Class Warfare Blog

December 14, 2017

Proofs that No God Exists

Filed under: Religion — Steve Ruis @ 11:19 am
Tags:

John Zande provided the first such proof of this type I had ever seen (it is listed first below) which lead me to think that since there were so many “proofs” for the existence of a god, could there not be a great many similar proofs for the nonexistence of gods? As an exercise in philosophy, I thought that one could make only minor changes in the existing “pro-god” arguments and turn them 180 degrees into proofs against the existence of a god or gods. (Please note the “switched” arguments are in no way inferior to the “pro god” arguments.)

My motive in doing this is that gods were invented as explanations for why the world was the way it was when we had no clue as to the real causes. Certain humans then acquired “special privileges” by claiming special knowledge and a special relationship to those gods and used those to oppress the rest of us. (For those of you who can only think of your friendly pastor when thinking of religion, read a little history of those religions.) It is still claimed that whether a religion is true is irrelevant because it is needed to control the masses.

Gods are imaginary slave masters and we must free ourselves from our self-imposed oppression by them. The religious elites can go get real jobs instead of living off of false promises as they do now.

Note Since a number of these arguments are obscure and may not be known to you, in some of the below I have included one form of the argument for reference (see the sections labeled “For reference—”).

The Argument From Moral Autonomy
(This is from James Rachel’s “God and Moral Autonomy:”)

  1. We are moral agents with moral autonomy and a responsibility to exercise it
    2. Abandoning one’s moral autonomy is immoral
    3. God is a perfectly good being worthy of worship
    4. Worship is the recognition of one as inferior and subordinate to a greater being
    5. Worship of God includes the total abandonment of one’s moral autonomy in favor of blind, non-questioning obedience of God
    6. This is immoral, unless we can continuously be sure the being we are worshipping is (perfectly) good, and that the being we are worshipping is indeed a (or the) “God”
    7. To continuously evaluate whether a being is good requires moral judgment, which requires moral autonomy
    8. Therefore it is not possible to continuously evaluate if a being is good while also worshipping it
    9. Therefore, worshipping necessarily requires abandoning one’s moral responsibility, which is immoral
    10. Therefore, no being is worthy of worship
    11. Therefore, God does not exist

In short – worship makes it impossible to know the object of worship is good, and a non-good object of worship isn’t worthy of worship. It is said that it can be known that God is good, and that God is worthy of worship, which is a contradiction, which cannot exist.

* * *

The Argument From Ineffective Prayer

Here is my attempt at chipping away at the godly edifice.

  1. God is all good (by definition).
    2. Repeated prayers for new limbs by amputees have been denied universally.
    3. Therefore God hates amputees.
    4. God cannot be both all-good and hate amputees.
    5. Therefore, God does not exist.

Note This argument may be resolved by dropping the “all-good” aspect from the definition of their god, which is why I refer to this as chipping away at the godly edifice. SR

* * *

The Logical Ontological Argument

  1. It is possible that a maximally great being does exist, but the probability is vanishingly small.
  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists with a vanishingly small probability, then there is a vanishingly small probability that a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world with a vanishingly small probability, then it exists in every possible world with a vanishingly small probability.
  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world with a vanishingly small probability, then it exists in the actual world with a vanishingly small probability.
  5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world with a vanishingly small probability, then there is a vanishingly small probability a maximally great being exists.
  6. Therefore, there is a vanishingly small probability that a maximally great being exists.

Note Is there any example of a maximally great anything? No? So, the idea is imaginary in the first place.

* * *

The Transcendental Argument Against Gods

  1. It is claimed that God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality.
  2. It is claimed that God is a necessary precondition for illogic and immorality.
  3. People know both sets of things (have logical and illogical, and moral and immoral intuitions) and likely the one implies the other in each duality (logic begets illogic, white begets black, etc.).
  4. Therefore, God is unnecessary.

For reference—

This is a transcendental argument that attempts to prove that God is the precondition for logic, reason, or morality. The argument proceeds as follows:

  1. God, is a necessary precondition for logic and morality.
  2. People know things (have logical, and moral intuitions).
  3. Therefore, God exists.

