"Proof" of God. An ontological argument from sufficient reason.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
You assume the doctrine of self-interestedness is not only a valid explanation of behaviors, but that it is applicable to god. Both of those assumptions are false.[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="bangell99"]
No, you can't explain what that explanation is, because there isn't one. God would not create the world if he was perfect, and no-one can provide me with a reason why. Tell me why God would do anything other than "be". Tell me that without simply saying "look at Premise 3 which I made", and I'll take this a little more seriously.
bangell99
Then what motivates God? What causes this perfect being to create irregular things like the Earth?
You are assuming that God had a direct role in the creation of earth. God could have simply created the process that earth arose out of...and why is earth irregular?
[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]I see you've encountered the ontological argument before. I do agree with your statement in regards to Anselm's, Descartes' and Plantinga's version but this version doesn't suffer from the same problem (as far as I can tell). If you think there is an assumption of Gods existence in one of the premises then feel free to identify which one it is.I don't know who any of those people are or what that big word means.I've seen these arguments before and you're applying logic to the assumption that God exists. It's the same as saying "God exists, therefore, God exists". Logically, there's no flaw in the argument because it's not an argument. It's a long-winded asumption.
domatron23
But anyway, I think it's because the "argument" is worded/presented in such a way that it rests on his existence. You're not trying to determine IF he exists, but rather you're saying he does exist and this is why.
I remember a friend showing me something saying "this is why you can;t deny God exists" and it was a similar argument that presupposed God's existence.
It's like if I say "this red bucket is red, therefore the bucket is red." You can't deny it, because I've left no room for you to; however I left out the fact that the bucket is blue, but that fact has no place in my argument which can't be broken.
Okay, so the empirical bucket argument can easily be broken (because you could just hit me over the ehad with the blue bucket) but when we're talking about imaginary beings there's no way to argue against an "argument" that leaves no room for ... argument.
I think that made sense.
[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] Of course it follows because you are using circular reasoning. You are starting with a definition that presupposes your conclusion and it is a definition that I will refuse to grant. You need to provide a separate argument for P2.fat_robSorry I mucked up my response to you earlier. What I meant to say was that P4 follows inescapably from P2, not that it involves P3 in some way. P2 does presuppose P4 certainly but that doesn't make the argument circular. It would be circular if P2 presupposed that God exists but it doesn't, it only presupposes that if God does not exist then there is no explanation for his non-existence. The argument reaches its conclusion with P2 and P3 and neither one by itself justifies the conclusion. The argument is entirely circular. You start with the presupposition that there is no possible explanation for why god doesn't exist and you use that presupposition as the basis for your entire argument. That presupposition does not alone justify the conclusion though. It only leads to the actual existence of God when combined with the premise that every non-existing thing must have an explanation for why it does not exist. If premise 3 were false and things could just not exist without any reason then the argument would not conclude the existence of God. The fact that the argument doesn't work unless premise 3 is true should indicate to you that premise 2 does not presuppose the conclusion.
[QUOTE="bangell99"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] You assume the doctrine of self-interestedness is not only a valid explanation of behaviors, but that it is applicable to god. Both of those assumptions are false.fat_rob
Then what motivates God? What causes this perfect being to create irregular things like the Earth?
You are assuming that God had a direct role in the creation of earth. God could have simply created the process that earth arose out of...and why is earth irregular?Earth is irregular in that it is not perfect, like its supposed creator. It is nigh impossible to comprehend such a perfect being. Now if this being was perfect, why would he possibly feel the need to make anything, let alone the world, which would be a simply bizzare thing for God to dream up.
It made perfect sense and I understand exactly where you're coming from.I don't know who any of those people are or what that big word means.
But anyway, I think it's because the "argument" is worded/presented in such a way that it rests on his existence. You're not trying to determine IF he exists, but rather you're saying he does exist and this is why.
I remember a friend showing me something saying "this is why you can;t deny God exists" and it was a similar argument that presupposed God's existence.
It's like if I say "this red bucket is red, therefore the bucket is red." You can't deny it, because I've left no room for you to; however I left out the fact that the bucket is blue, but that fact has no place in my argument which can't be broken.
