An Ontological Proof that God Does Not Exist

[KWED]

Premise 1: God is the greatest possible being.

Premise 2: God accomplished the creation of the universe.

Premise 3: To accomplish something while suffering a handicap is greater than accomplishing that thing with no handicap.

Conclusion: A God who created the universe while being handicapped is greater than a God who created the universe without being handicapped.

Premise 4: The greatest possible handicap is non-existence.

Conclusion: The greatest possible God necessarily does not exist.

Boom!
*mike drop*

 

[KWED]

Non-existence is not a handicap. Nice try, though.

You try riding a non-existent bike. Can't be done.

 

[KWED]

For example, women often have a handicap in golf because they can't hit a golf ball as hard as a man.

Everyone has a handicap in golf.

Something that doesn't exist can't have a handicap.

The not existing is the handicap.

 

[KWED]

'Being' needs definition.
Then you aren't addressing 'God' but a particular view of God limited to the physical realm. It is your intention to limit God to a being that is bound by time and creates things within time, not at all transcendent. Hence you have made a straw argument by choosing a God suitable to your argument but not the same one mentioned in the title of the thread.

Interesting that apologists never seem to raise this problem when they use ontological arguments in an attempt to prove god.

 

[KWED]

And if the hole didn't exist and yet you could hit the ball into it anyway

Kinda my approach to golf!

 

[KWED]

Anyone can hit a ball into a non-existent hole. Imagination.

You can't, because I just imagined you failing to do it.

 

[Sheldon]

Any positive claim needs a supporting argument. To claim that God doesn't is special pleading.

Indeed, not to mention the contradiction of claiming god (which one?) is a self evident concept, then claiming we can have no idea what that concept is, and that all we can do is speculate.

One could say the same about unicorns.

 

[KWED]

Imagining a thing doesn't mean the thing is real.

Try telling that to a religionist.

 

[KWED]

By that logic I could claim that elephants don't exist because there aren't any in my property.

What about the one in the room?

 

[KWED]

I don't think you really grasp the concept of nonexistence. True non-existence can't be "real" by definition. So imagination is about the only place it can exist.

Don't think your definition of "non-existence" actually exists though.

 

[Sheldon]

1. I am here. (self-evidential agency)

2. You are here. ('other'-evidential agency)

3. Here is here. (the medium of our mutual recognition)

"God" refers to the agency responsible for "here", as you and I are not.

I was with you up to 3, then you just leaped to an unevidenced assumption. Juts because we are not responsible for something (a little vague what?) a deity must be? Why not the Wizard of Oz?

 

[Sheldon]

No God is known to exist, so attributing anything to a God you imagine exists is not acceptable as a true statement.

In an argument for a deity, assumptions about that deity would amount to a begging the question fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

So there is a third existential agency at work, here. It's the agency of the shared medium within which we exist.

No, this is an unevidenced assumption, that the physical universe exists, and our planet, and that we evolved on it, those things we know, calling something vague an agency is nonsense.

So in fact you DO know that "God" exists,

No we don't, you're lining unevidenced assumption in tandem now.

because "God" is the word we use to refer to that mysterious third agency that is the medium through which any of us is able to know anything.

Oh boy, your unevidenced assumption about a third agency notwithstanding, you have now simply assumed this is a deity, if I use the word Dumbledore to describe this vague agency, does that make Dumbledore real?

 

[Sheldon]

But isn't that just your subjective opinion?

It's using Anselm's ontological argument, used to demonstrate how it is flawed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What real entity ─ one with objective existence, not wholly conceptual / imaginary ─ (if any) do you intend to denote when you say "God"?

If you don't know, you've proved my syllogism!

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, it's too bad those atheists can't think for themselves.

Why would an atheist waste time imagining what is behind the wizard's curtain, beyond what theists tell us they imagine is there? Insulting atheists for having the temerity to address only what theists imagine about a deity, is pretty lame. Talk about shooting the messenger.

 

[Sheldon]

"I think therefor I am" is a philosophical truism based on the recognition of thought phenomena being an expression of agency.

So this "third agency" you've imagined thinks then? I think I know the answer, but can you demonstrate anything to support this unevidenced assumption?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Premise 1: God is the greatest possible being.

Premise 2: God accomplished the creation of the universe.

Premise 3: To accomplish something while suffering a handicap is greater than accomplishing that thing with no handicap.

Conclusion: A God who created the universe while being handicapped is greater than a God who created the universe without being handicapped.

Premise 4: The greatest possible handicap is non-existence.

Conclusion: The greatest possible God necessarily does not exist.

Real author: Douglas Gasking

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, it's too bad those atheists can't think for themselves.

Another insult. How lovely for you if it makes you feel better.

But the irony is that it's not as if theists are investing their own gods. They adopt the gods they are exposed to in the social and cultural experiences. You adopted the idea of a god yourself. You might be more imaginative, but who cares? Atheists in these debates are dealing with the ideas theists put forth. We have heard many, many versions of gods from theists, so we don't need to invent any for ourselves.

Not philosophically. But as you are a materialist, you can't grasp this philosophy phically. See the following example ...

Who cares what philosophy or theology says about things? They have no requirement to follow evidence and facts. Both can dream up whatever they like, so we can dismiss what they say.

You used the word agency in the definition set out by psychology, so trying to shift goalposts and mangle definitions as if that helps you craft a coherent argument is nonsense.

Phenomena is an expression of agency. "I think therefor I am" is a philosophical truism based on the recognition of thought phenomena being an expression of agency. And "I am" is an expression of the phenomenon of being.

Rocks don't declare themselves existing. The laws of physics don't declare themselves existing. Heck, even most living things don't declare themselves existing. Your quote above "I think therefor I am" is limited to humans. And not even all humans. Try getting a 1 year old to think and say this.

To recognize that "we are here" is also the recognition of an expressed phenomenon of being,

Sure, evolved and mature human brains thinking thoughts. That's all we have.

but this collective phenomenal being (we are here) is not of our own agency. It is therefor the expression of some other agency that is not you or me. "God" is just a word some people use to refer to that agency. And the "'beardy guy in the sky' is just a way some of those people choose to imagine the existence of that agency.

You just admitted it is a collective "we" but it's not our collective agency? Nonsense. You are trying to shove your unevidenced supernatural into natural phenomenon. God of the gaps doesn't work.

It's only word salad to you because your ideological materialism cannot grasp anything beyond itself.

No, you make loads of assertions that have no basis in fact. You constantly use nonsense language when you try to hide your b beliefs in statements that have no evidence. You keep repeating your beliefs, but fail to present what is asked for: evidence. Part of the tactic is to make a lot of nonsense statements and then accuse others of "not getting it". There is nothing to get, so you are bluffing. And no one buys into your bluffs.

 

[PureX]

Another insult. How lovely for you if it makes you feel better.

I'm sorry that you're feeling insulted, but it's true. Have you ever seen an atheist object to a God of his own understanding? I never have. Have you ever objected to a God of your own understanding? How can they when atheists has no understanding of God of their own. They've never developed one. And what a colossal waste of time and energy it is objecting to everyone else's!

But the irony is that it's not as if theists are investing their own gods. They adopt the gods they are exposed to in the social and cultural experiences.

Sure, in much the same way as people tend to adopt the social habit of driving automobiles. Because doing so works for them in a ways that they appreciate. And since everyone in every religion views their God a little differently, as you atheists are constantly pointing out, it's pretty clear that they are all developing their own version of God, for themselves. And are not simply accepting whatever they're told unconsidered.

You adopted the idea of a god yourself. You might be more imaginative, but who cares? Atheists in these debates are dealing with the ideas theists put forth. We have heard many, many versions of gods from theists, so we don't need to invent any for ourselves.

Which is why you don't really understand any of them. There's no greater impediment to learning that being certain that there's nothing to learn.

Who cares what philosophy or theology says about things? They have no requirement to follow evidence and facts. Both can dream up whatever they like, so we can dismiss what they say.

Again ... There's no greater impediment to learning that being certain that there's nothing to learn.

You used the word agency in the definition set out by psychology, so trying to shift goalposts and mangle definitions as if that helps you craft a coherent argument is nonsense.

No, I used it in the context of philosophy and I said I was using it in the context of philosophy. But you don't recognize philosophy as a legitimate intellectual pursuit, because you don't think it has anything in it worth your learning. After all, it's not material fact based, and that's all that exists in to your version of reality. As evidenced by the following remark ...

Rocks don't declare themselves existing. The laws of physics don't declare themselves existing. Heck, even most living things don't declare themselves existing. Your quote above "I think therefor I am" is limited to humans. And not even all humans. Try getting a 1 year old to think and say this.

You're not going to be able to grasp the ideas that this conversation requires to be anything other than a waste of time.