Semi half-decent proof that god does not exist

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
jlee

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,518
223
106
Originally posted by: Alphathree33
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=ai4fnb%24lug%241%40green.tninet.se&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dsci.math%26start%3D0

You don't get to the end of it and think "EUREAKA THAT'S IT!", but it is compelling.

I'm sure a lot of you have read something like this before. My first time. I just found it interesting.
Click to expand...

Not to start a religious debate..but there is no way to conclusively prove that God does not exist...
 
A

Alphathree33

Platinum Member
Dec 1, 2000
2,419
0
0
x exists: where x is any given or described object, means, there is some
primary proposition that is known true about x.

A proposition about x is primary if it has the form 'x has F' where F is
some predicate.

For example:
Descartes thinks therefore Descartes exists.
Descartes pees therefore Descartes exists.
Any true statement directly about Descartes implies that Descartes exists.

That is, if we have a primary truth about something then we have proof that,
that thing exists.

But,
Descartes does not think implies Descartes exists, is false.
Descartes does not pee implies Descartes exists, is false.

i.e. primary predications entail existence. And, secondary predications do
not necessarily entail existence.

God is not a pink elephant, does not prove that God exists.
God is not a number, does not prove that God exists.

God exists, means, there is at least one primary truth about God.

God exists, if and only if, we are in possesion of a verifiable truth that
has God as subject.

The theist only needs one such truth to prove, God exists.

The atheist needs to show that all primary truths about God are false to
prove that, God does not exist.
(Yes, it can be done)

x exists, defined as, there is some primary predicate true of x.

x exists, defined as, some F such that Fx is confirmable.

There are things which do not exist, i.e.
there are descriptions which are contradictory.
Things that are described by contradictory predications cannot exist.

Examples:
That which is and is not, does not exist.
That which is not equal to itself, does not exist.
The barber who shaves only those who do not shave themselves, does not
exist.
The class of those classes which are not members of themselves, does not
exist.

That which is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent, does not exist.
That which: (Created all things and All created things are good and Evil
exists) does not exist.
etc.
 
XMan

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
:disgust:

You know, what's your point?

Anyone who has faith in a religion isn't going to pay much attention to your website. The only people this seems to appeal to are the smug atheits who will read it, cross their arms, and say, "See? Told ya so."

In any case, you're not doing much of anything except trolling for a response.
 
A

Alphathree33

Platinum Member
Dec 1, 2000
2,419
0
0
Originally posted by: Xerox Man
:disgust:

You know, what's your point?

Anyone who has faith in a religion isn't going to pay much attention to your website. The only people this seems to appeal to are the smug atheits who will read it, cross their arms, and say, "See? Told ya so."

In any case, you're not doing much of anything except trolling for a response.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm not because I'm going to bed.

I just thought I'd share it with you guys because I thought it was neat.

But once again I find it extremely difficult to please anandtechers with anything but a silly post or a girl / pic post.

EDIT: ReAD THE LINK. It's not "my website". It's a usenet group.
 
S

SWirth86

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2001
1,939
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: bmacd
Unable to find thread. Please recheck the URL. -=bmacd=-
Click to expand...
God did that.
Click to expand...

Haha :)

Ok, I read the thing, and I dont understand it at all........

My opinion is, believe in what you want to, but dont try to force it onto others.
 
T

ToBeMe

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2000
5,711
0
0
And for every site which atempts to "prove" that there is no god, there is an equally compelling site that says it "proves" there is a god...............it's a never ending catch 22 and really serves no purpose except to promote the beliefs of the people/person whom wrote it or believes likewise..............in a nutshell...........believe what you want because there is no sure way to prove or disprove either side...........;)
 
S

Spoooon

Lifer
Mar 3, 2000
11,563
203
106
You can't prove either way. Besides, if you have faith, you don't need proof. And if you go around looking for proof and all of a sudden find it, you're probably not going to heaven. ;)
 
O

oLLie

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2001
5,203
1
0
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
And for every site which atempts to "prove" that there is no god, there is an equally compelling site that says it "proves" there is a god...............it's a never ending catch 22 and really serves no purpose except to promote the beliefs of the people/person whom wrote it or believes likewise..............in a nutshell...........believe what you want because there is no sure way to prove or disprove either side...........;)
Click to expand...

Kinda like where the Simpsons really live??
 