Okay, so the empirical bucket argument can easily be broken (because you could just hit me over the ehad with the blue bucket) but when we're talking about imaginary beings there's no way to argue against an "argument" that leaves no room for ... argument.
I think that made sense.
DigitalExile
The argument isn't the equivalent of a long winded assertion of God's existence however, it's not the same as "this bucket is red therefore this bucket is red" or "God exists therefore God exists". Its more like "If God doesn't exist then X. X is impossible because of Y therefore God exists". The difference is that in my version I appeal to Y rather than just repeating an assertion.
You can't disprove a negative.
[QUOTE="domatron23"] That presupposition does not alone justify the conclusion though. It only leads to the actual existence of God when combined with the premise that every non-existing thing must have an explanation for why it does not exist. If premise 3 were false and things could just not exist without any reason then the argument would not conclude the existence of God. The fact that the argument doesn't work unless premise 3 is true should indicate to you that premise 2 does not presuppose the conclusion.fat_robUh no. A reformulation of this argument is simple. God is a being for which there is no possible explanation for it not existing. All things must have possible explanation for why they either exist or do not exist, but there is no possible explanation for why god does not exist, therefore god must exist because it is no possible to explain god not existing. The reasoning is ENTIRELY CIRCULAR. The other premises in your argument actually do no real work.
The bolded is a seperate premise that is not in any way implied by the definition of unsurpassable greatness. It does half the work in the argument because without it the conclusion simply wouldn't follow.
Entertain the thought that non-existent things can lack explanations for why they don't exist. If this is true does P2 still presuppose the conclusion?
Well I don't believe that it does either. Nevertheless the argument "proves" the existence of an unsurpassably great being by demonstrating that it is logically impossible for one to be non-existent. domatron23Putting it that way, the outcome of such an argument might as well not point at anything that would qualify as god.
I mean, the way I see it, even the word proof in quotation marks is innapropriate to use cause simply it isnt true. It does not prove that a god exists by far. It just leaves enough gaps to its conclusion just because a god could fall into the category of a maximally great being. But god is more than that if he/she/it exists.
I think Plato just vomited in his grave. This makes absolutely no sense. You're just dividing a series of erroneous claims into "points" to make it seem like a logical syllogism. If you can put your argument into a syllogism, the foundation of all logical thought, then we'll talk. hamstergeddonI'll give it a go. P1. The non-existence of an unsurpassably great being is self-contradictory P2. If a proposition is self contradictory then it is false Therefore: the proposition that an unsurpassably great being does not exist is false
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]I think Plato just vomited in his grave. This makes absolutely no sense. You're just dividing a series of erroneous claims into "points" to make it seem like a logical syllogism. If you can put your argument into a syllogism, the foundation of all logical thought, then we'll talk. domatron23I'll give it a go. P1. The non-existence of an unsurpassably great being is self-contradictory P2. If a proposition is self contradictory then it is false Therefore: the proposition that an unsurpassably great being does not exist is false That is basically: "It exists because I made a character that cannot not exist" Not proof.
Premise 3 doesn't require that God gains something by being good, just that there is an explanation for anything and everything that happens. Ergo if God does something it follows that there is an explanation for why he did it. I can't identify that explanation but nevertheless that's what premise 3 implies.[QUOTE="domatron23"]
[QUOTE="bangell99"]
Premise 3 says that everything has a purpose for existence. If God's purpose was to create the Earth... Why? Who says God has to do anything? God would just "be", if he actually existed. The route of all actions is personal gain. Even if you give to charity, you do so because you feel good, knowing that others are well. As a perfect being, God would do nothing because he requires nothing.
You didn't really answer my question.
bangell99
No, you can't explain what that explanation is, because there isn't one. God would not create the world if he was perfect, and no-one can provide me with a reason why. Tell me why God would do anything other than "be". Tell me that without simply saying "look at Premise 3 which I made", and I'll take this a little more seriously.
In a book, Bernard Haisch argued that God has infinite potential. However, potential is not the same as experience. He could be, potentially, absolutely perfect and beyond measure, but that's not the same thing as putting His capabilities to use. Haisch said it was something along these lines: If you had a billion dollars, you wouldn't just keep it in the bank, you would spend it to get the full use out of it. He applies this to God, and goes further to say that He created the earth, the universe, etc for the experience, which he lives through us, or something along those lines.
In regards to imperfection, he argued that you can't experience everything without experiencing imperfection as well, and hence that was part of the creation. Anyway, it made for a pretty good read.
Putting it that way, the outcome of such an argument might as well not point at anything that would qualify as god.[QUOTE="domatron23"] Well I don't believe that it does either. Nevertheless the argument "proves" the existence of an unsurpassably great being by demonstrating that it is logically impossible for one to be non-existent. Teenaged
I mean, the way I see it, even the word proof in quotation marks is innapropriate to use cause simply it isnt true. It does not prove that a god exists by far. It just leaves enough gaps to its conclusion just because a god could fall into the category of a maximally great being. But god is more than that if he/she/it exists.
If the argument is sound then it establishes the existence of a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good. Those are generally the properties prescribed to God so I don't think that it is problematic to say that the conclusion indicates God. If you wanted to though you could simply alter the definition of maximal excellence to include every property of God and then hey presto the argument proves God.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Putting it that way, the outcome of such an argument might as well not point at anything that would qualify as god.[QUOTE="domatron23"] Well I don't believe that it does either. Nevertheless the argument "proves" the existence of an unsurpassably great being by demonstrating that it is logically impossible for one to be non-existent. domatron23
I mean, the way I see it, even the word proof in quotation marks is innapropriate to use cause simply it isnt true. It does not prove that a god exists by far. It just leaves enough gaps to its conclusion just because a god could fall into the category of a maximally great being. But god is more than that if he/she/it exists.
If the argument is sound then it establishes the existence of a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good. Those are generally the properties prescribed to God so I don't think that it is problematic to say that the conclusion indicates God. If you wanted to though you could simply alter the definition of maximal excellence to include every property of God and then hey presto the argument proves God.Ok I might have to read it again. :PThe definition of time is: A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
Given this definition there has to be matter present in order for time to pass. If there is no matter present then changes can not occur and time will not pass. This is the reason why physicists believe that before the Big Bang there was no such thing as time. However if matter was always present (Other Big Bangs elsewhere in the space in which our Big Bang didn't happen or outside of our universe or a cyclic universe) then time would have always existed. In order to believe in a being that created the universe the universe first had to be created. If there was always matter in the universe there was never any creation to the universe and a supernaturally supreme being needn't have created us because there was nothing to be created. I believe that is a possible explanation for why he does not exist. And as mentioned before you can't factually disprove a negative. Therefor premise 4 is complete nonsense if you mean it as a factual proof. Factually prove to me that a flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
Uh no. A reformulation of this argument is simple. God is a being for which there is no possible explanation for it not existing. All things must have possible explanation for why they either exist or do not exist, but there is no possible explanation for why god does not exist, therefore god must exist because it is no possible to explain god not existing. The reasoning is ENTIRELY CIRCULAR. The other premises in your argument actually do no real work.[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="domatron23"] That presupposition does not alone justify the conclusion though. It only leads to the actual existence of God when combined with the premise that every non-existing thing must have an explanation for why it does not exist. If premise 3 were false and things could just not exist without any reason then the argument would not conclude the existence of God. The fact that the argument doesn't work unless premise 3 is true should indicate to you that premise 2 does not presuppose the conclusion.domatron23
The bolded is a seperate premise that is not in any way implied by the definition of unsurpassable greatness. It does half the work in the argument because without it the conclusion simply wouldn't follow.
Entertain the thought that non-existent things can lack explanations for why they don't exist. If this is true does P2 still presuppose the conclusion?
Of course if you change the premises in your argument it will alter the argument, because it will be a DIFFERENT argument. For the argument you provide in the first post, the argument is circular because it begs the question. God must exist because all things must have explanations of ontic status and by definition there is no possible explanation for God's non-existence. That is your argument. Your definition of God is an assumption that needs it's own separate argument. If you changed P3 to what you said in the previous post, then you would be forced to provide that argument, which is what I asked for in the first place.What do you mean there? Do you mean "if there is no possible explanation that explains why it does not exist"?P1. It is proposed that a being is maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good
P2. It is proposed that a being is unsurpassably great if it has maximal excellence and if there is no possible explanation which accounts for its non-existence
P3. Everything that exists or does not exist has a possible explanation for why it does or does not exist
P4. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is no possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 2)
P5. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is a possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 3)
P6. The proposition that an unsurpassably great being does not exist is self-contradictory and necessarily false (from 4 and 5)
Therefore: An unsurpassably great being exists
domatron23
But even without clarification, still this argument, to me, seems not well constructed. Unless I cant grasp it. :P
If you're claiming that there is a possible explanation for an unsurpassably great being then you're talking nonsense because the definition of unsurpassable greatness precludes just that.The definition of time is: A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
Given this definition there has to be matter present in order for time to pass. If there is no matter present then changes can not occur and time will not pass. This is the reason why physicists believe that before the Big Bang there was no such thing as time. However if matter was always present (Other Big Bangs elsewhere in the space in which our Big Bang didn't happen or outside of our universe or a cyclic universe) then time would have always existed. In order to believe in a being that created the universe the universe first had to be created. If there was always matter in the universe there was never any creation to the universe and a supernaturally supreme being needn't have created us because there was nothing to be created. I believe that is a possible explanation for why he does not exist. And as mentioned before you can't factually disprove a negative. Therefor premise 4 is complete nonsense if you mean it as a factual proof. Factually prove to me that a flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
BumFluff122
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If you're claiming that there is a possible explanation for an unsurpassably great being then you're talking nonsense because the definition of unsurpassable greatness precludes just that.But isnt that premise ("god is something we cannot understand/grasp/comprehend therefore we cannot judge/doubt about") that most theists claim and then we tend to tell them that that is no real argument?The definition of time is: A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
Given this definition there has to be matter present in order for time to pass. If there is no matter present then changes can not occur and time will not pass. This is the reason why physicists believe that before the Big Bang there was no such thing as time. However if matter was always present (Other Big Bangs elsewhere in the space in which our Big Bang didn't happen or outside of our universe or a cyclic universe) then time would have always existed. In order to believe in a being that created the universe the universe first had to be created. If there was always matter in the universe there was never any creation to the universe and a supernaturally supreme being needn't have created us because there was nothing to be created. I believe that is a possible explanation for why he does not exist. And as mentioned before you can't factually disprove a negative. Therefor premise 4 is complete nonsense if you mean it as a factual proof. Factually prove to me that a flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
domatron23
Of course if you change the premises in your argument it will alter the argument, because it will be a DIFFERENT argument. For the argument you provide in the first post, the argument is circular because it begs the question. God must exist because all things must have explanations of ontic status and by definition there is no possible explanation for God's non-existence. That is your argument. Your definition of God is an assumption that needs it's own separate argument. If you changed P3 to what you said in the previous post, then you would be forced to provide that argument, which is what I asked for in the first place.fat_robI'm not changing any of the premises I'm only proposing that one of them (P3) is false. The argument can remain the same but if P3 isn't true then the conclusion doesn't follow which means that it isn't circular. I don't see how the definition of unsurpassable greatness needs an argument all of its own. Its just a definition for a theoretical entity not an assertion of any kind.
What do you mean there? Do you mean "if there is no possible explanation that explains why it does not exist"?[QUOTE="domatron23"]
P1. It is proposed that a being is maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good
P2. It is proposed that a being is unsurpassably great if it has maximal excellence and if there is no possible explanation which accounts for its non-existence
P3. Everything that exists or does not exist has a possible explanation for why it does or does not exist
P4. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is no possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 2)
P5. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is a possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 3)
P6. The proposition that an unsurpassably great being does not exist is self-contradictory and necessarily false (from 4 and 5)
Therefore: An unsurpassably great being exists
Teenaged
But even without clarification, still this argument, to me, seems not well constructed. Unless I cant grasp it. :P
Yeah that's what I meant. Sorry for any sloppiness, I tried to be as clear as possible with my wording.[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If you're claiming that there is a possible explanation for an unsurpassably great being then you're talking nonsense because the definition of unsurpassable greatnesss precludes just that.I gave you an explanation of why an unsurpassably great being doesn't have to exist. The idea of there having to be an unsurpasably great being is specifically so one can explain the origins of the universe we live in. If the universe didn't have a beginning then there is no need for a being which you describe. And, as stated, even for a nonmaximally great being one can not prove it's non existence because it's impossible to disprove a negative.The definition of time is: A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
Given this definition there has to be matter present in order for time to pass. If there is no matter present then changes can not occur and time will not pass. This is the reason why physicists believe that before the Big Bang there was no such thing as time. However if matter was always present (Other Big Bangs elsewhere in the space in which our Big Bang didn't happen or outside of our universe or a cyclic universe) then time would have always existed. In order to believe in a being that created the universe the universe first had to be created. If there was always matter in the universe there was never any creation to the universe and a supernaturally supreme being needn't have created us because there was nothing to be created. I believe that is a possible explanation for why he does not exist. And as mentioned before you can't factually disprove a negative. Therefor premise 4 is complete nonsense if you mean it as a factual proof. Factually prove to me that a flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
domatron23
]I gave you an explanation of why an unsurpassably great being doesn't have to exist. The idea of there having to be an unsurpasably great being is specifically so one can explain the origins of the universe we live in. If the universe didn't have a beginning then there is no need for a being which you describe. And, as stated, even for a nonmaximally great being one can not prove it's non existence because it's impossible to disprove a negativeBumFluff122By mere virtue of the term, unsurpassably great being, the unsurpassably great being does exist. However, you cannot use that to prove god. An unsurpassably great being doesn't necessarily have the qualities of omnicisience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]]I gave you an explanation of why an unsurpassably great being doesn't have to exist. The idea of there having to be an unsurpasably great being is specifically so one can explain the origins of the universe we live in. If the universe didn't have a beginning then there is no need for a being which you describe. And, as stated, even for a nonmaximally great being one can not prove it's non existence because it's impossible to disprove a negativeVandalvideoBy mere virtue of the term, unsurpassably great being, the unsurpassably great being does exist. However, you cannot use that to prove god. An unsurpassably great being doesn't necessarily have the qualities of omnicisience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.I seem to have skipped a few premises ahead when I didn't have to.
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]]I gave you an explanation of why an unsurpassably great being doesn't have to exist. The idea of there having to be an unsurpasably great being is specifically so one can explain the origins of the universe we live in. If the universe didn't have a beginning then there is no need for a being which you describe. And, as stated, even for a nonmaximally great being one can not prove it's non existence because it's impossible to disprove a negativeVandalvideoBy mere virtue of the term, unsurpassably great being, the unsurpassably great being does exist. However, you cannot use that to prove god. An unsurpassably great being doesn't necessarily have the qualities of omnicisience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. Yes it does. Go back to page one and read premise one and two again.
I gave you an explanation of why an unsurpassably great being doesn't have to exist. The idea of there having to be an unsurpasably great being is specifically so one can explain the origins of the universe we live in. If the universe didn't have a beginning then there is no need for a being which you describe. And, as stated, even for a nonmaximally great being one can not prove it's non existence because it's impossible to disprove a negative.Your claim that you've provided a possible explanation for the non-existence of an unsurpassingly great being doesn't make sense. It's like saying that you've drawn a triangle with four sides, it just doesn't work.BumFluff122
P1. It is proposed that a being is maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good
P2. It is proposed that a being is unsurpassably great if it has maximal excellence and if there is no possible explanation which accounts for its non-existence
P3. Everything that exists or does not exist has a possible explanation for why it does or does not exist
P4. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is no possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 2)
P5. If an unsurpassably great being does not exist there is a possible explanation for why he does not exist (from 3)
P6. The proposition that an unsurpassably great being does not exist is self-contradictory and necessarily false (from 4 and 5)
Therefore: An unsurpassably great being exists
domatron23
The fourth statement only follows the last segment of the secondary premise. An 'unsurpassably great being' must exist to precede the condition that 'there is no possible explanation which account for its non-existence'. The fourth proposition, hypothesizing that 'if [God]... does not exist' contradicts the first portion of the secondary premise and invalidates the other segment, as the last portion is dependent on the first ('if [God exists]... its non-existence [cannot be explained]'), while the fourth propositon says 'its non-existence [cannot be explained] if [God] does not exist'.
No "Proof" here. Just you saying what you believe.
[QUOTE="bangell99"]
[QUOTE="domatron23"] Premise 3 doesn't require that God gains something by being good, just that there is an explanation for anything and everything that happens. Ergo if God does something it follows that there is an explanation for why he did it. I can't identify that explanation but nevertheless that's what premise 3 implies.
ImmoDuck
No, you can't explain what that explanation is, because there isn't one. God would not create the world if he was perfect, and no-one can provide me with a reason why. Tell me why God would do anything other than "be". Tell me that without simply saying "look at Premise 3 which I made", and I'll take this a little more seriously.
In a book, Bernard Haisch argued that God has infinite potential. However, potential is not the same as experience. He could be, potentially, absolutely perfect and beyond measure, but that's not the same thing as putting His capabilities to use. Haisch said it was something along these lines: If you had a billion dollars, you wouldn't just keep it in the bank, you would spend it to get the full use out of it. He applies this to God, and goes further to say that He created the earth, the universe, etc for the experience, which he lives through us, or something along those lines.
In regards to imperfection, he argued that you can't experience everything without experiencing imperfection as well, and hence that was part of the creation. Anyway, it made for a pretty good read.
That sounds quite interesting, but I don't see why this perfect being, who I agree has infinite potential, would ever feel the need to experience anything.
[QUOTE="ImmoDuck"]
[QUOTE="bangell99"]
No, you can't explain what that explanation is, because there isn't one. God would not create the world if he was perfect, and no-one can provide me with a reason why. Tell me why God would do anything other than "be". Tell me that without simply saying "look at Premise 3 which I made", and I'll take this a little more seriously.
bangell99
In a book, Bernard Haisch argued that God has infinite potential. However, potential is not the same as experience. He could be, potentially, absolutely perfect and beyond measure, but that's not the same thing as putting His capabilities to use. Haisch said it was something along these lines: If you had a billion dollars, you wouldn't just keep it in the bank, you would spend it to get the full use out of it. He applies this to God, and goes further to say that He created the earth, the universe, etc for the experience, which he lives through us, or something along those lines.
In regards to imperfection, he argued that you can't experience everything without experiencing imperfection as well, and hence that was part of the creation. Anyway, it made for a pretty good read.
That sounds quite interesting, but I don't see why this perfect being, who I agree has infinite potential, would ever feel the need to experience anything.
He goes more in depth in the book, and I may be hazy on his argument, but it would be mainly because having the potential to do anything, but not experiencing or realizing this potential makes it wasted and/or pointless, I suppose. Just like the "billion dollars" metaphor he used. The book was moreso about quantum mechanics /consciousness though.
If this were true there wouldn't be debate in the philosophy realm of things on the idea of god.. But there is. Fail.sSubZerOoPhilosophers aren't all knowing. It's a little dangerous to think the few philosophers that are left have to come up with all the answers. Usually they find inspiration in something outside their realm of investigation or it's the people who practise it in their spare time. Got to give him a little more credit for trying something so brave as stating to have unusual proof.
I think i know a lot of answers to questions in science but i don't dare to say anything at all because nothing that takes effort to understand is taken seriously unless You're a schoolbook or have authority.
Needs moar Douglas Gasking.
1. The creation of the world (or universe) is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. And existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
Ergo:
7. God does not exist.
I hate how mere words are applied as "proof" of something. Assumptions about conceptual abstractions are not proof.
Needs moar Douglas Gasking.
1. The creation of the world (or universe) is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. And existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.Ergo:
7. God does not exist.
I hate how mere words are applied as "proof" of something. Assumptions about conceptual abstractions are not proof.foxhound_fox
Interesting idea. Took me a while to work that out. :P
P1. It is proposed that a being is maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good
domatron23
My friend, I leave you with one quote:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus
[QUOTE="domatron23"]
P1. It is proposed that a being is maximally excellent if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good
chessmaster1989
My friend, I leave you with one quote:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus
Nobody said God is nice.Hmm wait.
I think someone did.
Well there is always the God doesn't make sense to us argument.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment