God has been given various attributes I've outlined a few below and their dissection and logical conclusion of his inability to exist
perfect
Immutable (the belief that God cannot change)
free
omnipotence (unlimited power)
transcendent (the concept of being entirely above the created universe)
all-loving
omniscient (capacity to know everything infinitely)
omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time)
the creator of the universe
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
3. An immutable being cannot know different things at different times.
4. To be omniscient, a being would need to know propositions about the past and future.
5. But what is past and what is future keep changing.
6. Thus, in order to know propositions about the past and future, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 5).
7. It follows that, to be omniscient, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 4 and 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be omniscient (from 3 and 7).
9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is all-loving.
3. An immutable being cannot be affected by events.
4. To be all-loving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events.
5. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
2. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
and the real killer is :-
1. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
2. If God exists, then he is free.
3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future.
4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it.
5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4).
6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts.
7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7).
9. Therefore he cannot be omnipotent (from 4,5,6)
10. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8,9).
and of course if all else fails use Occam's Razor
Oh and a new feature on my blog is searchable text just right click and highlight with your mouse the word or words you want to search then a box pops up and click search.... very useful ....
unlike religion....
14 comments:
Your logic only works with the assumptions you make ie. 'he must have... must be... would need to know... it must be possible... must know'
For me the 'god' of your argument is a staw man and I join you in saying he does not exist.
He is quite different from the God I know.
Bit of a wimp in comparison really
PS
I'm whispering not shouting - can't stand it when people shout - I'm smiling too.
I actually love it when you comment Phil because you always give a thoughtful answer.... and I've got to be honest I expected you to comment ;¬) so here's my reply :)
It seems I'm bound by frail human logic and mere words, I am trapped in the box of tangibility, I am a veritable doubting Thomas (to use a scriptural reference), I cannot make that leap of faith because to me it would be like jumping off a mountain and expecting to survive, I obviously wouldn't... to me it's all about probability.
There have been many Gods over the span of human existence, and the Christian God hasn't been around "that" long in human history, I think it (religion) fills a hole/need in the human psyche that man(woman) needs to feel that there is more to life than they actually get whilst alive... some distant reward for leading a good life...(with no complaints from disgruntled dead customers)
I'll pose you a question ...what if we are no more than evolved apes ? blessed only with a higher brain function and development that allows us to think about loftier things, such as our existence, why and how we came about, where we are going, and how we got here...
I think it's only natural that religion came about as an explanation for all things previous, but it doesn't mean to say that it's right, after all people thousands of years ago didn't know about the double helix of DNA and if you were to try to explain it to them then, you would be wasting your time because their understanding of the world around them would be severely limited. Equally if you introduced them to Neil Armstrong and showed proof that he had travelled to the moon and back, he'd be revered as a God amongst men...(yeah yeah I know it wasn't the moon it was Shepperton Studios...;¬) )
Which is why I think God's were invented it's an easy sweeping and all encompassing idea that can explain so much around us, and lets face it over the years it's been honed and developed and changed by men to filter out the difficult questions... and of course it's wholly unprovable... which to me at least will never be enough to convince me...
I watched that program "Tribal Wives" last night the Witch doctor diagnosed what was wrong with the western woman by throwing a pair of flip flops up in the air and seeing how they landed... Good medicine being practised ? probably not.. but the villagers thought the witch doctor was the last word on all things... well actually his flip flops....I think we've got a flip flop cult in the making there ;¬)
Sorry long reply but I love debating Christianity vs Atheism
(and I'm smiling too)
Thanks for your thoughts. I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what you wrote. Religion as a sociological phenomenon may well be used as a tool for control and manipulation as well as a force for good and comfort. Whenever there is trust and power they are always potentially open to the most terrible of abuses.
I also agree with your comments that the invention of religion is basically an inevitable part of human development and desire to explain those issues in the world we cannot understand. Clearly in cultures that have little exposure to science; superstition abounds.
But in all of this we must ask, why does faith and religion exist? Do they simply have their root in the lack of scientific explanation?
However comprehensive and helpful science is, to me it only opens up a deeper issues. The more I learnt about the human body in college, the more it spoke to me of the 'something more' in life. And of course this something more is, I believe, God.
As a Christian I understand this in terms of being made in the image of God. Designed for something more than just the material and philosophical in life - designed for a spiritual relationship with God. Because of this we will always be more than evolved apes. We are the ones who uniquely have a soul.
The problem is the one thing we have been designed for has been stripped away from us. We have lost connection with God but have been left with the desire for it. We have been left frustrated by the nagging conviction that there is more to life than this but the inability to satisfy it. So we try to satisfy the need by the worship of trees, animals, the sun, their bodies, money, ideas... anything. Or we try to explain it way with atheism, or pacify and anaesthetise it with agnosticism. Someone has wired humanity up in such a way that all of us know there is something more out there, somewhere.
What if in all of this God was actually speaking, not left us in our frustrations and their almost inevitable self destruction and abuse but actually reached out to us and talked to us? I suggest this is entirely logical and plausible.
Now see you've got Plato to thank for your soul, or should I say Philo of Alexandria who introduced Platonism and duality ... which caused quite a stink in the early church... you've also got a fair chunk of Aristotle's philosophies (modified) as well..not to mention Descartes... then of course the classic error of body, soul and spirit and how these were interpreted by the gnostics.....it's a long and winding road before we get to the "modern" version of the human soul
So you mention humans as having a soul but in real terms a "soul" is a pretty modern invention gathered from many different sources of thinking....
None of which give a definitive answer.... the Christian soul is a super blend of ideas tabled by most of the great philosophers of the ancient world... who lets face it were the definitive source of most of the ideas at the time...these ideas were taken by the early church and adopted, modified or discarded to fit accordingly...
it's not a soul to me....I just call it the ability to think, we are all born with a blank slate and on that slate are written the rules of life as we grow up, a baby feels no shame, regret, remorse, happiness, sadness... all these things are learned from their environment and parents, we pass on our fears, likes, dislikes, expectations and beliefs, the only things a baby is born with are the 5 senses with which it makes sense of the world, like any other animal does...
but we humans are blessed with an enormous brain, which allows us to think about things other than food,water,procreation,play... that is what sets us apart from the other animals...
We share A LOT of our DNA with Chimpanzee's did God have a version 1 and didn't like it so made a hairless version 2 with longer bones and a slightly different olfactory setup ?
why would we share so much DNA with chimps ? was God recycling even back then ?
There is only 1% difference between the species !! that's like having a Slazenger 6 golfball in one hand and a Slazenger 7 golfball in the other....
and why are Hippos so closely related to Whales ? a hippo isn't a whale and vice versa .... but they share an incredible amount of genetic information ....
Occam's Razor Phil ;¬)
The existence of the theories of philosophers serve the purpose of my observation that these are expressions of the spiritual reality of the soul.
What is driving the need to explain or engage it? Is it simply the absence of explanation or is it an expression of identification.
Interestingly Plato and the boys proffered their thoughts about three thousand years after the doctrine of the image of God had been laid down by Moses and the New Testament predates Gnosticism and made the pre-Gnostics one of their prime targets.
I find the idea that we are born with a blank slate and that everything is learned rather naive. Do we really need to learn how to lie and be selfish? Even if we do, the question has to be why do we learn this way? What is driving it? Is there a risk we might not quite learn these essential human traits? And if this is the case why to human beings universally come to the same conclusions, in every generation and culture? Are you really suggesting that it is possible that somewhere there is a community that has never learned about love or lust or hate or pride or greed?
If history shows us anything it is that human beings are in essence the same in every generation. Environment has changed dramatically by the traits of 'human nature' remain the same. We just have more sophisticated ways of expressing it.
In every culture and community, every human being is born knowing certain things, not just with the apparatus to explore the world.
I find your dismissal of the soul too utilitarian. How do you explain the persistent existence of music and creativity? Why should humanity need to express anything creatively if we have simply been wired up for exploration, knowledge and discovery? There is more to us than this.
DNA difference between chimps and human beings are just that - they are differences. But are they the only differences? Is this enough to explain why chimps don't worship and human beings do? There is more to identity than DNA - there is something else that distinguishes us, that puts us light years apart from chimps.
Don't be afraid of the soul it's what ultimately defines us uniquely and drives us as human beings. It's also what frustrates us.
Occam’s razor is not so sharp, it rests on the presupposition that we can understand all that there is and so can make the necessary progressions of thought. Are you sure you know everything? Ironically Occam included the Bible and being a good Catholic the Church, as part of his basis for proof.
I can heartily recommend this particular presupposition.
Now this is getting interesting Phil ;¬)
You can explain body parts, the brain, liver, kidneys and lungs but the soul like many things in Christianity cannot be proven, you cannot hold it in your hand or have it surgically removed.... it cannot be measured or observed, we are told we have one but who first identified it by saying "ahhh that's a soul that is ... I've seen one of those before"
It's quite obvious various scholars and philosophers have talked about this at length most if not all have come to different conclusions, Native Indians and other races for thousands of years have used powerful drugs to get in "touch" with either the other side/spirit world or their "soul" for want of a better word.... no I don't buy into that .. they were simply off their heads on drugs hallucinating, experiencing an altered reality with altered brain chemistry, people put themselves into a trance like state through chanting... it's all altered brain chemistry that is all, nothing more, our brain is amazing, it can also fool us into thinking many things with altered perception...I mean some people even think there is a God !!! ;¬)
you said "I find the idea that we are born with a blank slate and that everything is learned rather naive"
How do you explain only recently and there are many more cases of this ....the little 5 year girl that was brought up by a pack of dogs in Russia, who couldn't speak, acted like a dog, barked at people and lapped at her food just like a dog....it's called Mowgli Syndrome... if that isn't a blank slate taking on and adapting to its surrounding and environment I don't know what is....
As for jealousy you can witness that in the animal world, learned ? not really it's born of wanting something that somebody/thing else has, as for deception, you can see that in the animal world as well, it's not a purely human trait Phil it's pretty universal, and I think that it is you who are being a little naive to think only humans can feel or do those things.
As for music and creativity why does being musical or creative mean that there is some spiritual meaning attached to it ? surely we like music because it pleases us and we like seeing creative objects and being creative ourselves, there is nothing mystical about it, stone age men painted their hands on the walls of caves, people take photographs... it's all roughly the same thing only the resolution is better... ;¬)
we have large brains we need a lot of entertaining Phil...
I have to disagree with you quite strongly on this one Phil
"In every culture and community, every human being is born knowing certain things, not just with the apparatus to explore the world."
Phil you and I know that they can barely define faces when they are born, their vision is short and out of focus they are barraged from the day they enter the world with colours, sounds, smells, touch, and taste... its enough to get a handle on things, and get a toehold in society... but babies don't know anything when they are born... it's all learned and to suggest that it isn't I find amusing to say the least....
You can't dismiss the DNA differences between chimps and humans as simply "differences" if you compared human DNA to a fish you'd find minute similarities, if you compared human DNA to a crocodile again you'd find minute similarities, we are talking 99% similar practically all of it Phil !!! that's not a coincidence, that's a close cousin, that's a branch of a species, in much the same way that Cox's orange pippins are related to Golden delicious, and Chimps don't worship or talk because nature dealt them a different hand, a different hand to do what they do most efficiently.... but I know how you cannot accept that we are related to animals or vice versa, to me the evidence is more than overwhelming....
Now I must go and shave ;¬)
I knew you'd pick up on Occam's razor ;¬)....
or Mr Ockham in particular he said
"For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture" all in all a nice Catholic man ;¬)
....but Occam's Razor goes further back than that to Aristotle, I was referring to the Isaac Newton version of the Razor
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes"
Nobody knows everything Phil well unless they are omniscient... but that's not possible Phil...
1. If God exists, then he is omniscient.
2. If God exists, then he is free.
3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future.
4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it.
5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4).
6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts.
7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6).
8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7).
9. Therefore he cannot be omnipotent (from 4,5,6)
10. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8,9).
you walked right into that one ;¬)
I seem to have touched a nerve!
If your blank slate theory is true, then there should be examples of people to whom selfishness and pride are entirely absent. They have not been taught it -yet. i don't think you will find any.
Why do kids brought up in loving homes with a clear example of right and wrong go on to do terrible crimes? Similarly why do kids brought up in atrocious homes go on to live law abiding lives?
My contention is that the evidence is overwhelming that we all come into this world with a certain default setting. We are more complex than just the product of environment.
And why insist on tying yourself into an empirical investigation of the soul? It sounds a lot like; if I can't prove it, it can't exist.
Your Occam's illustration rests on the presupposition that freedom and omniscience are incomparable. This is born from our own shared experience of freedom which is then projected back onto God.
Why would true omniscience need options to be free? In what way can omniscience be constrained by the absence of choice? Options are only necessary when truth is in question. Omniscience never has this problem. It does not need to prove itself against choice.
Hope you didn't cut yourself shaving.
Not at all Phil, I'm really enjoying this :)
A baby doesn't have any of the vices you mention, until they learn, the only things they have inbuilt is when they feel hungry and thirsty and when they need sleep, and until they are exposed to humanity they are a blank slate... but selfishness isn't purely a human trait, go down to the seaside and feed some sea gulls, they don't share the food, they grab as much as they can and couldn't care less who they steal it off.... Pride though is a bit harder to find in the animal kingdom as it's a complex emotion and isn't obvious like selfishness, but then there aren't many animals like us who have brains as large as ours... so that probably accounts for that
"Why do kids brought up in loving homes with a clear example of right and wrong go on to do terrible crimes? Similarly why do kids brought up in atrocious homes go on to live law abiding lives? "
Hmmm interesting point, but easily explained, because they can..... maybe kids who have everything and have wanted for nothing simply lack any excitement in their lives, they've never wanted for anything so they create their own excitement or adrenaline rush.... and the kids who have had a really poor upbringing simply want to better themselves and lift themselves out of the situation they were brought up in, and lets face it Phil we are all capable of killing, given the right circumstances we could all kill to protect either ourselves or our families, if it was necessary....does that make us bad people ?
I agree that we all come into this world with a default setting, however we all don't interpret the world around us in the same way...
I'm not tying myself into an investigation about the soul, I simply do not believe we have one in the first place....
as for omniscience and free will, if you take omniscience at it's face value, ie/ that God knows everything that is logically possible to know, he knows what choices he will make in the future because his knowledge is perfect and infinite, then he has no free will, he cannot choose another choice because to do that would mean that he is not omniscient because he hadn't foreseen his choice....
and if God is omniscient then he is tied to what he knows will happen, that's not a very omnipotent God in my book
and what is "true omniscience" anyway ? either you know everything infinitely or you don't surely ?
I respect your faith in the non existance of the soul.
The default setting is the bias towards self. It is true it is seen in animals as well as people and there are consistent theological reasons for this. But there is still something in the essence of humanity that sets us apart. It's more than intelligence. It's what drives the appreciation of beauty, creativity and love. I would also suggest it drives exploration and scientific discovery. There is more to us than machine.
I also think God knows everything there is to logically know and everything there is to illogically know. Everything we know we know and can know and everything we don't know and are sure we can't know.
I would come back to the point that choice depends on making a judgement within which there is a lack of knowledge. God doesn't suffer from this. He does not face the dilemma of choice in the way we do, so there is no sense in which He is tied. He is free to act after the counsel of His own will - and He does because He is.
If we didn't have intelligence we would be fighting WITH the seagulls for the scraps ;¬) I'm sure there are theological reasons for selfishness...(they've got a reason for most things) again it doesn't mean to say it's because of God they are like that (if he existed)....
I think we will have to agree to disagree Phil....you're definitely not convincing me one iota and I'm pretty certain you're not going to resign tomorrow and hang up your dog collar beaten by logic.... ;¬)
....I did however chuckle at that last sentence..... He is free to act after the counsel of His own will - and he does because he is...
sounded a bit like my mother ... "just do as your told" ...."why ?"..... "BECAUSE !!!"
I think we kept the discussion polite :)
I could be a right dictator now.... and reject all of your responses.... but I won't ;¬) besides I think my comment database is struggling a bit with the essays we keep writing to each other .....
Thanks
I guess we both think the other is mad.
Not at all Phil... I don't think I'm mad in the slightest.... ;¬)
Post a Comment