Proofs that God does not exist

[Kilgore Trout]

So god is neither something, nor nothing? This would indeed refute the argument if one concedes that it makes sense.

 

[JustWondering]

Only in the minds of Man does God either exist or does not exist. I know, that sounds crazy.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Would it help? I'll try. ...

"First cause", if there is one, is necessarily beyond, ...

In his case, no it will not. But it was beautifully said nonetheless. :yes:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In his case, no it will not. But it was beautifully said nonetheless. :yes:

Yeah, in case you missed it, I was asking for logic, not beauty. Got anything to add?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Only in the minds of Man does God either exist or does not exist. I know, that sounds crazy.

I think I posted a thread about this concept...

 

[Riverwolf]

Scientific laws are formalized descriptions of observed regularities and have meaning only within appropriate domains. So, for example, to speak of [basic] scientific law before 1 Planck time is a bit like talking about the taste of purple. Conservation laws are simply irrelevant to the First Cause / Prime Mover discussion.

I'm simply repeating what I learned in High School science class, hence the use of the word "basic." Is it now theorized by some that things CAN be created or destroyed?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm simply repeating what I learned in High School science class, hence the use of the word "basic." Is it now theorized by some that things CAN be created or destroyed?

First, some context ...

Now, a question: what would you suggest as a reasonable definition of science in the absence of regularity and testability?

Science deals with the natural world. If there was a before, that before is preternatural and lies fully outside the domain of science. To appeal to science as proof against a 'before' is the most naive of circular arguments. And to apply assertions about observed regularities to a domain absent and preceding such regularities is to [mis]use science as a talisman of divination.

 

[TheKnight]

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

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

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

:help:

GhK.

This logic would apply to god as well.

None of the quoted people were paying attention.

He said: "Nothing can exist that has not been created"
I said: "Existence isn't possible without an axiomatic existence. So there must be something that was not created that exists."
He said: "Says who?"
I said: "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."

Now, out of those quoted above, would any of you be willing to make the argument that initially there was absolutely nothing at all and then something just sort of popped out of that nothingness?

I would imagine that all people, even Atheists, would agree that there must be an axiom somewhere. Without an axiom, there can be nothing following the axiom. I agree that "something doesn't come from nothing" also applies to my God, which is why I said that there must be an axiom and I believe that God is the axiom.

 

[Willamena]

. . .would any of you be willing to make the argument that initially there was absolutely nothing at all and then something just sort of popped out of that nothingness?

Why must there be a flow of movement in that direction? Or a flow at all? Or direction at all?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I said: "Existence isn't possible without an axiomatic existence."

Meaning what?

 

[TheKnight]

Why must there be a flow of movement in that direction? Or a flow at all? Or direction at all?

?

Meaning what?

Meaning that if you believe we exist, you believe that there is something that existed primarily without being created. That something would be an axiomatic requirement for existence.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

What reason is there to think that the universe/universes needed to be created?

Additionally, if time is not linear, then the idea of "initial existence" may be meaningless.

Also: http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid=news&type=anews

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Meaning that if you believe we exist, you believe that there is something that existed primarily without being created.

Or you believe that the Cosmos is eternal.

 

[freethinker44]

None of the quoted people were paying attention.

He said: "Nothing can exist that has not been created"
I said: "Existence isn't possible without an axiomatic existence. So there must be something that was not created that exists."
He said: "Says who?"
I said: "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."

Now, out of those quoted above, would any of you be willing to make the argument that initially there was absolutely nothing at all and then something just sort of popped out of that nothingness?

I would imagine that all people, even Atheists, would agree that there must be an axiom somewhere. Without an axiom, there can be nothing following the axiom. I agree that "something doesn't come from nothing" also applies to my God, which is why I said that there must be an axiom and I believe that God is the axiom.

I posted this on a different thread about the first cause argument. Logically, first cause can't be used to justify the existence of anything.

Cause and effect can expressed in two ways:

If x is necessary to cause y, then the presence of y implies the existence of x.
(this is also the first cuse argument)

If x is sufficient enough to cause y, then the presence of y implies the existence of x, however, if z could be a sufficient cause of y, y does not necessarily imply x.

If god were the creator of the universe, then the existence of the universe implies the existence of god.

Obviously this creates the question of who created god. But assuming god could have always existed, we would also have to except the possibility that this particular explanation could apply to something else, after all, not everything needs a creator, the concept of infinity could not have been created for if infinity was created then god is not infinite because infinite didn't exist until god created it. Also, if infinity is a reflection of god and therefore exists in conjunction with god then it still has not had a creator along with god. So, it is possible for something to not have a creator.

With that discovery, we need to ask what other entity could exist like god that doesn't need a creator. Well, if we follow the logic, if god was thought to be the first cause, then we would go to the first effect that cause made happen since it would be the next oldest thing to exist, the universe itself. Now that we have our variables we can apply them to the equation.

If god(x) is sufficient cause of the universe(y), then the presence of the universe implies the existence of god, however, the universe(y,z) could be a sufficient cause for itself.

Seems like we have come to a little paradox. So to solve this, we would need to find which cause is most likely to have produced the observed effect. Before we start comparing the two, we first must decide that both exist. The universe we know exists because we live in it, the only evidence we have for god is the universe exists, so since we already know the universe exists and gods proof depends on the universe existing, god needs not be a cause of the universe, it could sufficiently be its own cause.

 

[McBell]

Something doesn't just come from nothing."

So where did God come from...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So where did God come from...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say not New Jersey.

 

[Willamena]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say not New Jersey.

Well, technically "God" cannot be said to be from New Jersey nor not from New Jersey.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

So where did God come from...

He was uncreated.

 

[TheKnight]

What reason is there to think that the universe/universes needed to be created?
http://www.nanogallery.info/news/?id=8735&slid=news&type=anews

They didn't need to be. But, obviously, they were.

Or you believe that the Cosmos is eternal.

I know that. I didn't specifically say that any particular thing had to be the axiom. I'm simply saying that you do have accept that there is one. I believe it's God. One could say it's the cosmos or anything they want. But everyone must admit that there needs to be an axiom.

If the cosmos are eternal, then the cosmos were uncreated hence "you believe that there is something that existed primarily without being created".

I posted this on a different thread about the first cause argument. Logically, first cause can't be used to justify the existence of anything.

I am not making an argument for God, so your quoted section is moot. My point in posting in this thread has been solely to refute the point that "Nothing can exist that has not been created/has always existed". I am not making an argument for or against God, I'm simply disagreeing with the logic in the first post.

So where did God come from...

Did you read the rest of the post? God would be, in my opinion, the axiom. The axiom doesn't come from anywhere. The axiom is that which is because it just is.

 

[McBell]

Did you read the rest of the post? God would be, in my opinion, the axiom. The axiom doesn't come from anywhere. The axiom is that which is because it just is.

So why can't anything else fit into your "what is" category?

Seems to me you are playing favourites.