A new proof for the nonexistence of god

[bob000555]

I've developed a new argument for the nonexistence of god, which is really just a refinement of the argument from evil to get around some of the more common objections which have to do with the peculiarities of the word "evil." This could be called the argument form the imperfection of the universe, since even if human experience was to be made incrementally better, the argument could be reiterated with that incrementally better universe ad infinitum. The only universe in which the argument would not work would be a universe where humans' experience of the universe was infinitely good. Put another way, we can know that there is no being which has both omnipotence and omnibenevolence because our experience of the universe is not infinity good.

The argument works amusing a traditional definition of God à la Aquinas, Anselm et al which involves perfection and all the individual perfections it entails viz omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Here's the argument:

1. If a being was omnipotent, than it could make humans' experience of the universe better than it is. (follows from the definition of omnipotence)

2. If a being was omnibenevolent, than it would make humans' experience as good as a it could. (follows from the definition of omnibenevolence)

3. Therefore, if a being that was both omnipotent and omnibenevolent existed, than humans' experience of the universe would be better than it is. (follows from one and two)

4. Humans' experience of the universe is not better than it is. (true by tautology)

5. Therefore a being which is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent does not exist. (follows from three and four by modus tollens)

6. God is defined as a being who is (among other things) both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. (by the traditional definition of God)

7. Therefore, God does not exist. (follows from five and six by substitution)

I don't think there's anyway out of this argument except to try to advance some definition of god that does not involve omnipotence and omnibenevolence. At the very least, that would make this definitive proof that the god of the Catholic Church does not exit. Can anyone see a problem with this argument?

[MonDie]

God obviously isn't omnibenevolent if he's willing to punish people for not worshipping him.

 

 

 

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

 

http://www.theopedia.com/Jealousy_of_God

 

[ACG52]

I can't say that omnibenevolent is any property I've ever heard ascribed to doG.

[Moontanman]

I can't say that omnibenevolent is any property I've ever heard ascribed to doG.

 

 

I have, many many times in many different ways. the whole God is love deal to god is all good to god loves everyone. It's a common attribute... something that does not exist can be believed to have any property we want it to have...

[ydoaPs]

I can't say about omnibenevolence, but by some of the more "sophisticated" (read: ad hoc redefinitions attempting to combat incoherence) definitions of "omnipotent", I am indeed omnipotent.

[chilehed]

Premise 1 is false on at least two counts.

First, it assumes that God didn't, in the beginning, make humans' experience of the universe better than it is now.

Second, it would redefine humans as something that isn't human... it's analogous to the nonsensical "could make a triangle with four sides" argument.

 

Premise 2 is false in the same way as second error noted above.

 

The entire argument is based in the absurd notion that you would necessarily understand how an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being would run the universe.

[efzauner]

If God was omnipotent He would prevent humans from proving His non existance!

If God was omnibenevolent He would spare humans from arguing about his existance!

[ACG52]

The entire argument is based in the absurd notion that you would necessarily understand how an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being would run the universe

 

The absurd notion is that there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omiscient being running the universe. The universe doesn't need one to run.

 

 

[PeterJ]

The entire argument is based in the absurd notion that you would necessarily understand how an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being would run the universe.

 

+1

 

It would also be a wild conjecture to assume that God has these properties. It is all too easy to assign properties and qualites to God that make it possible to disprove His existence. But it would prove only that God cannot have said qualities.

 

Anyway, there are much better arguments than the one proposed here. In the second century the Buddhist sage Nagarjuna gave a devastating disproof of the OP's decidedly anthropomorphic God. Much better than any other I've seen.

[chilehed]

 

The absurd notion is that there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omiscient being running the universe. The universe doesn't need one to run.

 

Begs the question, and is unresponsive besides.

[ACG52]

 

Begs the question, and is unresponsive besides.

 

It renders the question meaningless, and so there is no need to respond to it.

[MonDie]

The entire argument is based in the absurd notion that you would necessarily understand how an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being would run the universe.

 

More specifically, the faulty notion is that there is some objective criteria for determining what is good or "better."

 

Benevolence is a subjective idea:

1. desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures.

2. an act of kindness; a charitable gift.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benevolence

If someone has faith that there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god, they must also have faith that this world is the best it can be. Not that it will be the best that it can be, but that it is the best it can be right now.

However, by this logic, a lack of faith is shown by any attempt to improve your current condition. A faithful peron cannot not love because god loves them; cannot eat because god feeds them; cannot pee because god empties their bladder for them; etc. If god does not do any of these things for them, they are content with the pains because they have faith that the pain is just a manifestation of god's love.

Gives a whole new meaning to "God, I have to pee," doesn't it?

Edited January 10, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[chilehed]

 

It renders the question meaningless, and so there is no need to respond to it.

 

The question is "is there a god". To answer "no, because it's absurd that a god would exist" is to beg the question, and is thus an irrational response.

 

Furthermore, in order to render a question meaningless the response must examine the definitions of terms; your response does not do so, and therefore can't rationally be held to render meaningless any question at all.

 

And your reply was unresponsive in that it completely ignored my discussion of the false premises of the OPs argument.

 

Benevolence is a subjective idea:

If someone has faith that there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god, they must also have faith that this world is the best it can be. Not that it will be the best that it can be, but that it is the best it can be right now.

However, by this logic, a lack of faith is shown by any attempt to improve your current condition. A faithful peron cannot not love because god loves them; cannot eat because god feeds them; cannot pee because god empties their bladder for them; etc. If god does not do any of these things for them, they are content with the pains because they have faith that the pain is just a manifestation of god's love.

Gives a whole new meaning to "God, I have to pee," doesn't it?

 

 

This isn't really consistent with legitimate Christian thought, but it would derail the thread to discuss it in any depth.

[ydoaPs]

 

The question is "is there a god". To answer "no, because it's absurd that a god would exist" is to beg the question

Good thing that's not what you quoted.

[chilehed]

Good thing that's not what you quoted.

 

*sigh*

 

What I had quoted was ACG52's claim that "The absurd notion is that there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omiscient being running the universe. The universe doesn't need one to run", which in the context of this thread means "there is no god because it's absurd that a god would exist". It begs the question.

[ydoaPs]

 

*sigh*

 

What I had quoted was ACG52's claim that "The absurd notion is that there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omiscient being running the universe. The universe doesn't need one to run", which in the context of this thread means "there is no god because it's absurd that a god would exist". It begs the question.

No, it doesn't. It means that things with absurd contradictory (and self-refuting) properties don't exist. No question was begged.

[too-open-minded]

What if god is every bit of matter, energy, consciousness in the universe together as a collective conscious?

 

What if god is a flying spaghetti monster?

 

What if god is a douche who cares alot about what people think of him and knows the future but still gets pissed about things that happen like the bible implies?

 

Who knows, who cares, you can't prove or disprove either of it. Which should give you an indication right there..

[chilehed]

No, it doesn't. It means that things with absurd contradictory (and self-refuting) properties don't exist. No question was begged.

 

Omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omiscience are neither absurd, contradictory or self-refuting; the Epicurien argument against the existence of God (which is what the OP's argument is a variant of) is logically unsound - as I already pointed out. You're arguing in circles, repeating claims that have already been rebutted.

Edited January 12, 2013 by chilehed

[SamBridge]

 

I've developed a new argument for the nonexistence of god, which is really just a refinement of the argument from evil to get around some of the more common objections which have to do with the peculiarities of the word "evil." This could be called the argument form the imperfection of the universe, since even if human experience was to be made incrementally better, the argument could be reiterated with that incrementally better universe ad infinitum. The only universe in which the argument would not work would be a universe where humans' experience of the universe was infinitely good. Put another way, we can know that there is no being which has both omnipotence and omnibenevolence because our experience of the universe is not infinity good.

