Proof that there is no god?

Paul S says:

A definitive proof there is no god.

Such claims have been made. But fail do to the fact one cannot logically prove negative.

Now if one was to show that there is something else other than a god to account for everything, that could be such a proof.

Now on the premise that there is in fact no god. That should indeed be possible prove that there is something else other than a god, I would think.

To show this is the case, let’s look at the question, “Does God exist?”

The question presumes existence. And does not presume a god.

Existence is here. And existence is in evidence. God in the question is not. The point being existence exists without the need for any kind pf a god. Existence is the only self existence entity. And not in need of any kind of a god.

Now there not being any kind of a god. The universe exists as it is now. All the theist arguments which may convince many there is a god. Are still false, there not being any.

Furthermore can any theist show this premise that there is no god to be an absurd premise, being that there is no god?

Paul S.
a professed Christian.

About these ads

40 Responses to Proof that there is no god?

  1. Key line: “The question presumes existence. And does not presume a god.” But that would presume that God and existence are separate. Has it not been argued by many Christians that God is all things?

    I’m afraid that the argument only proves that only a certain conception of God does not “exist.” Not that no conception of God doesn’t.

    Mark Blasini

    • Paul S says:

      “Has it not been argued by many Christians that God is all thing?” Yes, it has not. Since typically professing Christians are never pantheists. Where their God is all things. Since Genesis 1:1 says, “IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” And John 1:3, “All things were made by him and without him nothing was made.” The God of Christians is separate from “all things.”

      Proving definitively there is not a god, does not negate any “conceptions” of a god. Only that such conceptions would not be true.

      Now do you have a conception of a god where this cannot be true?

      All arguments contending the necessity for a god as a proof for a god’s existence, in fact presume existence. In which existence inherently does not need a god, but a god needs existence. Again existence is self existent and self evident. And “all things” are dependent upon.

    • David313 says:

      We belive there is an allien in other planet and we send the machine too find the clue. But to find God we do nothing and make a joke. If there is God. The true God will send the catalog or manual to live in this world. Find it and you will find it. Start with the big religion in this world. Its written in the holly book such as Bible, Quran and other. Remember read all and only one Holly book is the truth. Just read at your home. Then up to you to belived. sorry i’m not good in English.

  2. I guess my rhetorical question was not so rhetorical. In any case, it has been argued by many Christians (though not all) that God is pantheistic. As for the Bible quotes, I’m sure there is still room for interpretation there. That all things were made by God could be interpreted to mean, “God is what makes things ‘things.'” Just as existence is what makes things ‘existent.’ For things exist through existence, and without existence, there would be no-things. This is a rather self-evident, as you say, and I don’t see why God must be seen as “separate” from all things in the Christian viewpoint.

    But even if it were true that we could not interpret from a Christian perspective God as existence, that still doesn’t mean that we cannot conceive of God as existence. This is the pantheistic conception of God and is not disqualified by your argument.

    The key question, then, is still not whether or not God exists, but whether a certain conception of God is true. I still hold that we can conceive of God differently.

    Mark Blasini

    • Paul S says:

      There is a difference between the things which exist and the existence by which they exist. Space-time is not the same everywhere, in that from location to location, time is not absolute, but relative to place, separation and motion. Whereas existence is everywhere there is anything. Our space-time has an apparent origin. (Big Bang Theory.) Our existence is perceived in space-time. This has been proven experimentally. (Theory of Relativity, and Special Theory of Relativity.)

      Existence has no origin, in that nothingness never existed. (A tautology.)

      As to your argument:
      “. . . that still doesn’t mean that we cannot conceive of God as existence. ”

      As I had argued, only existence is self existent. What this can mean, since the Christian view of God is that God is self existent, so as it would need to be that either, the existence is the identity of God, or there is no God. (The existence not being any kind of god.)

      The Hebrew name of God is translated as “the LORD” typically. And the Hebrew name has a meaning, the “Self Existent.” The ancient Hebrews worshiped whom they called the “Self Existent,” as opposed to those who worshiped “created” things.

      Proverbs 21:30, “There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD (Self Existent; Existence.)”

      The bottom, line, the God of the Hebrews has a real identity, we think of as “Existence.” (As opposed ot our perception of existence, space-time, which has an apparent origin. Big Bang Theory.)

      The issue then changes from merely whether or not there is a god to whether or not the uncaused, self existent, self evident existence is the God. And then whether or not the Hebrew and Christian claims are the correct ones?

  3. I agree with you completely that there is a crucial difference between things that exist and the existence by which they exist. That’s what I was trying to convey by saying that “existence is what makes existents (things) ‘existents.'” In other words, existence is that through which things can be said to exist.

    As for the origin argument, it’s very difficult to say what is meant by “origin.” Certainly, the ground of existence cannot be in anything other than existence (i.e. nothing can condition existence, or else that would suppose that SOMETHING existent conditioned existence, which is logically impossible), which means that the origin of existence is likewise within itself. Surely, no Christian argues that the universe has been around forever (the Bible says in Genesis that God created the heavens and the earth), but simply that God (as the origin of existence, which of course is IN existence, and is therefore not separate from it) has. I’m not sure Big Bang Theory really conflicts with that.

    For me, existence is power. It’s the power of the universe to become. The universe was not what it is now, and will not be what it is now. This is also confirmed empirically: the universe is expanding, space-time is constantly changing.

    Thus, I see no quarrel with someone calling this power “God,” since such power is by definition “omnipotent.” Existence is omnipotent since without it, nothing is possible.

    • Paul S says:

      ” . . . that God (as the origin of existence, which of course is IN existence, and is therefore not separate from it) has. . . .” Space-time has an apparent origin (Big Bang Theory.). Now if there is no existence then there is no existence for a god to exist to originate existence either. So no god can be the origin of existence. Existence exists. So unless the God is one and the very same thing as the uncaused self existent, self evident existence, there is no such god.

      • Graham says:

        Big Bang is merely a theory of the origins of this universe, not the origin of reality or existence itself. There are theories for that too, i.e. pre-existence and cause. So one cannot simply state that existence which started at the Big Bang obviates the need for God.

  4. Paul S says:

    A distinction needs to be made between uncaused existence and caused existence.

  5. I don’t think we are in disagreement. As I said before, I don’t see a problem calling God “the one and the very same thing as the uncaused self-existent. self evident existence.”

    However, I do believe that the word “uncaused” here is unnecessary. Existence isn’t “caused”; it is conditioned. Everything that exists is conditioned, and I see no problem in calling God the condition for existence, as long as this condition comes from within existence itself, and not outside of it, which logically has to be the case (since nothing can condition existence but existence itself).

    So the true distinction, for me, isn’t between caused and uncaused, but between conditioned and self-conditioned.

    • Paul S says:

      “So the true distinction, for me, isn’t between caused and uncaused, but between conditioned and self-conditioned.”
      What do you mean by your distinction between “self-conditioned” and “conditioned?” How would that exclude something, if at all, from being “uncaused?” (Always was and is.)

  6. Conditioned, for me, means that something’s existence depends on something else (note: “depends on” here does NOT mean ” is determined by”). So, for example, a son’s existence is conditioned by his father.

    Self-conditioned means that something’s existence depends on itself, and not anything else. Existence is self-conditioned, meaning the condition for its own existence is (within) itself. This is because there is nothing that can condition existence outside of existence.

    As for the term “uncaused,” it is not so much excluded as it is simply irrelevant. For me, the term uncaused works, but it opens up a lot of problems when you think of things being “caused.” Again, for me, the crucial word is “condition,” not “cause.” Existence doesn’t “cause” things to exist, but is that quality that allows for things to exist. Existence conditions existence.

    For me, it is possible for people to believe that God can be another term for this condition. In other words, existence, as God, conditions existence. As long as God isn’t seen as the “cause” of existence (which would make God external to existence), then this is fine.

    Thus, not all theists and atheists are at odds with one another, at least when it comes to this proposition. Where the real trouble starts is when we carry these implications further to create different conceptions of God/existence.

    • Paul S says:

      Your explanation of “self-conditioned” verse “conditioned,” it would seem I agree with this concept.

      So can we make a distinction between self-conditioned existence from conditioned existence. Where conditioned existence is conditioned that there be a self-conditioned existence, which the conditioned of course is not.

      The self-conditioned existence (eternal, immutable, infinite, omnipresent, possesses all conditioned existent things.)(Not necessarily God, but the only thing can qualify.)

      Conditioned existence, an example would be space-time (finite, maybe infinite, temporal, mutable.)

  7. J-at-X says:

    Reblogged this on La Biblia Atea and commented:
    Interesante sitio para visitar. Preguntas y respuestas.

  8. you proved nothing paul go back to school and learn what is evidence

    • Paul S says:

      What do you mean I proved nothing? What was it I said that is not true?

      Can you show that the premise that there is no god is an absurdity, there not being any god?

      Can you make a case that there is no self-conditioned existence?

      Do you comprehend the difference between a conditioned existence from self-conditioned existence?

      Don’t just make and empty assertion that I “proved nothing.” What was said that is not true and why do you think so?

  9. Christopher says:

    I disagree. I think you can prove a negative. Here are two good papers that discuss this very point (here and here). Michael Martin’s book The Impossibility of God shows, successfully, in my opinion, how the concept of God is impossible.

    • Paul S says:

      That is great. In summery, from each of those papers, how was god disproven in your understanding? And how do you see it being different that proving something else in place of god? Such a a self-conditioned existence as opposed to a god?

      • Christopher says:

        In Carrier’s article, he only gets to discussing what it means to prove a negative in relation to Christianity at the very end of his essay. He claims that the theory of Christianity makes predictions that are not being fulfilled. He says that in order to “save” the Christian theory, you have to abandon the idea of God. We would thus have to conclude that Christianity is either false or not justifiable (so we have no reason to believe it).

        Lowder simply goes over possible objections to the claim that we cannot prove a negative, and how it relates to theism.

        As for the book, there are various ways that the authors of the essays go about attempting to prove that the existence of God is impossible.

        I think that you can either prove God doesn’t exist by some sort of contradiction in attributes or doctrine, or you could prove something else that makes the nonexistence of God necessary (e.g. naturalism).

        • Paul S says:

          “I think that you can either prove God doesn’t exist by some sort of contradiction in attributes or doctrine, . . .”

          Well, if the primary attribute of God is that God is the self-conditioned existence, how do you contradict that, apart from simply denying that is so?

          “. . . or you could prove something else that makes the nonexistence of God necessary (e.g. naturalism).”

          Naturalism? How so?

          • Christopher says:

            Well, if the primary attribute of God is that God is the self-conditioned existence, how do you contradict that, apart from simply denying that is so?

            You say up thread that a self-conditioned is “eternal, immutable, infinite, omnipresent, possesses all conditioned existent things.” whereby “possesses all conditioned existent things” I’m assuming you mean that it created everything. (If not, then disregard the argument.)

            If this is the case, then the following argument could be put forward:

            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)(Taken from here)

            Also, I would venture to argue that what most people, philosophers of religion included, do actually have more defining properties for God than the ones you listed.

            Naturalism? How so?

            Naturalism necessarily entails that God does not exist; it is most basically defined as “the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it.” Thus, “naturalism implies that there are no supernatural entities”—including God.” (Taken from the Secular Web Homepage).

            If one put forth an argument in favor of naturalism, if it is considered sound, then it is by necessity the case that God does not exist.

    • Gram says:

      You’re absolutely right. A negative can be proven. Read my April 3, 2013 post near the bottom. I hope you like it.

  10. Adeel says:

    Actually you guys become Atheists because you follow God’s definition through scriptures which are corrupted by humans.Now human and animal creation.If there is no external force then how come all these living creatures came into existence? You will say ,by themselves,they got evolved.Evolution is a genuinely theory but human body consists of several organs that function in such an artistic way that you can’t imagine.for example kidney function as much as a factory. An adult heart pumps about 6,000-7,500 liters (1,500-2,000 gallons) of blood daily.If you haven’t heard about mars .You would say what mars.Let me extend it further.Until just a few years ago, there were 9 planets in the Solar System. However, the International Astronomical Union decided that Pluto is no longer a planet, so there are now only 8 planets in the Solar System.You were believing in the Pluto as a planet as it was told by science and not believing because it is excluded from that category.Earth rotates and revolves around Sun.Can you produce such mechanism with two balls.If so,then that process needs an initiator.Science admits that every process needs an initiator.Who is that initiator.God or force.Hope we will have good company

    • Gram says:

      God would be the most complex thing. Please explain how God came to be without saying God always was. It can’t be done.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I don’t believe its necessary to show a proof their is no god. Only that parts of the claim is either false and or nonsense. I think most God claims are partly nonsense and partly false. But it depends on how you’ll describe it. Do you believe in the natural? Do you make any other extra claim to believe in something distinctly different we might call the super-natural. If we can at least agree on the natural world why do you believe their is something super-natural and how is it you know it to be true?

  12. If there is an entity that exists neither in space nor in time, then space and time will be non-existent for that entity purely naturally. I am not saying that such an entity does really exist in nature, but only showing here how they can be non-existent for any entity by purely natural means. For no entity other than this can space and time be non-existent purely naturally. If an entity exists in space and time, and if we forcefully or by some other means deprive it of space and time, then of course space and time will be non-existent for it also. But we cannot say that they are non-existent purely naturally, because we have applied force or some other means here. So the conclusion is that for any entity existing in space and time, and not forcefully or otherwise deprived of them, space and time cannot be non-existent purely naturally.

    Now can we say about light that it exists neither in space nor in time? Can we say about it that it has been forcefully or otherwise deprived of space and time? Can we say about any entity of this universe that it exists neither in space nor in time, that it is beyond space and time? If there is such an entity, then what is that entity? If there is any one on this earth who has any idea about its existence, then let him/her come forward and enlighten us also about its existence. If we see that no one is coming forward, then we will have to conclude that no such entity really exists in this universe for which space and time will be non-existent purely naturally. But in spite of all these, what do we see actually? We see that space and time are non-existent for light. Yes, space and time are non-existent for light. As per the theory of relativity space and time become non-real or non-existent for light, because their values become zero. If there are two points A and B, and if the distance between A and B becomes zero, then we cannot say that there is any space in between A and B. Distance becoming zero, time will also become zero.

    A man may be poor; but with his sincere effort and hard labor one day he may become rich. Once he becomes rich, we will not say that he is still poor. Rather we will say that he is now rich. In a similar vein we can say that once space and time become non-existent for light, they are non-existent for it. Thus for light space and time do not exist, they are simply non-existent. Can one give any reason as to how space and time become non-existent for light when we know very well that they cannot be so purely naturally?
    I have shown that due to only two causes space and time can be non-existent for an entity:
    1) Cause A: If the entity is neither in space nor in time. This is the natural cause; and
    2) Cause B: If the entity is in space and time, and if it is forcibly or otherwise deprived of space and time. This is the unnatural cause.
    If space and time are non-existent for light neither due to cause A nor due to cause B, then what is its cause? Who will tell us?

    Here “purely naturally” will mean not due to any outside cause.

    In the above, a question has been posed. If this question can be answered by science without invoking any kind of God or gods, then there is no God or gods. If not, then we will have to think otherwise.

  13. Scientist Victor J Stenger in his once bestseller book “God: The Failed Hypothesis” has written: “However, the God of the gaps argument by itself fails, at least as a scientific argument, unless the phenomenon in question is not only currently scientifically inexplicable but can be shown to forever defy natural description. God can only show up by proving to be necessary, with science equally proven to be incapable of providing a plausible account of the phenomenon based on natural or material processes alone”. (pp 13-14)

    We are really very grateful to Mr. Stenger for expressing his thoughts with such clarity, because it is extremely rare. This shows that not only he is a scientist, but also he is an able philosopher. Yes, if there is a phenomenon in this universe which forever defies natural description, and if science is also found to be incapable of providing a plausible account of it based on material processes alone, then there, and there only, God can show up by proving to be necessary.

    Now whatever may be the cause due to which space and time become non-existent for light, at least one thing is absolutely certain here. This cause can be at the very most either an unnatural or a supernatural one, but it can never be a natural one. Natural cause will be for that entity only that exists neither in space nor in time. As light is not such an entity, so in this case of light we find a phenomenon that, according to Victor J Stenger, will “forever defy natural description”.

    But even if we claim that this phenomenon forever defies natural description, scientists may still hope that it does not defy a material description. That is, scientists may still hope to provide a plausible account of it based on material processes alone. If science shows that there is really such a one, then it cannot be said that this phenomenon forever defies natural description even if we make any such claim. So in that case God cannot show up here by proving to be necessary. However if we find that no such description is possible, then that will show that in this case science is proven to be incapable of providing a plausible account of the phenomenon based on material processes alone, thus ultimately leaving only God to show up by proving to be necessary.

    So, can there really be a material description of this mind-boggling case of light, where we find that even an infinite distance as well as a time-interval of an eternity becomes zero for it? How do the scientists propose to explain these facts by material processes alone? Or, shall we have to go for God here, as someone else will perhaps go for dialing M for murder?

