Logical and Scientific Arguments That Disprove God

[Akshara Dasa]

how do you know that is the way it is? that is a logical assumption, and if god is beyond logic then you can't assert that.

She has that right to assert anything she wants. According to you she is illogical, so anything shoe does doesnt make sense. But then you say what she can and cant do according to logic? That in itself is illogical!

 

[jonman122]

She has that right to assert anything she wants. According to you she is illogical, so anything shoe does doesnt make sense. And then you say what she can and cant do according to logic? That in itself is illogical!

if she believes that god is beyond logic then she can't try to make a logical assertion about god. If that doesn't make sense to you, then nothing will.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

if she believes that god is beyond logic then she can't try to make a logical assertion about god..

Yes she can, and she did.

If that doesn't make sense to you, then nothing will.

Im just going to back down from this, because you are starting to make this personal for no reason. This is debating, not trying to belittle someone.

 

[jonman122]

[youtube]5wV_REEdvxo[/youtube]
YouTube - Putting faith in its place

if you want more logic, here it is. and i haven't strayed from the rules one bit, she is saying logic cannot say that god doesn't exist, and here is a video proving that logic can. i'm saying that logic CAN prove that the existence of god is something you can't assert if you say that god is beyond logic.

 

[ChristineES]

how do you know that is the way it is? that is a logical assumption, and if god is beyond logic then you can't assert that.

There are ideas other than just logical ones. People can't live on logic alone.

 

[jonman122]

There are ideas other than just logical ones. People can't live on logic alone.

what i'm saying is if you believe it is beyond logic thats fine, but then there is no way you can make a logical assertion such as "god is omniscient" or something. That is saying that he is not beyond logic because you understand something about him, thats all i'm saying. If he's beyond logic, then there is no way to define him at all, or anything even in regards to him.

 

[ChristineES]

She has that right to assert anything she wants. According to you she is illogical, so anything shoe does doesnt make sense. But then you say what she can and cant do according to logic? That in itself is illogical!

Thanks!

Not everything is divided between logical and illogical. We also have emotions (or rhetoric, as I was taught in my philosophy class) and more.

I will never try to prove to any atheist that there is a God- that would not be logical. It is also not logical to try and prove that there is no God to a theist. That is really what this is all about.

 

[ChristineES]

what i'm saying is if you believe it is beyond logic thats fine, but then there is no way you can make a logical assertion such as "god is omniscient" or something. That is saying that he is not beyond logic because you understand something about him, thats all i'm saying. If he's beyond logic, then there is no way to define him at all, or anything even in regards to him.

I have never tried to define God. I never believed it could be done. I can define what the Bible says, or what the Qur'an says, or what all the other religious writings say. I can define Jesus' words in the New Testament and maybe even Jesus Himself. But I don't recall ever trying define God, and even if I did, I would be proven wrong.

 

[Penumbra]

As per requested, here are the logical and scientific arguments that disprove the monotheist God's existence. Let me note that these arguments aren't necessary because the Theist has the burden of proof for their claim, whereas Atheists aren't required to disprove anything.

I am going by this definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself." - Monotheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And to those who believe in some sort of impersonal God or spiritual force, then these arguments don't apply. Though, I really don't think an impersonal force can be considered "God" because "God" is a personification. Also, if you feel that this God or force plays a role in your life, you pray to it, or it intervenes, then your God is actually a personal God.

If you believe in a God that is unknowable or beyond human comprehension, then your position is ultimately meaningless because you are asserting a concept that we can know nothing about and thus cannot derive meaning from this unknowable concept.

Now, on to the arguments:

Before we get onto the arguments, the first flaw was to use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for your definition of a deity. Omnipotence and Omniscience are mere words in human languages, and I see no reason why a monotheistic god would have to conform to vague terms of the human language.

This also limits the conceptions of god that can be argued against. Your post seems to imply that you feel you are addressing all key deity types here, because you aim at the monotheistic god but also mention some other conceptions of gods to either dismiss them or collect them within your aim. There exist conceptions of panentheistic deities that your arguments do not apply to very well and yet they can be personal deities.

The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).
P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

I'll let P1 slide, but P2 is unsupported. A monotheistic god might simply be able to know all things worth knowing and that combined with his unique ability to create universes should be sufficient as a definition of god.
P3 is false. A panentheistic god can exist as all spacetime and beyond. This cascades down into P4 being unimportant and P5 and C being incorrect.

Argument from Quantum Physics

P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions.
P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

If there exists a deity that created the universe in this way, then I don't see how this is an argument. Omniscience defined the ability to know "everything" is vague to the point of being unhelpful. Perhaps god does not need to violate Heisenburg's uncertainty principle to know all that is useful to know as a god.

The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.
2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).
3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

Number 3 is unsupported. A powerful monotheistic or panentheistic deity could conceivably exist everywhere and yet conjure up more limited scopes of itself in order to interface with finite aspects of his reality.

Argument from Evil

P1: If an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God exists, then gratuitous evil should not exist.
P2: Gratuitous evil exists.
C: Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good God does not exist.

(Gratuitous evil is random evil that happens for no reason i.e. a baby dies at birth, a young child dies in a natural disaster, etc.)

Unsupported, because one lacks the ability to prove something happens for no reason, unless you feel you can.

Omnipotence and Omniscience Paradox

P1: God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2: If God knows what he will do tomorrow, and does something else, he's not omniscient.
P3: If God knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
C: God cannot exist.

This is easily bypassed if it is supposed that god does not exist within the timestream to do things tomorrow. A being outside of the time stream, if that were even possible, could be said to have already done everything and exists within one eternal instant and yet throughout an eternity.

Sources: StrongAtheism.net - Atheology
Arguments against the existence of god - Iron Chariots Wiki

The main pattern of problems in these arguments was that they were based on semantics- the silly human words like "omniscient" and "omnipotent" that humans create a word for something they don't understand and might not even make sense. The ability to do "everything" or know "everything" is vague and unhelpful and not necessarily helpful in a god concept. The ability to do or know anything worth doing or knowing would make more sense as applied to a deity.

So basically most of them are strawmen that you constructed and effectively and logically destroyed without ever actually touching on the concept of god.

-Lyn

 

[Penumbra]

More so, God, by nature, is not logical. That is where you fail.
.

No, you misunderstand. God is ABOVE logic and is therefore above its opposite, ILLOGIC.

So you think that humans are supreme with their logic? That is hilarious! God IS above logic, and its ignorant for you to say that its just something that sounds cool. You obviously are judging something you dont understand.

In order to understand a theist, you have to get into a theist's mind. First, although I admire logic, (I am a Trekkie, and my favorite character is Mr. Spock). But I don't use logic when dealing with my ideas of God. God, in my view, is beyond logic- someone else said this and was laughed, but that is the way it is.

All of these claims inherently refute themselves.

To claim that a god is outside of logic is to suppose that "outside of logic" and "within logic" are two different things, which requires basic logic. The concept that "A" and "not A" are two different things is a basic logic function.

If logic was not involved, then a god could be simultaneously bound by the rules of logic and yet not bound by the rules of logic. She could exist and yet not exist and have never existed. She could have revealed herself and yet never have revealed herself. She could be entirely good and entirely evil. She could have created the universe and yet never have created any universe.

If logic is discarded then it's not worth saying anything because all language and all thoughts (even inaccurate or illogical ones) are based on basic logic.

-Lyn

 

[Jeremiah]

I would say that the belief in God is based on blind faith.

Then you understand very little about faith.

 

[fallingblood]

Then you understand very little about faith.

How so? I would say that someone who has a strongly held belief that God exists, while lacking any substantial evidence, would be blind faith.

 

[jonman122]

How so? I would say that someone who has a strongly held belief that God exists, while lacking any substantial evidence, would be blind faith.

you're right, and i don't see how jeremiah has any reason to think otherwise. Faith is completely blind, or else it wouldn't be called faith it would be called theory or evidence or fact.. Anything that you need faith to believe is something that has no verifiable evidence of any kind, making it effectively "blind"

 

[Jeremiah]

How so? I would say that someone who has a strongly held belief that God exists, while lacking any substantial evidence, would be blind faith.

You are looking at it the same way people with blind faith do. Something to be weighted and measured from evidence, arguments and proof. This only shows me you don't really understand, because you are still calculating only with your head.

 

[Tiapan]

Physics of the natural universe also cast doubt on the god delusion.
Entropy has always increased since the big bang. Big bang was hot but simple, incapable of containing much information, certainly not enough for an omni-everything type creature.
As the Universe expands and cools entropy causes chaos, from which grow pockets of complexity that eventually evolved to amazing phenomena such as Life.

We are not yet cold enough to have the complexity required by definition.

If the universe is rotating, then angular momentum which is universally conserved, must have come from some where PRE-BIGBANG. suggesting a previous collapsing universe, hence possible oscillating universe where the energy matter equivalence equilibria changes with time.

Cheers

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

As per requested, here are the logical and scientific arguments that disprove the monotheist God's existence. .....

I still think the argument of irrelevance is the strongest, at least on a wide scale of possible definitions of "God"

 

[Magic Man]

Yes she can, and she did.

No, she didn't. She made an illogical statement about God. As we discussed, God is not above logic. If you're making statements about God, they are either logical or illogical. If they are illogical, there's no reason to believe them.

 

[Magic Man]

There are ideas other than just logical ones. People can't live on logic alone.

Yes, there are also illogical ideas, but they're not much good for anything. The fact is if something's not logical, it's not worth believing, even for a theist. The concept of God should not be exempt from the principles we apply to everything else in our lives.

 

[Magic Man]

You are looking at it the same way people with blind faith do. Something to be weighted and measured from evidence, arguments and proof. This only shows me you don't really understand, because you are still calculating only with your head.

Says the atheist.

Of course we're calculating with our mind. I know you think this sounds cool and enlightened, but it's pretty much meaningless. Everything is to be weighed and measured with evidence. We do it with everything else in our lives, why not with God?

 

[doppelganger]

P2 is only one questionable interpretation of quantum theory. Another is that when an observer collapses a wave function the wave collapses only for that observer.

Exactly. I don't think I've heard quantum theory interpreted before in a way that would make this proof cogent.