Previous Post: How to enable Firefox's inline spell check for all text inputs
Next Post: Great quotes: Sam Harris, Sanity in numbers 2004
By definition, God does not exist
Oct 10, 2008 at 7:08 pm - 10 Comments
Existence is a relatively simple concept -- it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy.
The opposite must also be true. If a god is not composed of matter or energy, then that god, by definition, does not exist. Thus to argue that a god exist, despite a total absence of matter or energy, is to argue, existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction. If a god exists, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a god exists. Of course, this does not require direct physical evidence -- we cannot perceive black holes directly, but we know that they exist due to the effects of their gravity wells on surrounding matter, as well as the flashes of energy that are released as captured matter crosses the event horizon. But since "existence" is defined as that which is composed of matter or energy, the proof of existence must be some evidence of that matter or energy. Evidence is defined as that which impacts our physical senses in some manner, either directly, or through some translating device such as a spectrograph or an oscilloscope. Since our sensory organs are designed to perceive the effects of matter and energy, it is through the evidence of the senses that we can determine the existence or nonexistence of things.
If I argue that something exists, but then claim there is no way to detect it, my argument contradicts itself. Let's say I tell a deaf man that I hear a deep, loud sound coming from a speaker. If he lays his hand on it and feels no vibrations, he has every right to be skeptical. If I say that this loud sound does not have vibrations, he may then pull out his trusty microphone or other sound wave detector. If this instrument detects no sound in the vicinity, can I still tell him that this loud sound is occurring? At some point, if my definition of "loud sound" basically boils down to "that which is the opposite of any evidence that a loud sound is occurring," then clearly my approach to truth needs a little work.
This approach helps clarify the truth value of the proposition that a god does not exist. If a god exists, then sensual evidence of some sort is required to determine the existence of that god. If a god is not made up of matter or energy, then that god does not exist, since that which is not composed of matter or energy -- does not exist. If a god is made up of matter and energy, then it is subject to physical laws. Since it is bound by physical laws, miracles are impossible, because miracles are, by definition, violations of physical laws. Likewise, a god cannot be all knowing and all-powerful, since both attributes would violate the basic tenets of physical laws. All knowing would require instantaneous knowledge of all matter, past, present and future, which is clearly impossible, while all powerful would require the ability to break the bounds of physical laws, which brings us back to the realm of nonexistence.
If a god is subject to physical laws, then praying to a god makes about as much sense as worshiping a black hole, begging the Sun to grant you favors, or circumcising your son to appease the moon. If a god is not subject to physical laws, then the concept of a god is synonymous with the concept of non-existence.
Why is there such resistance to the fact that a god does not exist? Many people redefine "God" within their own minds as "a potential form of matter or energy that has not been discovered yet," or "that which could exist in an alternate universe," or something to that effect. However, either a criterion for determining truth exists, or it does not. If such a criterion exists, then it must be objective, and based on the evidence of the senses and reason, which precludes the existence of any deities. If no such criterion exists, then both everything and nothing is true, and agnosticism, atheism, superstition, religion and the belief of the flying spaghetti monster are all equally valid. If an objective criterion for truth exists, then it cannot logically be applied according to whim, or only in situations that feel emotionally comfortable. Through this logical method we can determine no god exists.
Actions are more important than beliefs.
Thanks goes to FightingAtheist for this video.
Last 5 Linkbacks
- Oct 11, 2008www.nulleando.com.ar
Rationality
Media
Creative
Technology
- Web Development (34)
- Hardware (21)
- Software (15)
- Internet (21)
- Mobile (6)
- Linux (42)
- Cheat Sheets (367)
- Free Tools (2)
cristiano007 Nov 12, 2008
So sorry you wasted your time arguing based in faulty premises: God created matter and energy, how can He be limited by His Own creation. You have eons of atheist ultra-religious faith, no doubt.Don't worry, I'll start a chain of pray for you... ;-)
Jonathan Phinehas Nov 21, 2008
You wrote: "Existence ...that which consists of either matter or energy. ...God is not composed of matter or energy...God does not exist."
Defining God out of existence is no proof that God does not exist unless you first presuppose the correctness of your definition. But what makes this definition authoritative?
Below you argue that truth is determined by sensory evidence and the use of reason. This means that you hold to the belief that only matter and energy exists based on the evidence of the senses and the use of reason.
But how do you know that truth is determined by the evidence of the senses and the use of reason? By the use of sensation? Which sensation? By the use of reason? Which syllogism? And how do you determine what the first premise of that syllogism should be?
Do you expect others to simply accept your assertions?
I could just as easily assert that existence is that which consists of either matter or spirit and that therefore God exists.
You wrote: "...to argue that...God exist, despite a total absence of matter or energy, is to argue, existence equals non-existence..."
I could just as easily argue that to say God does not exist despite a total abundance of matter and spirit is to argue existence equals non-existence.
I don't think many will find this psychologically compelling.
You wrote: "physical evidence is...the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a God exists."
Again, how convenient. If God is already defined as immaterial being you never will find any material evidence for His existence.
And even if God came to earth as a physical man (which He did), what sensory data could there be for His claim at being God? Moreover, what possible sign could He perform that would convince you of His claim at being God? Perhaps He is a cleaver and very powerful imposter. How could you tell by the evidence?
God says all creation (which includes all physical evidences) testifies about Him so that to look upon creation is to inescapably know God. This means that on the Christian assumption you have all the physical evidence you need to prove God's existence.
So the issue is about the interpretation of evidences and not the evidence itself.
Anyway, this is your reasoning: only matter and energy exist and God, an immaterial being, cannot exist because only material evidences would suffice to prove an immaterial being. That is, only material evidences could prove a non-material being, but (conveniently) this will never happen because all is matter and there are no immaterial beings! In sum: An immaterial being cannot exist because there are no immaterial beings, or better, an immaterial being cannot exist because an immaterial being cannot exist.
Very consistent...but not very convincing.
You wrote: "Evidence is [what] impacts our physical senses...or through some translating device ..."
...like LSD trips, etc.
You wrote: "our sensory organs are designed to perceive the effects of matter and energy"
"Designed"??? Are you sure?
You wrote: "through the evidence of the senses that we can determine the existence or nonexistence of things."
From what sensation did you "sense" this proposition? Also, how do you know you sensed the sensation accurately?
You wrote: "If I argue that something exists, but then claim there is no way to detect it, my argument contradicts itself."
Sure enough!
If evidence is only physical sensation and you have no direct physical sensations of God then you have no evidence of God.
But all this argument is quite redundant; if God is non-material by definition and if that which exists is only material then it is redundant to assert that all evidence must be sensational, that God is not an object that can be (immediately) sensed, and that therefore God does not exist.
The same goes for your, "If a god is not made up of matter or energy, then that god does not exist, since that which is not composed of matter or energy -- does not exist"; and the same goes for the other implications you spell out.
You wrote: "either a criterion for determining truth exists, or it does not. If such a criterion exists, then it must be objective, and based on the evidence of the senses and reason, which precludes the existence of any deities."
Again, I could just as easily argue that if a criterion of truth exists, it must be objective, and based on the Christian Scriptures alone, which precludes any atheism.
Why must the criterion be based on the evidence of the senses and reason (whatever you mean by reason)?
Did you use the criterion of truth (sensation and "reason") to determine the criterion of truth? Or how about the statement: "Existence [is] that which consists of either matter or energy"? If so, what sensation did you have that informed you of these?
You wrote: "If no such criterion exists, then both everything and nothing is true, and agnosticism, atheism, superstition, religion and the belief of the flying spaghetti monster are all equally valid."
Agreed.
However, if the criterion you set fourth is self-refuting and untenable we are in the same quagmire.
As it stands, unless you admit to holding to your criterion of truth apart from any sensation of it (that is, admit that you hold this position on faith) your system is lost already. But if you admit that this criterion is held by faith then you have already admitted that it cannot be the criterion of truth, since the criterion itself was not established by its own criterion.
A very religious atheism indeed!
You wrote: "Through this logical method we can determine no God exists."
Your conclusion may be logically valid yet it is false because your first premise is untenable/false.
You wrote: "Actions are more important than beliefs."
Your logical consistency to your premise (action) is more impressive, but not necessarily more important, than the premise itself (which you believe).
Scott Klarr Nov 21, 2008
I should have mentioned in the post that I did not actually make or write this video. I personally don't find word games useful or valid for serious argument, but I decided to post this video because it is an interesting observation for those who are awed by simple minded assessments.
If anything, it's a good argument to know for when you come across a creationist who is using equally flawed word games (I've seen a few arguments for god using similar "logic" and they are just as laughable when you try to consider them as real arguments). The only time I would bring this argument up in a serious discussion would be if they first yielded something similar, such as the ontological argument - and it would be laced with sarcasm.
I do appreciate you taking time to reply to all the points. What I especially like about your reply is that I cannot tell where you personally stand on religion (i.e. you did not preach to make a point). If only more religious debates could be filled with that same bias neutrality :)
Anup Jan 08, 2009
Proof of God's Existence!!
Everything in this universe has only temporary existence or everything is changeable & not constant.That means everything is bound to die.I think you all will agree with this.
Now,that which is a constant can not be a part of universe as everything in the universe is changing.Ironically,scientists describe energy to be constant,non destroyable & non creatable.Now tell me,can this energy be a part of the universe we are living in?Nope.Simply not possible.Because everything is changing as said earlier.We have to redefine the laws of physics that energy is also relative.And if it is not relative then it can not be constant.It has to be infinite & infinite can not be constant because that will limit the definition of infinite itself.This is where the science ends & religion starts.I hope you will understand this & will refer bible 0r bhagwatgita or kuran to understand the INFINITE.
Scott Klarr Jan 08, 2009
Sorry, but that is the lamest argument for the existence of god I have ever heard. It is worse than the ontological argument.
First off, the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed is not a guarantee because we do not know everything there is to know about quantum mechanics. The correct statement is: we, as humans, have not yet been able to create or destroy energy.
We do not know what there was before the big bang and it could have been an environment where energy could in fact have been created. There is even research suggesting that energy is CONSTANTLY being created and disintegrating (atoms appear then disappear).
Secondly, even if energy cannot be created or destroyed - only recycled - then that still has absolutely nothing to do with some omniscient being that wants to punish us all. The energy could have existed infinitely alone. Any property you can attribute to a god can also be attributed to energy and time itself.
Our ignorance of the cosmos and quantum mechanics is no more proof of god than ignorance of germs was proof of demons a thousand years ago.
And one step further, let's just say for a moment that your argument was right. How do you know which god is responsible? What argument could you have for the Abrahamic gods that could not be applied to Zeus, Mithra, or The flying spaghetti monster?
Wolfgang DelaSangre Dec 13, 2008
In a dark corner,
Hidden, is a word. That word
Is, "Omnipotence."
I hope you enjoyed my little haiku. Thank you. *Bows and leaves*
*Comes back*
Hmm.... *Saves to a NotePad file*
Okay, bye now. *Leaves*
Interesting Feb 16, 2009
"Existence is a relatively simple concept -- it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy."
I disagree with your definition of existence, since we base existence on what we are capable of seing, and experiencing. Scientifically matter and energy are ok because they can be measured. Logically thogh everything is not composed of matter and energy b/c then what would voids of emptiness be? For a long while blackholes and DNA and other things we see today as scientific were not scientific b/c there was no means of measuring or observing them. Does this mean that these things no longer existed until we discovered them? Of course not it just means that they were untestable at the time and could not be backed by science due to technological restraints. Science is only as good as the technology available. If 600 yrs ago I told you that there was thing called DNA the scientific community would laugh in my face, b/c at the time my claims were unscientific, and could not be proven with devices currently available. Does it mean I was wrong? Science is limited when it comes to the supernatural and things that it can't understand. So according to your definition of existence would you say that dreams, ideas, morals, love, convictions, and thoughts not exist b/c there not a form of matter or energy? And if they are they certainly don't follow the rules of matter and energy. I can see how a belief in a spiritual figure both within man and in God can work, even though scientifically I can't prove it. When people fall in love it seems that most would admitt that its more then just biological closeness and physical pleasantness, is this feeling then the spirit?
Hyun Ik May 03, 2009
I am not exactly religious, but I've watched your video, and I must disagree.
First, from a commen sense approach, I do not think the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent God would have survived for so long if God would be disprovable.
Second, your argument is based scientifically. However, science is an inductive, a posteriori method--because it is a posteriori, science, by definition, cannot be used to disprove what may not be empirical. In fact, your definition of existence is limited to THIS universe; however, the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is not even the possibility of things existing beyond the universe, or not being composed of matter.
All you have tried to demonstrate is that God cannot exist in THIS universe by assuming existence must be composed of energy and time. But that is not the God you or most everybody is interested in.
Hope this was interesting.
Hyun Ik May 03, 2009
revision:
**if God would be that easily disprovable.
hipololita May 11, 2009
In response to:
"I do not think the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent God would have survived for so long if God would be disprovable."
Then how do you account for the former idea that the world was flat? Such an idea managed to survive for quite a long time before finally being disproved.... Things that can be disproved are being upheld all the time...