  14. Chris V says:

    What do you mean when you say “one cannot logically prove negative”? I would contest that. Consider this argument form, “if A, then B. Not B. Therefore, not A”. This is a logically valid argument deducing “not A”.

  15. Alan R. says:

    Paul S.
    I have really enjoyed reading all of the comments to your proof that God does not exist? The essence of God is his existance. God is the unmoved mover. God is the first cause of all existing things. God is the uncreated creator. All of this can be demonstraited through natural reason alone without recourse to devine revelation. The revelation that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Father and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son is known through devine revelation and cannot be demonstrated through natural reason alone.

    • Paul S says:

      “The essence of God is his existance. God is the unmoved mover. ”

      Alan,
      What does “unmoved mover” mean? What do you understand “unmoved” in that to mean. Two assertions are being made, 1) that there is such thing as an “unmoved mover.” And 2) that it be God.

      All effects are both finite and temporal. All finite and temporal effects only require a finite and temporal cause. A mover is a cause and all causes are temporal. Do you understand this?

  16. Tiffani says:

    Our brains cannot comprehend eternity because it is unlike anything we know. Exsistance and God being seperate or not is irrelevant because it never happened. They both are eternal making it that neither one of them were here without eachother.

    • Paul S says:

      Thank you Tiffani.

      “. . . They both are eternal making it that neither one of them were here without each other.” An uncaused xistence does not need any God.. Either they are one and the same or there is no God.

  17. Gram says:

    We (everyone) can be 100% certain that God doesn’t exist. How?

    There are only three potentially viable reality scenarios we might consider: utter discontinuation, natural continuation, and magical continuation. By the way, God falls under magical continuation.

    The absolute best onus system for establishing proof burdens is a fair-weighted or tempered system. Under this system the first reality scenario to meet all of its onuses is deemed singularly correct.

    A natural continuation scenario not only meets all of its onuses- it surpasses expectation in both proof categories. The other scenarios are total duds- even utter discontinuation, which has least burden.

    So you see, every theist (and every atheist who doesn’t believe in continuation) has been overwhelmingly proven wrong. They just don’t realize this yet, and their re-education is my great interest.

    • Gram says:

      PLEASE READ THE ABOVE VERY CAREFULLY!

      • Paul S says:

        So from you natural continuation argument and your fair-weighted or tempered system argument you have in your view proven there is no no self conditioned existence, only contingent existence. Is that the meaning of your argument?.

        There are in fact many discontinuations. And I know of no natural continuations which do not have some kind of beginning.

      • Paul S says:

        So from your natural continuation argument and your fair-weighted or tempered system argument you have in your view proven there is no self conditioned existence, only contingent existence. Is that the meaning of your argument?.

        There are in fact many discontinuations. And I know of no natural continuations which do not have some kind of beginning.

  18. Da-exorcist says:

    Defending the notion whether God exists or not depends on one’s pressuppositions. To me,God does exist,the question is why do i think God exist? Now when i look at physical matter, i notice that it is something that i can feel, smell and see,so asking a theist to provide DIRECT evidence that God exist exists is PRACTICALLY impossible. Rather,we must seek INDIRECT evidence for God’s existence,based on what we experience. This is analogous with air, we can’t see it[thus no direct evidence],but we can feel its effects[indirect evidence]. That’s the same way it works with God. God has a different and superior nature than ours, God does not have flesh and bones,so we cannot directly observe,but the activities he performs[miracles,creation] provideps well-grounded evidence that God exists.

    • Cerberus Black says:

      I find your presumption lacking even the smalist “indirect” evidence for any conclusion to show a synthetic deity.

      Your analogy of air, and its affects, are not indirect evidence of a divinity when its obvious source of power is driven by the heat of our star.

      Your bible says that your deity supposedly had a little struggle with a man, and god lost. This is in contrast to your belief that you can only view your supposed deity by means of indirect evidence only. Yet, no evidence has ever presented itself, direct or otherwise.

      Thusly, the biblical desert war god does not exist.

    • Cerberus Black says:

      And in addition to your philosophical opinion of prayer is not indirect evidence either, or a country like North Korea would’ve been stopped by this divinity already. And since it has not preformed this task would mean direct evidence that your prayers go unanswered.

      It is obvious then that people are the direct evidence to answered prayers, and no devotion to a divinity is ever required.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers

%d bloggers like this: