Proofs that God does not exist

[Beaudreaux]

1. Nothing can exist that has not been created.
2. It is claimed the God was not created
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

1. Nothing that is ordered can exist that has not been designed.
2. It is claimed that God is perfect and therefore perfectly ordered.
3. It is claimed that God was not designed
4. Therefore God cannot exist

 

[Willamena]

1. Nothing can exist that has not been created.
2. It is claimed the God was not created
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

The logical conclusion from this is "Therefore, the claim that God exists is false."

 

[Humanistheart]

1. Nothing can exist that has not been created.
2. It is claimed the God was not created
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

1. Nothing that is ordered can exist that has not been designed.
2. It is claimed that God is perfect and therefore perfectly ordered.
3. It is claimed that God was not designed
4. Therefore God cannot exist

While I agree that no god's exist, I cannot support your arguments. Both are inherently contradictory. For example, the 1st #1. If nothing can exist without being created what created the material for our reality? Same basic problem with your 2nd argument.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Only in the minds of Man does God either exist or does not exist. I know, that sounds crazy.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The logical conclusion from this is "Therefore, the claim that God exists is false."

Tomato..tomahto...

 

[Humanistheart]

Only in the minds of Man does God either exist or does not exist. I know, that sounds crazy.

It sounds logical. A god only exists in the minds of people.

 

[Mister Emu]

Why should I accept either #1?

 

[Willamena]

Why should I accept either #1?

Possibly because something could exist that has not been created?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Greetings

If I see another thread that claims to have a 'proof' of God's existence or non-existence I might end up getting sectioned.

It's embarassing...

GhK.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Only in the minds of Man does God either exist or does not exist. I know, that sounds crazy.

Doesn't sound crazy to me

GhK.

 

[Erebus]

1. Nothing can exist that has not been created.
2. It is claimed the God was not created
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

1. Nothing that is ordered can exist that has not been designed.
2. It is claimed that God is perfect and therefore perfectly ordered.
3. It is claimed that God was not designed
4. Therefore God cannot exist

I always have a problem with this style of argument as it assumes that the way humans perceive reality is the way reality works. For example:

"nothing can exist that was not created"

If this is the case then who created the creator? How can anything exist at all? Was the world as we know it created? You end up with an infinite loop.

"It is claimed that God is perfect and therefore perfectly ordered"

Who decided perfection is ordered? If for example we were to argue that total perfection requires something to be perfect in all fields then surely a perfect being would be the perfect blend of good/evil, order/chaos and everything in between.


"nothing that is ordered can exist without being designed"

Really? how about ants and bees? They seem like pretty order oriented beings to me.

Now I don't believe in any conventional notion of "god" so I'm not making these points to support my religion. It just seems pointless to present such simple arguments to try and disprove a concept that has existed for thousands of years.

 

[TheKnight]

1. Nothing can exist that has not been created.
2. It is claimed the God was not created
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

1. Nothing that is ordered can exist that has not been designed.
2. It is claimed that God is perfect and therefore perfectly ordered.
3. It is claimed that God was not designed
4. Therefore God cannot exist

Existence isn't possible without an axiomatic existence. So there must be something that was not created that exists.

 

[Riverwolf]

1. Nothing can exist that has not been created.

Since when? Nothing that exists has ever not existed, as far as I can tell. Energy and matter can only change form, neither can be created nor destroyed. Basic law of science.

1. Nothing that is ordered can exist that has not been designed.

Much of the universe is chaotic; using this logic, that aspect of the universe doesn't exist. (I am referring to natural selection, the fact that no two fingerprints are identical, the unpredictability of earthquakes, etc.)

 

[nonbeliever_92]

shouldn't you first define god before you establish this argument? as to which god are you speaking of?

Edit: It's amazing how unhelpful this thread is, if that makes sense to anyone but me...

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I'm surprised that you like my last post runewolf, seeing that you liked "Let's (not) present some evidence" by PureX, though I must give him (PureX) some credit for making it so long and actually going to into far more detail than Beaudreaux.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I'm surprised that you like my last post runewolf, seeing that you liked "Let's (not) present some evidence" by PureX, though I must give him (PureX) some credit for making it so long and actually going to into far more detail than Beaudreaux.

I liked some parts of that thread, but not all of it. I liked the fact that it made me question and rethink my own beliefs. But you are right, there are many different ideas and beliefs as to what "God" might be. They are not all the same.

 

[McBell]

Existence isn't possible without an axiomatic existence.

Says who?

So there must be something that was not created that exists.

Again, says who?

 

[Heneni]

1. Nothing can exist that has not been created.
2. It is claimed the God was not created
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.

This thread cannot exist unless you created it
It is claimed that you were not created
Therefore, you don't exist.

Heneni

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Since when? Nothing that exists has ever not existed, as far as I can tell. Energy and matter can only change form, neither can be created nor destroyed. Basic law of science.

Scientific laws are formalized descriptions of observed regularities and have meaning only within appropriate domains. So, for example, to speak of [basic] scientific law before 1 Planck time is a bit like talking about the taste of purple. Conservation laws are simply irrelevant to the First Cause / Prime Mover discussion.

 

[Beaudreaux]

shouldn't you first define god before you establish this argument? as to which god are you speaking of?

Edit: It's amazing how unhelpful this thread is, if that makes sense to anyone but me...

Well, maybe it's unhelpful to you, but I'm getting a lot out of the responses. Personally, I don't put much stock in the proofs I put forth. I was getting frustrated in another thread by people who insist that nothing exists that is not created. This is of course the begining of the cosmological argument. As I thought about it, I thought it could also be the beginning of an argument against the existence of God. I took the same approach to the teleological argument. I thought it would be interesting to hear comments on both and it has for me.

As you know, I'm an atheist and principally because of parsimony. I find the traditional arguments for and against God to be interesting mental excercises.