P

Paulson

Elite Member
Feb 27, 2001
10,689
0
0
www.ifixidevices.com
Here's a solution to the whole fricken problem...

if you believe, SO BE IT... continue believing, follow your heart, your beliefs, your morals

if you don't believe it, SO BE IT ... don't try to prove your theory to others, just live with it, accept the fact that you don't believe but others do...

if you believe, don't push your beliefs on those who don't wish to, if they want to, they will

meanwhile, if you don't, DO NOT try to brainwash the people who do believe that there is no point of faith... and they're doing everything for no reason..

stay within your damn boundaries. Believe? So be it. Not Believing it? SO BE IT.
 
Bignate603

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
Originally posted by: Paulson
Here's a solution to the whole fricken problem...

if you believe, SO BE IT... continue believing, follow your heart, your beliefs, your morals

if you don't believe it, SO BE IT ... don't try to prove your theory to others, just live with it, accept the fact that you don't believe but others do...

if you believe, don't push your beliefs on those who don't wish to, if they want to, they will

meanwhile, if you don't, DO NOT try to brainwash the people who do believe that there is no point of faith... and they're doing everything for no reason..

stay within your damn boundaries. Believe? So be it. Not Believing it? SO BE IT.
Click to expand...


I agree with Paulson and I don't even know what he believes in. I know I believe he's out there, but I also know there's nothing I can do to prove it by science or fact. And I'm just the same to them, there's nothing they can do to convince me by the same methods that can prove it either. So I vote for a truce, letting anybody freakin care for what they freakin please, and just stop trying to start arguements.
 
T

TNTrulez

Banned
Aug 3, 2001
2,804
0
0
If you have to prove that GOD exists in order to believe in him, then you have missed the whole point of faith.
 
F

FrontlineWarrior

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2000
4,905
1
0
that was a lot of fluff. no need to bring in any notion of language for the so-called proof.

it is sufficient to simply make the following claims:

1. there can't be something with property p and not p at the same time. (e.g. nice and not nice)
2. god is defined as something which is p and not p at the same time.
3. therefore god, as defined in 2 cannot exist.

Of course, you will note that this proof (and the proof you mentioned) concludes that a certain thing, which is defined in a certain way, cannot exist.

That which is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent, does not exist.
That which: (Created all things and All created things are good and Evil
exists) does not exist.
etc.
You will also have to explain why omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are contraditory. It doesn't seem so at first glance to me.

Second statement is shaky because I don't think that anyone agrees that "All created things are good". A better argument is one which notes that God is supposed to be all good, yet there are created things that are evil. (and thus questioning where evil came from, and if from God, how that is possible).

All of these sorts of arguments do a pretty good job of making what we mean by "God" more precise. They may prove or disprove a certain notion of God (e.g. God of the Bible), but these arguments will not do the same for "God" in general, since the properties assigned to "God" varies among traditions, idealogies, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
C

Calundronius

Senior member
May 19, 2002
225
0
0
Originally posted by: Alphathree33
x exists: where x is any given or described object, means, there is some
primary proposition that is known true about x.

A proposition about x is primary if it has the form 'x has F' where F is
some predicate.

For example:
Descartes thinks therefore Descartes exists.
Descartes pees therefore Descartes exists.
Any true statement directly about Descartes implies that Descartes exists.

That is, if we have a primary truth about something then we have proof that,
that thing exists.

But,
Descartes does not think implies Descartes exists, is false.
Descartes does not pee implies Descartes exists, is false.

i.e. primary predications entail existence. And, secondary predications do
not necessarily entail existence.

God is not a pink elephant, does not prove that God exists.
God is not a number, does not prove that God exists.

God exists, means, there is at least one primary truth about God.

God exists, if and only if, we are in possesion of a verifiable truth that
has God as subject.

etc.
Click to expand...
The problem here, as I see it, is using logic to prove or disprove God's existance. Does logic apply to God? I would agree that it applies to everything in the universe, but God would have to exist outside of reality in order to create it. So is it really possible to apply logic, or physics, or what have you, to God, who, ultimately, would be responsible for their creation (assuming he exists)?

A famous Christian theologian, whose name I've forgotten, once said something along the lines of "God does not 'exist'. Objects 'exist'. You and I 'exist'...God is beyond and above such concepts of existence."
After all, isn't faith the belief in something that can't be proven as fact?
But, having said all that, I agree with Paulson...each to their own, and no one be an asshole about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom