proof against the existence of a christian god?

[MarcusMaximus]

Alright, here's something I thought of in my free time. It kinda worries me since I'm not an athiest (I believe there is a god, I'm just not christian.) Anyway here it goes:
1) Nothing can exist without purpose. Anything that exists must have to exist, or it wouldnt.
2) An absolute God exists (that's right guys, a proof by contradiction)
3) There can be no higher order than an absolute god by definition of absolute.
4) there must be a reason for the absolute God to exist by #1.
5) there must be a higher order than the absolute God due to the existance of a reason for its existence.
6) contradiction between 5 and 3.
7) An absolute God doesn't exist by contradiction.

I'm kinda actually hoping for a concrete refutation of this proof. The idea of an impossibility of an absolute god slightly disturbs me. By the way, please don't post replies saying "Oh well you cant understand god or explain him with logic." (this argument is A: a cop out and B: doesn't apply to this situation since I'm not talking about something that god does but rather the reason for its existence in the first place.) or quotes from the bible unless they provide a logical reason against this. ex: "You shall not worship any gods before me." (this doesn't really provide any evidence)

[Stained Glass]

Why aren't you an atheist, Marcus?

[Lucretius]

The Christian God doesn't make any sense. He is omniscient omnipotent yet at the same time experiences reactionary emotions of anger and sadness. How can you be pissed about something (or upset) if you know absolutely it is going to happen? If me and my friend are tied up and some guy tells me my buddy is going to get shot, he could get away, and when that possibility proves to be wrong, I feel sadness. If I had absolute knowledge my buddy was going to die, I wouldn't have felt this reactionary emotion. How can God be shocked about something he already knows is going to happen?

[Stained Glass]

Lucretius,
It does get complicated to start talking about relationship of God to time and the events that take place in it. A comment about God's omniscience and your illustration about you, your friend, and your pre-knowledge about his death: it would seem that if you knew the fact that your friend was going to die, it would eliminate the possibility of surprise but not the possiblity of sadness. Knowing the result of an action does not mean that you will not be sad about the outcome

[Tenspace]

Alright, here's something I thought of in my free time. It kinda worries me since I'm not an athiest (I believe there is a god, I'm just not christian.) Anyway here it goes:
1) Nothing can exist without purpose. Anything that exists must have to exist, or it wouldnt.
Do you have any references for this statement? I have yet to find purpose in nature. Evolution, for example, is not teleogical; it has no goals, no purpose. It is not a random process like the Creationists/ID'ers state. It is a non-random process driven by random and non-random mechanisms.

If we can get past #1, then we can address the rest of the list. If #1 is refuted, then the rest of the list would appear to be invalid.

Tenspace

[Stained Glass]

Tenspace,
Not to start the infinite regression, but from where does the "non-random process driven by random and non-random mechanisms" come? How is it non-random without purpose?

[Tenspace]

Adaptation to an environmental niche is non-random. It is driven by the conditions which favor (or disfavor) random mutations. Sexual selection is non-random, but again, random genetic mutations are responsible as the mechanism for competitive alleles.

But, in all this, there is no defined purpose. It is not a goal of evolution to be "higher up on the ladder" or food chain; that is a result of the adaptations.

If you wish to assign a purpose to evolution, it is simply to reproduce. But a purpose is defined as "intention, determination, resolution". Cells don't have a game plan, they are not deterministic. They just reproduce. I would say that the human phenotype is the first genetic result that is able to be deterministic.

But evolution, in the scientific theoretical sense, has no purpose, no future intentions. How would the genes know if they are on the right track?

Clearer? Or muddier? :)

Tenspace

[Stained Glass]

Clearer in the sense that I know better what mean. But is all that you and I are just the unintentioned forward motion of genes? At a higher level than just genes and cells, in the evolutionary model, wouldn't all of our motivations simply be self-preservation? I understand non-random by the way that you state it. I am not sure how we, as civilized humans, got our intention, determination, resolution. Would you say that it is just a refinement of our instincts?

[Tenspace]

Clearer in the sense that I know better what mean. But is all that you and I are just the unintentioned forward motion of genes? At a higher level than just genes and cells, in the evolutionary model, wouldn't all of our motivations simply be self-preservation? I understand non-random by the way that you state it. I am not sure how we, as civilized humans, got our intention, determination, resolution. Would you say that it is just a refinement of our instincts?
Hard to say, but likely. So many of our early adaptations have been usurped for uses unique to humans. Love and other emotions are traceable to kin relationships and altruism found in early hominid populations. Anger, hate, and fear as well. It would seem that determinism and intention are byproducts of our drive to reproduce. With that comes pre-meditation, planning, forethought, communications - even respect, trust, skepticism and suspicion have been driven by our social nature.

Tenspace

(For those of you who wish to claim my statements to be conjecture, I suggest you read what's available from two icons of biology and evolution, Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky before responding).

[baric]

1) Nothing can exist without purpose. Anything that exists must have to exist, or it wouldnt.
What is your support for this assumption? "Purpose" in this context is a very loaded term and requires clarification. What does it mean for something to have "purpose"? Why is it a requirement for existance?

2) An absolute God exists (that's right guys, a proof by contradiction)
Fair enough.

3) There can be no higher order than an absolute god by definition of absolute.
This is a confusing assumption. I think it's a little shaky, but I understand what you are suggesting so I'll accept it for the sake of the argument.

4) there must be a reason for the absolute God to exist by #1.
But if you are arguing for an absolute god in #3, is it not exempt from the restrictions of #1? Otherwise, it would not be absolute.

I am sensing an inherent contradiction in #3 and think that it may not withstand scrutiny. In particular, I think that the notion of a tangible "absolute" (as opposed to the concept of "absolute") represents an unprovable infinity.

5) there must be a higher order than the absolute God due to the existance of a reason for its existence.
6) contradiction between 5 and 3.
7) An absolute God doesn't exist by contradiction.
I believe that #5 longer follows per my comment about #4.

[Tenspace]

(I can't wait for Ocmpoma and Voice-of-Reason's contributions) :D

Ten

[Stained Glass]

I have not read anything by Mayr or Dobzhansky, so to respond to their ideas would be beyond me. How then do you see that these emotions developed? I can understand immature love or under-developed emotion, but how can it be that these came to be from nothing? It would be helpful to ask, what would originate instinct? Where would the drive come from to survive?

[Tenspace]

There are other threads on this forum where the topics were covered in detail.

Emotions didn't come from nothing; they are the result of the human social organization among populations being the best match for the environment. Instinct (take your pick as to which one) originated through natural selection as well, such as our fight or flee instinct. When threatened, our mouth becomes dry and our lips purse, or pupils dilate, our heart rate increases, and adrenaline in the bloodstream is increased. All these things prepare us to do one of two things... Stand and fight, or run like hell.

Visit Amazon.com , or search the internet for Mayr and Dobzhansky. Great reading.

Tenspace

[Rhinoqulous]

1) Nothing can exist without purpose. Anything that exists must have to exist, or it wouldn’t.
OK, I'll assume that by purpose, you mean cause. So everything that exists, exists for a certain cause. The second part you seem to posit a deterministic existence, in that anything that exists, must necessarily exist. We could stop right here and claim that the existence of any particular in the universe is not necessary, but only possible, but for fun let's move on.
2) An absolute God exists (that's right guys, a proof by contradiction)
Once again I'll give the argument the benefit of the doubt and assume you're doing something like Spinoza. God is Perfect (absolute), and existence is a perfection (Spinoza's position, not mine), therefore God necessarily exists.
3) There can be no higher order than an absolute god by definition of absolute.
Well, yes, this obviously follows from #2. A perfect/absolute being would contain everything, so anything we would consider to be "higher" than the perfect god is already, by definition, contained within the concept of that god.
4) there must be a reason for the absolute God to exist by #1.
Here's where stuff gets interesting. If in #1, your claims pertain to "stuff" in the universe, than #4 does nothing. If #1 is a claim for all existing things (or if we stick with our definition, the only existing thing, God), then we might have a contradiction, but not necessarily. Spinoza got around this by stating that the nature of God's perfection was cause (purpose) for the existence of God, and hence there is nothing outside of god needed for it's existence (God, necessarily, caused itself).
5) there must be a higher order than the absolute God due to the existence of a reason for its existence.
If we stick with Spinoza, we can just reject #5, because there cannot be a higher order than God (because anything conceived as "greater than" is already included in God by definition, by #2 and #3) and the existence of a reason for existence is also contained within the perfection of God (also from #2, and explained in #4).
6) Contradiction between 5 and 3.
7) An absolute God doesn't exist by contradiction.
Not for Spinoza. For him, God is the only thing that can exist, and everything else is just a property of God's existence. I don't know too many people who would want to run out and start worshiping Spinoza's God, though. God doesn't have a mind (minds are modes of gods existence, but not attributes), a physical form (another mode); God doesn't even do anything (because performing an action requires change, and if God could change, there would be an attribute that is not contained within God's perfection, which is logically impossible).

So, you can keep some sort of Deist God around with your initial definitions, but it would be one that doesn't care in the least about you, or anything else for that matter. Spinoza's God can be replaced with the word "Universe", and most of his arguments would stay the same. I don't know if this is what you were looking for, but I doubt it.

Rhinoq

[schemanista]

Tenspace,
Not to start the infinite regression, but from where does the "non-random process driven by random and non-random mechanisms" come? How is it non-random without purpose?
The arrangement of elements into a "periodic table" is not random and is governed by well-tested, observable phenomenae. The demonstrable fact that these elements will tend to combine in certain predictable ways is also not an example of randomness. So yes, it may be impossible to say that this oxygen atom will combine with those two hydrogen atoms at exactly that second. Strictly speaking, that might be an example of randomness, but it's not an example of a random event to say that oxygen bonds with hydrogen to form water.

I defy you to demonstrate any "purpose" behind this observable fact.

Now extrapolate upward: Carbon's chemical properties predispose it towards certain chemical bonds. Those compounds will then have a tendancy to form other, fairly predictable compounds... and so on up the chain. At some point, our current understanding is, these reactions became self-replicating. No purpose required.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[schemanista]

PZ Myers has a really good blog entry about this exact subject on Pharyngula (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/how_to_evolve_a_vulva/).

Stained Glass, if you haven't already, check out his blog, and Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org) where this exact issue is discussed ad nauseum and in great detail.

[nogod]

Your first assumption, that "Nothing can exist without purpose. Anything that exists must have to exist, or it wouldnt" is a mere statement of faith. "purpose" is an anthromorphic construct and has no absolute meaning. In order for your proof to be conclusive, assumption # 1 would not only have to be universally agreed upon but true! And while the statement: "Nothing can exist without purpose" can be argued, it cannot be proven.

[MarcusMaximus]

a lot of people responded to my claim that nothing can exist without purpose. This was a misuse of diction. What I meant to say was "nothing can exist without cause." Since a god is not a necissary condition for the existence of the universe, then there must be a cause for god's existence if there is to be a god. (even if it was a necissary condition, that would also mean there was a rule higher than god.)

[baric]

a lot of people responded to my claim that nothing can exist without purpose. This was a misuse of diction. What I meant to say was "nothing can exist without cause."
There is evidence that indicates that this assumption may not be true.

We do not live within a Newtonian "clockwork" universe, although it is a good enough approximation for most everyday activities.

[veritas]

a lot of people responded to my claim that nothing can exist without purpose. This was a misuse of diction. What I meant to say was "nothing can exist without cause." Since a god is not a necissary condition for the existence of the universe, then there must be a cause for god's existence if there is to be a god. (even if it was a necissary condition, that would also mean there was a rule higher than god.)
I guess I look at it this way:

#1) we are here, we exist blah blah blah.

#2) If there always must be a cause for something, then our universe must have had infinite causes on an infinite timeline, and since there would be no possible way to reach a point on an infinite timeline, most scientists would agree that there was a beginning to our universe.

#3) Since there was a beginning, if we consider this beginning without a god, there must have been some event that happened without any cause or reason. To say that there was an infinite number of causes before would not allow for any cause to actually occur. So there must have been an uncaused event even if the universe was created without a god.

This is why it makes a lot more sense to me that God would be the one who caused this unexplained beginning than, well...nothing. The fact that God has no cause or beginning is, to me, part of the definition of God. He is because He is and without Him nothing would be.

[baric]

It makes a lot more sense to me that God would be the one who caused this unexplained beginning than, well...nothing. The fact that God has no cause or beginning is, to me, part of the definition of God. He is because He is and without Him nothing would be.
That gets you nowhere. All you have done is postulated a hypothetical solution (an uncaused object) and called it 'God'.

You have not ruled out the possibility that an infinite regression is invalid or simply that reality itself is the uncaused event.

I think you leap to a conclusion. The irony is that your "uncaused event" God really tells you nothing, theologically. Absolutely nothing.

Does this 'God' still exist? Dunno.
Is it sentient? Dunno.
Did it intend to cause the universe as we see it? Dunno.
Does it know about us? Dunno.
Did it intent to create us? Dunno.

What typically happens is that someone postulates God as the "uncaused event" and then immediately uses it as evidence of the Christ's resurrection.

[veritas]

That gets you nowhere. All you have done is postulated a hypothetical solution (an uncaused object) and called it 'God'.
Yeah, Im just making the point that it is not an argument against God's existence to say that since He has no cause He must not exist.


You have not ruled out the possibility that an infinite regression is invalid or simply that reality itself is the uncaused event.
Explain to me how infinite regression is valid. If there is no beginning, you cannot ever start forward movement in order to reach a certain event.


I think you leap to a conclusion. The irony is that your "uncaused event" God really tells you nothing, theologically. Absolutely nothing.
I did not attempt to make any other points other than the fact that God does not need a 'reason'. I've made numerous posts from my theological viewpoint but I don't have time to get into all that right now. This isnt the right topic to start it under either.

[MarcusMaximus]

hmm something stuck out at me while reading recent replies. Could the argument that nothing can exist without cause also be used to prove the existence of a higher order than the universe we exist in? Even according to the higher sciences of today, the only random thing in the universe is the decay of a radioactive isotope. This would mean that the original existence of the universe could not have been random and must have been caused by some higher order. Whether you choose to call this higher order god or not is, of course, irrelevant.

[MarcusMaximus]

right, but with the exception of the random creation of particles near a black hole, none of them involve actually creating matter/energy from nothingness, which is what would be necissary for the universe to exist. (unless you claim that the universe always has been, in which case it is little different from god.)

[MarcusMaximus]

but that can only happen near a singularity... since nothingness isn't a singularity the random creation of particle/antiparticle pairs couldnt happen. If there was a singularity which this could happen next to then there would be matter and energy which would similarly have to be caused by something.

[Tenspace]

but that can only happen near a singularity... since nothingness isn't a singularity the random creation of particle/antiparticle pairs couldnt happen. If there was a singularity which this could happen next to then there would be matter and energy which would similarly have to be caused by something.
Virtual particle pairs are created and annihilated everywhere, all the time. The only become real particles near a singularity when the gravity of the black hole is too strong for one particle of the pair - the other annihilates in a burst of pure energy.

Ten

[baric]

You have not ruled out the possibility that an infinite regression is invalid or simply that reality itself is the uncaused event.
Explain to me how infinite regression is valid. If there is no beginning, you cannot ever start forward movement in order to reach a certain event.
Why do you implicitly assume that time is linear?

If time is not linear, then there is no "beginning" and no infinite regression.

[Tenspace]

but that can only happen near a singularity... since nothingness isn't a singularity the random creation of particle/antiparticle pairs couldnt happen. If there was a singularity which this could happen next to then there would be matter and energy which would similarly have to be caused by something.
Virtual particle pairs are created and annihilated everywhere, all the time. The only become real particles near a singularity when the gravity of the black hole is too strong for one particle of the pair - the other annihilates in a burst of pure energy.

Ten
I don't think you meant to say that did you ten? One particle cannot annihilate, it has to be a pair (a particle antiparticle pair in fact). If one virtual particle is pulled into the black hole and the other is not is will simply remain as a free particle. Virtual particles are only virtual because of the short time they exist. Antimatter is just as stable as matter as long as it doesn't see it's opposite
That's what I get for posting when I'm tired... :) I should have stated that the remaining particle does become a real particle, but has a 50% probability of pure annihilation. Now, you've got me reading up on the trans-Planckian problem. Physics is so much fun! :)

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

what do you mean by "pure annihilation"?
There is a 50% probability that the particle removed from this universe by the black hole is not the antiparticle. The little antiparticle that remains will most certainly collide with another particle swimming in the dense soup at the Schwarzshield radius, its mass converting to pure energy. That's what I meant by pure annihilation. Now, I know that applies primarily to electron-positron collisions, but with the exception of proton annihilation, which produces neutrinos, whose three flavors are not necessarily massless, particle-antiparticle annihilation produces complete mass to energy conversion.

Tenspace

[ocmpoma]

" 1) Nothing can exist without cause. Anything that exists must have to exist, or it wouldnt.
2) An absolute God exists (that's right guys, a proof by contradiction)
3) There can be no higher order than an absolute god by definition of absolute.
4) there must be a reason for the absolute God to exist by #1.
5) there must be a higher order than the absolute God due to the existance of a reason for its existence.
6) contradiction between 5 and 3.
7) An absolute God doesn't exist by contradiction."
Note - 1) changed from 'purpose' to 'cause' as specified by MM.

Part two of 1) is an incorrect assumption. While it is correct that if something does exist, there is a 100% probability of its existing, this does not mean that the fact of its existence is required by the mere fact that it does exist. It is easy to postulate scenarios in which any given object's existence is not necessary - even when said object does exist.

[Raiden936]

1) Nothing can exist without purpose. Anything that exists must have to exist, or it wouldnt.


1. relative to whom or what? lets take a rock for example. to us, a rock could be a weapon or building material but to a tree, it serves no useful purpose.

2. purpose in life is like biggest self egoistic idea

[Another brick in the wall]

Here's my argument against the existence of a creator god(s)

According to the first law of thermodynamics, neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.
Technically, matter can be converted into energy in nuclear reactions, but since matter and energy are the same thing, the total amount of matter/energy in the universe remains constant.

[Rhinoqulous]

Since I tend to post inane bullshit that bogs down the thread, I thought I'd post some inane bullshit to lighten up the thread. :)

1- The creation of the universe is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2- The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3- The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4- The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5- Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6- An existing God, therefore, would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
7- (Hence) God does not exist.

Not mine, told to me years ago by my religion professor.

Rhinoq

[Another brick in the wall]

That prime, 100%, grade A bullshit. Have considered a career in politics or as an art critic?

[Another brick in the wall]

Cut poor thermodynamics some slack. It's three hundred years old, you know.

[Tenspace]

Thermodynamics has not yet caught up with quantum physics. In fact mass/energy can be borrowed from the vacuum for very brief periods of time, in direct contradiction to thermodynamics.
What's the contradiction?

Ten