Sup everyone, here's a little argument I made up to try to disprove the existence of god.. feel free to criticize and point out flaws, I wanna make it a very strong argument... Anyway cheers, and enjoy P1: If god exists, he has existed forever, and nothing has existed before him. P2: Therefore, god must have existed for an infinite period of time before the present. P3: There is no reason for a god to exist but not cause any other existence. P4: Therefore, god must have created the world as soon as he began to exist. P5: If god created the world as soon as he began to exist, there is a finite time period between the beginning of the world and the present. P6: But god has never begun to exist, as he has existed forever. P7: Therefore there is an infinite time period between the beginning of the world and the present. P8: P5 and P7 could not possibly be true at the same time. C: Therefore, god does not exist.
Oh my god, For once I have found the actual use of logic in a post on this forum. You recieve an infinite amount of kudos my friend. Why can't we have more of this logical reasoning?
I dont see anything enlightening about this theory, although I give you credit for at least taking the time to think about it. The problem is that you use words like "he" and assume you know why god exists and what its purpose is....thats quite an assumption for a human to make at this point in our existence. God may be nothing more than creative energy, the very energy that is the core of existence itself (as I believe). The problem is that we dont know anything about "god", only our interpretations of what we claim it may/could be. If this argument against god works for you, great. However, we should make every attempt to be as clear as possible when we refer to "god"....seeing as how there are so many different opinions of what it actually is.
Eumm, yah, if only it were that simple. The use of "if" is usually not a good thing to use in proofs, though, but good arguments. I'm just throwing a wrench in your ideas here, but you rely alot on time being a linear line. Is that reality?
Feel free to point out to me which part of his theory has an actual flaw? We can point out the flaws of the word "If", but perhaps we look at it from an absolute PoV: P1: God exists, he has existed forever, and nothing has existed before him. P2: Therefore, god must have existed for an infinite period of time before the present. P3: There is no reason for a god to exist but not cause any other existence. P4: Therefore, god must have created the world as soon as he began to exist. P5: God created the world as soon as he began to exist, there is a finite time period between the beginning of the world and the present. P6: But god has never begun to exist, as he has existed forever. P7: Therefore there is an infinite time period between the beginning of the world and the present. P8: P5 and P7 could not possibly be true at the same time. C: Therefore, god does not exist. Without the If's it looks very rational and coherent, it just lacks the grammatical correctness of a proof.
I didn't point it out because of that, I point it out because he used a proof and accurately described all of his premises' and accurately described how he reached his conclusion. If a Christian walked in and did the exact same thing with their material, I would have applauded them too.
No, if a Christian walked in, you'd show him something in the Bible and ask if God hates gays. It's not so simple. If you think Christians are simplistic for thinking God can do all the things he can, ask yourself if you really think an 8-step proof can do all you seem to think it can.
P1: agree P2: agree P3: assumption P4: conjecture P5: I actually agree, but not from any conclusion that could be drawn from P3/P4 P6: agree P7: God's existence is infinite, His creation's existence is at His will. Stars die out. P8: Irrelevant since P5 and P7 have problems C: good try though. Logic and reasoning can't answer this question. We don't possess omniscience. That would be required.
Thanks bro The thing is, your reply didn't point out any flaws with my argument. And if there are no flaws in my argument, than quite simply, god does not exist. You can't just say because I cannot comprehend the full idea of god, as no human can, that my argument is wrong. You have to prove through logic and reasoning which of my premises are false, and how my argument fails. Well, if you can come up with an argument for time not being on a linear line, im all ears............ The argument you posted without the "if" is completely contradictory. You suppose that god exists in premise one, which you then contradict with the conclusion. There has to be an "If god exists", because then it goes on to prove that god doesn't exist for the reasons stated. I never tried to explain that. You try to explain how my argument is wrong.
Just because we don't know where something comes from YET does not mean we automatically just say "god did it." That's bullshit. We just haven't been able to find a way to explain it yet. The Mayan's had a god called Ru, who was the sun god. She made sure the sun rose every morning. Do we still believe in her? No. Because we now have actual evidence that no god controls the sun.
Could you please elaborate on your response? By just saying 'assumption' and 'conjecture' you're not really proving it wrong. Haha, and I love the way so many theists say 'logic and reasoning can't answer the question', because you're forfeiting the natural tools your mind gives you to just blindly believing something which you cannot prove, but merely say that nobody can understand it. It's very convenient for you.
i am no way saying god exists, truly i have no idea and neither does any other human on the earth. but just because there a scientific explanation doesnt mean a higher power isnt influencing natural phenomenons such as gravity.
I suppose, but it's reiterating the fact that if he existed than he could never have just 'begun' to exist, or popped into existence.
What you posted reminds me alot of the Riddle of Epicuris: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
The flaw is that the entire argument is nothing more than assumptions based upon assumptions. When you attempt to use assumptions alone to prove or disprove one thing or another, your argument fails.