The argument works amusing a traditional definition of God à la Aquinas, Anselm et al which involves perfection and all the individual perfections it entails viz omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Here's the argument:

1. If a being was omnipotent, than it could make humans' experience of the universe better than it is. (follows from the definition of omnipotence)

2. If a being was omnibenevolent, than it would make humans' experience as good as a it could. (follows from the definition of omnibenevolence)

3. Therefore, if a being that was both omnipotent and omnibenevolent existed, than humans' experience of the universe would be better than it is. (follows from one and two)

4. Humans' experience of the universe is not better than it is. (true by tautology)

5. Therefore a being which is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent does not exist. (follows from three and four by modus tollens)

6. God is defined as a being who is (among other things) both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. (by the traditional definition of God)

7. Therefore, God does not exist. (follows from five and six by substitution)

I don't think there's anyway out of this argument except to try to advance some definition of god that does not involve omnipotence and omnibenevolence. At the very least, that would make this definitive proof that the god of the Catholic Church does not exit. Can anyone see a problem with this argument?

 

Bu your argument is "a god CAN make humans experience the universe better than it is", there's no proof that god is actually doing that in the first place. Even if you corrected that and the argument was more refined, I could only see that you'd only be proving a benevolent god doesn't exist, not that any god doesn't exist.

Edited January 13, 2013 by SamBridge

[Greylorn]

 

I've developed a new argument for the nonexistence of god, which is really just a refinement of the argument from evil to get around some of the more common objections which have to do with the peculiarities of the word "evil." This could be called the argument form the imperfection of the universe, since even if human experience was to be made incrementally better, the argument could be reiterated with that incrementally better universe ad infinitum. The only universe in which the argument would not work would be a universe where humans' experience of the universe was infinitely good. Put another way, we can know that there is no being which has both omnipotence and omnibenevolence because our experience of the universe is not infinity good.

The argument works amusing a traditional definition of God à la Aquinas, Anselm et al which involves perfection and all the individual perfections it entails viz omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Here's the argument:

1. If a being was omnipotent, than it could make humans' experience of the universe better than it is. (follows from the definition of omnipotence)

2. If a being was omnibenevolent, than it would make humans' experience as good as a it could. (follows from the definition of omnibenevolence)

3. Therefore, if a being that was both omnipotent and omnibenevolent existed, than humans' experience of the universe would be better than it is. (follows from one and two)

4. Humans' experience of the universe is not better than it is. (true by tautology)

5. Therefore a being which is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent does not exist. (follows from three and four by modus tollens)

6. God is defined as a being who is (among other things) both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. (by the traditional definition of God)

7. Therefore, God does not exist. (follows from five and six by substitution)

I don't think there's anyway out of this argument except to try to advance some definition of god that does not involve omnipotence and omnibenevolence. At the very least, that would make this definitive proof that the god of the Catholic Church does not exit. Can anyone see a problem with this argument?

 

The problems with your argument are relatively small and inconsequential. (e.g: you snuck "omnibenevolent" in, without suitable introduction or attribution. Most religiouists would probably regard

God as omnibenevolent, so I understand your point despite the Democrat-like presentation style.) There are even better arguments against the existence of God, but so what? Yours is good enough-- and so what?

 

You have shown that the Christian/Muslim definition of God is not logical, but have not addressed the possibility that there is a Creator of the Universe who possesses more realistic attrributes.

 

For example, suppose that God thinks? If so, God cannot know everything, because even human thought involves the ability to invent new information-- impossible for an entity who already knows everything. A thinking God cannot also be omniscient.

 

The omnipotence property is useless to a real Creator of the Universe. If such a "God" were to apply infinite force to a single electron, the electron would instantly accelerate to the velocity of light. In doing so it would instantly acquire infinite mass, thereby creating an infinitely powerful gravitational field that would instandly suck the entire universe into it, destroying everything.

 

A realistic version of a Creator would not need either omnipotence or omniscience. He would only need to have acquired sentience and purpose. That Creator would act more like an engineer than a know-it-all, taking a few billion years to develop life on our planet (for example) because when he began the project he had no idea of exactly how to go about it.

 

A real Creator would be bound by the First and Third Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

A real Creator would not even be singular. If you were to interpret the evolution of critters as well as galaxies as an engineering process, the first observation you must make is that a lot of different engineers, with different design philosophies, have been involved.

 

So, although you have joined the parade of folks who can prove that the omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity does not exist, have you disproved the concept that we live in a created universe?