* * *

The Teleological Argument Against Gods

It is claimed “This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” This quote is from Isaac Newton, and is at best an opinion, not a proof. No god would allow His believers to use opinions as proofs, therefore God does not exist.

  1. The statement that “This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” is at best an opinion.
  2. An all-powerful, all-knowing god would never allow his believers to use opinions as proofs.
  3. Therefore, if the proof is true then God does not exist.

 

* * *

The Cosmological Argument For God (Kalam Version)

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning.
  2. The Universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the Universe had a beginning.
  4. The End

Note The conclusion that the universe had a beginning might imply that there was a cause (or might not). The fact that we do not know what such a cause might be does not imply anything, let alone the existence of a god. This is just another God of the Gaps argument.

For reference—

  1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
  2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
  4. Therefore, if the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
  5. Therefore, God exists.

Note Again, there is no basis for #4 in the premises. It is just slipped in as it coincides with the fundamental beliefs of the audience.

* * *

The Argument From Love

  1. God is Love.
  2. God so loved us that he slaughtered millions and ordered the slaughter of millions more.
  3. God so loved us that he killed all but eight humans and all of the land and fresh and salt water creatures in a great flood.
  4. Therefore, uh, never mind.

For reference—

“Love is the greatest of miracles. How could an evolved ape create the noble idea of self-giving love? Human love is a result of our being made to resemble God, who himself is love.” Uh, wow, hard to argue against this brilliance.

* * *

The Argument From Morality

  1. A human experience of morality is observed.
  2. God is the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
  3. Since moralities differ from culture to culture, either there is no god or there are many gods.
  4. Therefore, God does not exist (Occam’s Razor).

* * *

The Argument From Inconsistent Revelations

  1. There are many religions claiming to be the one true faith.
  2. An all-powerful, all-knowing god could not be the source of mixed messages.
  3. An all-powerful, all-knowing god would not allow imposters to live long.
  4. Therefore, God does not exist.

* * *

The Argument From Beauty

  1. There are many beautiful things all over the world.
  2. There once were humans who did not see the beauty in such things and they were so depressed that they didn’t live long enough to pass on their genes.
  3. Therefore, only people who can see beauty still exist.
  4. Therefore, a god is unnecessary as a creator of beauty.

For reference—

  1. There are many beautiful things all over the world.
  2. Only a god who is beautiful and unchangeable could have made these beautiful things.
  3. Therefore, God exists.

* * *

The Argument From Free Will and Justice

  1. God knows the choices that a human would claim to make freely.
  2. Therefore those actions are now destined to occur.
  3. If it is now necessary that they occur, then those choices cannot be otherwise.
  4. If we cannot do otherwise when we act, then we do not act freely.
  5. A just god would not punish people for what they do not choose to do freely.
  6. It is claimed that God punishes people for all of their actions.
  7. Therefore, God does not exist.

Note The Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God rests on the ground that God’s omniscience is incompatible with God having free will and that if God does not have freewill, God is not a personal being.

* * *

The Argument From Religious Experience

  1. There are compelling reasons for disbelieving the claims of religious experience that point to and validate spiritual realities that exist in a way that transcends material manifestation.
  2. According to materialism, nothing exists in a way that transcends material manifestation.
  3. According to classical theism, God endows human beings with the ability to perceive religious, spiritual and/or transcendent realities through religious, spiritual and/or transcendent experience.
  4. The evidence for the existence of the material world hugely outweighs that of religious experience.
  5. Therefore, materialism is more plausible than theism.

For reference—

  1. There are compelling reasons for believing that claims of religious experience point to and validate spiritual realities that exist in a way that transcends material manifestation;
  2. According to materialism, nothing exists in a way that transcends material manifestation;
  3. According to classical theism, God endows human beings with the ability to perceive – although imperfectly – religious, spiritual and/or transcendent realities through religious, spiritual and/or transcendent experience.
  4. Therefore, theism is more plausible than materialism.

* * *

The Argument From Consciousness

  1. Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist.
  2. There is an explanation for the existence of mental states.
  3. Personal explanation (PE) is different from natural scientific explanation (NSE).
  4. The explanation for the existence of mental states is either a PE or a NSE.
  5. The explanation is not an PE.
  6. Therefore the explanation is a NSE.
  7. If the explanation is PE, it is theistic.
  8. Therefore, the explanation is a natural scientific explanation.

Note Basically humans are not known for their ability to interpret natural phenomena. For millennia people got most things wrong, e.g. lightning and thunder were created by gods, and even when work done by much more intelligent humans exposes the correct interpretation, many, many humans deny those truths, e.g. as late as the mid-twentieth century, many people did not connect sexual intercourse with getting pregnant, e.g. many humans deny the human fingerprints on climate change, e.g. many people still believe in ghosts.

For reference—

  1. Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist.
  2. There is an explanation for the existence of mental states.
  3. Personal explanation (PE) is different from natural scientific explanation (NSE).
  4. The explanation for the existence of mental states is either a PE or a NSE.
  5. The explanation is not an NSE.
  6. Therefore the explanation is a PE.
  7. If the explanation is PE, it is theistic.
  8. Therefore, the explanation is theistic.

Note Premise number 6 is a whopper. Once you can get your conclusion into a set of assumed to be true premises, you have won your argument … by cheating.

* * *

The Argument from Satan

  1. God is all-good.
  2. God created Hell and Satan.
  3. God refuses to or is unable to uncreate Hell or Satan.
  4. God cannot be both all-good and the creator of Hell and Satan.
  5. Therefore, there is no god.

* * *

The Argument from Degree

  1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
  2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists the possibility of some other object that has the property to a greater degree.
  3. As the degree of extent increases, the probability of the existence of an object of greater extent diminishes.
  4. As the extent of any property approaches maximum, the probability approaches zero.
  5. Hence, the probability of a maximally extending God is infinitely small.

For reference—

  1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
  2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
  3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
  4. Hence God exists.

 

25 Comments »

  1. The religious don’t need proof with faith and they find proof where there is none. I just posted a great example of this this morning. We’re in the same page today bro

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by jim-in-m — December 14, 2017 @ 11:44 am | Reply

  2. That’s a wall of proofs!

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by john zande — December 14, 2017 @ 12:17 pm | Reply

    • Could that be the wall separating church and state? (Shut up, Church Lady!)

      On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Steve Ruis — December 14, 2017 @ 12:25 pm | Reply

      • I find it interesting that the voice inside your head is the Church Lady. The one in my head is Moe from the Three Stooges. Usually saying “you big dummy”

        Great post by the way.

        The Argument From Free Will And Justice is the one that went through my head so many times, while sitting on a church pew, and there was Moe saying “you big dummy, get out of here!”

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by shelldigger — December 14, 2017 @ 1:16 pm | Reply

        • Gnuk, gnuk, gnuk … woo, woo, woo, woop.

          On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

          >

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Steve Ruis — December 14, 2017 @ 1:37 pm | Reply

  3. Some years back, way back actually (the late 1980’s?) I was laid up from an injury and the wonderful wife (before glioblastoma took her away) went to the library for me and I read a lot of philosophy and sic-fi, along with history. I cannot recall the author, I know I copied him down word-for-word, but cannot find that paper now. I think it may have been Mills, J. S. perhaps, he said to the effect that he’d rather spend eternity in hell than have to bow down to that vile critter doG of the holly buy-bull. I’d been an unbeliever for many years before I read that, but it sure did reenforce my staying as a heathen/pagan/heretic or whatever nasty name the believers care to toss at me. Even IF somebody actually proved that doG does exist, I’d still refuse to accept it/her/him as anything worth my time to think about, let alone worship. As the late George Carlin said, “…….and, he always needs money.” So funny, creator of everything, but cannot manage his/her/its finances?

    Like

    Comment by Walter Kronkat — December 14, 2017 @ 9:57 pm | Reply

    • I think Mr. Carlin’s line was “All-knowing, all-powerful and always in need of money.”

      I miss George.

      S

      On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Steve Ruis — December 15, 2017 @ 10:39 am | Reply

    • Sidenote here …

      whatever nasty name the believers care to toss at me — isn’t it interesting that those “loving” Christians can be so flowery in their rebukes towards non-believers?

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Nan — December 15, 2017 @ 12:00 pm | Reply

      • Christian charity isn’t Christian and it isn’t charity. Even more impressive are the lies shared and told with a straight face. (You know, Nan, you are I are both baby eaters. I am roasting one for Christmas dinner, by the way.)

        Liked by 2 people

        Comment by Steve Ruis — December 15, 2017 @ 12:07 pm | Reply

  4. Oh, YES! Slow roasted with a nice honey glaze. Oh my, that baby meat just falls right off the bones that way. Yum!
    Yes, in case somebody actually thinks(???) I would roast a real baby, this was totally sarcastic.

    Like

    Comment by Walter Kronkat — December 15, 2017 @ 10:44 pm | Reply

    • It is sad that we have to have sarcasm trigger warnings.

      On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Like

      Comment by Steve Ruis — December 16, 2017 @ 8:15 am | Reply

  5. Here ya go superman, This is much easier to understand and demolishes your narrative in less than two minutes. Your post here is enough proof that yes God does exist. You cannot rid your mind of the obvious.

    https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2017/12/19/the-incomparable-neighbor/

    Like

    Comment by ColorStorm — December 19, 2017 @ 10:43 am | Reply

    • Hello, are we from the same planet? I do not understand the merit behind that post. It basically says nothing. In my post, I took various proofs of god existence and then tweaked them only a little to show the exact opposite. My point is that the arguments are weak to the point of speciousness. I also do not think a philosophical argument can prove anything about the supernatural. Either you believe or you do not. If you do believe, a reasonable question to ask is “Why?”

      Like

      Comment by Steve Ruis — December 19, 2017 @ 11:20 am | Reply

      • Hi steve-

        However in the argument about ‘proof’ or philosphy, one must allow common sense to be entered into the discussion.

        Is life a grand accident where blood, marrow, sight, hearing, dark, light, leather, wood, coal, vegetation, conscience, the various systems of the human body, intelligence, stupidity, gold, water, air, etc, just so happened to avail itself having no aforethought to do so, since intelligence requires planning and design………

        Don’t neglect common sense; just ask a two year old how a table is made. Don’t assume two year olds are stupid.

        Like

        Comment by ColorStorm — December 19, 2017 @ 11:38 am | Reply

        • Common sense is of no use outside of one’s experience. I live in a city and I have a fair amount of common sense built up as to how to deal with dogs and cats I encounter. I have no idea of how to deal with a dingo or a mountain lion.

          And how can “common” sense be of any help in understand that which is the complete opposite of “common,” that is the ineffable, the transcendent, the mysterious? I just don’t see anyone bragging about their common sense with regard to supernatural phenomena, unless they are witch doctors, or religious purveyors of some sense.

          There are many aspects of the human body that make no sense whatsoever. I have a bit of a head cold and my nose is dripping into my mouth. Who designed that? I assume you are aware of the nerve that goes from the larynx down to the heart and then back up to a point just a few inches from where is left. There are a great many aspects of organism design that show that the “designer” was anything but perfect, which is something many Christians cannot abide. Most Christians claim the theory of evolution is wrong, because if it is right, then the Bible is wrong. This is not good thinking, this is wishful thinking. If the Theory of Evolution is wrong, can not the combined economic might of the Christian churches sponsor the research necessary to show it is wrong? (I do know that hired speakers tell church goers in this country that evolution is wrong … and why they think that, but that is “preaching to the choir,” and is hardly a scientific approach. It is often pointed out that many biologists are believers in evolution and devout Christians. If they can believe both, why cannot the whole Christian audience so believe? Why all of the videos and speeches and blogs declaring Darwin was wrong? (Of course Darwin was wrong, about all kinds of things; he was a scientist. But many, many (many!) scientists came after him and corrected his mistakes and added a mountain of evidence supporting the amended theory.)

          Why not the truth? Would a benevolent god have made a world that masked its true identity from the inhabitants he created? This makes no sense.

          On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

          >

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Steve Ruis — December 19, 2017 @ 12:06 pm | Reply

          • Steve-

            Don’t short change yourself as to common sense. As in ‘common’ based on what is observable, testable, repeatable.

            And God has not masked His identity. It is coded within your conscience. Evolution fails here. It cannot explain what is common.

            Your discussion is enough proof.

            Like

            Comment by ColorStorm — December 19, 2017 @ 2:42 pm | Reply

            • You seem willfully ignorant. I was speaking about what nature, aka God’s creation, tells us of the past of the planet and it doesn’t indicate that it was created by magical means 6000 years ago. It tells a story quite different from that of any holy scriptures.

              Evolution can explain quite well what is common, it cannot however explain the supernatural. You seem to be starting at the end of your argument with a conclusion and then working back to the evidence. Unfortunately what you claim is evidence is nothing of the sort. Many Christians claim a beautiful sunrise or sunset as evidence of their god. Hello? The existence of beauty in the world is a phenomenon that requires no god to be its source. If this were not the case and it were obvious evidence for the existence of your god, would not people be worshiping that same god, rather than the thousands upon thousands of gods we have had over human history?

              On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

              >

              Like

              Comment by Steve Ruis — December 20, 2017 @ 9:03 am | Reply

              • Steve

                Willfully ignorant? How about uniquely informed.

                Nature is the by-product of creation. Case closed.

                As to tens of thousands of so-called gods…………….

                ……that’s a whole lot of people trying to get it right. 😉

                However, one God. And nature is indeed a fine teacher.

                Take the flower which appears dead through winter. Then aah, spring arrives, right on time, and the seasons as directed by the Creator Himself.

                Then the calving of the hinds, all on time. Evolution has neither answer nor explanation.

                The cattle are the same. The hippo is the same. The eagle is the same. The ant is the same, and the man and woman are the same, courtesy of God Himself.

                Then there is that stunning rainbow as a reminder….and that blue sky………that wonderful colorful…………nothing!!!!!! or is it something…………..

                Like

                Comment by ColorStorm — December 20, 2017 @ 9:16 am | Reply

                • Wow, you got me! All of that evidence that I was overlooking! How could I have been so blind! Thank you for setting me straight!

                  Liked by 2 people

                  Comment by Steve Ruis — December 20, 2017 @ 10:09 am | Reply

                  • Sure steve. Don’t forget the evidence called ‘life.’

                    If that’s not enough, I cant help ya. Then there is always scripture, which confirms truth wherever it is found.

                    Try it, unaided by the dry opinions of men. Consider such questions as these:

                    ‘Where were you when Orion was created?’

                    ‘What manner of man is this that even the winds and the sea obey Him?’

                    And I may add, ‘where are you currently in 2017?’

                    Like

                    Comment by ColorStorm — December 20, 2017 @ 10:22 am | Reply

                • How about uniquely informed. Baawaaahaahaaa!

                  Like

                  Comment by Nan — December 20, 2017 @ 11:11 am | Reply

                  • That’s right nan. Unlike some people, I allow facts, logic, and repeatable and testable proofs to light my way. 😉

                    Btw, pop over to ib22’s latest post. She crushes false narratives.

                    Like

                    Comment by ColorStorm — December 20, 2017 @ 11:18 am | Reply

                    • I saw the link (here? elsewhere?) and took a quick glance but I had to click away because I was getting sick. But thanks for the reference. Have a nice holiday.

                      Like

                      Comment by Nan — December 20, 2017 @ 11:22 am

  6. I like the repository of ideas here. Sadly, some of them seem a bit complicated in that they all describe not believing in something because it violates its own description. That is, nobody’s described a deity yet that doesn’t conflict with objective data. Given that humanity has acquired so little knowledge relative to the size of Nature itself, this should be a cause of concern for people who maintain the stance that a deity is involved.

    Like

    Comment by Sirius Bizinus — December 29, 2017 @ 9:50 pm | Reply

    • This was a form of intellectual play … coming up with arguments similar to those provided as proof for the existence of a god or gods. Philosophical arguments cannot prove anything, but certainly they point out the biggest difficulty faced by theists is Step 1: Define “god.” The whole history of god worshiping shows a pattern: attempts to define gods fail all manner of tests and so the definitions are changed to become more and more vague/less concrete. This is basically the problem: the god of the gaps has ever smaller gaps to hide in. So, “god” becomes “ineffable” and the “ground of all being” and “existing beyond space and time,” anywhere or anything that cannot be found or tested because the idea itself is indefensible.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Steve Ruis — December 30, 2017 @ 9:59 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: