Proofs that God does not exist

[Jayhawker Soule]

As you know, I'm an atheist and principally because of parsimony.

Parsimony is not all it's made out to be. First of all, simplicity is not at all a simple concept and, in fact, there is some rather tortuous mathematics that attempts to define it. Secondly, it is not at all clear what parsimony might mean in a comically complex and nonintuitive world defined by M-Planes and Quantum Mechanics. And, finally, there exists neither a sound scientific nor philosophical argument for the proposition that the simplest explanation is necessarily (or even typically) the correct one. In my opinion, Occam is best understood through the lens of Popper: the simplest theory is to be provisionally accepted 'because' (iff) it is likely to be the most readily falsifiable.

 

[TheKnight]

Says who?

Logic. You cannot explain that there is existence without first explaining that at some point there must have been an initial existence.


Something doesn't just come from nothing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Something doesn't just come from nothing.

That is, for you, an article of faith. It is unprovable.

 

[MSizer]

While I agree that no god's exist, I cannot support your arguments. Both are inherently contradictory. For example, the 1st #1. If nothing can exist without being created what created the material for our reality? Same basic problem with your 2nd argument.

I suspect he knows that they're just word games, only he's pointing it out to show that it's not a valid argument for the existence of god (even though it fails as a valid argument for his non-existence too)

 

[Perfect Circle]

So, for example, to speak of [basic] scientific law before 1 Planck time is a bit like talking about the taste of purple.

Purple's disgusting... I like blue.

 

[Storm]

1. Nothing can exist that has not been created.
2. It is claimed the God was not created
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

1. Nothing that is ordered can exist that has not been designed.
2. It is claimed that God is perfect and therefore perfectly ordered.
3. It is claimed that God was not designed
4. Therefore God cannot exist

In each argument, 1 strikes me as a totally unfounded assumption.

While I agree that no god's exist, I cannot support your arguments. Both are inherently contradictory. For example, the 1st #1. If nothing can exist without being created what created the material for our reality? Same basic problem with your 2nd argument.

That, too.

 

[Storm]

Well, maybe it's unhelpful to you, but I'm getting a lot out of the responses. Personally, I don't put much stock in the proofs I put forth. I was getting frustrated in another thread by people who insist that nothing exists that is not created. This is of course the begining of the cosmological argument. As I thought about it, I thought it could also be the beginning of an argument against the existence of God. I took the same approach to the teleological argument. I thought it would be interesting to hear comments on both and it has for me.

As you know, I'm an atheist and principally because of parsimony. I find the traditional arguments for and against God to be interesting mental excercises.

I see.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Logic. You cannot explain that there is existence without first explaining that at some point there must have been an initial existence.


Something doesn't just come from nothing.

This is the argument of many atheists against theists who proclaim that their god already existed and then created the universe.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Logic.

Noooo! Logic proves nothing like what you are trying to say.

:help:

GhK.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Logic.

Something doesn't just come from nothing.

This logic would apply to god as well.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This logic would apply to god as well.

Please explain why this is the case.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Please explain why this is the case.

Perhaps I should have been more specific.

If one is using the logic that "something doesn't come from nothing" as evidence of the existence of a first cause (e.g., a god), then it would be illogical to not extend this to that "first" cause as well (i.e., if something doesn't come from nothing, and god is something, then god doesn't come from nothing as well).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps I should have been more specific.

No, you should have been more careful.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If one is using the logic that "something doesn't come from nothing" as evidence of the existence of a first cause (e.g., a god), then it would be illogical to not extend this to that "first" cause as well ...

No, it would not be at all illogical, since the First Cause envisioned is not some|thing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No, it would not be at all illogical, since the First Cause envisioned is not some|thing.

Well, then that First Cause could not be god as god is some|thing. You should read more carefully.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, then that First Cause could not be god as god is some|thing.

If you say so ...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If you say so ...

I do. Now, if you don't have anything of value to add, scram.

 

[Willamena]

I do. Now, if you don't have anything of value to add, scram.

Perhaps you have different definitions of "First Cause."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Perhaps you have different definitions of "First Cause."

Either way, "first cause" is something, otherwise it is nothing. If it is nothing, then the logic "something can't come from nothing," means that the universe couldn't have come from the "first cause." If it is something, then the logic "something can't come from nothing," means that the "first cause" couldn't have come from nothing, so must have come from something else.

If one of you has some sort of logical argument which refutes this, I'm more than happy to hear it.

 

[Willamena]

Either way, "first cause" is something, otherwise it is nothing. If it is nothing, then the logic "something can't come from nothing," means that the universe couldn't have come from the "first cause." If it is something, then the logic "something can't come from nothing," means that the "first cause" couldn't have come from nothing, so must have come from something else.

If one of you has some sort of logical argument which refutes this, I'm more than happy to hear it.

Would it help? I'll try. What you refer to as "the logic" that something can't come from nothing is an axiom (a statement accepted as true self-evidently). It is substantiated definitionally, holding nothing (no thing) to be the lack of something (or everything).

The words we choose to describe things have power.

"First cause", if there is one, is necessarily beyond, and imagined as the foundation (cause) of, both something and nothing. Both "something" and "nothing" are constructs of language representing ideas about the world. When we take away both something and nothing we are left with a void. That void cannot be said to exist or not exist, to have form or formlessness, to be full or lacking (empty), to be source or sourced, to be near or far, large or small, logical or illogical, etc. All of these things are somethings, for us, that together compose the world; that void is "supra" to the world. It is the image of a cause of existence --all around us, here and now.

We are left with only words to describe it.

"God" has an "ineffable" name because no words can describe "God". This is reflected in scriptures about the G-D of the Jews (including Abraham), the Allah of Islam, the Brahman of the Hindus, etc., i.e. the "primeval essence, or unconditioned, self-existent substance".

"All things in this creation exist within you, and all things in you exist in creation; there is no border between you and the closest things, and there is no distance between you and the farthest things, and all things, from the lowest to the loftiest, from the smallest to the greatest, are within you as equal things. In one atom are found all the elements of the earth; in one motion of the mind are found the motions of all the laws of existence; in one drop of water are found the secrets of all the endless oceans; in one aspect of you are found all the aspects of existence." (Khalil Gibran)