their claim, whereas Atheists aren't required to disprove anything.

I am going by this definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself." - Monotheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And to those who believe in some sort of impersonal God or spiritual force, then these arguments don't apply. Though, I really don't think an impersonal force can be considered "God" because "God" is a personification. Also, if you feel that this God or force plays a role in your life, you pray to it, or it intervenes, then your God is actually a personal God.

If you believe in a God that is unknowable or beyond human comprehension, then your position is ultimately meaningless because you are asserting a concept that we can know nothing about and thus cannot derive meaning from this unknowable concept.

Now, on to the arguments:

The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).


Argument from Evil

P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil should not exist.
P2: Gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God does not exist.

(Gratuitous evil is random evil that happens for no reason i.e. a baby dies at birth, a young child dies in a natural disaster, etc.)

Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox

P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.

Sources: StrongAtheism.net - Atheology
Arguments against the existence of god - Iron Chariots Wiki


.

I may be mistaken, but doesnt Buddha say that God is irrelevant to ones personal Enlightenment?

A man went to the Buddha insisting on answers to these questions, but the Buddha instead put a question to him: "If you were shot by a poison arrow, and a doctor was summoned to extract it, what would you do? Would you ask such questions as who shot the arrow, from which tribe did he come, who made the arrow, who made the poison, etc., or would you have the doctor immediately pull out the arrow?"

Why spend time as a Buddhist wondering who "shot the arrow", when you could be busy stopping your suffering?

 

[Jeremiah]

As per requested, here are the logical and scientific arguments that disprove the monotheist God's existence. Let me note that these arguments aren't necessary because the Theist has the burden of proof for their claim, whereas Atheists aren't required to disprove anything.

I am going by this definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself." - Monotheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And to those who believe in some sort of impersonal God or spiritual force, then these arguments don't apply. Though, I really don't think an impersonal force can be considered "God" because "God" is a personification. Also, if you feel that this God or force plays a role in your life, you pray to it, or it intervenes, then your God is actually a personal God.

If you believe in a God that is unknowable or beyond human comprehension, then your position is ultimately meaningless because you are asserting a concept that we can know nothing about and thus cannot derive meaning from this unknowable concept.

Now, on to the arguments:

The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).


Argument from Evil

P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil should not exist.
P2: Gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God does not exist.

(Gratuitous evil is random evil that happens for no reason i.e. a baby dies at birth, a young child dies in a natural disaster, etc.)

Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox

P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.

Sources: StrongAtheism.net - Atheology
Arguments against the existence of god - Iron Chariots Wiki


.

"The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)"

This is semantics, God is not bound by how you choose to defined the words "transcendent" and "omnipresent". All this does is display an inadequate understanding of the nature of God, it certainty does not disprove God. But please tell me: How do you validate P1, or P2?

"Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)"

God wears special goggles that allows him to observe everything without it collapsing. Part of the perks of being an all-powerful being is cool eye wear.

All this proves is that we simply do not have an adequate understanding of God and quantum superpositions.


"The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3). "

This is a very weak argument and it is also a matter semantics. I see no reason why God can't both be everywhere and have a body. God is like the ocean, God is both the drop of water that makes up the ocean and God is the ocean. But what I really want to know is how do you justify number two?

"Argument from Evil

P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil should not exist.
P2: Gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God does not exist.

(Gratuitous evil is random evil that happens for no reason i.e. a baby dies at birth, a young child dies in a natural disaster, etc.)"

All this proves is that we have an inadequate understanding of the nature of good and evil.


Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox

P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.

This just displays an inadequate understanding or how omnipotence and omniscience work. Which as mere humans both are way beyond our comprehension and we are certainly in no position to decide how they should or shouldn't work.

 

[fallingblood]

Honestly, I did not read your argument against God. The reason being this. You are trying to use logic and science to disprove something that is neither logical or science based. If God exists, then it would be plausible, and very probable that it does not exist within the laws of science. More so, God, by nature, is not logical. That is where you fail.

There is no evidence God doesn't exist. There is no evidence God does exist. It is as simple as that.

 

[PolyHedral]

This just displays an inadequate understanding or how omnipotence and omniscience work.

Then re-define omnipotence or omniscience. Because those definitions are what they say on the tin, and they are contradictory.

God wears special goggles that allows him to observe everything without it collapsing.

One problem: The properties that enter quantum superpositions, such as position, don't exist until the superposition collapses. There's nothing to see.

More so, God, by nature, is not logical.

This is an undefendable position.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

Honestly, I did not read your argument against God. The reason being this. You are trying to use logic and science to disprove something that is neither logical or science based. If God exists, then it would be plausible, and very probable that it does not exist within the laws of science. More so, God, by nature, is not logical. That is where you fail.

There is no evidence God doesn't exist. There is no evidence God does exist. It is as simple as that.

DANG!!! FRUBALS!!!!! This sums up everything my view!

 

[Thief]

Of course not. Why would he?



Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say here. May you put it in some other way, perhaps give some context?

Picture the Almighty...as something less than enlightened...OMG!

Of course, without belief in life after death....
how then to move toward believing in God?

If there is life after death...then Someone is in charge.
I would hope He would be enlightened.
If not...chaos...no peace.

 

[fallingblood]

This is an undefendable position.

Not really. A being who would send his son to die in order to save humanity, even though it could simply just save humanity by saying it was so is illogical. The Bible shows many examples of God being illogical. So, if we assume that God exists, it would not be a stretch at all to say that God is illogical, at least the Christian God.

 

[PolyHedral]

Oops. There was me confusing "illogical" with "beyond logic." I agree with you that God is certainly no Spock.

 

[Jeremiah]

Then re-define omnipotence or omniscience. Because those definitions are what they say on the tin, and they are contradictory.

One problem: The properties that enter quantum superpositions, such as position, don't exist until the superposition collapses. There's nothing to see.

This is an undefendable position.

"Then re-define omnipotence or omniscience."

Read what I said entirely. " Which as mere humans both are way beyond our comprehension and we are certainly in no position to decide how they should or shouldn't work." I don't have an ego so large, that I presume I could possibly define the powers of gods.


"Because those definitions are what they say on the tin, and they are contradictory."

What is the "tin"?

"One problem: The properties that enter quantum superpositions, such as position, don't exist until the superposition collapses. There's nothing to see."

Yes, they are very nifty goggles.


Also, could you please use my name when you are quoting me.

 

[Jeremiah]

Honestly, I did not read your argument against God. The reason being this. You are trying to use logic and science to disprove something that is neither logical or science based. If God exists, then it would be plausible, and very probable that it does not exist within the laws of science. More so, God, by nature, is not logical. That is where you fail.

There is no evidence God doesn't exist. There is no evidence God does exist. It is as simple as that.

Gods may be beyond human calculations, but if you don't understand the calculations then, it is my opinion, that you can not have genuine faith in gods but only blind faith. You have to understand the leap of faith before you take it, otherwise you are just leaping blindly.

 

[PolyHedral]

What is the "tin"?

The tin is the word. "omniscience" describes what it says on the tin: The ability to know everything.

Read what I said entirely.

If God is not what we call "omniscient", then we must define another word to describe God. But regardless of which words describe Him, God having a self-contradicting nature is impossible.

 

[fallingblood]

Gods may be beyond human calculations, but if you don't understand the calculations then, it is my opinion, that you can not have genuine faith in gods but only blind faith. You have to understand the leap of faith before you take it, otherwise you are just leaping blindly.

I would say that the belief in God is based on blind faith.