1. Evil exists. Most would consider this intuitively true, however, for the philosophers out there, we can take it as true that evil exists insofar as people agree that it does. In other words, there don’t have to be invisible rules in the sky saying :”never ever kill,” but as long as people agree that killing people is an immoral thing to do, this is sufficient for the logical proof herein.
2. God created everything, and is therefore responsible for everything that goes on. This is true per the Judeo-Christian notion of God. The problem people may have in this area may be the word “responsible.” All this is to say, however, is that anything created by God was created by God, this includes evil and the people who do evil things.
3. Therefore, God is responsible for the evil that goes on in the world. God is therefore immoral. This is true by extension of 2.
4. God cannot be immoral. This is true, again, per the Judeo-Christian notion of God.
5. Therefore, God cannot exist.
Showing posts with label Philosohpy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosohpy. Show all posts
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Disproof of God
So far, I’ve dealt with a few proofs of God’s existence, so I’d like to submit this rather simple proof for the non-existence of God for approval or disapproval. Either way, I hope some discourse stems from it.
Burden of Proof
Just a quick note of the ever-present burden of proof (the person who has the task of providing evidence in order to win the argument has the burden of proof. Generally, his opponent just has to refute the evidence he brings up in order to win).
Neither side in the God debate wants the burden of proof. Believers in God claim that the burden of proof lies with Atheists to prove that God does not exist. Atheists claim that the burden of proof lies with believers to prove that God does exist.
My sympathies lie, of course, with Atheists. Here’s why:
Imagine the implications of a state of affairs in which we accept the default truth to be the case. If something is not disproved then it must be true. Pragmatism dictates that this cannot be the case, because then an infinite number of things must be taken to be the case. Imagine, for instance, that I told you that there was a giant flying spaghetti monster (the satirical idea of one, Bobby Henderson) which could definitely not be disproved, then we would have to accept this as fact. Furthermore, it makes the position of a God or a Flying Spaghetti Monster unfalsifiable, because there is no empirical disproof (God is not only everywhere, but invisible). In other words, we must say that to accept something as true, we must have proof of it, not an absence of disproof.
Neither side in the God debate wants the burden of proof. Believers in God claim that the burden of proof lies with Atheists to prove that God does not exist. Atheists claim that the burden of proof lies with believers to prove that God does exist.
My sympathies lie, of course, with Atheists. Here’s why:
Imagine the implications of a state of affairs in which we accept the default truth to be the case. If something is not disproved then it must be true. Pragmatism dictates that this cannot be the case, because then an infinite number of things must be taken to be the case. Imagine, for instance, that I told you that there was a giant flying spaghetti monster (the satirical idea of one, Bobby Henderson) which could definitely not be disproved, then we would have to accept this as fact. Furthermore, it makes the position of a God or a Flying Spaghetti Monster unfalsifiable, because there is no empirical disproof (God is not only everywhere, but invisible). In other words, we must say that to accept something as true, we must have proof of it, not an absence of disproof.
Pascal's Wager
Pascal’s Wager is an interesting thought. The logical flow follows thus:
However, there are several elemental problems with this idea.
First, let’s look at number four. This is not entirely true, for several reasons. First, many conceptions, even of the Judeo-Christian God, allow for the possibility that the Lord actually likes questioning. But further, you always have the forgiveness factor to look to. Moreover, there is no guarantee that it would be the Judeo-Christian God anyway (more on this now).
Now let’s look at the highly suspect number five. This is incredibly shaky, mostly because it assumes that the God you choose to believe in is the one that actually exists. For example, what if you chose to believe in the Judeo-Christian God and then God turned out to be Odin, a guy who doesn’t look kindly upon being replaced with Christianity. Punishment. If we further consider the fact that there are almost an infinite number of conceptions to be dealt with, it is almost impossible to select the right God on a probability scale, meaning that at a rate of ∞:1 you will lose.
1. There are two possibilities, a belief or a non-belief in God
2. If you choose not to believe that it turns out that there isn’t a God, then there is no net effect.
3. If you choose to believe and it turns out that there isn’t a God, then there is no net effect.
4. If you choose not to believe and there is a God, then you will be punished.
5. If you choose to believe and there is a God, then you will be rewarded.
6. Therefore, the most logical course of action is to believe in God.
However, there are several elemental problems with this idea.
First, let’s look at number four. This is not entirely true, for several reasons. First, many conceptions, even of the Judeo-Christian God, allow for the possibility that the Lord actually likes questioning. But further, you always have the forgiveness factor to look to. Moreover, there is no guarantee that it would be the Judeo-Christian God anyway (more on this now).
Now let’s look at the highly suspect number five. This is incredibly shaky, mostly because it assumes that the God you choose to believe in is the one that actually exists. For example, what if you chose to believe in the Judeo-Christian God and then God turned out to be Odin, a guy who doesn’t look kindly upon being replaced with Christianity. Punishment. If we further consider the fact that there are almost an infinite number of conceptions to be dealt with, it is almost impossible to select the right God on a probability scale, meaning that at a rate of ∞:1 you will lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)